Military Review

75 years "Katyusha": what is known about the famous artillery mount

60
75 years "Katyusha": what is known about the famous artillery mount



75 years ago, 21 June 1941, one day before the start of World War II, the BM-13 combat vehicle (“13 combat vehicle”) was later adopted as the “Katyusha” ".

BM-13 has become one of the world's first modern salvo systems. It was intended to destroy massive masses of manpower and enemy equipment in a large area.

In August, the 1941 installation of the BM-13 received the popular nickname "Katyusha" - after the title of the same name song by Matthew Blanter to the words of Mikhail Isakovsky.
But there are other versions of the origin of the unofficial name:

One by one - this is the name of the BM-13 given by the fighters of the Flerov battery in response to the admiration of "This is a song!" one of the witnesses of the rocket launch.

According to other versions, the name was given by the K index (from the Komintern plant).

In German troops, Katyushas were usually called "Stalin's organs" because of the characteristic howl of shells, which resembled organ sound.

The birth of "Katyusha"

Work on the creation of artillery rockets in the Russian Empire in the late XIX century began Nikolai Tikhomirov. In 1921, on his initiative, the Gas-Dynamic Laboratory was established in Moscow, which was engaged in the development of combat missiles. In 1927, the laboratory was relocated to Leningrad (now St. Petersburg).

After the death of Nikolai Tikhomirov in 1930, the development of rocket weapons Boris Petropavlovsky, Vladimir Artemyev, Georgy Langemak (shot in 1938), Boris Slonimer, Ivan Kleimenov (shot in 1938), Ivan Guy and others headed the USSR.

In 1933, the Gas-Dynamic Laboratory became part of the newly formed Reactive Research Institute (RNII or NII-3, Moscow). Initially, the institute specialized in the production of aircraft-based jet rockets.

In 1937-1938 The design of a ground-based multi-charge rocket launch system began. For use on it were selected unguided high-explosive fragmentation ammunition PC-132 ("missile caliber 132 mm"), developed in RNII under the supervision of engineer Leonid Schwartz.

By March 1941 the first samples of the new rocket launcher were assembled, which in June were mounted on the base of a six-wheeled truck ZIS-6. The design bureau of the Kompressor plant (Moscow) took part in the finalization of the system, originally bearing the name MU-2 ("2 mechanized installation").

After successful tests, 21 June 1941 g. BM-13 was adopted, began the formation of the first batteries.

The composition of the "Katyusha"

The BM-13 launcher consisted of eight open guide rails connected by tubular spars.

On each of the rails, two PC-132 missiles were installed in pairs from above and below.

The guides of the launcher were mounted along the car, which, for stability before firing, produced jacks. When aiming at the target, it was possible to change the angle of elevation (to 45 degrees) and the azimuth of the boom from the guide.

The salvo was made from the cab of the car or by using the remote control.

Originally, BM-13 systems were installed on a ZIS-6 truck. But later for this purpose, the all-wheel drive three-axle American car Studebaker US6 (“Studebaker”), supplied by Lend-Lease in the USSR, and the Soviet truck ZIS-151 (after the war) were most often used.

Characteristics of "Katyusha"

The BM-13 system allowed you to carry out a volley with all charges (16 missiles) in 7-10 seconds. There were modifications with an increased number of guides and other versions of the missiles.

Range - 8 thousand 470 m.
Warhead weight (for PC-132) - 5,5 kg of TNT.
Recharge Time - 3-5 min.
Weight combat vehicle with launcher (on the chassis of the ZIS-6) - 6,2 t.
Combat crew - 5-7 people.
Combat use and its features

The first combat use of BM-13 took place on July 14 1941 during the Great Patriotic War near the railway station of Orsha (now Belarus). The battery commanded by Captain Ivan Flerov with volley fire destroyed a cluster of German military equipment at the Orsha railway junction.

Unlike conventional regimental and divisional artillery, multiple launch rocket systems had less accuracy, and they also needed significantly more time to reload.

At the same time, the massiveness of the volley (as a part of the battery, there was usually from 4 to 9 machines) allowed to hit enemy manpower and equipment over a large area. After the release of the missiles, the battery could be removed from the site within a minute, which made return fire difficult.

Due to the high efficiency of use and simplicity in production, by the fall of 1941, the BM-13 was widely used at the front, the systems had a significant impact on the course of hostilities. During the war, about 4 ths. Ths. Released by BM-13 were lost.

In addition to World War II, BM-13 was used during the conflicts in Korea (1950-1953) and Afghanistan (1979-1989).

Other similar systems

BM-13 was only one of the types of combat vehicles of rocket artillery, produced by the Soviet industry during the Great Patriotic War.
"Katyushas" called BM-8-24 systems based on self-propelled light installations tanks T-40 and T-60 (manufactured since August 1941, used rockets with a caliber of 82 mm) and BM-31 with the use of more powerful shells with a caliber of 300 mm (manufactured since 1944).

The BM-13 systems were manufactured at the Kompressor (Moscow), Uralelectromashina (Maly Istok settlement, Sverdlovsk Region, now Uralelectrotyazhmash, Yekaterinburg) and Komintern (Voronezh) plants. Discontinued in October 1946, a total of about 7 thousand units of this type were manufactured.
21 June 1991. By decree of the President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev for merits in creating jet weapons Nikolai Tikhomirov, Ivan Kleimenov, Georgy Langemak, Vasily Luzhin, Boris Petropavlovsky and Boris Slonimer were posthumously awarded the title Heroes of Socialist Labor.
Originator:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3384098
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. volodya
    volodya 25 June 2016 07: 23
    +6
    It was a good unit for its time!
    1. AUL
      AUL 25 June 2016 11: 31
      +14
      The car was great for its time!
      And here is the article, against the background of numerous articles on HE on the same topic, in general nothing, for the 3rd grade of a rural school.
  2. Serg koma
    Serg koma 25 June 2016 07: 30
    +16
    When "PRINTING" the article of the "green" journalist, at least carefully read -
    "mounted on base six-wheeled truck ZIS-6."Doesn't that hurt your ears?
    For the memory and reminder of the legendary weapon- 5. good
    For work on bugs- 2 laughing

    Katyusha BM-13 based on the ZIS-6
    1. faiver
      faiver 25 June 2016 07: 57
      +9
      it would be better if they wrote a triaxial wheel then the realities of 10 :)
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 25 June 2016 11: 13
        +1
        <<< In 1937-1938. the design of a ground-based multiple launch rocket launch system began. For use on it, unguided high-explosive fragmentation ammunition RS-132 ("rocket projectile with a caliber of 132 mm"), developed at the RNII under the leadership of engineer Leonid Schwartz, was chosen. >>>
        [quote = faiver] it would be better to write a three-axle one, then there are 10 wheels :) Well, actually, the "six-wheeled version" of the Katyusha existed, the author simply did not mention the first MU-1 installations based on the ZiS-5 chassis with a transverse missile launch .They were the first, but unsuccessful. Here is a more complete version of the creation of "Katyusha".
        http://nik191-1.ucoz.ru/publ/voennaja_ttekhnika/raketnoe_oruzhie/istorija_katjus

        hi / 21-1-0-2460
        1. Serg koma
          Serg koma 25 June 2016 11: 57
          0
          Quote: Amurets
          actually the "six-wheeled version" of the "Katyusha" existed,

          You, however, move in a FIVE-WHEEL passenger car, FOUR wheels on TWO axles and plus a SPARE wheel, resulting in a FIVE-WHEEL unit (according to your count)! laughing
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 25 June 2016 12: 09
            +2
            Quote: Serg Koma
            Quote: Amurets
            actually the "six-wheeled version" of the "Katyusha" existed,

            You, however, move in a FIVE-WHEEL passenger car, FOUR wheels on TWO axles and plus a SPARE wheel, resulting in a FIVE-WHEEL unit (according to your count)! laughing

            Count the wheels of the ZiS-5: The front axle is 2 wheels. The rear axle is 4 wheels. Total: 6 wheels. The first version of the "Katyusha" MU-1 was based on the ZiS-5 chassis.
            1. Serg koma
              Serg koma 25 June 2016 15: 22
              +2
              Quote: Amurets
              Count the wheels of the ZiS-5: The front axle is 2 wheels. The rear axle is 4 wheels. Total: 6 wheels. The first version of the "Katyusha" MU-1 was based on the ZiS-5 chassis.

              And again you are wrong, you forgot the spare tire. By YOUR method of qualifying vehicles - SEVEN WHEEL turns out laughing
              Quote: Amurets
              Well, actually, the "six-wheeled version" of "Katyusha" existed, the author just did not mention
              and in this article ZiS-6, not Zis-5, is "mentioned." The ZiS-5 was a TWO-SHOULDED vehicle, with a dual-slope rear axle tire, and not "six wheel". negative
              BM-13-16 on the tractor chassis STZ-5-NATI - SINGLE-WHEEL (there is a wheel after all laughing ), according to your qualifications (see photo)

              PS If you already made a mistake - admit the mistake, but do not dodge drinks
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 26 June 2016 03: 49
                +1
                Quote: Serg Koma
                PS If you already made a mistake - admit the mistake, but do not twist

                An article about the installation, not about the wheels, and if you started to write about the BM-13 and its history, then you do not need to make passes in the spirit of Soviet propaganda: we stick out the good, hide the bad, and if you started writing, write in full.
                1. Serg koma
                  Serg koma 28 June 2016 20: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Amurets
                  and if you started writing, write in full.

                  Quote: Serg Koma
                  When "PRINTING" the article of the "green" journalist, at least carefully read -
                  "mounted on the basis of a six-wheeled truck ZIS-6." Doesn't that hurt your ears?

                  Quote: Amurets
                  Well, actually, the "six-wheeled version" of the "Katyusha" existed, the author simply did not mention the first MU-1 installations based on the ZiS-5 chassis


                  And what should I "write in full" about? About the fact that in the RUSSIAN technical language there is only a THREE-WHEEL bicycle, and a different terminology is used for cars?
                  Wiki, from where the error ("six-wheeled"; "six-wheeled") was transferred to this article, edited - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIS-6 Now there is a "three-wheeled" car good
                  PS
                  If you feel like it, you can ride five-wheeled car but don’t offer it to others laughing

                  Sincerely drinks
                  1. Outsider V.
                    Outsider V. 26 July 2016 21: 21
                    0
                    My friends! Triaxial, not triaxial! It has three axes, not three axles!
          2. Outsider V.
            Outsider V. 26 July 2016 21: 18
            0
            Forgot to count the steering wheel!
    2. not main
      not main 25 June 2016 22: 15
      0
      Quote: Serg Koma
      Serg Koma RU Today, 07:30 AM

      And in addition to the intro to the STUDEBACKER article! Good car! Here are just BM they began to put on them at the end of the war, and before that (ZISy worked the whole war)!
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 26 June 2016 19: 30
        +3
        Quote: non-primary
        Here are just BM they began to put on them at the end of the war, and before that (ZISy worked the whole war)!

        Statistics on the types of multiple launch rocket systems: 3374 Katyushas were produced during World War II (372 based on the ZiS-6, 1845 Studebakers, 1157 other 17 types of chassis. The first production BM-13 Katyushas were mounted on the chassis of three-axle trucks ZIS-6 (6x4). Later, other chassis were used for the same purpose: T-60 light tanks, STZ-5 transport tractors, imported GMC, Chevrolet, International trucks and others. To end the mess, in April 1943, instead of ten varieties, the unified BM-13N model was adopted with H is "normalized"). The base chosen "Studebaker." for him They mounted and other Soviet multiple rocket launchers.
  3. Serg koma
    Serg koma 25 June 2016 07: 45
    +1
    PS
    "Ears grow" probably from here - "ZIS-6 - Soviet six-wheeled (6x4) (spare tire not counted lol - Serg Koma) 4-ton off-road truck with dual-tire rear axles. "Http://autoobsor.ucoz.ru/index/zil4/0-16
    And everyone, like spellbound, willingly carries a mistake in all media, from Rossiyskaya Gazeta and TASS, to small Internet sites negative
  4. bionik
    bionik 25 June 2016 07: 50
    +11
    In addition to World War II, BM-13 was used during the conflicts in Korea (1950-1953) and Afghanistan (1979-1989).BM-13 in Afghanistan, in the lower left corner sticks out his nose and BMP-2 gun.
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 25 June 2016 10: 05
      0
      This is from what warehouse they got?
      1. bionik
        bionik 25 June 2016 10: 14
        +6
        Quote: Choi
        This is from what warehouse they got?

        In the early 60s, the USSR supplied these facilities to Afghanistan and was used by government forces.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 26 June 2016 03: 09
        +6
        Quote: Choi
        This is from what warehouse they got?

        At the beginning of the 90, the troops had BM-13 based on the ZIL-131. These machines were actively used in the preparation of air defense calculations. 132-mm missile does not fly too fast and has good thermal signature, i.e. quite suitable for use as a target. When shooting at him, the realism of training was much higher than on a parachute target.
    2. enot73
      enot73 25 June 2016 10: 21
      +7
      Quote: bionik
      In addition to World War II, the BM-13 was used during conflicts in Korea (1950-1953) and Afghanistan (1979-1989). The BM-13 in Afghanistan, the BMP-2 nose and gun stick out in the lower left corner.
      In Afghanistan, "Katyushas", during the course of the war, were quickly replaced by BM - 21, but even this modernized installation (BM-13NMM) was produced, which was also exported, and in the USSR and Russia it was used as a training and sighting facility until the beginning of 1990 - x
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. GSVG 86-88
    GSVG 86-88 25 June 2016 08: 13
    +3
    "Katyushas" were produced in Chelyabinsk, at the plant named after Kolyuschenko, at the main entrance it now stands on a pedestal.
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 25 June 2016 09: 25
      +1
      In August 1941, the State Defense Committee instructed the South Urals on the basis of the plant named after Kolyuschenko to master the production of guards mortars BM-13, affectionately called by the people "Katyusha". By the beginning of 1942, the plant monthly sent forty-five Katyushas to the front every month


      Altar of Victory. 11 sec Katyusha 1 (and the rest of the series) There are memories of Chertok Boris Evseevich
  7. romex1
    romex1 25 June 2016 08: 58
    +2
    Comintern "(Voronezh).

    The factory is no longer there, like many others in Voronezh. My heart bleeds when you walk past the former workshops given to offices Videophone, Excavator, Battery .......
  8. moskowit
    moskowit 25 June 2016 09: 21
    +2
    "Better later than never ..." Awarded the high ranks of merit for the creators of multiple launch rocket launchers.
    For the first time I got acquainted with the documentary description of the creation of "Katyusha" in the unique publication "History of Russian artillery". Released in the early 60s. True, it had not yet come in those days to tell about the true authors and creators of the legendary installation, and the priority of the work management was given to Kostikov. But already in it was mentioned the use of rocket ammunition in aviation in the battles on Khalkhin Gol, where five of our fighters were armed with missiles ...
  9. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 25 June 2016 09: 33
    +6
    The only thing I would like to note is that there is still a persistent myth about this supposedly "superweapon", which allegedly remained top secret for the Nazis for almost the entire war. But even TOPWAR published photo reports showing the Katyushas captured by the Germans back in 1941.

    In addition, the question of the types of charges that were used in rocket artillery installations was not completely addressed.
    1. aiw
      aiw 25 June 2016 10: 21
      +9
      Well, actually it was a superweapon - cheap, mobile with great firepower. The same as PPSh, T-34, etc. The mass and firepower of Katyush allowed for appropriate tactics of application, which had an impact on the course of strategic operations.

      The Germans had their own MLRS, but not with this price-quality ratio.
      1. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 25 June 2016 11: 30
        0
        Quote: aiw
        The Germans had their own MLRS, but not with this price-quality ratio.

        To put it simply, the Germans did just fine with high-quality long-range artillery + dive bombers as "frontline artillery." Unfortunately, our attack aircraft were far from the effectiveness of the interaction of "Stukas".

        You will probably be surprised that this seemingly easy-to-carry and low-speed aircraft bombed our waxes even in April 1945.

        About gr ... e "Rams" has already been written - they fought until the end of the war, although it would seem an easily accessible target.

        But su ... and the Germans on the Eastern Front almost did not use such miraculous bombers as Ju-188, about which there was material recently, our fighters could not intercept them at all.

        And so they fought ... Without communication, without normal interaction between the armed forces, with weakly competent commanders, with great blood, standing to death ... Eternal Memory to our grandfathers, who defeated the Nazi supermonster with incredible blood!

        I still can’t imagine WHAT THE SPIRIT OF WARRIORS should be, who went to a complex defense system that was not pressed by fire rolls and saturated with MG-42 at stationary fire points ...
        1. aiw
          aiw 25 June 2016 13: 38
          +9
          Uh ... what are you talking about the effectiveness of our attack aircraft ... still scold P-2 ;-)

          Barreled artillery MLRS does not replace. Gloomy German is so gloomy - let's say they could not create a nominal cumulative PTAB.

          As for the commanders, there were very many. Especially after the 43rd, when they had already learned to fight. And the interaction between the armed forces was also improved by then.

          I am equally surprised by both fairy tales about "super-duper Soviet weapons and super-competent fathers-commanders of the Red Army", and about "a mess in the Red Army, one rifle for three, the Wehrmacht with their incomparable weapons and super-competent commanders overwhelmed the corpses."

          These are extremes that are known to converge, and the truth is somewhere in between. Which of course does not cancel the fact of mass heroism (including as a result of the mess).
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 25 June 2016 14: 05
            -1
            Quote: aiw
            Gloomy German is so gloomy - let's say they could not create a nominal cumulative PTAB.

            one question - and what for is it to them?
            To counter PTAb, simple methods were used that showed the Germans its weak effectiveness in the absence of crowding. If necessary, they worked quite precisely as dive divers, and they didn’t.

            Quote: aiw
            Barreled artillery MLRS does not replace.

            Well, they were unbelievable, the shot on the barrel greatly exceeded ours.
            and they nra ...
            as soon as the NRA stopped, they immediately muddied the garden.
            Quote: aiw
            I am equally surprised

            and me, especially when they say that stupid Germans could not do something, or stupid Russians failed.
            if they wanted, they would be able, therefore they didn’t want
            1. aiw
              aiw 25 June 2016 14: 13
              +5
              > If necessary, they worked quite point-wise as dive bombers and they nra.

              Yeah. That's what they did as much as a solid anti-tank attack aircraft, with the effectiveness of EMNIP something around 50% in a pair attack.

              > the shot was significantly higher than ours.

              And did the barrel fire performance also exceed and was comparable to Katyusha?

              > if they wanted to, they would have done it, so they didn't

              Apart from hoteliers, there are objective reasons why they did not succeed - lack of raw materials, lack of production capacity, lack of technology, etc.

              HERE did the Germans want to automate the welding of tank armor? And didn’t we like for example night vision devices?
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 25 June 2016 14: 46
                -1
                Quote: aiw
                Yeah. That's what they did as much as a solid anti-tank attack aircraft, with the effectiveness of EMNIP something around 50% in a pair attack.

                Is this about Stuck with 37mm?
                I cited its effectiveness in 43

                And did the barrel fire performance also exceed and was comparable to Katyusha?

                and it depends on what is needed, the BM13 had a very large sieving, and average burying, emnip. So to overcome the long-term defense, the Germans could well work with the regular 150-210, while using all sorts of nishtyaks like "fiery shaft".
                Quote: aiw
                HERE did the Germans want to automate the welding of tank armor? And didn’t we like for example night vision devices?

                I think that everyone still wanted a combat laser, but everyone understood that it makes no sense to break the debugged production mechanism.
                Well, they did it in a thorn, and what, from that their armor like that before 44 was bad and the tanks fell apart on the go?
                we had them before the war, but the most important thing for us was not the NVD but the walkie-talkie for each tank

                Apart from hoteliers, there are objective reasons why they did not succeed - lack of raw materials, lack of production capacity, lack of technology, etc.

                Well, I won’t believe in life that the most advanced chemical industry, the advanced technological industry, and the most advanced rocket production could not get into small rackets.
                Resources - I agree, it is quite possible. But everything is simpler, there is no need.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 25 June 2016 16: 39
                  +2
                  > what is this about, about the thing with 37mm? I gave its effectiveness at 43g

                  No, this is Heinkel, I was mistaken, not 50% but 2%:

                  "Due to the higher rate of fire of the MK 103, a slightly higher probability of hitting ground targets was ensured. Calculations show that in relation to the current conditions of combat use of the Hs-129B-2 with the MK 103 cannon in the period 1943-45, the probability of the combat success of a single Henschel in one combat sortie in the defeat of Soviet equipment could be: medium tanks - 0,02; light tanks of all types - about 0,05; armored vehicles - 0,09; cars - 0,14; artillery in position - 0,03; crossings (floating bridge type TPM) - 0,002.This result is better than when using the MK 101 cannon, but still cannot be recognized as high and corresponding to the requirements of the war.Note that already at the front with the onset of cold weather it became clear that the MK 103 cannons, as well as the MK 101 The reliability of the automatic gun also left much to be desired. For these reasons, the Henschel pilots were forced to use SD4 anti-tank cumulative bombs in battle. with a small number of them on board, the effectiveness of the Hs-129B sorties was small. "

                  http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/hs129.html

                  The thing against the tanks was about the same level.

                  "The Ju-87 can no longer be used on any front, not even in the East. For example, my squadron lost 89 crews in eight months. On a yearly basis, this corresponds to a 100 percent renewal of flight personnel. If this continues for another year, the result will be full end of assault units ... I have squadrons with one aircraft in service. " (confession of the commander of the StG2 Oberst Lieutenant E. Kupfer, summer 1943)

                  http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju87g.html

                  Where to our IL-2 with their PTABs repeat

                  > and it depends on what is needed, the BM13 had a very large sieving, and average burying, emnip.

                  She has exactly such a sieve that is needed for mass application over areas. And the barrel artillery by no means can replace the MLRS.

                  > Well, they did it in a thorn, and what, from that their armor, like that up to 44, was bad and the tanks were falling apart on the move?

                  No, but the pace of production including due to this, they were not high. I'm not talking about the technological design ...

                  > well, I will never believe that the most advanced chemical industry, advanced technological industry, and the most advanced rocket production could not fit into small rackets.

                  Besides industry, competent TK from the customer and competent prioritization are still needed. If instead of Fau the Germans would engage in MLRS (or SAM), you see the war would go a little differently - but the gloomy German genius + genius of the Fuhrer is a specific thing ...

                  In addition, the Germans were sorely lacking in raw materials. In addition, the US industry was still the most advanced at that time ... what is worth one atomic project.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 25 June 2016 17: 28
                    0
                    Quote: aiw
                    No, this is Heinkel, I was mistaken, not 50% but 2%:

                    Hs-129B-2 with ... ah, there’s definitely a gloomy genius against tanks, unlike pieces

                    The Ju-87 can no longer be used on any front, not even in the East. For example, my squadron lost 89 crews in eight months. On a yearly basis, this is consistent. 100% flight personnel renewal. If this continues for another year, the result will be the complete end of the assault units ... I have squadrons with one aircraft in service. "(Confession of the commander of StG2 Lieutenant Oberst E. Kupfer, summer 1943)

                    strange and I have another



                    (if the photo is not visible, tell plzh)

                    Quote: aiw
                    She has exactly such a sieve that is needed for mass application over areas. And the barrel artillery by no means can replace the MLRS.

                    modern yes, but the then .. the Germans tried very hard to have an accurate RZSO, they were in vain, and "such a sieving" was generally not necessary and was not necessary.

                    Quote: aiw
                    No, but the pace of production including due to this, they were not high. I'm not talking about the technological design ...

                    what to do, they still argue whether the Tiger was needed or if it was enough to fill all fours, alas, such a conception of the whole war is everywhere exclusive, experts, etc.,
                    Besides industry, competent TK from the customer and competent prioritization are still needed. If instead of Fau the Germans would engage in MLRS (or SAM), you see the war would go a little differently - but the gloomy German genius + genius of the Fuhrer is a specific thing ...

                    I agree.

                    In addition, the Germans were sorely lacking in raw materials. In addition, the US industry was still the most advanced at that time ... what is worth one atomic project.
                    but this is a completely different story.

                    Quote: aiw
                    Where to our IL-2 with their PTABs

                    Having recovered from the shock, the German tankers, just a few days after the start of the battle, switched exclusively to dispersed marching and pre-battle orders. Naturally, this greatly complicated the management of tank units and subunits, increased the time for their deployment, concentration and redeployment, and complicated the interaction between them. The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased approximately 4-4,5 times, remaining, however, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation bombs. The IL-2 attack aircraft
                    IN AND. Perov, O.V. Rastrenin
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 25 June 2016 17: 40
                      +4
                      > The effectiveness of Il-2 strikes with the use of PTAB decreased by about 4-4,5 times, while remaining, on average, 2-3 times higher than with the use of high-explosive and high-explosive bombs.

                      This is what we are talking about. It somehow does not look like 2% of Heinkel ;-) Here EMNIP was a good article about German PTABs, they didn’t have a stone flower (although they tried).

                      > what to do, they still argue whether the Tiger was needed or it is enough to fill up all with fours, alas, such a concept of the whole war is exclusive everywhere, experts, etc.

                      Arnold (mathematician) has long answered this question - ceteris paribus, the party using mass and cheap units, albeit with reduced performance characteristics, wins. Actually 2MV confirmed this. Alas...

                      > modern yes, but the then .. the Germans tried very hard to have an accurate RZSO, they got it all in vain, and "such a rassev" was not at all necessary.

                      Well, this is the question of competent TK fellow

                      Well, about science and industry - with all due respect to Germany, people like Zeldovich worked on this subject with us - but they are the first in the world and developed the theory of combustion in turbojet engines. Of course, one can also attribute to the competent distribution of goals and the use of intellectual resources ...
                    2. aiw
                      aiw 25 June 2016 17: 51
                      +1
                      > (if the photo is not visible, please inform plzh)

                      Can not see;-(
                      1. Stas57
                        Stas57 25 June 2016 18: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: aiw
                        Can not see;-(



                  2. Winnie76
                    Winnie76 26 June 2016 21: 31
                    +1
                    Quote: aiw
                    The thing against the tanks was about the same level.

                    “The Ju-87 can no longer be used on any front, not even in the East. For example, my squadron lost 89 crews in eight months. On a yearly basis, this corresponds to a 100 percent renewal of flight personnel.

                    Check out Hans Ulrich Rudel's "Pilot Stuff". Very interesting. By the way, he bombed ... yes, my beloved city, but skill and courage cannot be taken away from him
                    And here is the Wiki data regarding the effectiveness of the thing in skillful hands:

                    According to official data from the Luftwaffe [3], Rudel made 2530 sorties (the largest number among the pilots of World War II). Destroyed about 2000 pieces of military equipment, including: 519 tanks, 800 vehicles, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing barges, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, two cruisers and the battleship Marat [4]

                    Most of the sorties took place on various modifications of the Yu-87 “Shtuk” dive bomber, which, according to Rudel, became extremely effective for destroying tanks after installing two 37 mm caliber cannons in the underwing gondolas [5] [Note. 1]. The "piece" in the anti-tank version (Ju-87G) was called Kanonenvogel (with it. - "bird with a gun") or Panzerknacker [Note. 2]. The cannon also made it possible to successfully fight the Soviet "flying tanks" - armored Il-2 attack aircraft [6].
            2. Mikhail Matyugin
              Mikhail Matyugin 25 June 2016 17: 06
              +1
              Quote: Stas57
              Well, they were unbelievable, the shot on the barrel greatly exceeded ours.
              and they nra ...

              In addition to the Nebelwoofers, they still had a lot of all kinds of varieties of them.
              1. Bayonet
                Bayonet 26 June 2016 20: 05
                0
                Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
                In addition to the Nebelwoofers, they still had a lot of all kinds of varieties of them.

                Even such a monster, on the chassis of the Tiger - Sturmtiger (Sturmtiger).
                The main weapon of the Sturmtiger was the 380-mm ship’s rocket bomb Raketenwerfer 61 (army designation 38 cm RW61 or StuM RM 61 L / 5) with a barrel length of 5,4 calibers. The bomb was mounted in the frontal deckhouse in a ball mount. The Sturmtiger was armed with 380mm. charged from the breech with a short-barrel mortar Raketenwerfer 61 L / 5.4, which shot at close range (4600-6000 m.) with huge missile shells of great destructive power
            3. Bayonet
              Bayonet 26 June 2016 19: 56
              0
              Quote: Stas57
              one question - and what for is it to them?

              But they had an anti-tank modification of the Piece - Ju-87G-1. On this flew the famous ace Hans Ulrich Rudel. Preferred to beat in the engine compartment, where the reservation is weak. God knows how many tanks he actually knocked out, but 500 flashes in print!
              1. da Vinci
                da Vinci 28 June 2016 20: 25
                +1
                Sometimes I think about fascist assy: well, this fighter destroyed 500 tanks, read one tank army of the USSR. And there were a lot of such aces, and also super Wehrmacht tankers who destroyed hundreds of Russians. What did they lose? wink
        2. faiver
          faiver 25 June 2016 16: 26
          +1
          well, in April 45 the Germans threw everything into battle and not only "things", but also British tanks of the First World War, but this does not make the latter super weapons :)
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 25 June 2016 11: 07
      +5
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      The only thing I would like to note is that there is still a persistent myth about this supposedly "superweapon", which allegedly remained top secret for the Nazis for almost the entire war. But even TOPWAR published photo reports showing the Katyushas captured by the Germans back in 1941.

      there is such
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 25 June 2016 12: 32
        +5
        BM-13 on the "interesting" Fordson WOT8 chassis (30-cwt (1½-ton), 4x4.
    3. avdkrd
      avdkrd 25 June 2016 19: 43
      +7
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      The only thing I would like to note is that there is still a persistent myth about this supposedly "superweapon", which allegedly remained top secret for the Nazis for almost the entire war. But even TOPWAR published photo reports showing the Katyushas captured by the Germans back in 1941.

      For the Germans, the captured installations did not become a revelation, in addition, the accuracy of the BM-13 was worse than the German counterparts. German installations were more perfect (Nebelwerfer 41 for example) and were more accurate due to the turbojet effect. The concept of using RZSO in the Soviet Army and the Wehrmacht was fundamentally different. The Wehrmacht used MLRS as a matter of fact as conventional artillery, and we used massive strikes, since 1942. began to form regiments of rocket artillery. At the initial stage of the war (until 1943), the BM-13 had an advantage in maneuverability, and its high manufacturability (ease of production) made it possible to "rivet" it until 1945. 197 thousand installations (various modifications). At the end, the army had 40 separate divisions, 105 regiments, 40 brigades and 7 divisions of rocket artillery. A salvo of all installations was equivalent to a salvo of 5000 art regiments (exaggerating, of course). Accordingly, the role of the MLRS and the effect of the use by the Wehrmacht is negligible compared to the Red Army.
      The Germans are very persistent in their delusions, one might say consistent. While the gloomy Teutonic genius was creating wunderwales in the form of "Mouse", "King Tiger", FAU-1,2 and jet aircraft, in fact, simply "burning" resources and wasting time, Soviet designers issued simple and effective weapons systems. BM-13 in a row with T-34 and IL-2.
      1. Beefeater
        Beefeater 25 June 2016 21: 50
        +2
        It's not about the number of installations; it's just a block of guides.
        The matter is in carriers - all-wheel drive vehicles, and in missile shells, and in the end in special rocket fuel. As soon as the problem with cars and gunpowder was solved, the process began.
        The royal tiger, too, was not made from a good life. The tiger could fight a dozen Shermans and T34. T4 could basically fight one on one.
        So it was necessary to create as many T4 as the T34 and Sherman were created, that is, 100 pieces.
    4. Alex
      Alex 25 June 2016 22: 42
      +6
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      the question of the types of charges that were used in the rocket artillery installations was not completely addressed.

      But the meaning. At VO there was a whole series of articles about PCs and installations, in detail, with technical calculations and drawings (where they managed to get it). And this is so, an article for the sake of an article, nothing new or interesting. The author is frankly not in the subject.
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 26 June 2016 12: 31
        +2
        Quote: Alex
        And the point. VO had a whole series of articles about PCs and installations, in detail, with technical calculations and drawings (where they managed to get it).

        Here is a good series of articles about the rocket since the Second World War.
        https://topwar.ru/49120-nemeckie-aviacionnye-reaktivnye-snaryady-vtoroy-mirovoy-
        voyny.html

        https://topwar.ru/48602-britanskie-i-amerikanskie-aviacionnye-reaktivnye-snaryad
        y-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyny.html

        https://topwar.ru/47280-sovetskie-aviacionnye-reaktivnye-snaryady-v-gody-voyny.h
        tml

        https://topwar.ru/44774-britanskaya-i-amerikanskaya-reaktivnaya-artilleriya-vtor
        oy-mirovoy.html

        https://topwar.ru/43512-nemeckaya-reaktivnaya-artilleriya-v-gody-voyny-chast-2-y
        a.html

        https://topwar.ru/43510-nemeckaya-reaktivnaya-artilleriya-v-gody-voyny-chast-1-y
        a.html
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 June 2016 12: 49
    +3
    So is the plant to them. "Comintern" was evacuated from Voronezh to Chimkent (Kazakhstan), where he released them. My grandfather worked on it. The installations won over with their massiveness and unpretentiousness.
  11. Yarik
    Yarik 25 June 2016 15: 22
    0
    aiw (1) RU Today, 10:21 ↑ New
    Well, actually it was a superweapon - cheap, mobile with great firepower. The same as PPSh, T-34, etc. The mass and firepower of Katyush allowed for appropriate tactics of application, which had an impact on the course of strategic operations.

    The Germans had their own MLRS, but not with this price-quality ratio.

    Mostly, not with such a ratio of quality-quantity. With all due respect. wink
    1. Yarik
      Yarik 25 June 2016 23: 51
      0
      Well, here are the predicted cons. Pretriyatam.Idiots clear that stabilized (not through the wings laughing ) is the projectile more stable? "Wings", quite right, are cheap. So they got it.
  12. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 25 June 2016 20: 59
    +4
    Quote: aiw

    Barreled artillery MLRS does not replace. Gloomy German is so gloomy - let's say they could not create a nominal cumulative PTAB.

    And it never occurred to you that maybe the "Gloomy German Genius" did not need the vaunted PTAB. They made it, google "SD-4 HL, but it didn't really take root in the army. An interesting point - there was not a single mention of" terrible PTABs "in the memoirs of German tankers.
    1. Beefeater
      Beefeater 25 June 2016 21: 36
      +1
      Quote: BORMAN82
      Quote: aiw

      Barreled artillery MLRS does not replace. Gloomy German is so gloomy - let's say they could not create a nominal cumulative PTAB.

      And it never occurred to you that maybe the "Gloomy German Genius" did not need the vaunted PTAB. They made it, google "SD-4 HL, but it didn't really take root in the army. An interesting point - there was not a single mention of" terrible PTABs "in the memoirs of German tankers.

      This is explained more than simply.
      The percentage of an uncontrolled bomb falling into a tank dropped from a plane moving at high speed and having no instruments for calculating the flight path of these bombs was extremely small. This is rather an accidental process.
      I have seen an interview with a Soviet tanker who survived the German attack. The whole tank was cut by shrapnel and the entire "kit" - tanks, tarpaulin, cables ... but the tank remained unharmed
    2. aiw
      aiw 26 June 2016 01: 35
      0
      https://topwar.ru/67300-istoriya-odnoy-zhestyanki-chast-pervaya.html

      Compare the performance characteristics of the German bomb and ours. It is clear why the German did not take root ... you can’t call it normal.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 26 June 2016 10: 15
        0
        There, the author indicates the wrong characteristics of the armor penetration of the German "SD-4 HL" -60mm at an angle of 60 ° (120mm normal) is enough to defeat the horizontal armor of any WWII tank.
        1. aiw
          aiw 26 June 2016 12: 01
          0
          Enough of course, the author does not argue with this. Only to defeat it is necessary:

          1) get into the tank - and SD4 is a healthy fool and the load of the plane, respectively, turned out to be small

          2) the bomb should explode - and in SD4, the cast-iron case was brittle (and shortened the fuse wiring), then some garbage.
          1. Bormanxnumx
            Bormanxnumx 26 June 2016 13: 14
            0
            The author writes about the penetration of 60mm along the normal and "smears" that: "The power of the cumulative jet at critical angles of inclination dropped sharply and could be insufficient for the upper armor of the T-34 (15–20 millimeters)." , and for fascists up to 100mm is not enough what
            Do not get excited about the dimensions of the SD4: "By 1943, having summarized and analyzed the experience of the combat use of PTAB-2,5-1,5, the specialists of the Air Force Research Institute issued the TsKB-22 task to develop an anti-tank bomb in the dimensions of 10-kg aviation ammunition, but weighing 2,5 , 10 kg (PTAB-2,5-XNUMX) "They were able to bring it to mind only at the end of the war - there were serious problems with the correct operation of the fuse.
            1. aiw
              aiw 26 June 2016 19: 16
              +1
              About a stream - a stream a stream of discord. There is no guarantee that a jet that burns normally 120 mm will burn 60-15 mm at 20 degrees. The cumulative ammunition is a rather complicated joke actually. The author describes in sufficient detail that the Germans could not pick up the optimal explosive charge.

              As for the PTABs, our 1.5-2.5 weighed EMNIP half the size of the German one + operation reliability + mass production and competent tactics of application. E-May, well, everything is written in the article ...
  13. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 26 June 2016 08: 07
    -1
    What nonsense ??????

    In addition to World War II, BM-13 was used during the conflicts in Korea (1950-1953) and Afghanistan (1979-1989).


    OKSVA used in Afghanistan a lot and all sorts of MLRS, but the BM-13 ?????

    I don’t know about the Korean wars, maybe they used it, but given the blunder about Afghanistan, I begin to doubt whether they used BM-13 in Korea or were there already the best MLRS?
  14. Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 26 June 2016 09: 34
    +3
    I agree with those commentators who believe that the article is mediocre, the school level is 7-8 class.
    The article is a repetition of the “truths” known for many, many years, some of them are probably objective correspond to reality, and some are very controversial.
    For example, the role of Langemak and Kleimenov are controversial in the creation of a combat vehicle, and indeed the development of rocket technology. In particular, Korolev himself had a very low opinion of them. Of course, they were close to Marshal Tukhachevsky, then deputy commissar of defense for armaments, and enjoyed his support. And there was no patron and they disappeared, and the professional Korolev, although not white and fluffy either, but still professional specialist stayed and realized in business.
    Yes, and the rehabilitation of Langemak and Kleimenov received from Khrushchev’s hands, including the first of the “victims of Stalin’s repressions,” and then a posthumous very high award, but does not adorn Gorbachev.
    There is not a single word, neither bad nor good, they simply did not even mention Kostikov AG, but he is the author of the invention of a combat vehicle.
    When nothing is written about a man, the author of a combat vehicle, then it becomes incomprehensible why?
    If you are a bad person, you must write a bad person, and if you are a good person, he is a good person, one of the inventors of the combat vehicle.
    When there is nothing about one of the authors of the development, then it turns out they cannot write bad, but they don’t want good.
    These questions should be considered in the VO, and not retelling from popular literature.
  15. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 26 June 2016 10: 03
    +4
    Quote: Ivan Tartugay
    I agree with those commentators who believe that the article is mediocre, the school level is 7-8 class.

    Exactly ! The main feature of Voennoye Obozreniye is that it contains high-quality military analytics, and not "articles for the sake of articles." Often such materials are posted that are absent or almost absent on the Russian-language Internet. Let's hope that the level will only rise.
  16. Cynic
    Cynic 4 July 2016 12: 31
    0
    Katyusha, Katyusha, but do not forget others