The most massive heavy bomber

78
The most massive heavy bomber


In the summer of 1938, the Joint Army Council and fleet The United States concluded that the country needed a new heavy four-engine bomber and reconnaissance aircraft with a flight range greater than that of the recently adopted Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress”. At the beginning of 1939, the Chief of Staff of the Aviation Command, General Ernold, proposed to the company Consolidated Aircraft Corporation (English abbreviation - САС) to develop a new aircraft.

Until the late thirties, Consolidated, headquartered in San Diego, was the main supplier of flying boats for aviation US Navy. The chief designer of the company, David Davis, was rightly considered a leading specialist in the field of designing heavy hydroplanes, and not only in America.

After analyzing the international situation, the management of the firm came to the conclusion that a big war in Europe was inevitable, and therefore large orders for heavy bombers could be expected. It was decided to accept the proposal of General Ernold. Having studied the experience of creating similar machines by Boeing, the designers began to design. 24 February 1939 of the year the project was submitted for consideration in Washington. March 30 Army Command signed a contract with the company to build a bomber and conduct its tests. The aircraft was assigned the index "XB-24" and the serial number 39-556.



27 February 1940, almost a month before the officially announced date, Major Umstead and Captain Harmon made their first flight on a new aircraft. The company's management was in a hurry to put the car on stream, since the US government decided to organize the production of a new bomber for further sale to France. Despite the difficulties encountered during the tests and design flaws (hydraulic failures of landing gear production, strong shaking during landing, etc.), the CAC received a contract for the construction of 175 bombers, which were assigned the LB-30 index in accordance with the designation method used products of the company.

While the “French” contract was being prepared, the tests of the aircraft continued. Changes were made to the design of the machine. Pitot tubes from the wings were moved to the nose of the fuselage, the tail span increased by two feet. Various engines of the Pratt-Whitney company, distinguished by their characteristics, were tried. At the request of the Air Force installed protected fuel tanks and armor protection of the crew.

After a number of improvements, the car received a new designation XB-24B. Tests of the second copy with the serial number "39-680" ended 13 August 1940 year.

By this time, France had already lost its independence. The question arose: what to do with the ordered aircraft? We decided to sell them to the UK. Meanwhile, the production of a new machine was developing very slowly. Only in December the first six LB-1940А were built on 30. They were equipped with Pratt-Whitney R-1830-33 engines (14-cylinder two-row "star" of air cooling with 1200 horsepower). All six cars were used for transportation purposes and transported passengers and cargo between Canada and England.



The next batch of aircraft was ready in March 1941. In the Royal Air Force they were given the name "Liberator" Mk.1 ("Liberator"), in total 20 units were built. In the USAF they wore the designation B-24A. The aircraft were armed with a twin machine gun caliber 7,62 mm in the tail. In addition, there were three machine guns for firing in the sides and down. True, in England rightly considered such a number of trunks for a heavy bomber is clearly insufficient. Already in the flight units, the weapons were reinforced, putting additional rifle points.

Initially, the US Air Force did not show much interest in the aircraft. Six YB-24 and twenty B-24Аs were ordered, and even then their delivery was planned in the second half of 1941. In reality, one YB-24 was produced in May on 1941 and in June-July nine B-24. They differed from their “English” brethren only in armament: they carried a machine-tail machine gun in caliber 12,7 mm. All aircraft were used for transport purposes. Harriman’s mission arrived in Moscow on two of them in September 1941.

In August, the 138 bombers for Britain, designated Liberator II, began production at the San Diego plant. The new aircraft had increased fuselage dimensions, enhanced tail mount, more powerful small arms and new R-1830-61 hp 1200 engines.

In the tail of the aircraft, a four-machine-gun E.Mk.II tower with servo (ammunition 2200 ammunition, angles of attack 65 ° in each direction, 60 ° upwards and 50 ° down), a four-tower turret A.Mk / IV in the central upper part of the fuselage (angles shelling 360 ° and 84 ° up). Machine guns were automatically blocked when they were directed to the tail, astrokolpak and propeller blades. The total weight of the aircraft - 20 983 kg, almost 4000 kg more than the XB-24.

Under the contract, the CAC was supposed to deliver all the planes before 6 in January 1942, but the war broke this schedule. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor for the needs of the US Air Force requisitioned 75 "Liberators" from the English order. 43 of them under the designation LВ-30 was sent to about. Java They retained the camouflage color characteristic of the Royal Air Force bombers.

Nine aircraft from this series have been upgraded at the plant. They installed weapons of American type, as well as engines R-1830-41, equipped with a turbocharger. These machines are designated B-24C.

It should be noted that 23 of the previously confiscated aircraft Americans in the 1942 year put in the UK in the framework of the Lend-Lease. With the US entering the war, the release of B-24 began to grow rapidly. Since the spring of 1942, the release of the D series began, which became the base for all subsequent modifications.

The early B-24D rifle armament consisted of an 12,7 mm caliber nose machine gun, a top and tail turret with machine guns of the same caliber. Subsequently, they began to mount the lower turret with a remote control to protect the rear lower hemisphere. Later, it was replaced with a single hatch machine gun caliber 12,7 mm. On the last B-24D, a spherical turret with two large-caliber machine guns appeared.

The rear tower A-6, however, like all its subsequent modifications, had firing angles in azimuth 75 ° up 71 ° and down 45 °. The tower was booked: the end plate was made of steel 2,2 cm thick, the side panels were 1 cm, the glazing consisted of 5,4 cm bulletproof glass. In 1942, the A-15 tail tower with electric two-speed actuator and 75 ° firing angle along the horizon was installed, XNXX XXXXX up and 60 ° down. The upper tower provided a circular fire horizontally and 50 ° vertically. Soon, she was replaced by a Martin turret with shelling angles from 90 ° down to 6,5 ° up. The place of the arrow was covered with armor plates with a thickness of 85 cm (later - 1 cm).



In the late autumn of 1940, a year before Pearl Harbor, the US government decided to organize the production of aircraft in the automotive industry. However, despite the fact that the Second World War was in full swing, the owners of car companies were in no hurry to carry out this decision. Only Ford Motor Company was an exception. She built a new plant in the city of Will Run, where she collected the Liberator fuselages.

At the beginning of 1941, it was decided to consolidate the capitals of several firms in order to increase the output of B-24 and, on this basis, expand production. Consolidated has opened a second assembly plant in Fort Worth, and Douglas Eycraft has opened an assembly line in Tulsa. The fourth company that decided to join the release of "Liberators" was North American. For this purpose, she singled out the power of her plant in Dallas. All assembly plants received letter codes that were part of the official designation of the aircraft released.

For transportation of aircraft components (fuselage, wings, tail) from Will Rana to Fort Worth and in Tulsa, 86 special trailers with a payload of 14 tons were used. On average, 250 traveled each month for 1500 kilometers each.

The work done has borne fruit. The release of aircraft has increased rapidly. If the entire 1942 was built 1205 "Liberator", then already in 1943 - 5324. With the accumulation of combat experience, constructive changes were made. There were next modifications. Often it turned out that one factory still produced the old version, and the others - newer ones.

The B-24E bomber practically did not differ from the “D” model, but its components were manufactured at the Ford plant and assembled at other enterprises.

The first B-24H was assembled on June 30 of the year 1943. He differed from the "E" series in armament: in addition to the swiveling rifle towers, pivot machine guns appeared in the side windows of the fuselage (one on each side). Sash niche nasal wheels opened outward.



The B-24 model was produced from April 1943 th to May 1944 th only at the factory in Dallas. Until November 1943, the cars were built without a nose turret, but with three machine guns in the navigator's cabin. The aircraft of this series had a more reliable aileron control scheme, a new anti-icing system.

The most massive was the modification of B-24J. A-6 or A-15 nose-turret, A-3 upper turret, hydraulically-operated A-13 lower sliding spherical machine-gun, mobile machine guns in the windows and a tail turret stood on it. The equipment has changed a little. An autopilot and a more advanced bomb-sight appeared.

Further development of the aircraft were modifications "L" and "M". They improved the view from the navigator's cabin. Simplified passage for the crew through the bomb bay. Increased the area of ​​the aileron, and on the left set the trimmer. Due to the low efficiency, the lower tower was removed.

The large range of the B-24 attracted the attention of the naval air force command. Back at the beginning of 1942, the 17 machines installed “ASV” Mk.II Canadian-made radars and sent them to the Panama Canal zone. After the German submarines began to operate actively off the coast of America, there was an urgent need for anti-submarine aircraft with a long range. In the fall of 1942, several B-24D were adapted for this task. The first flights confirmed the suitability of the machine to combat submarines.

During 1942, for the needs of the PLO, 167 B-24D was assigned, which in naval aviation was given the designation PBBNNXXY-4. The following year, the Navy received another 1 aircraft. Some of them have been upgraded. An Egso spherical machine-gun turret was installed with shelling angles 264 ° to the sides, 85 ° upwards and 82 ° downwards. In total, until January 83, the 1945 RV 977Y-4 was built.



In the middle of the 1943 of the year, flight tests of the new modification, which received the designation HRW4-2, began. She had a single fin tail, an onboard search radar. On the plane installed engines Pratt-Whitney R-1830-94 power 1350 hp The stock of fuel was increased by hanging four tanks in the bomb bay (15549l in total). The span of the stabilizer has increased by almost 3. The defensive armament of the aircraft: two upper, tail and bow shooting towers. The radomes of the search radar antennas were mounted on the lower right side of the nose of the fuselage. To improve visibility in flight, the windows in the rear fuselage were closed with large blisters.

After testing the aircraft was put into service and received the designation RV 4Y-2. Total built 740 pieces. They were armed with naval aviation before the 1966 year. 23 aircraft received UK. There they were labeled "Liberator CIH".



B-24 bombers were shipped to England during the Second World War (2070 units), to Australia (287), to Canada (88). In addition to the bombers, the company SAS produced the transport version of the aircraft, which was designated C-87. It was completely absent weapons and navigational cabin. Transport planes were built in several series, distinguished by the cabin interior and equipment. A double-wing door, 1,83 in size on the 1,83 meter, erupted in the left side. In the cabin, twin passenger seats were installed. Transport aircraft were somewhat heavier and had lower speed. Total released 286 C-87. They have long been used by various US and UK airlines.

The combat fate of the B-24 was quite successful. It was used in all theaters of war. Only in Europe and in the Mediterranean region did the 34 bombers of the United States Air Force fight on the Liberators. The first in Europe they began to use 44-I and 93-I groups. The greatest success was achieved by 44. During the war years, its crews participated in 343 operations, including such as raids on Berlin and Ploiesti, dropping 18 980 t bombs on the enemy. The group lost the 192 aircraft in the battles and shot down the enemy's 330 fighters (according to American data). As part of the Royal Air Force 301 Division of the United Kingdom fought on the "Liberators" 1586-I Polish squadron. Her crews often performed special delivery tasks. weapons and ammunition groups of anti-fascist resistance in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans. In total, in the battles over Europe, only the US Air Force lost almost the Liberators 1500.

The B-24 was in service with the US Air Force until the end of the forties. Later, a significant part of the "demobilized" cars were transferred to transport aircraft. Many of them bought private airlines.



Bombers family "Liberator" went a small path of development. Meanwhile, high manufacturability caused the large-scale production of B-24. Total 19 256 aircraft of various modifications were constructed (In-24D - 2728 pieces, in-24E -801, B-24S - 430, in-24N - 3100, in-24J - 6678, in-24L - 1667, in-24M - 2593 stuff). Thus, the Liberator became the most massive heavy bomber in stories Aviation - a record that most likely will not be able to beat anyone.



Sources:
Kotelnikov V. B-24 “Liberator” // Aviation and Cosmonautics. 2003. No.10. C. 34-39.
Kotelnikov V. B-24 “Liberator” // Aviation and Cosmonautics. 2004. No.1. C. 28-29.
Ivanov S. B-24 "Liberator" // War in the air. No.110. C. 2-3, 6-12, 14-19.
Kolesnikov S. 19000 "Liberators" // Wings of the Motherland. 1994. No.1. C. 20-21.
Obukhovich V., Kulbaka S., Sidoyenko S. Planes of the Second World War. Minsk: Potpourri, 2003. C. 442-443.
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    21 July 2015 05: 32
    The photo from the assembly shop is impressive ...
    1. +11
      21 July 2015 06: 52
      Quote: mosquit
      The photo from the assembly shop is impressive ...

      Just think about the fact that the war is won not only at the front, but also in the shops. And also about the fact that even the best weapons with slow renewability globally lose to the worst models. An example is the German Tiger and the American Sherman.
      1. +12
        21 July 2015 09: 36
        We really won the Germans war first of all economically. After they were stopped near Moscow, and the evacuated plants began to reach planned capacity, the complete defeat of Germany was already only a matter of time.
        But now the state of our industry, alas, allows us to count on victory only in the war with Pakistan or the Netherlands.
        1. +4
          21 July 2015 10: 30
          Quote: qwert
          count on victory only in the war with Pakistan or Holland.

          Thats exactly what I mean. request
        2. +3
          21 July 2015 14: 31
          With the tribaltics! laughing
    2. +5
      21 July 2015 08: 41
      conveyor assembly of IL-28 at VASO impressed me more)
      1. +1
        22 July 2015 10: 06
        Quote: Engineer
        conveyor assembly of IL-28 at VASO impressed me more)

        When was this? ..
  2. +2
    21 July 2015 06: 21
    I remember in the early 90s I made a model of this aircraft from plastic rulers, almost brought it to the painting stage, but here they began to bring models from China and Japan ... So my workpiece disappeared ... And the plane is really interesting and in appearance, yes and for many design decisions. Some of the leaves of the bomb bay are worth it.
    1. +3
      21 July 2015 12: 41
      Well, just the sash of the bomb bay was a forced decision - the swing doors for this "puzoterka" were simply not suitable. By the way, the decision is very controversial - if the drive fails, you cannot open the hatch and you cannot accidentally drop the bombs ... And how is this "miracle of nature" that gunsmiths used to material when hanging bombs, I do not know firsthand ... Father found them in the regiment after the war ...
  3. +1
    21 July 2015 07: 13
    This aircraft suffered from vertical instability, threw up and down, because of this they could not walk in tight battle formations, as a result of which they suffered heavy losses from air defense fighters.
    1. -2
      21 July 2015 07: 42
      Quote: Arctidian
      This aircraft suffered from vertical instability, threw up and down, because of this they could not walk in tight battle formations

      Was the battle formation located VERTICAL? I suspect that horizontally, then the density "bp" does not decrease ...
      1. +2
        21 July 2015 20: 36
        Quote: V.ic
        The battle formation was located VERTICALLY

        Not for all cases, but according to the calculations of the Allies, the vertical multi-tiered arrangement of aircraft reduced losses, while losses from bombs dropped by higher planes were allowed. The effect of an increase in density and a decrease in losses at the same time was significantly higher than the losses from "friendly" bombs.
      2. 0
        22 July 2015 09: 39
        ... The battle order was located VERTICALLY? ...

        .... BP can be echeloned too .... More details about this aircraft can be seen in the series "Warbirds" (doc. USA) .... There is a whole film dedicated to this aircraft .... By the way, there is the comment of the pilot who flew on this plane about his very weak stability on the course, which forced him to keep an increased distance in the combat formation so as not to collide ... The film can be downloaded from the torrent sedoff ... no ... hi
  4. -29
    21 July 2015 07: 40
    Well, why is that so? why did we fight on such a guan? our ne 2 is just a wild crap compared to this plane ... 4 tons of bombs, autopilot, radar, 3.5 flight range of thousands of kilometers., airtight cabin is all there is ... and we have our last pawn with a ton of bombs and a flight of 1000 km .... why did we suck like that?
    1. ICT
      +14
      21 July 2015 07: 48
      Quote: Bagnyuk
      Well, why is that so?



      first we learn to count to 4's, then we think, and then write a comment

      something like that
      1. -21
        21 July 2015 08: 51
        so what is wrong? it was still like il-4 ... so the same thing .. sucks too ... a ton of bombs with a range of 3.5 thousand ... all are lost ... it's just some kind of horror .. we must admit that we riveted only silt -2 ... even according to the confessions of the German military according to memoirs and memoirs in the rear, they felt great already at a distance of 30 km from the front line .. and compare this with the actions of the alliance aviation .. in Normandy they simply muzzled the hans and they simply couldn’t move during the day .. feel the difference ... ??? !!!!
        1. +9
          21 July 2015 11: 54
          With 26-times superiority in the air and 8-times on the ground, you can mix anyone, and not just incomplete German units with half-empty tanks at the tanks.
          1. 0
            16 August 2020 09: 39
            Superiority on earth and we had. And in the east there were understaffed units and tanks without fuel. One example is the Cherkassk boiler in 1944.
        2. ICT
          +1
          21 July 2015 17: 19
          Quote: Bagnyuk
          was still like il-4.


          until 4's we’re learning to count (I meant engines, not just the number in the name), if you learn there right away and find your classmate in the Air Force of our country,
          ps and there is already explained everything below
        3. 0
          22 July 2015 10: 07
          Nick ... sucks, avatars ... sucks ... well, why did someone do such sucks?
        4. 0
          24 July 2015 19: 33
          Two IL-4 carried four tons of bombs on 1000 km, but they cost half as much as Pe-8. So for the same money it was possible to build FOUR IL-4, which were harder to shoot down than one four-engine aircraft.
    2. +2
      21 July 2015 08: 06
      these are different planes absolutely
    3. +8
      21 July 2015 08: 56
      First, compare the B-24 with the Pe-8 and then write.
      1. avt
        +10
        21 July 2015 09: 18
        Quote: dzvero
        First, compare the B-24 with the Pe-8 and then write.

        For it is said - "Do not throw pearls in front of the pigs" Why such subtleties, if the client doesn’t understand what he is writing about at all, or stupidly decided to earn skulls ???
        Quote: Bagnyuk
        so what is wrong? it was still like il-4 ... so it’s the same .. sucks too ... a ton of bombs with a range of 3.5 thousand ... all are lost ...

        Will you spend your strength and prove with figures in your hands the number of Il-4s that were issued and lost in battles? Trying to explain that IL-4, classmate B-25 and B -26 ??? Sisyphean labor. Well, the B-24 is of course an iron, but beautiful and very reliable good I like its patrol - anti-submarine version - "Privatir" with one keel instead of washers.
        1. -15
          21 July 2015 20: 40
          so what are you rubbing me here? in our country, 4-engine engines were not there !! our industry simply could not produce them ... what can I say .. our fighters could not fight at an altitude of more than 3 km .. this is generally wildness and the Stone Age .. but they rubbed me here and they didn’t have to fly so high .. baby talk .. here and flew the whole war on plywood !!!!!!! really plywood, I thought it was a joke before ... but about our bombers I generally keep quiet .. there was nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!
          1. +7
            21 July 2015 20: 53
            Quote: Bagnyuk
            in our country, 4-engine engines were not there !! our industry simply could not produce them ...

            That which was not ...

            Quote: Bagnyuk
            our fighters could not fight at an altitude of more than 3 km .. it’s generally wildness and the Stone Age .. but they rubbed me here and didn’t have to fly so high ..


            Well, at the beginning of the war, high-altitude MiG-3s had, and the Germans went to medium and low altitudes to deprive them of the advantage of altitude. And you are somehow strange about the history of the USSR. The USSR was not equal to Germany in industrial power, since it was only just turning from an agrarian country into an industrial one, unlike Germany, which had passed this stage a long time ago.
            1. -6
              21 July 2015 21: 20
              so what Pe-8 ... how many of them produced then? yeah 90 pieces .. a lot ... they certainly bombed a lot of things .. but how much did they lose? just about ... only the Finns bombed and flew only at night .. why? right because they shot down like partridges ... the only thing I like a little more is the Tu-2 .. more or less ...
              Quote: svp67
              Well, at the beginning of the war, high-altitude MiG-3s had, and the Germans went to medium and low altitudes to deprive them of the advantage of altitude

              Yeah, a superplane ...))) only Mlskvu guarded the entire war in the air defense .. they did not trust him more ...
              Quote: svp67
              And you are somehow strange about the history of the USSR

              really .. without damned urapatriotic vysers ..
              Quote: svp67
              since he was just turning from an agricultural country into an industrial

              and who is to blame then?
              1. +6
                21 July 2015 22: 00
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                so what Pe-8 ... how many of them produced then? yeah 90 pieces ..

                But they were. So, your thesis that we have no four-engine aircraft is not accurate.
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                Yeah, a superplane ...))) only Mlskvu guarded the entire war in the air defense .. they did not trust him more ...

                Yes, what are you saying ... Ay, yay, do not know the basics and get into an argument. You will see the statistics of which "new design" aircraft were the most in the USSR Air Force on June 22, 1941. And if it comes to that, the pilot Pokryshkin, I hope you know this name, on which plane did you meet the first day of the war and fought for the first months on the border of the USSR?
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                really .. without damned urapatriotic vysers ..

                you have a different extreme - super vilification, the same is not the best position. The same far from objectivism.
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                and who is to blame then?

                Well, here the question is very difficult. I believe that nothing is done "by magic," everything must go through certain stages with a cost, again, a certain amount of time. If you speed up something, then you have to pay for it, low quality of production, low fighting qualities, or whatever ...
                1. -8
                  21 July 2015 22: 33
                  Quote: svp67
                  But they were. So, your thesis that we have no four-engine aircraft is not accurate.

                  I agree ... that I got excited ... I admit wrong ...
                  but still it’s a drop in the bucket from which there was no sense ... except that like our molotov on it, he seemed to fly to England to bow in the 42nd .. humiliatingly asked for help .. but recently, the scoundrel warmly congratulated Hitler on his victories in europe ...
                  Quote: svp67
                  Yes, what are you saying ... Ay, yay, do not know the basics and get into an argument. see the statistics of which "new design" aircraft were the most in the Air Force

                  but what's the point .. like by the year 42 they were generally removed from the front as unnecessary and worthless attics ..
                  Quote: svp67
                  you have a different extreme - super vilification, the same is not the best position. The same far from objectivism.

                  this is not so .. I always admit that the opponent is right if he is right .. unfortunately in our history of the Second World War I see almost nothing good for us .. well, except that in the evacuation of factories to the east .. it was so much ... and by the way, I am an ardent Russophile ... I just hate Red-bellied ...

                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, here the question is very difficult. I believe that nothing is done "by magic," everything must go through certain stages with a cost, again, a certain amount of time. If you speed up something, then you have to pay for it, low quality of production, low fighting qualities, or whatever ...

                  so it is so ... but the reckoning was on the part of ordinary people of the USSR ... corpses, corpses, corpses and all because of someone else’s mistakes ... and what mistakes anyone’s .. it’s clear that the commies are red .. ... arranged a bride that ... destroyed the Great Empire and millions laid bastards ...
                  1. +9
                    21 July 2015 23: 07
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    why did we suck like that?

                    By the fact that it is possible to do only what the production base allows. It always pissed me off when, looking at a foreign car of any kind, a person who did not understand anything about production declares: "Why can't we produce such a car, but we make Lada?" Yes, because we CANNOT !. There are no such materials, plastics, rubber products, metal of the required quality is not available in the required quantity. There are no such machines and presses. There are no such designers and engineers, there are no such designers (try to draw a car to make at least a Volkswagen more beautiful, the hell with two will turn out, and this does not even require machine tools and the chemical industry) There is no required production culture. (And this is only a car - the plane is much more complicated) There are only unreasonable show-offs - "why did we do such a crap?" Do you yourself do something at the level of the best world examples? By yourself, personally, with your own hands?

                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    and by the way, I am an ardent Russophile ... I just hate Red-bellied ...

                    Thanks to, as you put it, "red-bellied" you have EVERYTHING that you have now. Heavy and chemical industries (far from all, even developed countries, have their own metallurgy and chemistry), a School of Structuring (as it is), free education and health care. You have ENERGY thanks to the "red-bellied"
                    Russophile was found here ... am
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    destroyed the Great Empire and millions laid the bastards ...

                    Shouldn't you shut up, our most illiterate? In your "Great Empire" there was a class division of society, widespread illiteracy among the rural population, and TUBERCULOSIS walked among the urban population so that my mother did not grieve.
                    1. -3
                      22 July 2015 08: 04
                      Quote: Fight
                      Yes, because we CAN'T !. There are no such materials, plastics, rubber products, metal of the required quality is not in the right quantity. There are no such machines and presses. There are no such designers and engineers, there are no such designers

                      but actually why I ask again .. who is to blame? because we are the richest country in the world ...
                      Quote: Fight
                      There are only unreasonable show-off - "why did we do such a crap?" Do you yourself do something at the level of the best world examples? By yourself, personally, with your own hands?

                      I’m a watchman on the collective farm of the village of Orekhovo ... so I don’t pull to the world level ...
                      Quote: Fight
                      Thanks to, as you put it, "red-bellied" you have EVERYTHING that you have now. Heavy and chemical industries (far from all, even developed countries, have their own metallurgy and chemistry), a School of Structuring (as it is), free education and health care. You have ENERGY thanks to the "red-bellied"

                      all this we have not thanks to the red clique or, more precisely, even to the junta (they came to power as a result of a coup d'etat, the coup) but thanks to ordinary people who, in the position of hungry slaves (2 generations) built it all ... yes this is a long discussion and not about it’s a speech ... people like biomass worked and built up rotten propaganda ... and in the end got what they have now ... yes, the king of your executioner was just an innocent lamb compared to some chairmen of something there ... look so all the red are just professional executioners and just crazy cannibals ...
                      Quote: Fight

                      Shouldn't you shut up, our most illiterate? In your "Great Empire" there was a class division of society, widespread illiteracy among the rural population, and TUBERCULOSIS walked among the urban population so that my mother did not grieve.

                      in our rotten squirrel, too, is the social division of society, and in Russia it’s the same thing ... with commies, the Spaniards died more than the bullets of the Germans ... and by the way, everything has been paid for in protein for a long time, starting from healthcare and ending with education ... Yes, I forgot to say ... we have introduced an unemployment tax ... like this ...
                      1. +8
                        22 July 2015 09: 21
                        Quote: Bagnyuk
                        but actually why I ask again .. who is to blame?

                        Yes, you are to blame! And I am to blame, and ALL of us are to blame, but that is why WHY it happened so no one can say anything intelligible.
                        Why in Europe did science and industry outperform that in other parts of the world?
                        Why didn’t universities build on the Great Russian Plain, but do hundred-kilometer serif features?
                        Why didn’t Russians go to Europe for live goods, but Crimeans go to Russia for hassles?

                        And by the fact that we are the richest country in the world, understand?
                        We did not need advanced science and industry. In total, we already had plenty - furs and fish, flax and forests, grain and pearls of the north, honey and hemp. SPACE AND WILL Will anyone need.
                        Here we have Ivan the Fool, and Emelya on the stove and heroes.
                        Europe, it’s small, everything has been painted and taken into account there for a long time, there was no where to run, so I had to keep quiet and work, and if the thinker worked better than average, it was possible to study sciences in monasteries.
                        And with us - WILL, where you want to go there and walk. The need crushed him and the master got to work forcing him - he threw everything into the Cossacks on the Don, the Urals, on the Caspian Sea behind the Persian princess, and to Siberia for furs, wool and from the royal satraps. So we got to California. All the riches of the present have not been obtained and conquered by us - now we are only stupidly asking "why ?!" so it’s not for you to sit in the watchmen husk seeds), educational program and general education were introduced, but with the industry, the ROCKET-SPACE industry was left.
                        And the tsars and bourgeois had plenty of time to bring Russia into the advanced industrial powers, and see neither desire, nor ability, nor methods. They felt great and so, living for six months in prostitutes.
                        Quote: Bagnyuk
                        during commies, the Spaniard died more than the bullets of the Germans.

                        You are illiterate, sir. In Europe, for example, then “there were no commies in power, and more people died from influenza, ie the Spanish flu, than the losses in the First World War.
                        And if you can't live in a "squirrel" (Here is your attitude to the country where you live, and you also ask "why?", But that's exactly why) - move, good watchmen are needed everywhere. "Kommunyak" is not present, no one is holding it and they will not be stopped at the border. At the same time, broaden your horizons and correct your little head.
                      2. -2
                        22 July 2015 14: 23
                        Quote: Fight
                        yes, we blame the "red-bellied" for the fact that they broke the bast shoe Russia through the knee (but otherwise - no way, the methods - yes, brutal, well, you don't have to sit husk seeds in the watchmen)

                        here after these words I was really horrified .. it's just like Machiavelli .. the end justifies the means .. if this is the price of what we live like this then why are such methods as you say atrocious .. it's just nonsense and horror ... I suggest then introduce them to you in Russia .. why not? because you are for and you justify the atrocities and the deaths of millions for the sake of building a new society ... I was just horrified by your words .. if so many people think like you, that’s a very bad thing !!!
                        Quote: Fight
                        And the tsars and bourgeois had plenty of time to bring Russia into the advanced industrial powers, and see neither desire, nor ability, nor methods. They felt great and so, living for six months in prostitutes.

                        they lived so beautifully at the beginning of the century .. and didn’t kill people with millions ... if the price of a new life once again I say millions of ruined souls of our compatriots with you, well, he tries such a new life .. and by the way I advise you to put yourself in their place. I think you would sing differently ...
                        Quote: Fight
                        And if you can't live in a "squirrel" (Here is your attitude to the country where you live, and you also ask "why?", But that's exactly why) - move, good watchmen are needed everywhere

                        why should I go somewhere? I was born and live here .. we have 1 bug bald .. for a quarter century, drinking blood .. so it’s better to annihilate it than to go somewhere ...
                      3. +2
                        22 July 2015 21: 21
                        Yes, the whole empire was built ON THE BONES OF MILLIONS ... AND PETER And beneath every monastery and city and all the Catherine’s wars of Peter the Great ... not to mention the freedom of the Balkans ... and that there was no hunger YOU are now watching as IVAN_DURAK (sleeping at night) and you’re on the creators ...
                  2. +2
                    21 July 2015 23: 17
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    but what's the point .. like by the year 42 they were generally removed from the front as unnecessary and worthless attics ..


                    Somehow you look at things strangely. MiG production was discontinued in favor of the production of IL-2, they had similar engines and, to increase the production of Ilov, they stopped production of engines for MiGs, so they fought until they were completely worn out or destroyed in battle or in an accident
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    I just hate the red-bellied ...

                    Oh, how you get carried away. Oh, excuse me from the "blue bloods"?
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    so it is so ... but the reckoning was on the part of ordinary people of the USSR ... corpses, corpses, corpses and all because of someone else’s mistakes ... and what mistakes anyone’s .. it’s clear that the commies are red .. ... arranged a bride that ... destroyed the Great Empire and millions laid bastards ...

                    Oh, how much a controversial issue. Why did the Russian Empire collapse? And what is the fault of the "blue-blooded" Nicholas II? And how many lives of ordinary people did it cost?
                    1. +8
                      22 July 2015 04: 00
                      Yes, you all want to beads yourself know in front of whom. Our dear colleague Bag from fraternal Belarus changed his Niy to Bagnyuk and for a week already with his highs in the comments, where he deliberately hats everything that was in the country during the Soviet period of its history, earned a negative rating. He is not even a Troll, Bag he is a bug, regardless of the nickname selected. Your opinion on any issue interests him only in terms of a pointless dispute, because for him there are only two points of view - one of him, and the other wrong.
                      I have the honor.
                      1. -5
                        22 July 2015 07: 51
                        Yes, I’m quite right ... and why such a dismissive and offensive attitude ..? you’re Alexander, you don’t know me at all ... I’ve been trying to explain to everyone for 4 years now that you cannot be a patriot fool, but you really need to relate to information and history ... otherwise it will be like in 41, when the red Codla almost lost the war for the survival of our Nation .... and 90% of all people have a single point of view, by the way .. you and everything ... if you criticize a traitor and an enemy ... and this does not correspond to the truth .. .
                      2. avt
                        +3
                        22 July 2015 10: 23
                        Quote: Bagnyuk
                        . I’ve been trying for 4 years here to explain to everyone that you can’t be a patriot fool, but you really need to relate to information and history ...

                        laughing laughing For FOUR years I didn’t even bother to learn how to use the Internet search engine, so that I couldn’t just talk about history - just don’t get any such research for nozzles -
                        Quote: Bagnyuk
                        so what are you rubbing me here? in our country, 4-engine engines were not there !! our industry simply could not produce them ... what can I say .. our fighters could not fight at an altitude of more than 3 km .. this is generally wildness and the Stone Age ..
                        The Germans began to be in the Stone Age, being in the Second World War, they fought mainly at heights of 3-5 thousand. laughing
                        It is necessary fool ..... have the talent! laughing People for such a time receive at least secondary education.
                        Quote: TIT
                        self-taught humorist however

                        Yes, let it be, otherwise it’s boring as it is on the site - they led all of these and there is no one to amuse.
                      3. +1
                        24 July 2015 19: 53
                        Actually, before the 41 of the year, all countries in Europe lost their countries to Hitler, whom they defeated, whom they crushed for themselves, and how did the 41 year end they forgot ?!
                    2. -3
                      22 July 2015 08: 12
                      svp67 .. well, that’s why you are grinding water in a mortar .. already the most ardent Orthodox admit that the moment was a worthless coffin and you persist .. well, we didn’t have normal planes, well, not one ... and I’m not an aristocrat ... watchman I’m on a collective farm .. Nicholas I don’t have authority, but just a weakling ... or I don’t know .. I just did not outweigh the Reds in the bud, so I ended up in Ipatiev ... and the red cannibals ... didn’t even spare the kids ... really cannibals. .. and the empire collapsed as a result of a well-planned and brilliantly conducted special operation to introduce the red plague into the Empire ... and voila-la ... The empire fell and you can dance on its bones ... the red-bellied ones can be compared with the igil .. also created , nourished, trained, thrown into enemy territory and there the monster grew and began to grow on its own ... and plunged the world into decades of chaos and hostility for decades ...
                  3. +1
                    22 July 2015 21: 04
                    The empire itself collapsed and put hands like this to YOU ​​... they didn’t tighten the bolts themselves and TOGETHER on the others ...
                  4. +1
                    24 July 2015 19: 48
                    Quote: Bagnyuk
                    ruined the Great Empire
                    the Japanese in the 1904-1905 year and the tsarist generals with admirals led by Nikolashka + Rasputin. It is necessary to be able to lose almost the entire fleet in the Tsushima battle.
              2. +1
                22 July 2015 16: 30
                It is necessary to analyze historical facts without unnecessary emotions. MiG-3 was not a unique machine, but contributed to the victory. At the beginning of the war, it was used in the army and for attacking German columns using RS and bombs. It’s a pity that progressive machines couldn’t be put into production (Su-6, I-185, VIT-2), and Tu-2 went into production too late
              3. 0
                22 July 2015 16: 30
                It is necessary to analyze historical facts without unnecessary emotions. MiG-3 was not a unique machine, but contributed to the victory. At the beginning of the war, it was used in the army and for attacking German columns using RS and bombs. It’s a pity that progressive machines couldn’t be put into production (Su-6, I-185, VIT-2), and Tu-2 went into production too late
              4. 0
                24 July 2015 19: 41
                In the 41, the Germans tested all the USSR planes that fell into their hands and recognized that the most perfect was the MiG-3, as the most appropriate to their tactics, hit at speeds from above and went up to stay above the enemy.
            2. +1
              23 July 2015 23: 44
              Germans didn’t go anywhere!
              bf-109 usually didn’t go to high altitudes due to the fact that there was not enough fuel and the vast majority of targets flew low - i16, i15bis, Lagg-3, Yak-1, il-2, sb-2, TB-3, su -2
              DB-3 could fly high on the bombing, but because of the features of flight control, training of crew and equipment did not often climb above 2-3 km.
              Ju-87 and other tactical bombers of the Germans themselves also rarely flew above 2-3 km.
              And Mig-1 and Mig-3 were rarely used because their combat units did not have time to master, and the altitude of this aircraft was rarely needed.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. ICT
              +4
              21 July 2015 21: 06
              but about our bombers I generally keep quiet .. there was nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!


              self-taught humorist however
              1. ICT
                +6
                21 July 2015 21: 16
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                here and flew the whole war on plywood !!!!!!! really plywood, I thought it was a joke before ...


                the British still "joke" that this is their best plane and guess what it is
                1. +2
                  21 July 2015 21: 20
                  Quote: TIT
                  the British still "joke" that this is their best plane

                  If you look at the statistics of losses, then many would like to serve on these machines during the war ... And already without "jokes".
                  And it is not even necessary to guess what the "Mosquito" was made of - from wood. Sometimes the German radars simply did not see them.
                  And here is the question about another car. The German Horten Ho 229, an ultra-modern car for that, is it made of what, isn't it wood? Deutschfaner ...
                  and his pilot
              2. 0
                24 July 2015 19: 58
                It should be added that some of these bombs were cumulative ... they fell to the ground horizontally due to parachutes and the blast wave did not scatter to the sides and up, but was directed along the ground. One such bomb was able to destroy half of the plant, which worked for the defense of Germany.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 0
            21 July 2015 22: 51
            Quote: Bagnyuk
            in our country, 4-engine engines were not there !! our industry simply could not produce them ...



            TB-3 - 4-h engine bombers, 818 pcs.

            And it’s ridiculous to compare technology for a different application principle. The United States has one principle - fly from afar, bomb. And this requires a lot of fuel, respectively, a heavy plane is obtained, so you need 4 engines.

            And the USSR had all the opponents at hand. Such huge "coffins" in such quantities are not needed.
            1. +1
              21 July 2015 23: 09
              Quote: The Cat
              And the USSR had all the opponents at hand. Such huge "coffins" in such quantities are not needed.

              Well, we are not political information, why dissemble here. The USSR needed strategic bombers. Just before the war itself, the wrong decision was made to create a Long-Range High-Altitude Dive Bomber, on which the Tupolev Design Bureau was working, in the "sharashka". They were "betting" on it, and therefore the production of Pe8 was slowed down, since they were considered obsolete. Well, when the realization came that such a bomber could not be created, the time had already been lost. And they could not resume full-scale production of Pe8, since they urgently had to restore front-line aviation ...
              And so it would be, who refused to beat the enemy both at the front and in the rear.
              1. 0
                22 July 2015 11: 36
                Quote: svp67
                Well, we are not political information, which is something to dissemble here. The USSR needed strategic bombers.


                What for ? Stalin planned to conquer Europe. For this, he prepared huge masses of tanks and paratroopers.
              2. 0
                23 July 2015 23: 52
                what a strange insinuation!
                the construction of heavy aircraft in the USSR rested on 2 things - the lack of modern materials (rubber, non-ferrous metals, aluminum) and the problems with creating normal high-altitude engines with high-altitude compressors.
                Until the end of the war, not a single good compressor was created.
                The Pe-8 had a very unreliable central compressor system of one for all 4 engines. (As far as I remember)
                If all these problems were resolved by the year 40, then I assure you that heavy bombers would be put on stream.
                And so until the end of the war, mainly DB-3, IL-4 were dispensed with.
            2. 0
              22 July 2015 08: 14
              I don’t understand .. and how to bomb the enemy’s factories?
              1. 0
                22 July 2015 11: 37
                Quote: Bagnyuk
                I don’t understand .. and how to bomb the enemy’s factories?



                What for ? The plants are captured by the landing until the main forces approach.
          4. +1
            22 July 2015 10: 10
            Well, we couldn’t let out such slop nicknames and avatars in our country, but really?
            Uncle, have you studied the history of the exam?
          5. 0
            24 July 2015 19: 43
            Quote: Bagnyuk
            in our country there were no 4 engines!

            The most mass-produced four-engine aircraft in the world before 41 was TB-4.
    4. +14
      21 July 2015 09: 39
      Quote: Bagnyuk
      Well, why is that so? why did we fight on such a guan? our ne 2 is just a wild crap compared to this plane ... 4 tons of bombs, autopilot, radar, 3.5 flight range of thousands of kilometers., airtight cabin is all there is ... and we have our last pawn with a ton of bombs and a flight of 1000 km .... why did we suck like that?

      It's buulshit. You haven’t compared it yet with Po-2 laughing hi
    5. +3
      22 July 2015 09: 34
      ...... why did we suck like that? ...

      .... For several reasons:
      1. There were no suitable normal powerful aircraft engines.
      2. There was a shortage of duralumin. (Therefore, mainly wooden structures were made).
      3. The lack of modern (at that time) avionics.

      And finally: the Pe-2 is a front-line aircraft - highly specialized), and the B-24 was strategic (at that time) .. hi
      1. -1
        22 July 2015 14: 28
        plyusanul .. here is a normal answer and not a high-hitting hitting patriot !!!!
    6. 0
      22 July 2015 14: 20
      This model cannot be compared with the Pe-2 — different types and different purposes. rather, it is necessary to compare with the Pe-8, but we had few of them. But the load capacity of the Pawn was not enough. Tu-2 had to be built in large quantities.
    7. 0
      22 July 2015 14: 20
      This model cannot be compared with the Pe-2 — different types and different purposes. rather, it is necessary to compare with the Pe-8, but we had few of them. But the load capacity of the Pawn was not enough. Tu-2 had to be built in large quantities.
    8. +1
      8 December 2018 11: 48
      Quote: Bagnyuk
      4 tons of bombs, autopilot, radar, 3.5 flight range of thousands of km., Airtight cabin all things ...

      The B-24 was considered and was a very serious weapon: it was precisely a strategic bomber, which could not be produced in the USSR (apart from the very few Pe-8). And in the opinion of the German pilots, the Liberators were more difficult to destroy machines than even the Flying Fortresses.
  5. +2
    21 July 2015 08: 06
    The Liberator’s defensive armament ... very much ...
    1. +1
      21 July 2015 10: 39
      Ten heavy Browning-0,5 machine guns in 4 turrets - in all directions.
    2. +6
      21 July 2015 12: 45
      And what again for "Batu" walked along the branch .. made the people minuses ... and dumped .. Listen .. stop suffering crap .. you can not write a comment .. do not torment ... uh head ....
  6. +4
    21 July 2015 08: 40
    Quote: Arctidian
    This aircraft suffered from vertical instability, threw up and down.

    They say that when landing the helm of this plane had to be pulled by two pilots at once - one simply would not be able to handle it. The American B-17 pilots themselves liked a lot more.
    Quote: V.ic
    Was the battle formation located VERTICAL? I suspect that horizontally, then the density "bp" does not decrease ...

    The battle formation was located both horizontally and vertically, the so-called. "boxes". It was believed that this is the most effective way to fight off fighters.
    1. 0
      21 July 2015 12: 08
      Quote: DesToeR
      They say that when landing the helm of this aircraft had to pull two at once

      Well, brains had to work still at the design stage. Here is a link on the topic: http://www.sgvavia.ru/forum/85-1817-5
      But I took only 3 sentences from that material:
      “In early 1942, after tests in wind tunnels and experiments with the YB-24N, Consolidated came to the conclusion that the Liberator would become more stable if we abandoned the two-fin in favor of the classic single-fin.
      In September 1943, Consolidated, combining the demands of the fleet with its own expertise, created a single-keel version of the Liberator, designated PB4Y-2 Privatir. "
      "Privatir was the only American heavy bomber to participate in all four major wars that America fought in the 20th century."
      Quote: DesToeR
      It was believed that this is the most effective way to fight off fighters.

      A fighter is best at war with a fighter.
    2. +4
      21 July 2015 13: 47
      Quote: DesToeR
      They say that when landing the helm of this plane had to be pulled by two pilots at once - one simply would not be able to handle it. The American B-17 pilots themselves liked a lot more.

      I liked B-17, EMNIP, because of its greater survivability.
      Because:
      Highly located, loaded, long and narrow wing of the B-24 / PB4Y. According to rumors, two local 30-mm hits, for example from German submarines, were enough for his fracture between the engine nacelles when flying over the target.

      In addition, the 24 had problems with controllability when one of the engines failed and if the wing itself was damaged (heavy load on the wing). Aerodynamics can not be fooled - it seems that the damage is not critical, and the plane does not reach the base.

      Yes, and the B-17 system really held up better. The Germans, based on the results of flying around the captured "fortress", wrote that the efforts on the controls when maneuvering were great, but if the plane was on the course, then it keeps it, requiring no more effort than on the He-111.

      PS In terms of the survivability of the B-17: in 1942 at the TO, Captain McCullar went to the "Fortresses" in mast attacks (60 m, 400 km / h) on Japanese ships. On one of the sorties, he sank a Japanese EV, making 5 approaches to the target. The plane returned to the base on two engines and looked like a sieve.
    3. 0
      22 July 2015 16: 25
      .... They say that when landing the helm of this aircraft had to pull two pilots at once - one simply could not survive ....

      ..... This is not a vice .... On many airplanes with a direct (non-booster) control system, there are heavy loads on the steering wheel .... For example, on the An-2 ("maize"), even with the recommended landing position of the PB trimmer, the force at the helm reaches 40-60 kg ..... The thin flyer has a hard time ... laughing
  7. +6
    21 July 2015 09: 51
    During the Second World War, several B-24s in different technical conditions ended up on the territory of the USSR. Some of them were repaired, circled and even used in the military transport version. The aircraft was thoroughly studied, the most interesting components and structural elements were copied. The construction of heavy bombers was supposed to be deployed in the country with the end of World War II, and the B-24 concept was reflected in a number of Tupolev design bureaus, which were then abandoned in favor of the Tu-4.

    As a child, I heard from pilots of the Air Force Research Institute who tested a car that the advantages of the Liberator were:

    • landing gear with a nose wheel and good visibility during takeoff and landing;
    • thoughtful crew, where its members did not duplicate each other: a shooter is a shooter, a radio operator is a radio operator, a scorer is a scorer, and a navigator is a navigator;
    • the aircraft has two helms and is easier to pilot:
    • the turrets were servo- and electric-driven and did not freeze in flight;
    • Provided for the blocking of firing to prevent damage to the motors and tail unit;
    • Quadruple and twin heavy machine guns installed in the tail, upper and lower turrets were reliable and effective;
    • The aircraft had a good anti-icing system and autopilot;
    • Placement in the bow of the radar made it possible to bomb without visualizing the target from high altitudes above the clouds day and night;

    The aircraft was very rationally designed and allowed its multi-purpose use. He absorbed all the best that was at that time in the American aircraft industry, which, unlike the USSR, did not know any interruptions in raw materials and supplies, general mobilization, hunger, cold, exhausting labor of women and adolescents, open-air manufacturing workshops, and many more of what is gradually becoming known.
    1. +1
      21 July 2015 10: 46
      USSR copied completely (unchanged) more powerful
      bomber B-29 - "super fortress", which the Americans used on
      Far East.
      1. avt
        +10
        21 July 2015 13: 28
        Quote: voyaka uh
        USSR copied completely (unchanged) more powerful
        bomber B-29 - "super fortress",

        No. Could not USSR and did not make copies. Just if only because the metric system. And they made ANALOGUE very much close to the original, even the weapons were different. By the way, they didn’t seem to fit in the weight characteristics either - our heavier ones turned out.
        1. +5
          21 July 2015 14: 12
          Quote: avt
          Could not USSR and did not make copies. Just if only because the metric system. And they made ANALOGUE very much close to the original, even the weapons were different.

          Well, the initial requirement was exactly copy 1:1.
          No better. Do the same!
          (c) the best friend of athletes

          And then, yes - problems began with the assortment of steels, with wiring, etc. Sheathing had to be made from a sheet according to Soviet standards (as a result, weight increased). But with the wiring, the picture turned out the opposite - I had to release the wire according to the images available on the B-29. Engines in general turned out to be a chimera, in which domestic developments intertwined with copies of nodes from the B-29.
        2. +3
          21 July 2015 15: 36
          I read that even mistakenly made holes were copied. This, at the request of Stalin, was just a copy. But work on this aircraft has become a good school, for example, gave impetus to the development of instrumentation.
          1. +2
            22 July 2015 16: 36
            ..... I read that even mistakenly made holes were copied. ...

            ..... There was a case .... On the first series, a blind hatch was riveted on the keel .... As it turned out later, the sample was a combat aircraft and, accordingly, in "battle" scars .... There was a lumbago on the keel from a cannon shell, and the Americans simply riveted it with a square patch ... Well, ours simply copied it out of fright ... True, on the next day, when they figured out what was happening, they didn't do it ... laughing
          2. 0
            22 July 2015 21: 36
            I read that left by the pilots. The camera was included in the package ...
        3. +3
          21 July 2015 15: 54
          for auto:
          "Just because the metric system" ////

          For a long time in the USSR, both metric and British
          system. This happened because during the years of the first five-year period
          Hundreds of American factories with thousands or thousands of machine tools were purchased. And tractors,
          harvesters, aircraft motors, all threads were in "inches" and "feet". And for them it was necessary
          to make spare parts already at local production. Perforce
          I had to work with this system of measures.
          So far, everything has not been replaced gradually by local design developments.
          1. avt
            +3
            21 July 2015 17: 07
            Quote: voyaka uh
            For a long time in the USSR, both metric and British
            system.

            Nothing that even before the war something similar was done with the S-47 and appeared, with the works of Myasishchev, the Soviet ANALOG-Li-2? Stalin really preferred to fly to Tehran not on a special plane, but on a Lend-Lease S-47, and even Golovanov he did not let him at the helm - "Generals fly less often than colonels." And there was a regular pilot at the helm. True, it was much easier with him - they bought it together with the manufacturing technology and equipment. And the abbreviation GST does not wind anything? Well, how can you tell the American version ?
            1. +2
              21 July 2015 17: 51
              ... inch thread.
              In addition to metric threads, OST NKTP 1260 sets an inch,
              characterized by the number of turns (threads) per one
              inch (1 "= 25,4 mm).

              I told you where the inch OSTs came from in the USSR.
              1. avt
                +3
                21 July 2015 18: 49
                Quote: voyaka uh
                I told you where the inch OSTs came from in the USSR

                Yah ? And before the metric system introduced by the Bolsheviks, what happened in Russia from 1835 ???? What system? Have you measured anything in your bast shoes? Look and find Or did it just come with American equipment? laughing I’m talking about very specific technical samples that were adapted in Soviet production and were not primitive and complete copies, but were analogues of varying degrees of similarity with the original and Tu-4, the complexity of the task in the post-war country with a qualitative superiority of USA in production was analogue to a greater extent than the same Li-2 and the same GTS, but no doubt repeated the original. Who argues that?
  8. +5
    21 July 2015 10: 56
    My father served as a mechanic immediately after the war, and they had B24 in their regiment until they were replaced by TU4 ... So he noted one feature of this aircraft ... Everything was fine, it was only necessary to hang bombs under it either by lifting the car on traguses or rolling it’s on a special trench ... Otherwise, the bomb truck simply didn’t fit under it ... So I think the techies during the war remembered the designers with an kindly quiet word ...
    1. +8
      21 July 2015 12: 51
      Another noteworthy case. The local population in Fairbanks was shocked by the fact that Soviet pilots massively bought female lipstick. The reason turned out to be the most prosaic, since the scales on the devices were digitized in the American system of measures, then our pilots noted the critical values ​​on the devices with lipstick. Russian pilots and mechanics could afford go to the bar for dancing. By the end of the dance, our pilots, as a rule, had a nylon stocking sticking out of their pockets - local girls gave one and promised to give a second if the pilot returned after the flights.
  9. +8
    21 July 2015 11: 16
    Quote: Bagnyuk
    why did we suck like that?


    I don’t know personally how they did then, well, let's say this ...
    But what I definitely have no doubt, what if You and the like you put now to the machinethen even bigger will come out sucks. Exams and smartphones, of course, add confidence in the head. Linden confidence hi
  10. +2
    21 July 2015 11: 32
    Landing of the Consolidated B-24H bomber (Douglas-Tulsa B-24H-25-DT Liberator "Pegasus The Flying Red Horse", tail number T9-N, serial number 42-51141) of the American 784th bomber squadron of the 466th bomber group 8 Air Force. Parachutes were used for braking after the failure of hydraulics damaged during the flight. Command did not approve of the use of parachutes for braking; it sent planes to the airport at Woodbridge, which had a 3000-foot (914,4 meter) runway
  11. +1
    21 July 2015 11: 34
    Gunner Sergeant Otto Sobanjo (Otto A Sobanjo) in the stern turret M-6A at 12,7 mm machine guns of the American bomber B-24 "Lily Marlen" (Consolidated B-24J Liberator "Lily Marlene", serial number 42-50907) at the airport Horsham St Faith.
  12. +3
    21 July 2015 12: 01
    Shooters in the B-24 “Liberator”.
  13. +2
    21 July 2015 14: 26
    How much has been written about machine guns and doors ... Bomber, these are bombs, range, theaters of military operations! Where is this in the article? A lot of modifications, And there are only two performance characteristics. In general, a bunch of letters and numbers, but in fact, nothing. I don’t need to tell me, like “take it, but write it better.” I can’t, therefore I don’t undertake. To not publish such articles!
    1. +5
      21 July 2015 17: 22
      Please:
      Consolidated B B-24A Liberator.
      The first production version of the Liberator was the B-24A, 120 copies of which were ordered in August 1939. With the fall of France, an order for the first 20 of them was transferred from USAAC for delivery to the Royal Air Force under the designation LB-30B.
      Twenty LB-30Bs were delivered by the RAF in mid-1941 as Liberator I.
      USAAF (United States Air Force) received the first B-24A in June 1941. The USAAF actually delivered only nine B-24As, all between June 16 and July 10, 1941.
      Two B-24As (Nos. 40-2373 and 40-2374) were used for Harriman's visit to Moscow in September 1941 through the UK.
      Consolidated B-24C Liberator.
      The B-24C was a temporary modification pending mass production of the fully operational Liberator. Nine B-24Cs were delivered by the USAAF in late 1941. All aircraft were used for crew training and various test flights. They were later redesignated RB-24C, where the letter R stood for "limited combat use."
      Consolidated B-24D Liberator.
      The B-24C was quickly superseded by the B-24D, which was the first fully operational version of Liberator. The first B-24Ds produced by the Consolidated / San Diego plant were delivered to the Army in late January or early February 1942. Prior to the removal of the B-24D from production by three contractors, 2738 copies of the B-24D were manufactured.
      Consolidated B-24E Liberator.
      In accordance with the Liberator co-production agreement, the designation B-24E was given to the version of Liberator that was assembled by Ford Motor Company. A total of 801 B-24Es were manufactured.
      Consolidated B-24H Liberator.
      Version with a modified composition of weapons. A total of 430 B-24Gs were manufactured. The last B-24G was delivered in June 1944.
      Consolidated B-24J Liberator.
      B-24J has become the most popular version of Liberator. A total of 6678 B-24Js were manufactured. Armament: 10 12,7 mm Browning machine guns in the bow, upper, ventral, and tail turrets and in the side windows. The maximum internal bomb load is 3228 kg. In the middle part of the wing there were shelves for hanging two 1814 kg of bombs. The maximum bomb load when flying over short distances is 5806 kg (including external suspension).
      The normal bomb load is 2268 kg.
      I give only serial versions of the Liberator and the composition of the weapons of the mass version itself.
      I have the honor.
  14. +1
    21 July 2015 15: 07
    I don’t understand, he has bomb bombs in the form of window blinds?
    I read somewhere that the bombs were in a vertical position. In my opinion, this is a plus, you can throw everything in a "gulp" at one point. IMHO
  15. +1
    21 July 2015 16: 39
    And the most downed anti-submarine aircraft of all time.
  16. 0
    21 July 2015 19: 19
    Quote: Taoist
    Father found them in a regiment after the war ...

    As far as I know, the V-24 wasn’t delivered to the USSR. In general, four-engine bombers weren’t supplied either from the United States or from England (why they started building (copying) the Tu-4. The V-24 is a very successful aircraft, it’s especially not known for us, it’s fought mainly in the Pacific Ocean, in naval aviation, and less often in Europe. The B-17 and B-29 are better known. You look at the B-24, it is clear that the designer and the company used to specialize in hi seaplanes. Change the lower part of the fuselage to the contours of the boat - get a flying boat.
    1. Alf
      +4
      21 July 2015 20: 02
      Quote: fa2998
      As far as I know, the V-24 was not delivered to the USSR

      THE USSR. One bomber was officially delivered in November 1942 in accordance with Lend-Lease agreements. In addition, 73 B-24 aircraft of various modifications that made an emergency landing in Europe were partially restored and about 30 were put into operational condition and were used by the 45th heavy (Gomel) bomber air division [2] in the post-war period to train pilots of the 52nd heavy bomber regiment [3] [4]