Naval Aviation in the Great Patriotic War

39


In the prewar period aviation The Navy was assigned the role of a force designed to provide combat operations for surface ships. It was considered the main means of reconnaissance and the most important element of air defense of naval bases (Navy) and ships at sea. In addition, the ability was recognized. naval aviation to carry out torpedo-bombing attacks on fleet ships, maritime communications, military industrial facilities, naval and air bases of the enemy.

On 22 June 1941, the naval aviation had a 2581 aircraft (on the Northern Fleet - 116, Baltic - 656, Black Sea - 626 and Pacific - 1183). The number of torpedo bombers was 9,7%, bombers 14%, fighter jets 45,3% and reconnaissance seaplanes 25% of the total number of naval aviation. It was dominated by fighter aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft (70,3%), i.e. providing forces.

The distribution of aircraft by fleet basically corresponded to their purpose in the pre-war years. The insufficient number of aircraft in the Northern Fleet was largely dictated by the insignificant capacity of its airfield network. Before the war, the fleet of aircraft fleet consisted mostly of machines of the types DB-3, SB, TB-1, TB-3, I-15 bis, I-16, I-153, MBR-2, which were inferior to German in flight tactical characteristics. The retooling of fleet aviation to new types (Pe-2, Yak-1, MiG-3) was just beginning. Naval aviation did not have anti-submarine aircraft. For the purpose of anti-submarine defense, the MBR-2 flying boats were adapted first, and then the DB-3, DB-3ф and Pe-2 wheeled boats. The aircraft had no equipment for detecting submarines, except for a small number of Gneiss radar stations. Being armed scouts, they could only detect submarines in a surface position, since at that time, the aviation technical means for their search in the submerged position did not exist.

The air forces of the fleets did not even have special fighters with an increased radius of action, which in part could compensate for the lack of aircraft carrier fighter cover. The fleets were forced to use only front-line fighters, which extremely narrowed the possibilities of combat use of surface ships.

From the first days of the Great Patriotic War, in accordance with the prevailing situation on the fronts, the naval aviation carried out the following tasks: assistance to ground forces in the fight against opposing formations of enemy troops and attacking its rear facilities; participation in the defense of the Navy; the destruction of warships and ships of the enemy in the course of the fight against its maritime transport; air defense of ships in basing areas and at sea; providing amphibious operations.



During the period of strategic defense on the Soviet-German front, most of the fleet aviation was involved in attacks on ground targets and battle formations of the German ground forces. Her actions at land theaters were separated in time, as a rule, were tactical in nature, but their total result was a major operational contribution to the struggle at the front. In total, during the war years, about a quarter of fleet sorties were spent on military operations in the interests of ground forces. About 130 thousand enemy soldiers and officers were destroyed by naval pilots, more than 1500 tanks, over 9000 cars.

Naval aviation was engaged in combat operations against enemy logistical targets. Already in the first days of the war, long-range bomber aviation launched a series of bombing strikes against Constance and the oil fields in Ploiesti. From 2 July to 18 on August 1941, the Black Sea Fleet air forces performed 22 raids on Ploiesti facilities. As a result, Romania lost 15% of its oil reserves, in addition, the railway bridge and the Danube oil pipeline were destroyed, and two oil refineries were damaged. These actions were of operational importance, because under the threat of losing Romanian oil, Hitler’s bid 12 on August 1941 ordered Army Group South to seize the Crimea and thereby eliminate the Soviet airfields from which attacks on Romanian targets were made. A special place in the military work of naval aviation was strikes at Berlin, inflicted on 1941 in August. These raids by the Red Banner Baltic Fleet and Long-Range Bomber Aviation had immense moral and political importance.

Considering the nature of the use of naval aviation during the war, it is necessary to single out its combat operations during the defense of the naval base and coastal cities. The 22 of the fighter aircraft was allocated to the aviation support of the naval defense of Hanko. The airfield, on which the group was based, was under continuous artillery fire. On certain days, the enemy fired missiles at the airfield to 1500. In these difficult conditions, the aviation group had to solve a wide range of diverse tasks. It provided air defense for the troops and base facilities, conducted air reconnaissance, stormed the troops and enemy firing points on the land front, acted by floating craft at sea, destroyed German planes at airfields, supported naval landings and carried out other tasks, including adjusting artillery fire.

Naval Aviation in the Great Patriotic War


During the heroic defense of the base of Hanko, a small aviation group quite effectively solved the tasks assigned to it. Naval pilots destroyed the enemy's 34 aircraft, sank more than 20 ships, boats and ships. Aviation of the Black Sea Fleet in the defense of Odessa was an important and very effective means of assisting the troops. The air group, which included 35 fighters and 6 attack aircraft, based at the Odessa airfield, was directly included in the grouping of the defense forces of Odessa from the fleet air forces. The bombers, however, for strikes against the enemy who had besieged the city, were raised from the airfields of the Crimea, in the area of ​​the strikes their cover was carried out by fighters of the Odessa group. This greatly complicated the organization of interaction and ruled out the possibility of joint preparation for the conduct of hostilities of strike and fighter aircraft.

The pilots of the Odessa Air Group also had to operate in a very difficult situation, take off and land on the airfield under the shelling of the enemy. On average, they produced daily 3-4 departures, and on some days before 7. In total, during the defense of Odessa, aviation made over 4600 sorties, during which 80 enemy planes were destroyed, 168 tanks, 135 vehicles, 25 tanks with fuel, 7 guns and about two thousand enemy soldiers and officers.

The aircraft of the Black Sea Fleet during the defense of Sevastopol covered the objects and troops of the Sevastopol defensive area, warships and transport ships at sea, bombed and assault attacks on ground enemy forces in the forefront and in the depths of its battle formations, as well as conducted air reconnaissance.

Directly in Sevastopol based aviation group in the number of 82 aircraft, which consisted mainly of fighters and seaplanes. A larger number of aircraft could not take the remaining airfields - two land and one sea.

The destruction of enemy manpower and equipment on the land front was carried out by systematic bomber and assault aircraft. The most efficiently acted on ground forces of the enemy were attack aircraft. They caused the enemy serious damage, and in some cases, with their blows, they predetermined the outcome of the battle for the ground forces in our favor.

It should be noted the numerical superiority of the Germans and their allies in the aircraft. So, for example, by May 1942 of the year, near Sevastopol it operated up to 400 bombers and almost 150 enemy fighters. In the most difficult situation, the Black Sea Fleet aviation, during the defense of Sevastopol, made more than 16000 sorties, of which 5735 was in the interests of the land front. As a result, sea pilots destroyed 438 enemy aircraft, more than 20000 people, 115 tanks, over 1500 vehicles and more 100 artillery guns.



From the experience of the use of air forces of the fleets in the defense of bases it is clear that their activities were carried out under conditions of significant enemy air superiority. The limited capabilities of the basing of aviation in the protected areas did not allow for the growth of aviation groups. The difficulty of basing was manifested in the fact that not only the enemy's air force, but also its field artillery could strike at our airfields. It should be borne in mind that, assisting the ground forces, fleet aviation had limited capabilities for military operations at sea, but these tasks were not removed from it and, to the best of its strength, it successfully carried them out.

In the combat work of aviation of the Navy, an important place was occupied by actions to hinder the maritime transport of the enemy. Due to the insufficient number of attack aircraft and the attraction of it mostly to the land front, in 1941-1942, a relatively small number of sorties were carried out to attack enemy transport ships and warships at sea and bases. In those years, the “free hunt” method was actively used, which was carried out by single machines or in pairs. Often these missions were not provided with preliminary reconnaissance of enemy sea communications, and therefore were not always successful.

For the violation of enemy sea communications, bomber and mine-torpedo aircraft were used, the latter being a variant of high-altitude torpedo bombs. The effectiveness of bombing from horizontal flight and altitude torpedoing by a small number of aircraft was low. It increased significantly with the transition to low torpedoing, dive-bombing and subsequently to the top-mast method of striking.

With the increase in the number of strike aircraft in the fleets and the decrease in the volume of tasks on land, naval aviation began to dominate combined attacks on convoys at sea crossings and ships stationed in bases and ports. When attacking in the most advantageous sequence, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and attack aircraft were used under the cover of fighters. Such strikes involved up to 1943 aircraft. The effectiveness of the combat operations of the fleet aviation has increased, and since 160, it has firmly taken the lead in sinking enemy ships.

A significant achievement was the tactical interaction of aircraft and torpedo boats when striking convoys, which was especially characteristic of the Northern Fleet. The interaction of aviation with submarines was operational.



In total, naval aviation spent about 10% of sorties on ships and ships at sea, bases and ports during the war, during which over 50% of the total transport tonnage and about 70% of all ships destroyed by the fleet were sunk. Naval aviation dropped over 1300 torpedoes and delivered about 2500 mines. Mine-torpedo aircraft, sank one and a half times more warships and transport ships than the bomber and assault. However, it is worth noting the very effective actions of attack aircraft against small ships, boats and ships of the enemy.

Significant efforts of naval aviation during the war years were focused on solving the tasks of the air defense of home areas and covering ships at sea. Fighter aviation fleets destroyed more than half of all downed enemy aircraft by forces and means of air defense of the Navy. However, the insufficient radius of action of fighter aircraft, limited the possibility of covering Soviet ships in the sea by a narrow coastal strip. When surface ships were forced to act outside the range of the fighter aircraft, the air enemy inflicted significant damage to them, which in digital terms was about half of all the losses of our ship personnel.

During the war, the methods and methods of using aviation to fight the air enemy were continuously improved. The methods of combat use of fighter aircraft include: targeting fighters to the target using radio equipment; hacking on threatened directions; duty on the airfields; "Free hunting"; blocking enemy airfields.

In the combat work of the fleet aviation, preemptive strikes have been used on enemy airfields to suppress its bomber and torpedo-bearing aviation, which threatened our ships and ships during periods of support for convoys.

It should be noted that the cover of the Allied convoys in the Barents and White Seas took the form of operations, for which, from May 1942, the Headquarters of the Supreme Command subordinated the Karelian Front, the Arkhangelsk Military District and a part of the Air Forces reserve bomber to the Commander of the Air Force. To ensure the posting of convoys РQ-16, РQ-17, РQ-18, the rate issued special directives.



To combat enemy aircraft, naval aircraft made more than 40% of sorties. They were destroyed during the air battles and at the airfields of more than 5500 enemy aircraft. During the war, landing over 100 amphibious assault forces. And if in 1941-1942. airborne troops landed predominantly without air preparation, then from 1943 and until the very end of the war, aircraft were widely involved in airborne operations at all their stages. To ensure amphibious operations, aviation carried out reconnaissance, fighter cover in the landing areas, during the sea crossing and at the landing points, as well as suppressing enemy antiamphibious defense and assisting the landing party in operations on the coast.

So, in the 1943, during the Kerch-Eltigens landing operation, the Black Sea Fleet and the 4 airborne airplanes performed over 4400 sorties. Only from 1 to 3 in November, the attack aircraft participated in the 37 repulse of enemy counterattacks in the Eltigen area.

The aviation of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, in the period of the landing operation to seize the islands of the Vyborg Bay, turned out to be the main force for the suppression of the enemy fire system on the islands. She made more than 7500 sorties to facilitate the landing, as well as for strikes at enemy warships, trying to prevent the landing and the landing operations on the coast.

Airplanes, and above all, bombers and attack aircraft, were the main striking force that ensured the success of the battle for disembarkation at all its stages. Moreover, the actions of bomber aviation were more effective at the stage of preliminary preparation for disembarkation, and assault - during direct support of the landing and escorting of the landing force when solving its tasks on the coast. Fighter aircraft provided cover for strike aircraft and assault operations at all stages of the operation.

In order to achieve the success of amphibious operations, sometimes an airborne assault was carried out in front of it, as it was during the landing of troops by the forces of the Black Sea Fleet near the village of Grigorievka, in September 1941 of the year near Odessa. A naval landing in the Stanichka area, Yuzhnaya Ozereyka was supported, and very effectively, by a parachute landing ejected in the vicinity of the village of Vasilyevka.

The experience of the war once again proved that the success of landing operations largely depends on the conquest of air supremacy in the area of ​​operation. Fleet aviation was also involved in the task of supplying the landing forces with ammunition and food, as was the case, for example, during stormy weather during the Kerch-Eltigen landing operation.

The current situation on land fronts and maritime theaters largely determined the direction of the main aviation efforts of our fleets. Thus, the special importance of providing internal and external sea communications required the Northern Fleet aviation to concentrate its efforts on covering the ships and convoys at sea, bases and ports from enemy air strikes (71% of sorties). At the same time, the difficult and tense situation on the flanks of our fronts adjacent to the Baltic and Black Seas forced the Red Banner Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet aircraft to spend 29% and 24% airplanes, respectively, to directly assist ground forces.

As you can see, naval aviation during the Patriotic War became the main branch of the naval forces, she had a leading role in the fight against the ships and ships of the enemy, she was the most effective means of air defense of the forces and objects of the fleet.



The experience of the use of naval aviation during the war years helped to correctly determine the role and place of this kind of fleet forces in modern armed struggle at sea. He contributed to its development in the postwar period as one of the main branches of the forces of the Russian Navy.

Sources:
Ivanov P. Wings over the sea. M .: Voenizdat, 1973, C. 87-91,168-174, 199-207.
Lavrentiev N. Naval Aviation in the Great Patriotic War. M .: Voenizdat, 1983. C. 2-12, 62-89.
Gerasimov V. Marine aviation of the Russian Navy 1938-1945 // Military Thought. 2006. No. 11. C.58- 66.
Kuznetsov G. Naval aviation in the war on the sea // Sea collection. 1988. No. 8. C. 31-34
Stalbo K. Experience in the use of aviation of the Navy in the Great Patriotic War. // Militaryhistorical Journal, 1982. No. 3. S.25-30.
Morozov M. Naval torpedo aircraft. SPb .: Gallery print, 2007. C.114-115, 284-286, 411-412.
Our news channels

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

39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    16 March 2016 07: 06
    Everyone knows about the German blitzkrieg and our heavy losses in the 41 year. But about the fact that in 44-45 years we arranged a blitzkrieg that was much more terrible for some reason, no one voiced it. Well won and won. And the real numbers are something like this:
    In 1941-1942 German aviation sank about 200 ships and ships with a total displacement of 278,5 thousand tons
    In 1944-1945 Soviet aviation sank about 350 ships and ships with a total displacement of 445,8 thousand tons
    During the years of the Second World War, Germany and the allies from the actions of Soviet aviation in total lost 715 ships with a total displacement of 816,8 thousand tons, and in the war at sea on the Soviet-German front, it was Soviet aviation that became the absolute record holder for the number of enemy sunken boats. 2 th place was occupied by mines, 3 th submarines.
    Soviet losses have the same structure - the greatest damage was caused by German aircraft, in the second place mines (and in the Baltic in the first place mines!), In the third submarines. But the total tonnage of the sunk ships of the Soviet Navy despite the heaviest losses of the 41 year is less than the German ones - enemy aircraft during the whole war sank 257 ships and ships with a total displacement of 309,5 thousand tons.
  2. +7
    16 March 2016 07: 35
    I read it with interest.
    Alex_59, I agree. By the end of 1943, the Soviet army was not at all what the Red Army was in 1941. Learned to fight. Moreover, they far surpassed the "teachers." 44-45 years were a really victorious march of our army to the West.

    And what about the aviation of the fleet. Indeed, she had to work a lot on the wrong objects and not as planned in the pre-war years. But, after all, we managed. They contributed to the defeat of the Nazi ground forces. And even Berlin was bombed. Well done. But they did not have to fight on the most advanced machines. Starting with the antediluvian MBR-2 and ending with such "masterpieces" of western aircraft construction as Tomahawk and Hurricane.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 11: 26
      Of course, I understand you as a patriot, but on what machines did the Hero of the Soviet Union, Aviation Marshal Aleksander Ivanovich Pokryshkin, achieve the best success three times? I will prompt. On the Bell P-39 Airacobra. And how do you think the P-40C Tomahawk or Hawker Hurricane aircraft were inferior to Soviet fighters? Read the http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/spit/spit.html
      1. +1
        16 March 2016 19: 29
        Quote: hrad
        Read ka

        Instead of eager sending, end the thought explicitly. Why are you embarrassed, dear? It’s not at all embarrassing to bark from under the Czech flag — the Czechs tried for the Wehrmacht not for fear, but for the small thing. I will finish your simple thought for you. Our role in this life is to lick to shine to the creators of such an inhuman level of technology as you listed Hawker Hurricane or green toilet paper not worthy of your attention. It is in Czech. Logic, however, is not entirely. Why is not the Me-109 a miracle of technology assigned? Would you expand the picture, starting with the soldier's boots of the 1866 model, a calfskin satchel, Mauser-98K? The level of these things we have experienced in our Russian skin. They would be proud under the Czech flag justifiably - how many Russians were killed with your products. And my grandfather praised American and English technology. Tanks - rare rare. Machine guns are good. And leather jackets from the Americans. The British are poorer, but the armor is better. It's nice that you have like-minded people here. From Vilnius they stopped by. On the way.
      2. +2
        17 March 2016 01: 58
        Dear, but do not tell me why the Americans themselves refused to fly on such wonderful aerial cobras? Up to targeted damage to aircraft. In the Soviet Union, only experienced pilots flew at them because a mid-level pilot ripped the car into a tailspin on the first turn. Plus, when shooting b / c for all cobras, the center of gravity shifted so much that the machine could be torn into a tailspin even with horizontal flight without maneuvering. By the way, the P-63 did not solve this problem. The fact that our pilots had to fly on them and they managed to become aces as well is a merit of their skill, but by no means an indicator of the quality of the aircraft. The only positive thing that almost all the pilots flying on the Aero Cobra noted was the comfort of the cockpit and good radio stations. In all other respects, it was a very peculiar and controversial aircraft. The center of gravity not combined with the center of thrust gave very high maneuverability, but did not forgive the slightest mistake. A powerful 37mm cannon from which it was impossible to shoot even with a short burst - because of the large recoil, the speed dropped instantly and also because of the short barrel and strong recoil there was a wild scatter. The opening doors, instead of the lantern, made it easier to land the landing, but in battle it was impossible to open the lantern and look around on the same shops or yaks. In addition, during an emergency escape with a parachute, the pilots often fought against the tail, which resulted in injuries. The three-post chassis, on the one hand, made landing and taxiing easier, but due to the high height of the front strut, it was impossible to give the handle away from you on take-off and see which direction you were moving.
        The British received only 2 Lend-Lease aircraft and after two test flights they categorically refused them, does this also mean something?
        R.s. And yes, airwar, just like Vicki, is not the ultimate truth, and even does not really attract to the encyclopedia. Although, interesting, you can learn a lot there, I do not argue ...
        1. +1
          18 March 2016 00: 11
          Quote: TarIK2017
          The British received only 2 Lend-Lease aircraft and after two test flights they categorically refused them, does this also mean something?


          Americans and themselves (Bell P-39 Airacobra) pooled









          Unit Price: 50666 USD in 1944

          Although the aircraft without a conditionally good
  3. 0
    16 March 2016 07: 49
    Thank you, briefly, comprehensively, intelligibly ...
  4. FID
    +4
    16 March 2016 08: 33
    and then wheeled DB-3, DB-3f and Pe-2.

    Could the author explain what a "wheeled Pe-2" is ???
  5. +4
    16 March 2016 09: 18
    Probably it meant "non-float" like MBR-2.
  6. +1
    16 March 2016 10: 41
    On 22 June 1941, the naval aviation had a 2581 aircraft (on the Northern Fleet - 116, Baltic - 656, Black Sea - 626 and Pacific - 1183). The number of torpedo bombers was 9,7%, bombers 14%, fighter jets 45,3% and reconnaissance seaplanes 25% of the total number of naval aviation. It was dominated by fighter aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft (70,3%), i.e. providing forces.

    Still counting iron? wink The plane itself will not rise into the air. Need a crew. And the situation with the crews in the Navy was extremely bad.
    On June 1, 1941:
    there were only 644 combat crews for 213 fleet bombers, 1244 crews for 441 fighters, 885 for 249 reconnaissance aircraft.

    Moreover, the problems were even with old and long-mastered vehicles - there were not enough combat-ready crews even for them:
    212 DB-3 - 115 crews
    338 SB - 96 crews
    263 I-153 - 139 crews
    619 I-16 - 222 crew
    756 "barns" - 238 crews.

    Let me remind you that the theoretical norm in the Air Force was the presence of 2 trained crews for 1 car.
  7. +1
    16 March 2016 10: 49
    The amphibious assault in the area of ​​Stanichki, South Ozereyka was supported, and very effectively, by the parachute assault, thrown out in the vicinity of the village of Vasilyevka.

    In the memoirs and officialdom of the times of the late GlavPUR - perhaps the landing was also effective.
    But in the documents the picture was not so rosy:
    At 00.45, six ICBM-2s and two I-15s launched a bombing assault on the South Ozereyka and two SBs dropped incendiary bombs on Vasilyevka to create a landmark for the airborne assault. Following this, three Douglas dropped a parachute landing (57 people), and TB-3, not finding the landing area, returned. The landing party landed between Glebovka and Vasilyevka in separate groups, and therefore could not capture the headquarters of the 10th enemy infantry division and limited itself to breaking communication lines.

    By March 12, 1943, out of 57 paratroopers who landed on March 4 in the enemy rear, 28 were able to return to their own, while three of them were injured and two had frostbite on their legs.
  8. -4
    16 March 2016 10: 57
    I quote http://russ-flot.narod.ru/40_avia-sia.html
    The Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 45:
    Naval aviation used almost all types of aircraft in service. Moreover, both Soviet-made cars and aircraft built in the USA and Great Britain were used. At the beginning of the war, naval aviation was almost completely equipped with older types of aircraft. Land aviation also could not boast of a large number of new equipment.
    By the beginning of the war, all fleets had:

    Fleet Bombers Fighters Scouts TOTAL
    Baltic 172 353 151 676
    Chernomorsky 138 346 140 624
    Northern 11 49 54 114
    TOTAL 321 748 345 1414

    In total, during the years of the war, naval aviation of all fleets and fleets made 375.238 sorties, including:
    Air Defense: 110.939;
    Support for ground forces: 82.879;
    Exploration: 50.892;
    Ships on the high seas: 37.683;
    Raids on ports and naval bases: 35.175;
    Airfield raids: 6.777;
    Other assignments: 32.893.

    Naval pilots destroyed 5.509 enemy aircraft, including 4.495 in aerial combat. 382 vehicles sunk with a total displacement of 860.000 tons and 410 warships and auxiliary ships.
    However, it seems that these statistics are very high. For example, if we are talking about warships, then from documents of the opposite side it follows that the Air Force of the USSR Navy sank:
    Battleship - 1 (old battleship Schlesien);
    Cruisers - 3 (1 "Niobe" air defense missile and 2 "Orion" missile defense systems);
    Destroyers and destroyers - 7;
    Submarines - 3;
    Watchmen - 22;
    Minesweepers - 56;
    Torpedo boats -14;
    Patrol boats - 101.
    1. FID
      +1
      16 March 2016 12: 22
      Quote: hrad
      if we are talking about warships, then from the documents

      A little higher - "combat and AUXILIARY ...", and you are only about combat ... A little out of step, don't you think?
      1. 0
        16 March 2016 12: 34
        I repeat! I quoted http://russ-flot.narod.ru/40_avia-sia.html
        1. FID
          +4
          16 March 2016 13: 24
          Yes, you quote, anything ... For what purpose is the quote given?
          1. -2
            16 March 2016 14: 07
            In order to write and let the people read, not only your, derective opinion. Launched from the top. To avoid "suddenly people will start thinking"
            1. 0
              16 March 2016 19: 40
              Quote: hrad
              directive

              How is it translated into Russian? From your Russophobian? With allowance removed. The guys from the Ssakina office will not tolerate obvious non-professionalism. Stop driving - to whom from the top they lower, it is visible here. Wipe off, sperm from the Yankees puts shoe polish on the skin.
    2. +1
      16 March 2016 19: 27
      Quote: hrad
      Naval pilots destroyed 5.509 enemy aircraft, including 4.495 in aerial combat. 382 vehicles sunk with a total displacement of 860.000 tons and 410 warships and auxiliary ships.
      However, it seems that these statistics are very high.

      She can not be overpriced. In a combat situation, who exactly can claim damaged transport or drowned? There was no time to stare. They threw bombs - there is a hit - it burns. Not all attack flights were escorted by scouts who fixed the target before and after the attack. Nevertheless, your statistics are still quite accurate, as according to German data, they lost over 457 thousand tons from aircraft of 507,5 ships and ships with a total VI of over the years of WWII.
      Quote: hrad
      For example, if we are talking about warships, then from documents of the opposite side it follows that the Air Force of the USSR Navy sank:

      Your statistics here are also not complete. Aviators drowned 25 pieces in the Baltic Sea alone, and 34 in the Black Sea alone. This is according to German data and not on your list. And there were all sorts of Siebel, lighters and stormboats.
      1. 0
        17 March 2016 01: 27
        Quote: Alex_59
        She can not be overpriced. In a combat situation, who exactly can claim damaged transport or drowned?

        German pilots didn’t have any division into damaged, destroyed, shot down. They had two criteria: the target was hit and the target was not hit. According to the memoirs of our pilots, confirmation of reconnaissance aircraft was required. This is written twice by Hero of the Soviet Union Cancer. (KBF) About I’m writing the rest. There is a galaxy of Heroes of the Soviet Union. And they all write in their memoirs that without confirmation the victory was not counted or was partially counted. It was also in the ADD. Read V. Akkuratova. He writes that the pilots were not happy about what the crew was w the turman-illuminator, since they were the first to arrive at the target, took photos before the bombing, reset the SABs and the last to leave, after the control photographing.
  9. +2
    16 March 2016 11: 31
    The article is a review, reminiscent of the preface to any official publication. This is her weakness. During the "perestroika" period, a lot of memoirs and journalistic literature appeared, allowing for a different look at the nature and results of the activities of Soviet naval aviation during the Great Patriotic War. For authors of "enthusiastic" comments, I recommend downloading from the Internet, reading and rethinking the following books:
    1. A. Lashkevich "In air battles" M. Publishing house "Eksmo", 2010
    2. M. Shishkov “We ​​were called suicide bombers. Confessions of a torpedo bomber. M.2014
    3. A. Shirokorad “Torpedo bombers in battle. They were called suicide bombers."
    M. Eksmo Publishing House, 2006
    4. Z. Sorokin “Winged Guardsmen” M. Voenizdat 1966.
    5. M.A. Zhirokhov “Assy over the tundra. Air war in the Arctic "
    M. Publishing house "Centerpolygraph" 2011.
    6. I.F. Orlenko "Winged torpedo bombers."
    Published online by manuscript.
    7. I.F. Orlenko “We are Tallinn” Publishing House Tallinn. 1981
    8. MV Avdeev “Near the Black Sea”, book 1-3 M. DOSAAF, 1967
    9. V.F. Golubev "In the name of Leningrad"
    Publishing house of FAIR-PRESS. 2000
    10.K.D.Denisov “Under us the Black Sea” M. Voenizdat, 1989
    11.S.G. Kurzenkov “Under us is the land and the sea” M. Voenizdat, 1960
    12. V.I. Minakov “Commanders of winged battleships”
    M. DOSAAF, 1981
    13. V.I. Minakov “The angry sky of Tauris”
    M. DOSAAF, 1985
    14.V.I. Voronov “Marine fighters” M. DOSAAF, 1986
    15. I. Juutilainen “I beat the Stalinist Falcons”
    Publishing House of Yauza 2013
    16. E. Luukkanen “I shot down an entire air regiment”
    Publishing House of Yauza 2015
    17. F. Ruge "War at Sea 1939-1945"
    M. Publishing house "Polygon. AST "2000
    18. K. Doenitz “Ten years and twenty days”
    M. Publishing house "Centerpolygraph" 2004

    I think that many will understand what a dear victory was achieved over a cruel and treacherous enemy.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 12: 03
      And without your "guiding" comments, we know what a gigantic role the Soviet people played in the victory over Nazi Germany. But, it was a long time ago, we must go ahead and not dwell on the past. And that "past" will become an anchor that will not let you forward.
      And in the "pre-perestroika" period, Brezhnev was "the main hero" and the creator of all great victories, and even on "Malaya Zemlya", judging by how many awards he received in the post-war period. Well, thank him for Afghanistan!
      Do you really think that everything you proposed authors wrote without ideological pressure from the state?
      1. +2
        16 March 2016 17: 23
        The author’s article is not devoted to the role of the Soviet people in the victory over Nazi Germany, but to a more specific and special issue - the role of Soviet naval aviation in the Great Patriotic War. Do you know anything about this? Where from? - from the stories of war veterans, movies and books. What kind of books? - Different. But still? It turns out that there are not so many books on this subject. In domestic memoirs published before 1991, one can read a lot about heroism, but nothing or almost nothing is told about the organization of combat work, the peculiarities of combat use, the relationship between people, elders and minors, etc. etc., in a word about what constitutes “life in war”. “Post-perestroika” books are preferable in this respect, because give a broader description of the hostilities, and a comparison with the data of foreign sources allows you to more accurately evaluate specific results.
        For people interested in military history and aviation subjects, in particular, I gave a list of 18 books. dedicated to naval aviation and World War II, about half of which are “post-perestroika”. Read them and go further in your knowledge, "forward, without focusing on the past." Is there any other way?
        Let's keep up appearances: about the dead or good, or nothing, especially since in the "pre-perestroika" time, Leonid Brezhnev was not "the main hero and creator of all great victories." He was seriously wounded and shell-shocked during the fighting on the "Small Earth", but refused to evacuate and fought with dignity. You know little and judge from philistine positions about Afghanistan. This, by the way, has nothing to do with the topic of the article.
        Regarding the ideological pressure of the state on the authors of military memoirs, I’ll say that the situation is like in sports - if you lose the match, then at least burst and you won’t become a winner.
    2. 0
      16 March 2016 19: 46
      Quote: rubin6286
      I think that many will understand

      Do you understand that? What did you write? What an insulting, mentoring tone! There is no Ksyushadi grazing. And in VO there are no enthusiastic youths who do not know how much the Victory cost. There are trolls. Do not be like. Work thinner! Ssaki will leave the decree - arrange a master class for you.
      1. 0
        16 March 2016 21: 58
        Life is unfair: close people are far away ... far ones are close .. and far-off people are very close.
        1. 0
          16 March 2016 22: 04
          Quote: rubin6286
          and near - all the time.

          So the truth began to utter. What does it mean to pay attention to errors on time.
  10. +4
    16 March 2016 11: 34
    Quote: qwert
    By the end of 1943, the Soviet army was not at all what the Red Army was in 1941. Learned to fight. Moreover, they far surpassed the "teachers." 44-45 years were a really victorious march of our army to the West.

    Judging by Morozov, the same actions of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force in Crimea in 1944 are called victorious procession hardly possible.
    Mine-torpedo aviation during the fighting in the Crimea, showed itself extremely poorly. The author of the article was unable to find evidence of reliable hits by torpedoes in enemy ships, although during the Il-4 operation of the 5th Guards MTAP they made 80 sorties with torpedoes and dropped 64 of them (including at least eight high-altitude). The vast majority of sorties were carried out for convoy attacks, and only 13 (from May 1 to May 13) for “free hunting”. The lack of torpedoes led to the fact that in another 66 sorties Ilam had to use bombs (mostly 100 kg). The Bostons of the 36th MTAP flew with them, making only 40 sorties. The result is an accidental hit of a bomb in the Tissa transport. According to the Air Force report, the regiments lost 11 aircraft, which, according to the author’s calculations, was underestimated by at least two aircraft.
    Where the 18th Guards DBAP achieved great results. His “Bostons” completed 253 sorties, and made 90 attacks using the top-mast method. On their account the damage to the transports “Alba Julia”, “Ossag”, the final blow to the “Tee”. However, these successes were achieved at a high price. Losses amounted to 13 vehicles with trained crews. One can hardly call the optimal loading of the Bostons, which usually carried eight FAB-100s or three - four of the same bombs and one FAB-250. The combat load involved in the final stage of the battles of the Boston attack aircraft (60-90 AO-2,5) cannot be called anything but ridiculous (excluding small arms and cannon armament). 500 kg bombs during the operation were not used at all!
    Extremely ineffective were the actions of diving Pe-2 bombers, originally intended for strikes against small-sized targets. During the entire operation, they achieved only two confirmed hits in the Durostor transport and, apparently, can apply for one or two BDBs.
    The attackers achieved the greatest success during the operation, since they made twice as many flights as all other types of fleet attack aircraft - 1070. At the same time, losses were only 19 aircraft. Of course, the lack of fuel and ammunition negatively affected the activities of attack aircraft. Not from a good life for striking ships had to use 100 kg bombs, while the IL-2 had the ability to suspend two much more powerful FAB-250s. When striking at sea targets, their effectiveness was about 3-3,5 times higher than "hundred."
    The capabilities of fighter aviation were far from being used enough by our command. It only accompanied attack aircraft, which, however, could not prevent their relatively high losses from the impact of an air enemy. The fighter’s capabilities were very poorly used to carry out bombing attacks and attack enemy ships, despite the fact that since the beginning of 1944 the Kittyhawks and Northern Fleet Aero Cobra have been used very effectively in this capacity.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 13: 23
      Well, everything was so good and joyful, and you came and floated here))
      1. +2
        16 March 2016 14: 51
        Quote: Stas57
        Well, everything was so good and joyful, and you came and floated here))

        Among members of the bore club, he is considered a dangerous intellectual. (C) laughing

        And in general, I’m not only fleet-phobic - there, in the article about German TTs, I also denigrate the best tank of the war. smile
        The slanderer and the slander,
        Young girls molester,
        And in general, I am a pest doctor,
        Come to the reception!
        (c) Timur Shaov
    2. 0
      16 March 2016 23: 37
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Judging by Morozov, the same actions of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force in Crimea in 1944 can hardly be called a victorious march.
      scan "Losses of enemy fleets in the naval theater of operations 1941-1945" Bogatyrev S.V. Strelbitsky K.B.
      b / av - coastal aviation
      t / av - aircraft torpedo attack
      b / a - coastal artillery
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        16 March 2016 23: 45
        The procession is not a procession, but they broke it well. On a grand scale. Most of the sunken on the account of our aircraft.
        1. 0
          17 March 2016 00: 04
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It was not from a good life that one had to use 100-kg bombs for striking ships, while the Il-2 had the ability to suspend two much more powerful FAB-250. When striking at sea targets, their effectiveness was approximately 3-3,5 times higher than "hundred."

          Strange statement. In any case, it is doubtful. Typical targets for aviation were enemy boats of very small sizes - lighter, boats, BDB, seiners, minesweepers, hunters. There were few large transports for which 500s were needed. See the tonnage of sunk targets. Almost all 50-1500 tons. It is logical that the barges were hollowed by hundreds.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The author of the article was unable to find evidence of reliable hits by torpedoes in the enemy’s ships, although during the Il-4 operation of the 5 th Guards MTAP they made 80 sorties with torpedoes and dropped 64 of them

          Again, small-sitting barges and lighters very often were not affected by torpedoes - torpedoes simply passed under their bottoms. This is a known fact. Although in March-April at least two vehicles were drowned precisely by torpedo bombers.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The capabilities of fighter aircraft were far from being used enough by our command. It only accompanied attack aircraft,
          And this is a completely incorrect statement. Everyone must do their job. Fighters should cover attack aircraft, and they were occupied with this. As fighter planes, fighters were used, as a rule, either not from a good life (FW-190 at the end of the war with the Germans), or when there were absolutely no goals in the air (German fighters in the early days of the war, and occasionally). Most likely, after 1944, there was precisely the second option in the Arctic, when few people threatened Airborne in the air, you could storm the ground with nothing to do. But in the Crimea in the spring of 44, fighters had a lot of work in their main specialty. So let the bombers bomb - they are better suited for this.
  11. +1
    16 March 2016 12: 17
    the downside was that there were no good flying boats. Allies were honored with the current at the end of the war, the famous Catalins give us Lend Lease
    1. +2
      16 March 2016 12: 30
      Quote: Siberia
      the downside was that there were no good flying boats. Allies were honored with the current at the end of the war, the famous Catalins give us Lend Lease

      Yeah ... the allies are to blame.
      Is it okay that the USSR had a PBY-1937 license since 1? Is it okay that the Navy itself abandoned Catalin before the war?
      We bought a license for "Catalins", began to make them - and immediately it started from the factory that the car was too complicated, and from the fleet - why do we need GTS when we already have unparalleled MDR-6.
      On January 9, 1937, Amtorg Corporation (which at that time served as the Soviet trade mission in the United States) signed an agreement with Consolidated to provide a license for a passenger and cargo flying boat. The plane was defined as “arctic” in the contract, therefore, the availability of hull reinforcements and drawings of the ski landing gear was specifically stipulated, and military use was not mentioned. According to the contract, Amtorg bought one assembled aircraft, working drawings, calculations, test results, specifications and technological documentation. In addition, the Americans pledged to familiarize Soviet specialists with the plant in San Diego and within three years to send materials to the USSR about all the changes made to production cars. In an additional letter, Amtorg requested two more seaports in disassembled form, without motors, instruments and equipment. The availability of all aircraft was determined no later than November 1, 1937.

      The first GTS were sent to the 80th Air Force Squadron of the Black Sea Fleet, and from July 1940 they began to enter the Northern Fleet. July 24, the first aircraft of this type participated in the parade on the occasion of the Navy. By the beginning of the war, there were 11 GTS in the Black Sea, and 7 in the North. Flying boats were also supplied from 1940 to the polar aviation of the Main Directorate of the Northern Sea Route and the Civil Aviation Directorates in Siberia and the Far East under the name MP-7. Polar explorers praised the new flying boats, which have become a worthy replacement for the outdated Val Dornier aircraft.

      Nevertheless, the GTS did not, for a variety of reasons, become a mass plane. The American boat had opponents among the fleet command, guided by domestic aircraft. So, in November 1938, the People's Commissar of the Navy, reporting to the government about successful tests of the MDR-6 aircraft designed by I.V. Chetverikova, proposed in this regard, to abandon the release of flying boats under licenses. The model 28-2 production complex, which was difficult to manufacture, also provoked a negative reaction from the management of Plant No. 31. The final decision to remove the GTS from production was made after the US government imposed an embargo on supplies to the USSR after the outbreak of war with Finland. Having exhausted the supply of imported units, the Taganrog plant at the end of 1940 switched to the production of simpler MDR-6 (Che-2) aircraft, making only 27 GTS.

      But of course, the Allies are to blame for the lack of flying boats at the Navy. smile
    2. +2
      16 March 2016 12: 31
      The Allies fought on 07.12.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX on their, in their opinion, no less important fronts in the Pacific, against Japan. They also needed weapons, and canned goods, and people, etc. Yes, and helped the USSR. Read G.K.Zhukova.
      1. 0
        16 March 2016 13: 25
        Quote: hrad
        The Allies fought on 07.12.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX on their, in their opinion, no less important fronts in the Pacific, against Japan. They also needed weapons, and canned goods, and people, etc. Yes, and helped the USSR. Read G.K.Zhukova.

        Ahem ... actually, WWII began on 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX.
        And, unlike on land, there was no "strange war" at sea - the German submarines went into battle immediately. Already on September 3, U-30 sank the Athenia. And on September 17, U-29 sent to the bottom of the AB "Koreyges". Plus German auxiliary cruisers. Plus the raids of heavy cruisers and even the Kriegsmarine LK.

        So the allies themselves needed the patrolmen - "like air, like bread." By the way, the "Bismarck", which seemed to have broken away from the pursuit, was spotted by the "Catalina".
  12. +1
    16 March 2016 13: 54
    And I didn’t talk about how Germany started the land war in Europe. It should be remembered that already 02. 10.1938 and 05.11.1938 in the territory of Czechoslovakia there were certain power conflicts between the Germans and Czechoslovakians. And Poland intervened there. But this is for another article.
    1. 0
      16 March 2016 19: 56
      Quote: hrad
      02. 10.1938 and 05.11.1938 on the territory of Czechoslovakia there were certain power conflicts between Germans and Czechoslovakians

      Truth? Is it still the same half? And many Germans distracted from combat training?
  13. 0
    16 March 2016 20: 48
    As always, the Technical Engineer wrote an excellent article and, as always, did not describe a single photo. I recognized I-16, but I don’t know a torpedo bomber, it seems Ilyushin, but I’m not sure.
  14. 0
    16 March 2016 22: 10
    another stupid and incompetent vys.r YnzhYnEra - "techie"

    the recipe for this opus is simple - tear out the old man from one book, then from another, then pee and poop - and into the mixer
  15. +1
    16 March 2016 23: 23
    I would like to draw attention to the fact that the pilots of the Baltic Fleet aviation were the first to bomb Berlin in 1941, apparently due to sufficient training for flights without landmarks, at night and in difficult weather conditions. Then long-range aviation connected, with rather disastrous results. Although, it should be noted that the main reasons for the failure of long-range aviation was an unreliable match and the lack of interaction with Soviet air defense, and not poor preparation. One of the first Soviet aces - Safonov, also from marine pilots. It seems that at the initial stage, naval aviation was the most combat-ready, although it was not equipped with the most advanced aircraft. By the way, naval fighter aircraft later began to transfer to land-leasing vehicles, mainly because they had a great range, so necessary at sea. Safonov, by the way, and ditched just such a plane. Let’s not pull the facts and arguments! Both our and western equipment had their advantages and disadvantages. Not everything in this world is so parallel and perpendicular. US help helped the Soviet people to win, but when the Americans try to convince everyone and themselves that they defeated Hitler, it would be very funny if it were not so sad. By the way, they have already convinced themselves. In 1945, no one doubted that the USSR had won the war, but the past was unpredictable not only in our country.
  16. +1
    16 March 2016 23: 49
    It is clear that the German, American and British industries had great technological advantages over the Soviet ones. The radio stations on Soviet aircraft were no match for the American ones, if any. But there were doubts about the reliability of the allison engines on the cobra. By the way, who knows the history of the development of the cobra will not claim that this is a purely American plane. There was a very good article on this site on this matter. It was an aircraft produced for the USSR and with the help of the USSR. The fact that Pokryshkin flew on a cobra is also not a one hundred percent argument. Kozhedub flew to La. Safonov, mostly flew on a "donkey", crashed on an American. Much more depended on the skill of the pilot than on the plane. Not everything is so parallel and perpendicular in this world.
  17. 0
    17 March 2016 23: 52
    By the way. In America, they flew on cobras. Negros. There was a special Negro aviation regiment. They were allowed to fly on cobras. And used, for the most part, to carry out assault missions. Spitfires in the USSR did not deliver the first freshness, so they did not make much impression on Soviet pilots.
  18. 0
    18 March 2016 16: 56
    Although LA certainly not bad.

    The plane was certainly not bad only in one thing - in the comfort and ergonomics of the cockpit. The relative success of their application in the Soviet Union has three reasons.
    1. Long-term "napilling" of the aircraft structure by Soviet engineers. At the initial stage of operation, there were a lot of problems with the reliability of the engine, oil systems, a tendency to flat spin when the aircraft did not want to get out of it.
    2. The aircraft was used only by experienced pilots. A mid-level pilot flying on such fighters was strictly contraindicated.
    3. Because The composition of the regiments using the aircraft was the most experienced, then they very quickly were able to develop tactics for using these pepelats, if not giving an advantage, then at least leveling the enemy's advantages. The same "Kuban whatnot" by Pokryshkin, for example.
  19. -1
    25 March 2016 23: 49
    Article plus! But not exemplary, although good - you could still work out a little better material!

    At 22 June 1941 years, the Navy aviation totaled 2581 aircraft
    Even taking into account the shortage in trained crews, this is even just quantitatively very much compared with the enemy.

    Navy aviation did not have anti-submarine aircraft. For the purpose of anti-submarine defense, flying MBR-2 boats were first adapted, and then wheeled DB-3, DB-3f and Pe-2

    Yes, and what is a wheeled DB3? The author did not disclose the topic! laughing

    A special place in the combat work of the naval aviation was occupied by attacks on Berlin inflicted in August of the 1941. These air raids of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet and long-range bomber aircraft were of great moral and political significance.

    The controversial statement and the controversial expediency of the whole plan.

    It should be noted the numerical superiority of the Germans and their allies in the aircraft. So, for example, by May 1942 of the year, up to 400 bombers and almost 150 enemy fighters were operating near Sevastopol.
    Oh, author, well, why is it so ... What, are the Germans just the only ones who failed?

    Quote: qwert
    Learned to fight. And far surpassed the "teachers".

    Debatable again. Learning to fight - and surpassing your teachers with slightly different statements, don’t you?

    Quote: TarIK2017
    Dear, but do not tell me why the Americans themselves refused to fly on such wonderful aerial cobras?

    Come on, where is it? In the Pacific, there was a very good fighter in base aviation!

    Quote: Amurets
    German pilots did not have a division into damaged, destroyed, shot down. They had two criteria: the target was hit and the target was not hit
    No, not entirely true. The Luftwaffe did not have a "group victory" criterion like most of the Allies. And "victory" was considered only the destruction of the aircraft. The only exception was made for bomber formations on the Western Front, which were very difficult to separate.
  20. 0
    8 May 2016 12: 01
    Quote: hrad
    Of course, I understand you as a patriot, but on what machines did the Hero of the Soviet Union, Aviation Marshal Aleksander Ivanovich Pokryshkin, achieve the best success three times? I will prompt. On the Bell P-39 Airacobra. And how do you think the P-40C Tomahawk or Hawker Hurricane aircraft were inferior to Soviet fighters? Read the http://www.airwar.ru/history/av2ww/soviet/spit/spit.html

    They conceded to many, in almost everything except instruments. And what do you think Kozhedub flew on?

"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"