Military Review

Weapon winners. Fighter "Spitfire"

342
Weapon winners. Fighter "Spitfire"



... Britain rules the seas, but air is more important than water. In the battles with the Luftwaffe, a superhero was born, grinding in the sky a good third of Germany aviation in the second world war. His name is “Supermarine Spitfire” (“Ardent”).

It is curious that the creator of the legendary machine, aircraft designer Reginald Mitchell, did not have a specialized education. The lack of a diploma was compensated by the tremendous experience in engineering positions. From a draftsman at a locomotive building plant to a technical director of the company Supermarin.

Over the years, Mitchell designed the 24 type of various aircraft, including the record-breaking “Supermarine S6B” (1931). Looking at modern airliners, it is impossible to imagine how this raskalochny monoplane with ridiculous floats could accelerate to 650 km / h. Even a decade later, in the early years of WWII, not a single serial fighter could boast of such a result.

An experienced designer knew that the main resistance in flight is created by the wing. In pursuit of speed, you need to reduce its area. Reduce it so that modern cruise missiles instead of wings stick only short "appendages". But the plane is not a rocket. Too small a wing will lead to an unacceptable increase in landing speeds. The car will break on the lane. But what if instead of solid ground - water that can soften the blow? And Mitchell put his S6B on the floats. The merry flying boat broke all records, and its creator received the prefix “sir” to its name.

The games continued until an order for a promising fighter for the Royal Air Force appeared. The competition was not easy, seven well-known companies submitted applications for participation (Bristol, Hawker, Westland, Blackburn, Gloucester, Vikkers and Supermarine). Initially, the model “Supermarine” hopelessly “poured” competitors, and Mitchell's bold plans did not find application in practice. Until the correct configuration of the elements appeared: an ellipsoid wing of amazing beauty and grace, a thin profile elliptical tail and the Rolls-Royce Marilyn motor with a reliable liquid cooling system.

But what kind of romance without women?

Special role in stories “Spitfire” was played by Lucy Houston. British aristocratic woman who donated 100 to Mitchell thousand fn. Sterling. It was solid money: in those years, four serial fighters could be built on them. In fact, she sponsored the creation of one of the most successful aircraft of the Second World War, which without it simply would not have appeared.


Here the force of the explosion bleeds the blood with water,
But even then, harsh and strong,
Fragment of the aircraft steering wheel
Do not let the dead hand ...

(The wreckage of the "Spitfire" off the coast of Malta)

When Mitchell was told how beautiful his plane was with such an elegant wing, he indifferently shrugged his shoulders: “What is the difference, the main thing is how many machine guns can be thrust into this wing”. And there they fit as many as eight pieces - 160 bullets per second. Although weak, rifle caliber (7,62).

In fact, it is very weak for the initial period of WWII on a “purebred” interceptor fighter designed for battles with their own kind. A bullet, no matter how “small” it is, yet a bullet. It was enough just one hit in the engine "Messerschmitt" to refuse the entire cooling system (which is true for any aircraft with in-line engine with a vulnerable "jacket" liquid cooling). And more such bullets were produced per second than modern six-barreled miniguns produce. The air was literally soaked with traces of hot lead. “Spitfire” was not created for jokes.

Almost simultaneously, the fighter’s “gun” modification was launched into the series, with two 20-mm “Ispano” cannons in the wing. Installation was easy (even easier than the standard “garlands” of machine guns), but fixing it turned out to be a problem. “Ispano” was intended for installation in the collapse of the cylinder block, where its carriage became a heavy motor. When installed in the wing had to design a new carriage and increase the rigidity of the structure.

Armament fighter continuously evolved.

The “Spitfires” of the 1942 model of the year already had mixed gun and machine gun weapons. The latest modifications were equipped exclusively with guns. It should be noted that following the results of the air battles of the Second World Question, “What is more effective: guns or“ garlands ”of machine guns?” Remained without an unequivocal answer.


"Spitfire" and its faithful companion "Mustang"


As, however, and the choice of the engine. Despite its increased vulnerability, liquid-cooled motors ensured better streamlining and improved aircraft aerodynamics. Unlike the USSR, Germany and the USA, which used a wide range of aircraft with engines of liquid and air cooling, the British flew off the entire war exclusively on engines with liquid cooling. The Rolls-Royce Merlin became the permanent symbol of the Royal Air Force, named after the bird of prey of the Falcons detachment (or did anyone seriously believe that the engine of the combat aircraft was named after the wizard of Oz?)

Exceptionally reliable and versatile engine, which shavers put on everything. From one “Marilyn” was obtained “Spitfire”. Of the two - "Mosquito". Of the four - a strategic “Lancaster”. The prevalence of “Marilyn” is indicated by the fact that the number of modifications of the main “branch” of the motor development was through numbering from “1” to “85”. Excluding licensed copies and experimental directions.

In the “Ardent” dynasty, there were also a dozen major modifications: from the “primitive” pre-war version of Mark-I to the crazy Mark-21, 22, 24 already delivered in the last months of WWII. Extended fuselage, teardrop lamp, bomb holders. Maximum speed in horizontal flight - 730 km / h.

In 1944, during the tests, the pilot Martindale dispersed such a “Spitfire” to a peak of 0,92 sound speed (1000 km / h) at the peak, setting an absolute record for the WWW piston fighters.

After the war, in 1952, the weather reconnaissance (Spitfire of 81 Squadron based in Hong Kong) reached a record height of 15 700 meters.



According to its characteristics and design, these were completely new aircraft, which retained only the name of the original “Spitfire”. Inside, there was no Marilyn, instead, starting with version XII, a new Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was installed. The British well squandered cylinders, bringing the working volume to 36,7 liters (10 liters more than the “Merlin”). At the same time, thanks to the efforts of the designers, the dimensions of the motor remained unchanged, only the weight increased by 300 kg.

A double-supercharger “Griffons” could have produced a 2100-2200 hp in flight, the German Uberingeners did not even dream of that. However, this was partially the merit of high-quality gasoline with an octane rating of 100 and higher.

The simpler modifications of Spitfire, the “winged workers' wars,” also shook the sky blue with the power of their engines. As an example - the most popular model Mk.IX (1942 year, 5900 built copies.).

1575 hp takeoff power Speed ​​in horizontal flight - 640 km / h. Magnificent rate of climb - 20 m / s in steady state. In dynamics - who knows how much? Many tens of meters per second.

The fighter’s high-altitude quality was provided by a two-stage centrifugal supercharger and Bendix-Stromberg American carburetors with automatic mixture control (high-altitude corrector).

All-metal construction. High altitude oxygen system. Radio-coupled multi-channel radio station. On the “Spitfires IX” of the British Air Force, the R3002 (3090) “friend-foe” system is required.

The armament is two 20-mm cannons (120 shells per barrel) and two Browning caliber 12,7 mm (500 ammunition). On the part of the machines instead of large-caliber machine guns stood four rifle caliber.

Shock armament - 500-fnl. a bomb on the ventral holder and two 250-fnl. under the wings.

Among the records of “Nine”:

She owns the first reliable case of the destruction of the reactive Messerschmitt (5 Oct. 1944)

On the same “Spitfire” in March 1945, the air defense pilots intercepted a German high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft flying over 11 kilometers over Leningrad.

In September, 1945, a record leap was made from the cab of “Nine”. Pilot V. Romanyuk jumped out of the 13 108 meters with a parachute and landed safely on the ground.

In total, the Soviet Union hit 1,3 thousand Spitfires. The first aircraft appeared in 1942 as part of the 118th Regiment of the Northern Aviation Aviation fleet. These scouts (mod.PR Mk.IV) made a significant contribution to the victory in the North, incommensurable with their number. Thanks to its high-altitude and speed qualities, Spitfires could fly with impunity over German bases in Norway. They “grazed” the parking of the battleship “Tirpitz” in the Kaa Fjord.

Another batch of aircraft appeared in the spring of 1943 of the year (this was the first time that the “Spitfires” were officially shipped abroad). The fighters of the Mk.V modification were immediately thrown into the Kuban “meat grinder” as part of the 57 Guards Iap, where they showed quite successful results (for the month 26 air victories).

From February 1944, large deliveries of the “Spitfires” of version IX began. Taking into account the high-altitude qualities of these fighters (the “Spitfire” had a greater ceiling per 3 kilometer than the domestic La-7), all British fighters were sent to air defense aviation.

Statistics instead of words

According to Black Cross / Red Star (Black cross / Red star, by Andrei Mikhailov and Krister Bergstrom), one of the most comprehensive reference books on air resistance during the WWII years, as of October, Luftwaffe lost 1944 in the East 21 213 aircraft front.

Over the same period, the losses of the Luftwaffe in the Western theater of operations accounted for the 42331 aircraft. If you add more 9980 German planes lost during the 1939-41 period, then the full statistics will become 21213 to 52311.

Indirectly, these calculations are confirmed by the adoption of the “Urgent Fighter Program” to protect the Reich (1944 year, Hitler's decision to curtail the production of all types of aircraft, except fighters). All sorts of stories about the allies fighting with jet Messerschmitts, He.219 “Wuhu”, strategic four-engined bombers He.177 “Graf” and FW-190 modifications of “Sturmbock”, which were not heard on the Eastern front.

You can compare the figures of the Luftwaffe with the facts of sinking thousands of ships in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. All this required bombers and torpedo bombers, under the guise of fighters. Who made combat missions and, of course, suffered losses. The attack of the Maltese convoys, air cover during the “Cerberus” operation, a massive raid of thousands of German aircraft on Allied airfields (Operation Bodenplatte, January 1 1945) with painful losses for both sides, etc. etc.

And at the same time take into account the scale of the air battle for Britain.

Given all this, it becomes clear why the main part of the Luftwaffe died in the West theater.

Where the main and most massive adversary of the Germans in the air was the “Supermarine Spitfire”, which ditched at least one third of all fascist aviation during the war years. The logical result for the 20 thous. Fighters, continuously produced from the beginning to the very end of WWII, and every day, during the 6 years, engaged in battles with the Luftwaffe.

Author:
342 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. surrozh
    surrozh 29 June 2016 06: 01
    +12
    "Merlin" could be produced only in England thanks to hereditary highly skilled locksmiths. When the license with the documentation was transferred to the United States, such personnel were not there, and the US fighters with the Merlin did not reach the characteristics expected in theory in practice.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 29 June 2016 08: 21
      +12
      And yet all Mustangs flew on Packard engines - licensed Merlin. And they flew well. And they had to put Packard on them because with the American Allison, which was originally planned for them, the prototypes of the Mustang were very mediocre, so much so that they thought to close the project.
      1. avt
        avt 29 June 2016 08: 51
        +2
        Quote: Nagan
        And yet all Mustangs flew on Packard engines - licensed Merlin. And they flew well.

        Well, yes. Without "Merlin" actually as such, the legend about the best fighter, "Mustang" and would not have been. Yes, actually, almost as a carbon copy, Mikoyan repeated after the war with the English jet engines already to create his legendary airplane.
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 29 June 2016 11: 16
          +10
          Quote: avt
          Well, yes. Without "Merlin" actually as such, the legend about the best fighter, "Mustang" and would not have been. Yes, actually, almost as a carbon copy, Mikoyan repeated after the war with the English jet engines already to create his legendary airplane.

          And now let's check how many patriots know that the famous MiG-15 is based on the no less famous Rolls-Royce Nene, which in the USSR was called RD-45.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 11: 45
            +2
            Nene-2 ​​upgraded to VK-1 Klimov and not Mikoyan. There were some better alternatives to this dead end engine direction.
          2. Tihas
            Tihas 29 June 2016 14: 52
            -1
            And Gagarinsky "Vostok-1" is FAU-2. laughing
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 06
              +2
              aha, very "similar", and most importantly he also flew like American missiles of the same SS man, on alcohol ...
          3. gladcu2
            gladcu2 30 June 2016 17: 27
            +3
            Mik13

            Rolls-Royce would not be able to copy if there were no Soviet school of jet engines. And do not forget that the transfer of all nodes from the imperial system to the international system is at least 50% of the work. What bad engineers can’t do.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 June 2016 17: 36
              0
              If the Yankees had not thrown the British out of the atomic project, and to maintain the global balance of forces of the Soviet aviation and the aircraft industry, it would not have been necessary to impose this "Whittle machine" with a large cross section, which, after some improvement in the USSR, then naturally did not evolve into anything.
    2. 11 black
      11 black 29 June 2016 16: 12
      +7
      Don’t believe it - I identified Oleg Kaptsov by the title. laughing
      Oleg - be honest - weapons Assistants winners!
      Weapon Winners - here.
    3. nimboris
      nimboris 30 June 2016 04: 52
      +1
      My favorite plane to Wartander
  2. noWAR
    noWAR 29 June 2016 06: 03
    +22
    Oleg "well done", beautiful article laughing . I don’t understand one thing - why so draw to the west, specifically and exponentially.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 29 June 2016 06: 08
      +8
      Green card fulfills
      1. noWAR
        noWAR 29 June 2016 06: 17
        +5
        Perhaps, in the very first sentence of the title, call them "winners" and with a capital letter ... Oleg, finish your English lessons and write in foreign press, "success" is guaranteed. Not at ease from such "rezunov". Of course IMHO.
        1. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian 29 June 2016 08: 47
          -1
          Not at ease from such "cutters"
          Really, sensibly and solely, the military snappettes of the Soviet army deserve to be described on Russian-language resources. Not by themselves from such unpatriots ..
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 29 June 2016 09: 43
            +8
            it would be something, you even have caps of honor guard on the island - a gift from the Russian tsar
            1. Anglorussian
              Anglorussian 30 June 2016 00: 06
              0
              it would be something, you even have caps of honor guard on the island - a gift from the Russian tsar
              Bear hats for hats come from Canada. Recently, by preference from Inuit hunters who control the number of bears by means of planned shootings. And didn’t the Russian Tsar deliver ivory to the court? laughing
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 15
                +2
                Where Inuit, bears, like hats, are white. Therefore, do not repeat the yellow press. Not so long ago they were taken for restoration to Russia and partly presented as yet.
                Much of the fossilized mammoth bone from Siberia was delivered much more than elephant ivory, and it was valued higher, so you guessed it.
                Even England, from the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible to the Crimean War, drank Ivan tea very well, which in general is not very bad and many, unlike the Indian, could afford it.
                1. Anglorussian
                  Anglorussian 30 June 2016 00: 30
                  -5
                  Where Inuit, bears, like hats, are white
                  The shores of Hudson bay, where Inuit also live (and shoot), are at the latitude of Yaroslavl. And even Inuit live on Newfoundland is the latitude of Volgograd. The bears are black and brown there.
                  the mammoth bone from Siberia is delivered much more than the ivory
                  Mammoth is not ivory. her and distinguish at a glance easily. Or are we still smarting up?
                  1. Papandopulo
                    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 52
                    +1
                    Inuit are ecimos. Mammoth bone is much denser and firmer. Mammoth is the elephant. I think it will be difficult for you.
                    1. Anglorussian
                      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 02
                      -4
                      Inuit are ecimos
                      And they also live on the shores of Hudson bay and Newfoundland, and shoot brown and black bears. The hides are shipped to Britain where hats have been made for ceremonial use since the time of the Battle of Waterloo. No king gives them.
                      Mammoth is the elephant
                      How many paleontologists have fought over this thesis, but you know for sure. All the same, this is not an elephant, whose homeland Russia is obviously.
                      1. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 24
                        +2
                        Inuit live in the Arctic, which is white as are the meteorologists. In the rest of Canada, Indians live. The Hudson Bay Company supplied beavers and went bankrupt when demand for hats fell.
                        Scientists are united in this opinion, see Wikipedia.
                        Since the remains of mammoths are most found in Siberia and Siberia is Russia, and the Indian and African elephant are much smaller in size than the mammoth, that is, they are its reduced form, then yes - it is. Weight matters ... Also on elephants in low latitudes there was a rare outer coat of hair, which means they used to be hairy. And about the fact that hats are a gift of the Russian Tsar, you can just ask the guard if the Internet is far away.
                      2. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 38
                        -4
                        if the internet is far away.
                        Do not believe it, it is nearby. Look at the Inuit area in the same place (not only the Arctic, they went down to the south). Hudson Bay (Hudson Bay) is first of all a geographical name (Factory Moscow Dawn Moscow). And the elephant is not a mammoth. Although it is possible that the relationship is true.
                      3. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 48
                        +3
                        Inuit is Nunavut, etc. Hudson crushing this ice bag, the bears there are white.
                        Mammoth is an elephant. The origin of the caps is at the guard.
                      4. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 55
                        -3
                        Hudson crushing this ice bag, the bears there are white.
                        In winter, the Gulf of Finland ice bag, so what?
                        The origin of the caps is at the guard
                        British military historians also seem to be in the subject. (Moreover, PETA fighting vegans)
                        Mammoth is an elephant
                        Papandopulo is a paleontologist.
                      5. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 02: 17
                        0
                        The fact that winter is longer there and polar bears roam in garbage dumps.

                        At the guard first hand.

                        No, but I was going to
                        Google mammoth
                        Mammoths - Wikipedia
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мамонты
                        Translate this page
                        Mammoths (Latin: Mammuthus) is an extinct genus of mammals from the elephant family. They reached a height of 5,5 meters and a body weight of 10-12 tons. Thus, mammoths were twice as heavy as the largest modern terrestrial mammals - African elephants.
                      6. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 02: 22
                        -3
                        Sir, you are talking nonsense. Even by the standards of this site.
                        white bears roam the trash.
                        Bears go shopping in Khabarovsk smile And in South Africa, leopards climb the garbage bins. And in Oceania, land crabs. belay So what?
                      7. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 02: 41
                        0
                        the fact that they are not brown and they go round there culturally for the most part on Soviet-made armored amphibians
                        it’s my business to warn you, as I understand it - to assert oneself
                      8. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 02: 45
                        -2
                        your understand so - to assert oneself
                        No way ... I just don't like liars. Allergy.
                      9. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 03: 01
                        +3
                        This is usually an autoimmune disorder, good riddance ...
                      10. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 03: 05
                        0
                        This is usually an autoimmune disorder, good riddance ...
                        Normal people just don’t tolerate liars to the scent ...
                      11. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 03: 12
                        +1
                        But noormal here in your humble opinion - who?

                        I don’t like the fact that the guard of honor of a small country that did so many dirty tricks of mine and where almost one trash like Berezovsky and Chechen flows from Russia, hats donated by the Russian Tsar from Russian bears.

                        but someone here, this fact came directly to the gallbladder
                      12. Anglorussian
                        Anglorussian 30 June 2016 03: 29
                        -5
                        I do not like the fact that the guard of honor of a small country
                        I kind of explained to you that this is a lie. Sleep well, your shaving bears do not kill.
                        donated by the Russian Tsar from Russian bears.
                        What is the name of the autocrat? And what, from the Battle of Waterloo to the present, innocent bears have poured blood over the lust of the Britons?
                      13. Papandopulo
                        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 04: 04
                        +4
                        What did you explain about the fact that the English tabloids are destructive even on such a psyche? Which begins to confuse Indians with Eskimos and polar bears with brown?

                        You do not care about Russian tsars ... already.
                    2. Anglorussian
                      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 03: 30
                      -4
                      But noormal here in your humble opinion - who?
                      Well, not you definitely.
                    3. Papandopulo
                      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 04: 05
                      +2
                      Definitely this is not your immodest business at all, watch yourself.

                      especially since you liked this article
  3. Anglorussian
    Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 41
    -5
    ask the guard
    It is from the site of British popular history (and even among animal wardens) that all this info was obtained by me. Or did the kings pay tribute to these hats with Waterloo?
  4. Papandopulo
    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 50
    +3
    It was at the guard, and not from "different sites".
    The usual royal gift.
  5. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 June 2016 15: 47
    0
    Is animal advocate greenpeace? Well stupid ... laughing
  6. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 1 July 2016 00: 03
    +1
    Greenpeace never does anything for the loot that is given to his shares for some reason.
  • Anglorussian
    Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 06
    -2
    Inuit are ecimos
    Inuit is an official self-name, and the Eskimo is actually slang since the days of the colonists. And call the Canadian Inuit native, the Eskimo, you will have problems, as if you called the Russian m-k-lem.
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 31
      0
      So the children have flowers and their women do not have ice cream with the same name? Well then we’ll eat it myself.
      Yes, I actually do not care about their complexes after they did with the Danish language and everything else in Greenland. At least the local ones behave worse than the Maori or Australoids nearby. Soon, too, they will begin to walk on their heads. Prior to that, about the same time during the first colonization of Viking ate - it is not clear how the Danes stepped on the same rake.
    2. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 01: 48
      -2
      . At least the local ones behave worse than Maori or Australoids.
      And you are a connoisseur of the northern peoples more than Jack London. Danes and other Europeans are 12% there and no one eats them there. The crime rate there is lower than in Denmark and there are no prisons! That is, convicts can have the keys to their cameras and hunts with a firearm (under supervision).
    3. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 02: 00
      +1
      Why would they put each other in jail like this? They canceled Danish as the state language, they wanted to enter English but didn’t enter, they didn’t leave Denmark, money was being pulled from Denmark, half of the Aboriginal people became translators from their own into these languages, they used punishment for using Danish and English, eight years ago when all the whites escaped, they froze the only multi-story building with central heating and it collapsed (now they brought in new ones to service the boilers), go to the website of their newly rebuilt single university and look at the list of subjects, class schedules and also list of vacancies, drink rum or whiskey go to sleep and do not go there.
      You can go to Iceland ...
    4. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 02: 10
      -1
      for using Danish and English punishment
      Shooting by hanging in a gas chamber?
      when all white fled
      Is it in the distant future?
      frozen the only multi-story building
      There roads are better than in Moscow.
      go to bed and do not go there.
      The burden of a white person is not necessary to carry there? We will take a word. sad I’m going there next summer, now I’ll find out how and what.
    5. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 02: 38
      0
      they will impose a fine that you cannot pay and will be sent to a non-captive zindan. they will not give a gunshot, they will call the consul for a long time ...

      Okay, and do not forget to go to the university website.

      I don’t think that something has changed much on it, but it’s not enough
    6. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 02: 50
      -2
      and do not forget to go to the university website.
      Locals prefer colonial host universities. Is there nothing about Danish universities?
      imprisoned in unshakable shindan
      This is what they do in Russian regions, and even then not everywhere. There you just need to come to the prison at 6-30 after work or a date. And on the hunt, with his firearm under the supervision of a guard. Share with him is considered to be bad manners. Do not know, do not pollute the Internet, under-paleontologist.
    7. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 03: 00
      0
      universities of colonial servants, crushed by multiculturalism, do not prefer local ones, so if they go to the USA

      Glenladia is not an Arab country (you can drown some water in Ramadan there and without saying a word to sit down either) and not the Russian region, but nonetheless

      did you see the wikipedia about the mammoths if you don’t forget Russian just to be rude on the Internet?
    8. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 03: 09
      -1
      on the Internet rudeness?
      Who is it, who is still engaged in rudeness, a paleontologist-geographer-military historian?
      I saw a wikipedia about mammoths,
      Yes. They kind of came from Africa to Eurasia. Have you seen?
      glenlad is not an arab country
      However, the discovery, doctor.
      universities of colonial servants, crushed by multiculturalism, do not prefer local ones, so if they go to the USA
      Where is the knowledge? From which finger are sucked?
    9. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 03: 18
      0
      Have you seen that from Africa to Eurasia? I looked that the elephants and enough of you (the rest was already) ... you do not need to teach the enemy anything.

      From what - I think you know better.
    10. Anglorussian
      Anglorussian 30 June 2016 03: 25
      -3
      there’s no reason to teach you the enemy.
      Do not teach me to you. And the university in Nuuk-envy of the Russian provincial, is functioning today (you can call them) the site was updated in 2016.
      Have you seen that from Africa to Eurasia
      Your fellow paleontologists think so. You can enter into a dispute with them. By the way, which tsar supplied the British army with bear caps? And how after the revolution without gifts broke?
    11. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 04: 01
      0
      To envy? I haven’t been laughing like that for a long time!

      Yes, I see you while learning by inertia, what else have you looked there besides when the site was updated?
      My colleagues don’t think so. The topic is closed ... With caps too. But you can continue to discuss them with yourself since you are bored.
    12. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 June 2016 15: 34
      0
      Most hats are from 150 to 80 years old, they are durable if properly worn, stored and looked after. For each guardsman, 3-4 pieces. They supplied at least two tsars, Stalin (in exchange for gifts for the sword), Brezhnev and the current president. According to the guide.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 June 2016 18: 08
    0
    Keep in mind that summer there is not very different from winter, and among other things, this "country" is now competing for first place with South Korea in the number of suicides per capita.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 29 June 2016 09: 52
    +11
    Quote: Anglorussian
    Really, sensibly and solely, the military snappettes of the Soviet army deserve to be described on Russian-language resources. Not by themselves from such unpatriots ..

    We Russians have a heightened sense of justice. Write about what you want, just don't distort and underestimate the role of the Red Army. And we will reciprocate. And then I once watched a program on National Geographics about giant planes. So there, in all seriousness, one of the first places was occupied by the "Ukrainian aircraft An-124". Guys, well, you change the editors in your department there, huh? No, I do not argue that the Antonov design bureau is located in Kiev, but you are honest - a SOVIET plane. Not Russian, not Ukrainian - Soviet!
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 29 June 2016 23: 57
      +2
      Design Bureau Antonova - Novosibirsk. In Kiev since 1952, and that is not all.
      And in general, before the capital of Ukraine, Kharkov was.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 25
    +4
    Dear Oleg! The article turned out VERY GOOD! (almost reached your level in the naval theme).

    And the plane is excellent - according to the Luftwaffe pilots themselves - their most dangerous enemy in the sky. (Typhoons and Tempestas may have been technically more advanced and more dangerous, but in terms of tactical use Spit was better).

    Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
    aircraft designer Reginald Mitchell, did not have a specialized education.
    I didn’t know surprisingly - truly the amateur built Noah’s Ark, and the Titanic - certified professionals.

    Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
    In 1944, during the tests, the pilot Martindale dispersed such a “Spitfire” to a peak of 0,92 sound speed (1000 km / h) at the peak, setting an absolute record for the WWW piston fighters.
    Awesome feature, incredible to me for a piston machine. Is this accurate data?

    Quote: noWAR
    Oleg, finish your English lessons and write in foreign press, "success" is guaranteed. Not at ease from such "cutters"
    And what is his "rezunstvo" then? was the plane bad?
    1. Santa Fe
      29 June 2016 11: 39
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Awesome feature, incredible to me for a piston machine. Is this accurate data?

      Accurate

      1000 km / h at the peak - the only question is whether the design will withstand the air pressure
      Spitfire was a sturdy machine
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 June 2016 11: 52
      +1
      Reasoning in almost everything ...
      But what if instead of hard soil there is water that can soften the blow? And Mitchell put his S6B on the floats.

      Is it generally soft or wet? It was necessary to put pillows ... sir. Is scuba diving the same Lucy?

      It is worth noting that, following the results of air battles, the Second World Question “What is more effective: guns or“ garlands ”of machine guns?” and remained without a clear answer.

      Only 100 aircraft with the "C" wing were equipped with exclusively cannons to intercept bombers.
      The answer is clear - depending on why.

      The record of more than 1000 is for Fokker. English engineers are far from German. In-Line Rolls-Royce Merlin, in this regard, is the subject of jokes about mindlessly increasing power using elite engine oils.

      The eastern front accounted for at least 2/3 of the backlash losses, even according to Western estimates.
      1. Forest
        Forest 29 June 2016 13: 57
        +3
        According to American data, 56% of all aviation losses on the Eastern Front. It has become fashionable for us recently to lower the Germans' losses below the baseboard.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 14: 49
          +3
          Who do we have it? The author is an "American", he drives away one anti-Sovietism, the site publishes it without editing.
          1. Forest
            Forest 29 June 2016 19: 44
            0
            In our country, on the territory of post-Soviet countries.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 29 June 2016 21: 24
              0
              "post-Soviet" ... by the way, it is not safe everywhere, this is in addition to possible problems with legislation, including foreign
              1. Forest
                Forest 30 June 2016 02: 09
                0
                In the sense of? Kind of like an "intolerant" concept?
                1. Papandopulo
                  Papandopulo 30 June 2016 02: 34
                  -2
                  for a "tolerant" approach to real facts
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 18
        -2
        Quote: Simpsonian
        The eastern front accounted for at least 2/3 of the backlash losses, even according to Western estimates.

        nonsense!
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 21: 25
          0
          Well, how much?
      3. Anglorussian
        Anglorussian 29 June 2016 21: 34
        0
        The record of more than 1000 is for Fokker. English engineers are far from German.
        Fokker is a Dutch company.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 22: 06
          +1
          Here the fokker FW-190 is called who is the foc ...
    3. vadim dok
      vadim dok 29 June 2016 13: 54
      -5
      The plane was great! Much better than the LAGG-varnished guaranteed coffin, as the Soviet pilots called it!
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 29 June 2016 15: 08
        +5
        Well, sooooo thick. Doesn’t. Even the author is even thinner than a troll.
      2. Forest
        Forest 29 June 2016 19: 45
        +1
        Journalists have come up with such a decoding after the war. Yes, and LAGG was neither the main nor the best fighter with us, although it was very, very tenacious.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 01
          -1
          Like La-5 ... And, it would seem, why? wink
  • goose
    goose 29 June 2016 11: 20
    +9
    The article is artistically good, BUT: There are a lot of distortions and inaccuracies in the article.
    1. The losses of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front were at least not less than on the western.
    2. Characteristics were collected from two different mutually exclusive modifications - with a trimmed wing and a high-rise, which is unacceptable.
    3. The presence of a compact mass turbocharger, which was more reliable than the German one, was due to the possibility of manufacturing heat-resistant alloys for which alloying additives were absent in Germany. Well, gasoline, when the Germans flew gasoline with an octane rating of 80-100, the Allies poured it with an octane rating of 140. In fact, this made it possible to remove 30-40% more power from the same volume.
    4. At the end of the war in Germany, even aluminum was not enough, and the planes began to "wood" from the tail.
    5. The ceiling must be compared with the MiG-3, with which the difference was only 500 m, despite the fact that the MiG did not have a TC.
    6. Spitfire was produced with a non-separable wing, which was an advantage in the weight and strength of the wing, but it was impossible to transport. He flew only under its own power.
    7. High performance was achieved with a very short range, like the Bf-109. He could not fly further than the Canal, because NOW did not affect the air battle over the Reich.
    8. The Soviet Air Force saw everything that the Germans did, both the reactives and the Greifs, except perhaps the "creepy" He-219, because of its complete uselessness against the Po-2.

    Indisputable advantages of Spitfire:
    1. The first with a laminar wing.
    2. The first with a new type of lamp, providing a circular view.
    3. Thorough assembly with sealing joints and surface treatment.

    Actually, that's all. All the rest are pluses to the engine. The design and concept of the P-51 looked more advanced by 1943, as did the Ta-152.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 June 2016 11: 25
      +3
      Quote: goose
      1. The losses of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front were at least not less than on the western.

      Then you need to give statistics, which, of course you do not have
      Quote: goose
      The presence of a compact mass turbocharger, which was more reliable than the German one, was due to the possibility of manufacturing high-temperature alloys for which there were no alloying additives in Germany.

      How then did 1400 jet "swallows" rivet?

      Temperatures will be higher there.
      Quote: goose
      It is necessary to compare the ceiling with the MiG-3, with which the difference was only in 500 m, despite the fact that there was no TC on the MiG.

      Because of what the MiG armament consisted of only two machine guns

      TC did not come up by chance
      Quote: goose
      Spitfire was produced with a folding wing, which was an advantage in weight and strength of the wing, but it could not be transported. He flew only on their own.

      Why carry a plane
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 09
        0
        More accessible and less risky for this was to use sea transports rather than aircraft carriers.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-81_(1941)
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 43
        +2
        "Nope" almost nothing in English about the Kuban Air Battle.

        And now, Wikipedia, MiG-3:

        weaponry

        Cannon:
        1 × 12,7 mm BS machine gun with 300 rounds
        2 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun with 750 rounds per barrel
        2 × 12,7 mm BK machine gun under the wing (optional)


        The Germans had compressors.
        1. vadim dok
          vadim dok 29 June 2016 13: 57
          0
          Everyone had compressors! But only the Americans had TURBOCHARGERS working the energy of the exhaust of the motor, and not A power take-off from the motor and, accordingly, from the screw.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 14: 36
            +2
            Everyone had turbochargers, only the USSR had problems with heat-resistant alloys for them throughout the war.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 29 June 2016 20: 16
              0
              In conventional WFDs, regulation of which is much simpler than piston turbocompressor or conventional compound ones, forcing is turned on behind the turbine, and its speed is affected little, therefore, there is no such problem.
              Americans and British traveling due to the quality of aviation gasoline and oil (this is not obtained from any oil fields), the Germans did not set up nitroforcing, so they did not encounter such a problem of regulating a turbocharger with a sharp increase in thrust.
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 20: 04
            +2
            Why did the Germans at one time like compressors more than turbochargers - it is difficult to explain to an analog computer controlling, for example, injection injection on the FW-190 how this turbocharger behaves when the engine is forced to turn on abruptly. A turbocharger is a thing with feedback and, like any turbine, is quite inertial. By the way, he also takes power from the piston group of the engine, since it is some kind of plug on its exhaust, therefore this application of turbines is carefully monitored even on compound engines.
      3. Forest
        Forest 29 June 2016 14: 01
        +1
        The MiG-3 in the minimum configuration of BS and 2 ShKAS was. The aircraft must be transported over long distances so as not to build jump airfields every 500 km.
      4. Alex_59
        Alex_59 29 June 2016 14: 18
        +8
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why carry a plane

        Saving motor resources. A trifle that sofa experts usually forget about. laughing
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 25
          -2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Saving motor resources

          the first time I hear about saving motor resources this way in war. Looks like it’s not yet matured before the couch field marshal (or what four stars mean there)
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 June 2016 21: 46
            +4
            Quote: veteran66
            the first time I hear about saving motor resources this way in war. Looks like it’s not yet matured before the couch field marshal (or what four stars mean there)

            Well, apparently not matured. Motor resources are not necessarily saved in a war. For example, in the 61 MAP on 22.06.1941 there were several Il-2. But they were only numbered, because a few days earlier they had come from the aircraft factory in an unassembled form and met the beginning of the war in boxes.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 30 June 2016 06: 31
              -2
              Quote: Alex_59
              Motor resources do not necessarily save on war

              and I was talking about the war, not in the war would have found a way to save on another.
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 30 June 2016 11: 45
                0
                In the war, the British then had to not very much save their aircraft carriers in Middle-earth in connection with this.
              2. Alex_59
                Alex_59 30 June 2016 17: 38
                0
                Quote: veteran66
                and I was talking about the war, not in the war would have found a way to save on another.

                Well, actually planes are undocked on almost all aircraft, even on airliners. Come on ...
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 22: 01
            +2
            It would be nice to ask about the numbers of motor resources for motors. Also the fact that for the sake of about the same, including carrying wheeled tractors tanks (where there are no railways).
            Movement gives five times less consumption, which means that motor resources, which for piston engines were already extremely small, are also consumed less.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 30 June 2016 06: 34
              -2
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Also the fact that for the sake of about the same, including carrying wheeled tractors tanks (where there are no railways).

              it is not necessary to compare warm and soft, the tank under its own power and on the tractor runs at approximately the same speed (or maybe on the tractor and faster), and the aviation regiment is able to relocate from front to front (almost completely, within 2-3 days under its own power, on train for at least a week. In war, time plays a greater role than motor resources. Import engines, unlike ours, had a much larger resource, unfortunately.
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 30 June 2016 11: 07
                -4
                So do not confuse, the plant is not a front or base. On the tractor - well, probably faster, and its own motor does not work and the transmission is not shy on which there is a large selection of power. It’s easier to pull a boat along the shore than to row in it; a propeller generally drives air and must do it quickly and quickly.
                For the most part, they had the ability to shoot rods, they killed more aces than the Germans (plus a corkscrew), and that is probably why the Americans had to drive Alaska and Siberia under their own power through Canada.
            2. Fat
              Fat 5 July 2016 08: 54
              0
              Quote: Simpsonian
              It would be nice to ask about the numbers of motor resources for motors. Also the fact that for the sake of about the same, including carrying wheeled tractors tanks (where there are no railways).
              Movement gives five times less consumption, which means that motor resources, which for piston engines were already extremely small, are also consumed less.

              This is useless! Better interested in fuel economy. Since it is fuel that is ALWAYS in limited quantities and delivered to the place of hostilities separately from equipment.
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 5 July 2016 13: 45
                0
                The resource before the first repair of the M-105 wiggler is only 100 hours
      5. Letun
        Letun 29 June 2016 15: 58
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Then you need to give statistics, which, of course you do not have

        Ha. Then how can you explain such statistics: the best RAF ace shot down 51 planes, the second most effective - "only" 34. Despite the fact that the British fought the Germans for 2 years more than the USSR, their aces seriously fall short of the Soviet ones. How then did they "shoveled" 60% of the Luftwaffe?
        In technical terms, the article is certainly not badly written, but the gallows propaganda of Western "superhumans" is a little instilling.
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 28
          -1
          Quote: Letun
          Then how do you explain such statistics:

          if you collect all those "shot down" by German "experts" then the USSR Air Force no longer existed. The air war, oddly enough, was fought mainly not by Pokryshkin with Kozhedub and Bong with Johnson, but by simple pilots who had 2-3 planes in combat.
        2. Fat
          Fat 5 July 2016 09: 05
          0
          Quote: Letun
          In technical terms, the article is certainly not badly written, but the gallows propaganda of Western "superhumans" is a little instilling.

          You shouldn't be nervous. The British have their own "Stalingrad" - "Day of the Battle of Britain" is celebrated in Great Britain on September 15; according to the British, the losses suffered by the German Air Force on this day in 1940 forced the German command to admit the impossibility of breaking the defenses of the British Isles and the morale of the British.
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 5 July 2016 13: 47
            0
            900 pilots of all fought and such Stalingrad, just the Germans didn’t succeed with the attack.
      6. Fat
        Fat 5 July 2016 08: 45
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why carry a plane

        Why transport cars and tanks?
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 50
      0
      The Germans began to turn wooden from the tail at the end of the war due to cutting off the supplies of Brazilian aluminum varnish (made from a rare type of bugs). In the USSR, he wasn’t supplied with a smile to the former under the embargo or the former without any money ... Without using this varnish, rivets are scattered from a week to a month, so the USSR did not have all-metal aircraft with smooth sheathing for a long time, and Soviet aviation was much inferior to German, not only in engines.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 29 June 2016 16: 20
        +3
        What nonsense? Do you even know how aluminum alloys are protected? You seem to have a "rare species of bugs" in your head ...
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 16: 41
          -2
          What are the manners? Duralumin, before much later learned to obtain the same varnish synthetically, was protected by thin sheathing only this way. Transparent varnish made from hard elytra of these bugs. Or don’t you know that there was a thick corrugated sheet on TB-3, and how did you get natural rubber?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 29 June 2016 17: 17
            +7
            Dear, you have a mess in your head ... In fact, I was an aeronautical engineer and materials science, unlike you taught. And he riveted the trim personally, with his own hands. Dural (aka kolchugaluminiy) in general, by and large, does not need protection - and is protected by anodization and not by "magic varnishes". And the corrugated sheathing was used exactly until they learned how to ensure the rigidity of extended structures without "claps" (the problem was in the quality of rolled products and not in a mythical varnish).
            How to get natural rubber (from Hevea juice) I know as well as the fact that synthetic rubber was obtained back in World War I ...
            You seem to have read some kind of fiction on the Internet, but it would be worth reading a textbook of inorganic chemistry for a start.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 29 June 2016 18: 26
              -2
              Funny ... especially about anodizing rivets and flaps. Synthetic rubber was not good for everything. Look at an ordinary thin aluminum can, it's not in vain under varnish.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 29 June 2016 20: 21
                +5
                Learn all the same materiel ... at least sometimes. And why the "lacquered can" will immediately become clear to you and how "food grade aluminum" differs from duralumin and other aluminum-based alloys ... By the way, they are anodized not "by rivets" but also rivets ...

                You seem to be a "victim of modern education" ...
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 29 June 2016 21: 13
                  -1
                  And they nickel at the seams and carefully watch for the safety of the coating of this inseparable and non-threaded connection.
                  Calm, only calm ...
                2. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 29 June 2016 22: 41
                  +3
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  And they nickel at the seams and carefully watch for the safety of the coating of this inseparable and non-threaded connection.
                  Calm, only calm ...

                  Ahahahhahahhhhhh !!!!!!!! I am under the table! Also a bug varnish. Ahhhh, I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, thanks bro, we were pleased. No, why are you telling this to people who turn live bolts on planes, eh?

                  Here is a photo for you, I drilled an anchor-nut on a living plane on July 26, just the corrosion is complete. Do you know how old the plane is? Since 1958. Nothing there fell apart for "from a week to a month", I had to drill more. According to the technology, the centers of corrosion in aviation are sanded and covered with paint. Nothing else is needed. Aluminum protects itself quite well with oxide, but of course it is not enough for 50 years without paint. And you are a polish made of Brazilian bugs.
                3. Papandopulo
                  Papandopulo 29 June 2016 23: 41
                  0
                  Did the thread shorten a word? And then in the Second World War or later shattered rivets pulled? Was the nut of which metal? And where does oxide from rubbing metal on metal tend to go?
                  Hilarious, where did the fun come from about bug polish? For such cases, he specifically wrote to mine about what natural rubber is made of. You can guess the first time from where, with a lack of Chilean nitrate, they got nitrate for gunpowder.
                  It would be interesting to see at least one photo of P-51 or B-29 made of anodized aluminum, which is not necessary because aluminum already protects itself well.
                4. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 10
                  0
                  Everything from there ... for this.

                  The same "raw material", in addition to saltpeter, was used to manufacture fabrics, moreover, by hand. In poor Ireland, entire villages were doing this.
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 19: 53
        0
        In your opinion, if you put aluminum from the engine blocks of T-34 tanks on the duralumin bearing skin and start making them out of cast iron yourself (the tanks still drive, don't even float), will you get duralumin all-metal aircraft from the "extra" aluminum?

        Not everything is true of what is taught in textbooks, they could be written or then edited by interested people

        After the speed of the aircraft and the thrust of the engines increased, which means that the high-speed pressure increased, the duralumin sheets were forced to become thicker (then they generally switched to caisson blocks) and this problem of atmospheric oxidation of the thin skin was slightly pushed in. In addition, finally, a synthetic varnish appeared, which held on to it, and they began to smear it at least on the riveted joints, which still "played".
        Prior to this, with thick metal cladding, the characteristics were worse than on percale aircraft, and the resource was less. When thin, they simply crumbled from a week in flight or after 2 months standing in storage in a hangar.

        The USSR "allies" and "neutrals" were hooked most of all by two things - the supply of elite fuel and lubricants to the Nazis, and the supply of this very Brazilian natural varnish. Worse oils were supplied to the Soviet Union, but this varnish was not supplied at all.
        Since Buna did not replace everything, in the 3rd Reich natural rubber was also delivered from the tropics. In the USSR he was allowed to sell too ...
  • wow
    wow 29 June 2016 19: 08
    +2
    For me, the "lantern" on the Yak-3 (P) is much more "overview" than on the Spits of all modifications!
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 30
      -2
      Quote: yo-mine
      For me, the "lantern" on the Yak-3 (P) is much more "overview" than on the Spits of all modifications!

      Wow! Ava flew on both planes! Cool! So how is it?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 13
        0
        Maybe he was in the cockpit?
  • veteran66
    veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 21
    -2
    Quote: goose
    Actually, that's all. All the rest are pluses to the engine.

    did not know that the engine and the plane do not fly together. By the way, "Mustang" without this engine was also a mediocre car.
  • lis-ik
    lis-ik 29 June 2016 13: 00
    +2
    Honestly, almost to the very end the article was magnificent, but .... then the vulgar praise of the West. so much so that it looks like the Second World War did not suit the European theater of action. But despite this, nevertheless, an article is a plus.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 15
      0
      Despite this plus, tourists and tomatoes go to mind
  • Thomas I do not believe40
    Thomas I do not believe40 29 June 2016 06: 09
    +4
    Fuck the plane, don’t tell. The Nazis crushed nobly.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 29 June 2016 06: 22
    +25
    In battles with the Luftwaffe, a superhero was born, grinding in the sky a good third of German aviation in World War II.

    Actually, you can not read further. It immediately becomes clear who the author is and who will sing meritorious songs.
    The fact that from the 22.06.1941 to the 14.03.1942 of the year, the Soviet Air Force grind more than 2500 Luftwaffe aircraft, taking out the main striking force, Oleg does not take into account. Goering's famous aces were defeated just on the eastern front. Although pretty battered and the British.
    The victory of Britain over German pilots is explained by the remoteness and, as a consequence, the impossibility of covering the bombers with fighters, weak calculations of the approach time to the target and the general lack of coordination of the raids.
    The plane is beautiful and interesting, but you can’t fall on your knees in front of Western technology.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 29 June 2016 06: 25
      +8
      It’s scary to think what will happen if the author gets a book about WWII tanks ...
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 14: 40
        +2
        It will begin to ridicule out of place, and the American Immigration Service will send it back to northern Ukraine. Therefore, do not give - the way the soul there looks at its Simpsons. laughing
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 29 June 2016 06: 54
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      The victory of Britain over German pilots is explained by the remoteness and, as a consequence, the impossibility of covering the bombers with fighters, weak calculations of the approach time to the target and the general lack of coordination of the raids.


      And there was a problem with the constant change of strategy. When the turning point in the battle for Britain came, Goering ordered to transfer strikes from airfields to industrial facilities. But then, in the ranks, there was either one or two airfields. The Germans almost gained superiority in the air, but they themselves gave up the initiative and donated time to restore the British fighter aircraft.

      And a funny moment when it turned out that Messerschmitt Bf.110 is ineffective, 109 should have covered 110. Fighters cover fighters ...
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 04
        +1
        The main problem for the Germans was the saturated radar network of the English early warning air defense, and the fact that daytime raids were carried out concentric, but in a narrow sector and on a limited territory. Therefore, the British could easily beat them back even with lesser strength. Anglo-Americans, in turn, could throw all their night-bombers to Europe in any of the many directions from French Brittany to Denmark, the Germans had to spread forces to protect them along the Kammhuber line in all directions, otherwise the planes would simply not have time to take a position to intercept. The cost of building radars of this long line was also many times higher than the corresponding English
        1. Tsoy
          Tsoy 29 June 2016 17: 08
          +1
          Quote: Simpsonian
          their forces night bombers on Europe


          The bombing of Berlin turned out to be generally funny. A pair of lost 111 bombed the suburbs of London. The next night, British aircraft rose into the sky and bombed the German capital. The Nazi leadership, which promised that no one bomb would fall on Berlin, "promised to respond to this atrocity."

          Well, the very first in this business were ... the French. 7 June 1940 of the year. In that "punitive" operation participated 1 (!!!) airplane type "Farman-223", dropped bombs in the south-west of the German capital. Then there were no casualties among the population.
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 29 June 2016 07: 32
      +17
      Quote: Wedmak
      Actually, you can not read further. It immediately becomes clear who the author is and who will sing meritorious songs.
      The fact that from the 22.06.1941 to the 14.03.1942 of the year, the Soviet Air Force grind more than 2500 Luftwaffe aircraft, taking out the main striking force, Oleg does not take into account. Goering's famous aces were defeated just on the eastern front. Although pretty battered and the British.

      Yes, as always, a fact taken out of context for propaganda purposes. The reader should have the opinion that the Soviet pilots are losers, and the British did the main work. But we should look at the distribution of losses by periods of war - that’s when everything becomes clear. And the distribution is about this. In 1941, the Germans lost in the East from 65 to 75% (according to various sources) of all aircraft, in 1942 67-85%, in 1943 40-70%, in 1944 20-50%, in 1945 about 30%.
      Firstly, it is immediately clear that until the 43 year, Germans were beaten mainly by Soviet pilots. And that characteristically knocked out the most experienced flight crew of the Germans. And from the 43 year, the Germans were increasingly forced to delay aircraft to the West, as they began to bomb the Viterland, and the German rulers somehow did not care more about how German infantrymen felt in the trenches in the East under the Il-2 bombs . Your own skin is more expensive. And the factories ... And already in 44, when the second front also opened ... the infantry in the East were just thrown. And all the forces thrown into the fight against Allied aviation. Although what forces? The experience of the average German pilot in the 44 year was not the same - many experienced pilots with pre-war training died in the East. So it was easier for British and English pilots to drive young German pilots in the 44 and 45 years. Naturally there were exceptions, the Germans were still a dangerous adversary, and in general, the merit of the Allies was undoubtedly high.
      1. goose
        goose 29 June 2016 11: 32
        -3
        Quote: Alex_59
        in general, the merit of the allies is undoubtedly high.

        But first of all, Americans, because only they flew over Europe, and no one else.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 14: 42
          0
          right - the British flew at night, they were not visible to anyone
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 45
            -3
            Quote: Simpsonian
            right - the British flew at night, they were not visible to anyone

            Well, Christmas trees, sticks, well, you would at least ask the opinion of the Luftwaffe pilots themselves.
            And they, among other things, considered the MOST DANGEROUS adversaries in the sky, the British, who fought skillfully, and boldly, fiercely. AFTERNOON. The Americans went later - like skilled pilots, but not averse to taking risks and piled in huge heaps. And only then the Soviet pilots came (the guards regiments went with a separate topic, with which the Hans were very reluctant to contact).
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 04
              0
              Well, that’s right - the English are a kindred race, and there weren’t Negroes among them ... What else would Goebbels write?
              This is probably why the impudent people flew to bomb exclusively at night, and if not on a mosquito, then by all means a bunch.
              1. Warrior2015
                Warrior2015 30 June 2016 10: 06
                -1
                Quote: Papandopulo
                This is probably why the impudent people flew to bomb exclusively at night, and if not on a mosquito, then by all means a bunch.

                In fact, I gave the opinion of the pilots of the Luftwaffe. And also I’m talking about FIGHTERS OF FIGHTERS (and not raids of strategic bombers).
                1. Papandopulo
                  Papandopulo 30 June 2016 11: 37
                  0
                  The British Air Force did not arrange anything like a Kuban meat grinder to the Germans.
                  And what is the opinion of the experienced pilots who remained after it, who pushed their recruits to the elementary problem of large losses until one of them really found the desire and honor to fly to intercept unescorted bombers with them and find out what was the matter? Because on earth the survivors of them could not really explain anything. And it was clearly not "Buby", which exclusively dealt with the extermination with honor of Soviet recruits while the Anglo-Americans with honor exclusively destroyed the German civilian population by bombing residential areas instead of bombing industrial zones. If there was no enemy, or there was almost as little as always, then the descending escort fighters did the same with honor.
        2. Fat
          Fat 5 July 2016 09: 26
          0
          Quote: goose
          But first of all, Americans, because only they flew over Europe, and no one else.

          Did you yourself understand what you wrote? Or is it sarcasm like that?
    4. Leto
      Leto 29 June 2016 08: 03
      +8
      Quote: Wedmak
      The fact that from 22.06.1941/14.03.1942/2500 to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX the Soviet Air Force grind more than XNUMX Luftwaffe aircraft

      The Luftwaffe lost 42 vehicles in 2073 days of fighting in France. In 42 days. After that, in the "Battle of Britain" the Luftwaffe lost 1887 vehicles in 113 days.
      After that there were battles in the Balkans, over Crete, in Africa, a reflection of the raids on Germany ...
      And after that you write such nonsense that for the year of the Red Army Air Force:
      Quote: Wedmak
      knocking out the main striking force

      The Luftwaffe lost more than 4 thousand aircraft in a year, after which it was able to seize dominance in the sky over the USSR, moreover, despite the Luftwaffe losses you described at the end of 1941. and at the beginning of 1942 part of the forces were transferred from the Eastern Front to the Western Front; the remaining forces were sufficient to maintain air supremacy.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 29 June 2016 08: 26
        +5
        Quote: Leto
        The Luftwaffe for the 42 day of fighting in France lost the 2073 car.

        During the 42 day of the war in the east from 22.06 to 02.08.1941, the Germans lost 1574 aircraft. This is according to the military archive of Germany. Not a big difference.
        1. Leto
          Leto 29 June 2016 08: 45
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          During the 42 day of the war in the east from 22.06 to 02.08.1941, the Germans lost 1574 aircraft. This is according to the military archive of Germany. Not a big difference.

          This is not the point. Denis writes that in a year the Red Army Air Force allegedly "knocked out the main striking force of the Luftwaffe" without noticing that before that the Luftwaffe had suffered much greater losses, while the Luftwaffe had enough forces for 1941. and for 1942 and beyond.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 June 2016 09: 09
            +1
            Quote: Leto
            This is not the point. Denis writes that in a year the Red Army Air Force allegedly "knocked out the main striking force of the Luftwaffe" without noticing that before that the Luftwaffe had suffered much greater losses, while the Luftwaffe had enough forces for 1941. and for 1942 and beyond.

            I think the key question here is that the Great Patriotic War did not end on the 42 day and on the 1574 lost planes. It was August, September ... It was the 42 year. And in the first two years of the war, the Germans lost from 7 to 20 thousands of aircraft. And this is 65-80% of all aviation losses. Those. The 41 and 42 years of the Luftwaffe fought mainly in the East.
            There are still statistics of the losses of the Luftwaffe on the fronts. This is of course not only pilots, anti-aircraft gunners and more (and anti-aircraft gunners of the Luftwaffe very often sat in the trenches on the front end and died as foot soldiers). But still. Duck here in the West before the opening of the 2 front - 34 thousand people, after the opening - 11 thousand people In Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, Italy - 22,6 thousand people. 53 thousand people on the Eastern Front That is, for 1939-1945 the allies killed 67,6 thousand people, and the Red Army for 1941-1945 - 53 thousand people. The difference is not great, but it seems more in the West. However, in terms of the number of days, 33 German Luftwaffe soldiers per day perished in the West, and 38 in the East.
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 29 June 2016 09: 34
              0
              And there was also the Air Battle over the Kuban in 1943. where only the Luftwaffe ridge was broken - not over Paris, Berlin, the Ruhr, Belgium or London.
              1. Warrior2015
                Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 32
                +2
                Quote: Papandopulo
                And there was also the Air Battle over the Kuban in 1943. where only the Luftwaffe ridge was broken - not over Paris, Berlin, the Ruhr, Belgium or London.

                You greatly overestimate the significance of this air battle. Look at the statistics and you will see that the Luftwaffe, even in 43, did not lose its strength, and "they broke their spine" - only in the spring of 1944 - both over Russia and over France.
                1. Papandopulo
                  Papandopulo 29 June 2016 10: 36
                  +2
                  It is difficult to overestimate the loss of 60% aces in one air battle, therefore, we must urgently downplay it.
                  In 1944 they have almost no fuel left just to fly.
                  1. Warrior2015
                    Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 52
                    0
                    Quote: Papandopulo
                    It is difficult to overestimate the loss of 60% aces in one air battle, therefore, we must urgently downplay it.
                    In 1944 they have almost no fuel left just to fly.

                    Hey, comrade, let's play in the minus? as a child, by golly ...

                    The Germans had a fuel crisis ONLY from the fall of 1944, when Romania was blown away, and synthetic gas plants were bombed.

                    Therefore, by the way, they refused not only to manufacture it, but even to a large extent to combat use of existing bombers - they ate a lot of fuel.
                    1. Simpsonian
                      Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 01
                      +1
                      Yes, people like you and the author must immediately be banned until the resource is completely banned.

                      The fuel crisis (and especially the engine oil crisis) arose immediately after the blitzkrieg failed. In 1944, at the beginning of summer, it was already such that only 4 German piston aircraft flew over Normandy during the landing, and 40 units flew over Belarus at the beginning of Bagration.
                      1. Warrior2015
                        Warrior2015 30 June 2016 16: 38
                        -1
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        In 1944, at the beginning of summer, it was already such that only 4 German piston aircraft flew over Normandy during the landing, and 40 units flew over Belarus at the beginning of Bagration.

                        Do not believe Goebbels tales.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 51
                        0
                        Do not distort, the Germans on the Eastern Front even for the first time forced to use jet formation in the Tu-2 system in Belarus.
              2. Andrey NM
                Andrey NM 29 June 2016 19: 55
                +8
                All the heroism of the British ended in Dunkirk in early June 1940. They quickly fled, leaving 50 thousand prisoners, and sat out for 4 years until the Red Army irrevocably drove the Germans away. Sitting behind the strait is a very great heroism. You can talk about North Africa, but how can this be compared with Stalingrad, Kursk Bulge ... Spitfire is a very good aircraft, but with a network of radars and a guidance and communication system, bombers could be hit on Kharikeins, LAGGs, and donkeys "(if the British had the latter). Moreover, the fighters of the Germans could be over the targets for a very limited time, and even then not over all. You can fight in the air for as long as you like, but until the boots of an infantry fighter steps into the territory, there will be no victory.
            2. veteran66
              veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 42
              -1
              Quote: Papandopulo
              The battle of Kuban in 1943. where only broke the luftwaffe ridge

              Quote: Papandopulo
              not over London.
              Actually, the first time it was over London, that’s why the landing on Britain did not take place, then they recovered, but after the Kuban they couldn’t, because they had exhausted their reserves, because from the west, the Allies began to bomb, and the war was on for the third year.
              1. Papandopulo
                Papandopulo 29 June 2016 23: 11
                0
                From the west, the Germans began to seriously bomb only after the Kuban. And then, at first, they got it on the nose. Read the comments you are responding to.
                1. veteran66
                  veteran66 30 June 2016 06: 16
                  -1
                  Quote: Papandopulo
                  From the west, the Germans began to seriously bomb only after the Kuban.

                  seriously how is it? To the Kuban, that is, jokes were joked? One threat to the success of the allies on the western front in the 42nd forced the Germans to transfer a fleet from the eastern front to the western. Learn the story not from the comments, but from the original sources.
                  1. Papandopulo
                    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 12: 05
                    0
                    Something like this, you should teach it to Wikipedia, it says about the bombing of Germany.
                    The threat of success, or the success itself?
          2. Leto
            Leto 29 June 2016 10: 19
            -3
            Quote: Alex_59
            Duck here in the West before the opening of the 2nd front

            You do not see the forest behind the trees. Until mid-1944 The Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front held the sky, i.e. losses of 1941-1942 did not affect this.
            Quote: Alex_59
            The 41st and 42nd years of the Luftwaffe fought mainly in the East.

            Let us suppose. On 22.06.1941/5/1,2 The Luftwaffe included 4 Air Fleets (Luftflotte), of which Luftflotte 1941 and 2 participated in the attack on the USSR. BUT in November XNUMX Luftflotte XNUMX was removed from the Eastern Front and relocated to Italy.
            Those. Despite the losses you indicated above, the Germans threw one fleet to where there was practically no war (according to your statement), it turns out that it turned out to be superfluous on the Eastern Front, 1 and 4 Luftflotte completely coped with current tasks.
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 35
              -1
              Quote: Leto
              Until the middle of 1944. The Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front held the sky, i.e. loss 1941-1942 did not affect this.

              Rather, until the summer-fall of 1943, when Kuban, Kursk and Ukraine passed, and many groups were deployed to the Mediterranean and to the Reich air defense.

              Quote: Leto
              BUT in November 1941. Luftflotte 2 was removed from the Eastern Front and relocated to Italy.
              Absolutely! And this is an important indicator of which aviation of which of the allies was considered more dangerous among the Germans.
            2. Alex_59
              Alex_59 29 June 2016 10: 42
              +8
              Quote: Leto
              You do not see the forest behind the trees.

              It seems to me that you do not see the forest. For some reason, you proceed from the postulate "the Germans held the sky," "air supremacy." I don't understand what this means. In my understanding, they did not hold anything. The Soviet Air Force continued combat work all this time. The actions of the Germans could not completely exclude the impact of Soviet aviation on ground forces, moreover, the number of strikes grew. A simple example - in 1941, 1542 Il-2s were produced, and 533 were destroyed. And in the 42nd year, another 1676 were destroyed, and in 43rd, 3515 Il-2 aircraft. It would seem that the losses were terrible, the Germans were great, etc. But it turns out that in December 42 the Air Force had 7562 Il-2s, and at the end of 43rd there were 15240 Il-2 planes! If we consider the statement that one IL-2 was enough for 30 sorties, then from 7 to 15 thousand IL-2 made about 330 sorties. And in the 000rd year, Luftwaffe fighters shot down from 43 to 1000 Il-2000 aircraft. Those. they stopped less than 2% of attacks by attack aircraft. Such dominance leads to the 1th of May by a straight road!

              Sorry, but this does not hold the sky. Rather, their navel began to untie, they had to withdraw their forces to the West with the knowledge that they were leaving their infantry in the East without air cover. They had no choice.
              Quote: Leto
              1 and 4 Luftflotte coped with the current tasks.
              Cope, cope, and then bam - 9 May 1945 years! I don’t believe in miracles. I don’t believe at all. If you read German memoirs, then they all coped with everything perfectly. How did you lose the war then?
              1. Leto
                Leto 29 June 2016 11: 08
                -2
                Quote: Alex_59
                "air superiority". I don't understand what this means.

                This means that your assault and bomber aircraft can operate unhindered in the interests of the ground forces, and enemy aircraft cannot do the same. For example, Hans Ulrich Rudel during the whole war made 2530 sorties, was shot down 32 times and all 32 times only by anti-aircraft artillery. Our fighter jets never shot him down. Whose task was this, did it tell you something? 2530 sorties in 1418 days of World War II! He made several sorties per day, and he flew for a specific purpose.
                Read the memoirs of the infantry, I have not met more than one kind word addressed to "Stalin's falcons", only the opposite.
                Quote: Alex_59
                and then bam - May 9, 1945!

                Victory is not only forged in the sky.
                Quote: Alex_59
                If you read German memoirs, then they all coped with everything perfectly.

                C'mon, what are these memoirs of? For example, I often met complaints about the lack of reserves. More about the horror that our artillery brought, about artillery raids that lasted for hours (according to sensations) drove crazy.

                It is customary for us to stick out the achievements of pilots, tankers, and artillerymen are often bypassed. But the Germans, on the contrary, rather dismissively wrote about pilots and tankers, but with a shudder they remembered Stalin's artillery ...
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 29 June 2016 12: 06
                  +7
                  Quote: Leto
                  This means that your assault and bomber aircraft can operate unhindered in the interests of the ground forces, and enemy aircraft cannot do the same.
                  Well, where is German domination? In your IL-2 could not work on the Wehrmacht in the 42 and 43 years? Do not write nonsense, my grandfather fought in the 9 Airborne Forces Airborne Forces of the Black Sea Fleet as part of an attack air division on the Il-2. We flew without rest, drowned everything that moves. For the Black Sea Fleet, the 42 and 43 years are very hot.
                  Quote: Leto
                  Victory is not only forged in the sky.

                  That's it. The actions of the Red Army Air Force were an integral part of a single plan, in which the ground troops played a key role. The Air Force was required not to chase the personal accounts of downed planes, but to prevent targeted bombing at the positions of its troops, and to prevent the interception of its attack aircraft. You can not shoot down anyone at all - this is not the point.
                  Quote: Leto
                  Read the memoirs of the infantry, I have not met more than one kind word addressed to "Stalin's falcons", only the opposite.

                  I read with pleasure. Give sources.
                  Quote: Leto
                  C'mon, what are these memoirs of?

                  In all. The first thing that comes to mind is Walter Schwabedissen.
                  1. Leto
                    Leto 29 June 2016 15: 09
                    -3
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Well, where is German domination? In your IL-2 could not work on the Wehrmacht in the 42nd and 43rd years?

                    Air superiority does not mean inaction of enemy aircraft.
                    For example, from the memoirs ("I remember") of the infantryman Turov Vladimir Semenovich it is clearly visible what air superiority means:
                    On that day, the regiment was bombed and bombarded several times. At times, the Junkers groups reached 15–20; they were supported by the Messerschmitts. Our planes were practically gone ...

                    Large air groups of fascist planes constantly bombarded the air, bombing and firing at our positions.

                    That's what air superiority is. The similar from the Germans concerned only the end of the war.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    my grandfather fought in the 9th IAP Air Force Black Sea Fleet as part of an attack air division on the Il-2. We flew without rest, drowned everything that moves.

                    The Germans evacuated the Taman grouping to the Crimea practically without losses, and then evacuated the troops from the Crimea and all by sea. So there was a movement in the Black Sea, but at the expense of "drowning" you are exaggerating.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    The Air Force was required not to chase the personal accounts of downed aircraft, but to prevent targeted bombing on the positions of its troops

                    Read the memoirs of Turov Vladimir Semenovich again and comprehend whether the Air Force completed the task that you voiced.
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 29 June 2016 22: 03
                      +4
                      Quote: Leto
                      That's what air superiority is. The similar from the Germans concerned only the end of the war.

                      In July there was another breakthrough of the front. The Germans brought in a Romanian cavalry corps into the breakthrough, and it was opposed by one of our rifle battalions, besides being battered in battle. The ground command asked for help. Those instructed to act at their own risk to help the rifle battalion. Davidkov sent on reconnaissance. Sigov flew. He returned, pomnb, smiling, laughing. "What?" - "The Romanians are walking with a brass band. They have dismissed the banners. In columns. A marching march." "What, are they crazy?" .... 20 vehicles with RS, total 160 RS. Davidkov took the lead. Easier at low level, on the move they hit the RS on all this mass, and then began to finish shooting with machine guns. Davidkov returned, another group flew off. For two days we drove this Romanian cavalry corps across the steppe. On the third day, we flew to U-2, and had to fly over this carnage. It was impossible to fly below 200 meters - the smell of corpse. July 1941, 131 IAP, Sinaisky Viktor Mikhailovich.
                      Quote: Leto
                      The Germans practically without loss evacuated the Taman group to the Crimea, and then the troops from the Crimea and everything by sea were evacuated.

                      Right. Only IA Luftwaffe has nothing to do with it. This is a miscalculation of our headquarters.
                      Quote: Leto
                      So there was a movement in the Black Sea, but at the expense of "drowning" you are exaggerating.

                      Losses in the German vessels on the Black Sea from aviation:
                      1942 year - 9 fighting, 2 ships
                      1943 year - 46 combat, 8 ships
                      1944 year - 61 fighting, 23 ships
                      Quoted from: "Losses of enemy fleets in the naval theater of operations in 1941-1945", (Reference edition) - Lvov, TO "TriO", 1992. - 88 p.
                      Quote: Leto
                      For example, from the memoirs ("I remember") of the infantryman Turov Vladimir Semenovich it is clearly visible what air superiority means:

                      Since you are so familiar with these memories, do not specify what year we are talking about? Thanks for the link to the book, I will try to find and read.
                    2. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 29 June 2016 23: 31
                      +3
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Since you are so familiar with these memories, do not specify what year we are talking about? Thanks for the link to the book, I will try to find and read.

                      Found, read. The episode you mentioned concerns the 27 of August 1942 of the year. At the tip of the main blow of the Germans near Stalingrad. Well, in this particular case, our Air Force did not fulfill the task of covering the troops. At that moment and in that place it was obvious that the air supremacy was with the Germans. But this does not mean that it was ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. The Germans did not have dominance in the air constantly throughout the front. Like ours. There was a struggle for domination with varying success. I can find more than one episode with the reverse situation - there are no Germans, but ours are bombing. But I do not claim that this speaks of our dominance in the air everywhere and always - of course not. There was no complete domination in 44.
                    3. Papandopulo
                      Papandopulo 29 June 2016 23: 52
                      0
                      Nobody had it in 1945. It is necessary to distinguish domination from total domination.
                      The first attempt at a strike on Berlin in January 1945 was thwarted when the Germans smashed the crossings at the bridgeheads with "Mistals" and jet aircraft. Then the same actions were successful in April only on half of the front along the Oder. The Germans flew in the west to the very end. They also launched their own V-2, of which only one was destroyed at the launch site during launch.
                  2. Leto
                    Leto 30 June 2016 07: 21
                    -2
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    For two days ours drove this Romanian cavalry corps across the steppe. On the third day, we flew to the U-2, and had to fly over this battle. It was impossible to fly below 200 meters - a cadaverous smell

                    Compare tales with reality. Starting the offensive on July 2, 1941. By July 23, the Romanians had completely returned Besarabia and Bukovina annexed by the USSR. Not a cadaverous smell.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Losses in the German vessels on the Black Sea from aviation:

                    The figures you quoted are absolutely ridiculous because small schooners and barges on which there are absolutely no means of air defense and if as stated here above in 1943 belong to watercraft. The Red Army Air Force broke the Luftwaffe ridge, then at the end of each tsifiri should be supposedly a zero.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    The episode you mentioned concerns August 27, 1942

                    Quote: Alex_59
                    But this does not mean that it was ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE.

                    In 1942. it was always and everywhere, on all fronts.
                  3. Papandopulo
                    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 11: 12
                    -1
                    Well, just a frantic pace of advancement, but where were the Germans at that time creating a threat of outreach (because of which the withdrawal began)?

                    To avoid a toe, they probably tried to walk at night. At the Soviet Defense Ministry was. Sit in your skylight and envy those who have broken the Luftwaffe ridge further.
                  4. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 30 June 2016 17: 37
                    +1
                    Quote: Leto
                    Match stories and reality

                    Why do I have Sinai tales, and you and Turov are true? Did God give you a mandate for absolute truth?
                    Quote: Leto
                    The figures you have given are absolutely ridiculous because small schooners and barges which have absolutely no means of air defense and if as stated here in 1943 above, belong to watercraft.

                    I brought a source. Open the book and read which specific ships were destroyed. The schooner is not there. Landing barges MFP - is. But the assertion that barges like the MFP did not have air defense neighbors is very bold. This is how to take and say that you will fill Tyson's face. Learn MFP weaponry smile
                    Quote: Leto
                    In 1942. it was always and everywhere, on all fronts.

                    Clear. You seem to have run out of arguments. I recommend reading books from the series "I fought in a fighter plane" with the memoirs of veterans, or "I fought in an IL-2". Compiled by Artem Drabkin. Maybe it will be useful, you will learn a lot about what and where it was "always and everywhere."
        2. Leto
          Leto 29 June 2016 11: 11
          -3
          Quote: Alex_59
          And for the 43rd year, Luftwaffe fighters shot down from 1000 to 2000 Il-2 aircraft. Those. they suppressed less than 1% of attacks by attack aircraft.

          For such statements, you would better bring the number of sorties carried out by attack aircraft, you need to compare this, and not with your speculation.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 29 June 2016 12: 08
            +3
            Quote: Leto
            For such statements, you would better bring the number of sorties carried out by attack aircraft, you need to compare this, and not with your speculation.

            For shot down statistics are pretty accurate. According to various sources from 1000 to 2000 shot down by our Il-2 fighters in the 1943 year. A fire defense shot down from 1500 to 2500 aircraft. (range - because of different sources). Despite the fact that over the same year the number of IL-2 in the Air Force increased from 7 to 15 thousand aircraft.
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 49
          -1
          Quote: Alex_59
          If we consider it true that the IL-2 was enough for 30 sorties,

          What year is this? In the 45th? Maybe, and before that, for 10 combat sorties (just sorties !!!) GSS was given. Because rarely flew up to five sorties. Do not pull statistics by the ears. In addition, the attack aircraft were mainly shot down FOR.
    5. goose
      goose 29 June 2016 11: 42
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      However, in terms of the number of days, 33 German Luftwaffe soldiers per day were killed in the West, and 38 in the East.

      It should be added that the biggest losses of the Luftwaffe in the West in history were at the time of the shooting of one and a half hundred defenseless transport aircraft during a flight to Africa with large crews, and without a chance of escape in the sea and desert. Losses amounted to about 1000 people. As many as 1000 very dangerous ACOW transporters. It is only in one day.
      The second day - the loss of about 70 Ju-52 in Crete, but not from aircraft, but from anti-aircraft guns and ... mortars. Losses in the flight crew were also very large, at least 400-600 people, because almost all the planes involved in the landing were damaged.

      These are the two most significant Allied victories over the Luftwaffe, which amounted to about 2% of the total losses.
      1. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 33
        0
        Quote: goose
        the time of the shooting of one and a half hundred defenseless transport aircraft during a flight to Africa with large crews, and without a chance of salvation in the sea and desert.

        Do not distort - the Mediterranean Sea is not the Arctic Sea or the North Atlantic, where for several minutes in ice water you are a corpse. Also, this is not the Pacific Ocean and tropical seas of South-East Asia, where sharks constantly snoop around that sparrows are at the entrance. So just on this theater of operations, the pilots had great chances for salvation.
  • veteran66
    veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 36
    -3
    Quote: Alex_59
    Not a big difference.

    so where is that France and where is the USSR That France, like the Sverdlovsk region.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 30 June 2016 15: 28
      +2
      Count for geography.
      1. veteran66
        veteran66 30 June 2016 20: 24
        -2
        okay, wrong, got excited, but less than Ukraine - for sure. All the same, it is not comparable with the USSR.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 30 June 2016 20: 40
          0
          Explain the meaning of the comparison, pzhlst.
          If this one, then
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France
          Germany
          1,236 aircraft lost

          Why did you have to write something about the losses of more than 2000? This is France and England lost 2300+, No one thought you would check these numbers?
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 41
    -2
    Quote: Wedmak
    the Soviet Air Force grind more than 2500 Luftwaffe aircraft, knocking out the main striking force Oleg does not take into account. Goering's famous aces were defeated just on the eastern front. Although pretty battered and the British.

    Sadly, you absolutely do not know the features of the air war either over Europe or over the USSR.

    Just as an example, many well-known Luftwaffe aces were shot down and died in the West European theater.

    In terms of the lethality of the fighting, it was Western Europe and German air defense that were No. 1, then the Mediterranean went, and only on the 3 position was the Eastern Front.
  • veteran66
    veteran66 29 June 2016 20: 32
    -3
    Quote: Wedmak
    The fact that from 22.06.1941/14.03.1942/2500 to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX the Soviet Air Force grind more than XNUMX Luftwaffe aircraft, knocking out the main striking force

    but in the 43rd and 44th (the greatest number of losses of the USSR Air Force) who flew? Looks like Martians.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 23
    -1
    Quote: Wedmak
    Goering's famous aces were defeated just on the eastern front. Although pretty battered and the British.

    Well, compare the data on the dead German aces - "experts" on the fronts and you will be unpleasantly surprised - most of them died just over Western Europe (the Eastern Front is in the second position, and everything else is somewhere far away).
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 32
      0
      If not "experts on the fronts" then 60% of the killed and captured German aces is the Kuban ... it is somewhere on the Eastern Front. Let me explain on purpose, because it looks like you are from the "whites" and the Red Army Air Force just do not like ...
      1. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 39
        0
        After that, the Luftwaffe degraded in such a way that, as already mentioned under the article where the same author blamed the American Air Force for the defeat of the German Luftwaffe, there was no one to teach German recruits how to attack a heavy bomber, and for a long time (two months) no one even figured out why they had it when attacking non-exportable bombers such a high loss.
  • Two handed
    Two handed 29 June 2016 06: 36
    +4
    At the same time, the losses of the flight personnel of Britain and Germany on both fronts are almost identical (approximately 56.821 killed British versus 57.137 killed Germans). It can be said that many bombers lost the RAF, but the United States also massively using bomber aircraft as a whole lost 26 thousand more, but they have much less losses. The king of pilots did not coast, he threw corpses.
  • V.ic
    V.ic 29 June 2016 06: 49
    +9
    In addition to aerodynamics, the Spitfire was undoubtedly a big plus = HIGH POWER ENGINE. Baba Yaga, by the way, according to fairy tales, even flew in a mortar, using an ordinary broom as a control element. The shortcomings of Soviet aviation were laid in the low-power (750 hp) licensed "Hispano Suiza", which Klimov pulled into the M-105 about 1100 hp. VK-107 was not brought to the required reliability. Now, if my grandmother had a ch..n, she would be a grandfather. Something like that. And the article is a plus.
    1. goose
      goose 29 June 2016 11: 50
      +3
      Quote: V.ic
      The shortcomings of Soviet aviation were laid in the low-power (750 hp) licensed "Hispano Suiza", which Klimov pulled into the M-105 about 1100 hp. VK-107 was not brought to the required reliability.

      The conclusion was incorrect. The fact is that the low power of Y12 was caused by the lack of a compressor, a small engine size and a small octane rating of gasoline.
      1. Gasoline. Due to the fact that the Americans refused to fulfill the contract for the construction of a second refinery, the Red Army Air Force was forced to use gasoline with an octane rating of 80-90.
      2. Small engine capacity. Due to the fact that the USSR was under an embargo, there was not enough machinery equipment to make cylinders of a different diameter, and the quality of processing suffered.
      3. The compressor. In view of the same embargo, there were no high-quality bearings for the turbine, and the guaranteed compressor life was 10..25 hours.
      4. Small number of cylinders. Why weren't there designs of liquid engines with 16-20-24 cylinders? Because again, because of the embargo, there was nothing to make a crankshaft for such an engine. Therefore, the experiments were limited to "twin" engines.
    2. Alf
      Alf 30 June 2016 19: 07
      0
      Quote: V.ic
      which Klimov pulled out about 105 hp in the M-1100

      VK-105PF2-1260 h.p.
  • Lazy ozzy
    Lazy ozzy 29 June 2016 06: 53
    +6
    ... He.177 Greif strategic four-engined bombers ...
    He-177 was twin-engine, four-engine bombers were built on its basis He-274 and He-277(in the series did not go). On the Eastern Front against the USSR, He-177s were quite used to themselves (the main base in East Prussia).
    ... FW-190 modifications of the “Sturmbock”, about which they had not heard anything on the Eastern Front ...
    Well, the FW-190A-8 (9) (main modifications) was actually designed to combat the B-17 "Flying Fortresses" and they had nothing to do on the Eastern Front.
    1. Spitfire
      Spitfire 29 June 2016 08: 52
      +3
      Quote: LazyOzzy
      ... He.177 Greif strategic four-engined bombers ...
      He-177 was twin-engine, four-engine bombers were built on its basis He-274 and He-277(in the series did not go). On the Eastern Front against the USSR, He-177s were quite used to themselves (the main base in East Prussia).
      ... FW-190 modifications of the “Sturmbock”, about which they had not heard anything on the Eastern Front ...
      Well, the FW-190A-8 (9) (main modifications) was actually designed to combat the B-17 "Flying Fortresses" and they had nothing to do on the Eastern Front.


      The 177 is better called "twin-screw", but not twin-engine. Because the DB 606 is two 12-cylinder V-shaped units, created on the basis of the DB 601, were mounted side by side and worked on a common shaft through a gearbox connecting both crankshafts.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 June 2016 09: 02
      +2
      Quote: LazyOzzy
      He-177 was a twin-engine, four-engine bombers were built on its basis, He-274 and He-277 (did not go into the series).

      Not everything is so simple. ©
      He-177 was a twin-screw four-engine aircraft. Because its engines DB 606 / DB 610 actually represented a pair of two DB 601 / DB 605.
    3. Operator
      Operator 29 June 2016 09: 12
      +3
      "... strategic four-engined bombers He.177 Greif ... which have not been heard of on the Eastern Front." Oleg Kaptsov (C) laughing

      Firstly, in German the word Greif reads as "Greif" (griffin) - if you give the Latin abbreviation of the aircraft brand, then it is advisable to write the name in Latin, and not in Russian, and even in English transcription.

      Secondly, on the He.177 bomber, twin engines were installed in two nacelles due to the inability of the German engine industry to create a double power engine. In the Luftwaffe, the aircraft received the nickname "fireworks" because of the frequent fires of an exotic engine installation (the exhaust pipes of the front engine set fire to the fuel lines of the rear one).

      Thirdly, the combat radius of the "strategic" bomber He.177 was 1540 km.

      Fourthly, on the Eastern Front, He.177 was used in 1942 as transport workers and supplied the German troops surrounded at Stalingrad. In the 1944 year, He.177 was based in East Prussia and made bomb raids on objects in the rear of the Soviet troops. The largest was a raid on a railway junction in the city of Velikie Luki 16 June 1944.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 June 2016 11: 31
        -1
        Quote: Operator
        Firstly, in German, the word Greif reads as "Greif" (griffin) - if you are already giving the Latin abbreviation of the aircraft brand, then it is advisable to write the name in Latin

        Moscow is called Moscow all over the world and no one suffers from it.
        Quote: Operator
        Thirdly, the combat radius of the "strategic" bomber He.177 was 1540 km.

        This is a question for the brilliant German engineers.

        In general, yes, the German "flying fortress" turned out to be complete rubbish
        Quote: Operator
        Fourthly, on the Eastern Front, He.177 was used in 1942 as transport workers and supplied the German troops surrounded at Stalingrad. In the 1944 year, He.177 was based in East Prussia and made bomb raids on objects in the rear of the Soviet troops. The largest was a raid on a railway junction in the city of Velikie Luki 16 June 1944.

        These are all episodes, and where was the rest of the 1000 of these bombers?

        The main body of the Vultures bombed Britain and attacked ships with guided bombs.

        Griffin drops Hs.293 anti-ship missile
    4. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 38
      0
      Quote: LazyOzzy
      ..herate four-engine He.177 “Greif” bomber ...
      He-177 was a twin-engine,

      As one friend already noted, it was a four-engine, but twin-screw aircraft.

      And by the way, it’s quite a strategic bomber, although it’s average and, of course, let us down on the combat radius.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 29 June 2016 06: 57
    +1
    One of the shortcomings of the Spitfire IX as an interceptor was its lack of means to navigate and detect targets in poor visibility conditions. In the 26-th Guards Air Defense Aviation Regiment at the end of the war, the RD-1 television system was installed on two vehicles. On its screen in the cockpit of the fighter, an image was transmitted from a tube of a ground-based radar station, with an applied terrain map. The regiment commander, Lieutenant Colonel V. Macievich and Captain N. Shcherbina flew these planes, but they didn’t have a single case of possible interception and attack.

    Due to the presence of a large number of Spitfire type fighters near Leningrad, one of the aircraft assemblies manufactured a double training version of this machine there - the Spitfire IX UTI. Spitfire IXU also made workshops in Tbilisi.


    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/spit9.html
  • Two handed
    Two handed 29 June 2016 07: 00
    +1
    Spitfires showed themselves excellently in protecting the islands from bomber aircraft and Hitler's unsuccessful heavy fighters (such as the bf-110 which the spitfires shot down as they wanted), especially in the 40s, but they did not achieve much glory in the skies over continental Europe, British aviation flew there mostly at night. The Americans were much more effective on the Western Front.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 29 June 2016 12: 10
      0
      Quote: Zweihander
      in protecting the islands from bomber aircraft and Hitler's unsuccessful heavy fighters (such as bf-110 which spitfires shot down as they wanted)

      The deepest error. The Bf-110 was a very successful machine and, possessing the necessary range, showed itself well as an escort fighter. In general, the Battle of Britain was lost by the Germans not because of a technical lag, but thanks to Goering's idiotic actions. One flight on an airship in search of radars was worth what! Instead of focusing on one goal - for example, on industrial facilities - Goering constantly darted from one type of goal to another. That radar, then airfields. At the same time, radar posts and unpaved airfields were easily restored almost the next day, and the only engine factory for Spitfires, which was located under the nose of the Germans, remained untouched.
      1. Alf
        Alf 30 June 2016 19: 13
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        The Bf-110 was a very successful machine and, possessing the necessary range, showed itself well as an escort fighter.

        He showed it perfectly. So "wonderful" that the Germans were forced to allocate ME-109 fighters to cover the ME-110 FIGHTERS. British pilots began to drag out the 110th in bend battles, where they were successfully shot down. And we can not even talk about the superiority of Spita over 110 in the rate of climb.
        It was after the battle for Britain that the concept of a multi-seat escort fighter ordered them to live long as insolvent.
  • qwert
    qwert 29 June 2016 07: 21
    +8
    Father ... Oleg ... I expected another author of course. And again I repeat. Aviation is not Kaptsov’s horse. But, on the other hand, I liked the style and style. Somehow everything is artistically and romantically presented. For the style, Oleg, a definite plus. I honed my talent with articles, it’s time to think about a book, and again, an art one. This is me completely without irony. As an author to author. The most exclusively technical texts are obtained.

    Now essentially:
    When Mitchell was told how handsome his plane was with such an elegant wing, he shrugged indifferently: “What’s the difference, the main thing is how many machine guns you can put in that wing.” And there they fit as many as eight pieces - 160 bullets per second. Although a weak, rifle caliber (7,62).
    I think this is a beautiful legend. Mitchell was always proud of his wing, realizing that it was an elliptical wing with a record low resistance (very close to the laminar wing in this indicator) and Merlin made of Spitfire-Spitfaer. So, what about the difference, the main thing is how many machine guns - it is unlikely that he spoke.

    In fact, it is not weak for the initial WWII period, on the “purebred” fighter-interceptor, created for battles with its own kind. A bullet, no matter how “small” it is, is still a bullet. It was enough just one hit in the engine “Messerschmitt”, to fail the entire cooling system (which is true for any aircraft with an in-line engine with a vulnerable “jacket” of liquid cooling). Well, if a "thoroughbred" fighter-interceptor, then just for the fight against bombers, there is differently better than a gun. The bomber is quite capable of "digesting" rifle-caliber bullets without problems. And the lumbago in the liquid cooling system also did not mean instant engine jamming. This is the first thing. And what about Messerschmitt ... So after all, the Germans soon had an FW-190 with an air-cooled engine. So, machine guns are a short-sighted decision.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 June 2016 09: 20
      +2
      Quote: qwert
      So, machine guns, well, a short-sighted decision.

      This is a forced decision - from British poverty. Their lordships decided to save money on re-equipping the Air Force with large-caliber machine guns - to wait a little and jump from the rifle caliber to the 20-mm cannon right away. But the trouble is - the finishing of the serial "Ispana" dragged on so much that she was late not only to the beginning of the war, but even to the Battle of Razor.

      The situation was partly saved by the Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary bullets developed for machine guns: during test firing at the Blenheim's protected tanks (distance of 180 m), they gave one fire per 5 hits (despite the fact that ordinary British and German incendiary bullets gave 1 fire 10 hits).
      Comparative British tests of British .303 "and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design - it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.

      In addition, these bullets, when hit, gave a bright flash, clearly visible to the pilots, which showed that the lead was taken correctly and the lines went to the target.

      But due to problems with production, at first, ammunition with Mk VI 'De Wilde' bullets was equipped with ammunition of only 1 barrel out of 8. Another 2 were equipped with conventional incendiary. 2 - cartridges with BB bullets. 3 - with conventional bullets. By 1942, the proportion had changed: half of the machine-gun barrels were spat by BB, half by incendiary.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 29 June 2016 10: 11
        +1
        The Franks had the same thing - they decided to jump over caliber 13.2 You can’t look at their rifle distortions without laughing. Although laughter and through tears, you are a rifleman at Leo-451, you’re the 109th rushing at you and will turn it into a sieve, but you need to narrow cab change weighty disc
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 23
      +1
      Maybe this is also why it appeared. The instant jamming does not play a big role, and even on a car it happens very quickly.
      To deal with bombers, guns are better because shooting from them from afar, there is less chance of getting a bullet from a gunner.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 29 June 2016 07: 35
    +3
    ... Britain rules the seas, but air is more important than water. In battles with the Luftwaffe, a superhero was born, grinding a good third of German aviation in the sky in World War II. His name is “Supermarine Spitfire” (“Ardent”).



    at the beginning of World War II, England had long ceased to rule the seas, and a third of German aircraft brought down by Spitfire is, to say the least, an exaggeration. In general, Oleg, as always, is from one extreme to the other.
    1. Leto
      Leto 29 June 2016 08: 07
      -3
      Quote: Dimon19661
      at the beginning of World War II, England had long ruled the seas

      Why's that? And who ruled?
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 29 June 2016 09: 06
        +1
        The fleets of the USA and Japan were significantly stronger than the fleets of England.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 23
          0
          The American became stronger during the war.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 June 2016 09: 37
        0
        Quote: Leto
        Why did it happen?

        First is the Washington Treaty. And then - the permanent problem with finances (before the beginning of Chamberlain's reign). With the money for the fleet, the Lady of the Seas was so bad that Prime Minister R. MacDonald even tried to cut salaries of sailors by 10-25%. As a result, Britain received the Invergordon rebellion.

        As a result, in the interwar period, the pace of construction of new RN capital ships and modernization of old ones lagged behind those of the United States and Japan. They realized it too late: the military budget was increased only under the "peacemaker" Chamberlain, orders for new ships were sent to the shipyard - but the industry, weakened by years of inactivity, simply did not have time to restore the combat capability of the fleet (the same "Vickers" was simply sewn up with the production of naval artillery). But there were also ground forces and aviation, which also required finance, resources and capacities.
        The year of peace negotiated by Chamberlain in Munich was not enough to restore the fighting efficiency of the British armed forces.
        1. goose
          goose 29 June 2016 12: 00
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          First is the Washington Treaty. And then - the permanent financial problem

          First World War I, where the Americans also asked to let them trade in the British colonies, due to both reasons and the lack of finance from the brazen.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 June 2016 12: 57
            0
            Quote: goose
            First World War I, where the Americans also asked to let them trade in the British colonies, due to both reasons and the lack of finance from the brazen.

            In short, everything was limited by finances. Stretch legs on clothes.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 29 June 2016 07: 56
    +2
    On the content of the article, no comment .. Already, many said and right .. I don’t want to repeat .. About the car .. pretty ..
  • Ruby
    Ruby 29 June 2016 09: 16
    0
    Quote: LazyOzzy
    ... He.177 Greif strategic four-engined bombers ...
    He-177 was twin-engine, four-engine bombers were built on its basis He-274 and He-277(in the series did not go). On the Eastern Front against the USSR, He-177s were quite used to themselves (the main base in East Prussia).
    ... FW-190 modifications of the “Sturmbock”, about which they had not heard anything on the Eastern Front ...
    Well, the FW-190A-8 (9) (main modifications) was actually designed to combat the B-17 "Flying Fortresses" and they had nothing to do on the Eastern Front.

    2 screws does not mean that the plane has 2 engines. He177 had two VMGs, each of which was a pair of DB606 / 610 engines. This decision was due to the fact that the requirement for the possibility of striking from a dive was laid down in the ToR for development. The requirement is completely idiotic for such a heavy machine, but Hitler was obsessed with the success of the U87 in this field. This just ruined the plane by and large. The VMG turned out to be very unreliable, at least half of the planes were lost not in battles, but in accidents. He277 was made just like the development of He177, while the Germans came to the classic layout of engines on heavy aircraft.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 29 June 2016 12: 00
      0
      Quote: Yakut
      This decision was due to the fact that the requirement for the possibility of striking from a dive was laid down in the ToR for development.

      This decision was due to the fact that two motors combined into one longitudinal block significantly improved the aerodynamics of the machine. Moreover, it cannot be said that it was technically adventurous and groundless. The Germans already had experience in the production of automobile engines, when power was taken between the fourth and fifth cylinders on an in-line eight-cylinder engine. That is, in fact, the engine consisted of two four-cylinder engines with two separate crankshafts. And it worked well!
  • Operator
    Operator 29 June 2016 09: 28
    0
    The Spitfire, with a disgusting view from the cockpit in the rear hemisphere, was a typical air defense fighter - a direct analogue of the Soviet MiG-3.

    "Spitfire" on the Western and Eastern Fronts was used against German bombers. The forced use of it as a front-line fighter on the Western Front was caused by the inability of the British aviation industry to create a front-line fighter of the Fokker or Lavochkin type.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 29 June 2016 09: 44
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      The Spitfire, with a disgusting view from the cockpit in the rear hemisphere, was a typical air defense fighter - a direct analogue of the Soviet MiG-3.

      And La-5 and Lagg-3 are also air defense destroyers? They also have a gargrot behind the cab. To be honest, then Yaki and the snake went to view the rear hemisphere. It’s not the flashlight, but the fact that a person’s head does not know how to turn back on 180.
      1. Operator
        Operator 29 June 2016 12: 17
        +2
        My head is turning xNUMX degrees at the wheel of a car laughing

        Due to poor visibility (gargrot), ceteris paribus, Messer, LaGG, Spitfire and MiG merge Fokker, La-7 and Mustang in an air battle.

        Spitfire Mk-VIII / La-7:
        - specific power, hp / kg 0,47 / 0,57
        - wing load, kg / sq.m 161 / 184
        What is the masterpiece of engineering of the British, who hardly pulled the flight characteristics of an all-metal aircraft to the level of characteristics of percussion?
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 28
          0
          in that he is English ... and the Mustang is American, with an English engine.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • Ruby
    Ruby 29 June 2016 09: 36
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The Spitfire, with a disgusting view from the cockpit in the rear hemisphere, was a typical air defense fighter - a direct analogue of the Soviet MiG-3.

    "Spitfire" on the Western and Eastern Fronts was used against German bombers. The forced use of it as a front-line fighter on the Western Front was caused by the inability of the British aviation industry to create a front-line fighter of the Fokker or Lavochkin type.

    Following this logic, Bf109 was also an air defense fighter :) He didn’t have a teardrop lamp for the whole war.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 29 June 2016 10: 17
    +4
    So did I understand correctly that Spitov simply had no shortcomings? Neither with the chassis, nor with the weapons and ammunition, nor with the carburetor of the engine? Yes, and with technological adaptability
    No, if the article is in the genre of panegyrics, then these little things can not be remembered, but on a site that is positioned as military-technical, I would like to see an objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages
    1. saigon
      saigon 29 June 2016 10: 35
      0
      With the engine, it’s such a trifle, you’ll think it’s a stall for negative overloads, a trifle that it is dangerous to go sharply at the peak.
    2. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 29 June 2016 10: 47
      0
      Quote: sivuch
      and with the chassis, neither with weapons and ammunition, nor with the carburetor of the engine?

      Well, compared with problems like the same Me-109 - probably not.

      And what about weapons? jamming of wing guns is probably a traditional problem for all fighters of that time.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 29 June 2016 11: 40
        +2
        In the order of dizzy, there was no such Me-109 aircraft. Me-209 or Me-262 were, and the 109 was Bf-109 (i.e., Bayneir factories)
        But with the landing gears, yes, the problems are about the same. They were narrower, respectively, accidents on landings. And on the first sleeps (the first hundred, if sclerosis does not change), there is also manual cleaning of the chassis. But on charitons or Fw-190 such a problem did not have.
        And with weapons -
        firstly, it was easier to aim with a motor cannon, at any distance and from any angle. But here - what sprouted sprouted.
        But the BZ was too small, especially in the early ones. For small caliber it was customary to have 500-1000 rounds per barrel, and for the sleeping (and Khariton) -300-330. Moreover, the sleeping machine guns were "smeared" all over the wing, so the accuracy was a third worse than that of the harik. In option C, as far as I remember, there were 2 20mm (120 rounds per barrel) + 4X7.69 (350 per barrel). And option E would not hurt to check - in my opinion 500 cartridges are for both.
        And the fact that before the appearance of direct injection, the engine stalled at negative overloads, then, as I understand it, consensus
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 29 June 2016 11: 52
          0
          Quote: sivuch
          And the fact that before the appearance of direct injection, the engine stalled at negative overloads, then, as I understand it, consensus

          Many constantly confuse terminology. Direct injection is when fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. The task, not fully resolved today. At that time, and on the vast majority of modern engines, fuel was injected into the intake manifold. It can be a mono-injection - when there is one nozzle on all cylinders - and a distributed injection when each nozzle works on its own cylinder. It is clear that the carburetor engines of atmospheric engines stalled at negative overloads due to violation of mixture formation. However, the installation of superchargers solved this problem.
        2. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 28
          0
          Quote: sivuch
          In the order of dizzy, there was no such Me-109 aircraft. Me-209 or Me-262 were, and the 109 was Bf-109 (i.e., Bayneir factories)

          A little disappointing - until 1943 it was Bf-109, since 1943 - Willie Messerschmidt got the right to change the abbreviation. Therefore, the Messer of the later series went "Me-109".

          Quote: sivuch
          as far as I remember, it was 2 by 20mm (by 120 shells per barrel)
          In my opinion, this is certainly not so hot what a big, but SUFFICIENT ammunition.
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 00
            0
            Well, and how about La-5, for example?
          2. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 00
            0
            Well, and how about La-5, for example?
          3. sivuch
            sivuch 30 June 2016 09: 28
            +1
            Where did they go this way?
            For some reason, in all serious publications, Novarra, Nemechok, E. Brown write so -Bf-109G, Bf-109K
          4. sivuch
            sivuch 30 June 2016 09: 38
            +1
            120 shells per barrel, no matter where, even taking into account the worst accuracy. Although the Germans had 150-200, and the La-5 also 150.
            But 300-330 rounds of ammunition in the early days are simply few.
            By the way, during the Battle of England, many English pilots preferred Hurricane
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 30 June 2016 10: 08
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              By the way, during the Battle of England, many English pilots preferred Hurricane

              It was more stable in flight, had a greater reserve of survivability and was considered the best aircraft for attacking bombers. He was sleeping better for fights with fighters.
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 44
              0
              La-5 seems to have 200; alas, he didn’t have any machine guns for these two guns.
              On La-9, when they increased the number of guns to 4, it was 75 per barrel
  • Potter
    Potter 29 June 2016 10: 27
    +1
    It is impossible to rely on one source when writing an article claiming historicity. According to very verified data, 52850 vehicles were lost on the eastern front of the Luftwaffe. But, of these, combat losses are slightly less than half. Most are not combat losses. The Germans also suffered from the quality of manufacturing technology, as did the Red Army Air Force. And from the lack of education of personnel after 1943.
    The Red Army Air Force lost 46100 vehicles in battle and another 60000 vehicles as non-combat losses. So the price was high.
    Spitfire is a great car, but the full article does not count.
  • Lazy ozzy
    Lazy ozzy 29 June 2016 10: 32
    +1
    Everyone who corrected me about He 177 2/4, thanks, got excited.
  • nekot
    nekot 29 June 2016 10: 37
    +2
    What style, it’s immediately clear who the author is))) Here it is, the visual result of reading comics and watching TV shows!
    "The latest modifications were equipped exclusively with cannons. It is worth noting that, following the results of the air battles of the Second World War, the question" Which is more effective: cannons or 'garlands' of machine guns? " and remained without a definite answer. " Doesn't it seem to the author that these 2 proposals contradict each other somewhat, especially given the fact that other fighters of the belligerent countries also switched mainly to cannons?
    1. Santa Fe
      29 June 2016 11: 35
      -1
      Quote: nekot
      belligerent countries also switched mainly to guns?

      Americans before 60-s had machine guns

      Mustang, jet Shooting Star and Saber
      standard - six 12,7 caliber machine guns
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 29 June 2016 11: 51
        0
        What about lightings and corsairs?
      2. nekot
        nekot 29 June 2016 12: 05
        0
        The much weaker armament of the Sabers (six 12,7 mm machine guns) was often only capable of damaging the MiG-15. The Americans, despite the efforts made to develop cannon armament, failed to finalize it in a short time, and the guns (four M39 20 mm caliber) on the F-86 were installed after the end of the Korean War: http://forums.airbase.ru /2004/01/t24422--mig-15-vs-f-86-zyablik.html
        Finally, the Americans had to admit what the Germans had never suggested to them: the thesis of the superiority of cannon weapons.
        As a result, four 20-millimeter paper was installed on the next modification of the Saber: http://licey.net/free/2-srazheniya__izmenivshie_hod_istorii/12-srazheniya__izmen
        ivshie_hod_istorii__1945_2004 / stages / 1220-11_boevye_samolety_ssha_i_sssr_kak_sop
        erniki_dm_krelenko.html
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 39
          0
          Strange, neither American nor Soviet pilots think so.
          There was a cannon on the P-39 AeroCobra (what was still unfinished there before the war?), And the whole 4 machine gun - this plane was not in demand in the US Air Force.
          In Korea, the F-9F attack aircraft immediately had 4 guns - what was there unfinished?
          The next modification of the Saber was 4 20mm because this modification was only in air defense, it was supposed to shoot down Soviet Tu-4s, which also had 20-23 mm defensive armament and therefore could hit ordinary Sabers from a distance. According to the results of testing these machines in Korea for the possibility of combating tactical MiG-15 aircraft or Soviet escort fighters, the American pilots unequivocally said "no" because of the small ammunition and insufficient rate of fire.
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 37
            0
            Quote: Simpsonian
            There was a cannon on the P-39 AeroCobra (what was still unfinished there before the war?), And the whole 4 machine gun - this plane was not in demand in the US Air Force.

            In the Air Force it may be, but in the Navy aviation and especially in the aviation of the Marine Corps - as an island-based fighter - it was very useful and used in the Pacific Ocean.
            1. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 56
              -1
              From two weeks, the pilots had a choice of up to two months where he was not there.
            2. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 30 June 2016 00: 56
              -1
              From two weeks, the pilots had a choice of up to two months where he was not there.
          2. Alf
            Alf 30 June 2016 19: 24
            0
            Quote: Simpsonian
            There was a cannon on the P-39 AeroCobra (what was still unfinished there before the war?), And the whole 4 machine gun - this plane was not in demand in the US Air Force.

            Cobra became unclaimed in the US Air Force due to the lack of a turbocharger and, accordingly, low altitude. By the way, P-39s were used by the Americans in North Africa and the Pacific Ocean, albeit with a much smaller number.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 June 2016 20: 46
              -2
              Where is it written about a turbocharger? And why wasn’t it?
              By the way - no, because in insignificant quantities it was used only two weeks, then it was abandoned.
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 June 2016 20: 58
              -1
              Airacobra was built on the same concept as the heavier Airacuda, it was a fighter bombers or attack aircraft. The Japanese did not fly on heavy bombers, the gun became unnecessary, and the Allison engine fired rods, which in the American version inevitably led to disaster. The attack was handled better by other planes with NAR. The P-39 came out of a corkscrew only using anti-stop missiles, entered into it, and it was flat, easily — aerodynamics and centering were disgusting. The gun could not be removed because it would violate the already burnt-out centering and the plane was shoved off by the Soviet Air Force. The Soviet aces were killed on it more than the Germans killed on it. Especially at first, until in the USSR they themselves shifted the control rods that were interrupted by this very departed Allison connecting rod.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 30 June 2016 22: 19
                +2
                Lord, do you learn to write in Russian or something before centering, etc. reason things ... You give out such pearls that you don’t even know what to say ... child of the Internet. But even on the Internet it is customary to give references to the source in confirmation of their statements ... Your nonsense is so enchanting that the source can probably only be a well-smoked jamb ...
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 30 June 2016 23: 39
                  0
                  I didn’t notice mistakes, as well as your semantic load besides hidden drug propaganda. bully Enchanting not to know this.

                  Lancasteres flew at night and dropped much more bombs on Germany than the Americans, the latter had an emphasis on fuel range for the possibility of waging war in the Pacific.
      3. Alf
        Alf 30 June 2016 19: 21
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Saber

        North American F-86H-4x20 mm.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 30 June 2016 20: 42
          0
          In what year did this modification appear, and for what?
  • Potter
    Potter 29 June 2016 11: 10
    0
    (or did someone seriously believe that the combat aircraft engine was named after the wizard from Oz?)
    And this phrase, but already about erudition.
    Merlin is a wizard of the times of the knights of the round table, King Arthur, his mentor. The hero of many works of dozens of authors, including domestic, Strugatsky, for example. But Oz has nothing to do with the country at all!
    If anyone remembers, the wizard of Oz is not a wizard at all.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 29 June 2016 11: 15
    +4
    It turns out that the British won the war by building 20000 spitfires. And the Americans, at lightnings and corsairs, who covered the thunderbolts. On the ground, only Germans, who lost the war, and technologically backward ones, assisting in the second roles of the USSR, were chopped with sapper shovels and helmets.
    And to be proud of the downing of the Swallow is also not necessary. Mig-3 also shot down one Schwalba, but none of this made a sensation.
    By the way. And why did the Frenchman twist this star into a duel in Yak-3? Was Griffon worn or full of holes in the fuselage?
    Well, and another on the road. Yak-9 beat 5 lightnings while conducting defensive battles. Kozheduba at the same time recall with his pair of mustangs as stars on the fuselage. In all these meetings there were experienced pilots, not whipping boys.

    This war was not won by Spitfire. And not even the T-34 and PPSh. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the peoples of the USSR won this war, no matter how pathetic it sounds. We won technologically, we had the most trained and motivated aircraft. We were just the best.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 29 June 2016 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      Kozheduba at the same time recall with his pair of mustangs as stars on the fuselage

      With all due respect to Ivan Nikitovich, these victories were never entered into his personal account. When the command was convinced that the allies did not understand anything (the surviving American pilot believed that he was hit by a red-nosed fockewulf) he grabbed a film of a film machine gun and handed them to Kozhedub with the words: “Hide them and never tell anyone!” So they were stored to this day in the family of the famous pilot.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 12: 32
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        When the command was convinced that the Allies did not understand anything (the surviving American pilot believed that he was hit by a red-nosed fockewulf)

        Yes, they all understood even before they started shooting! They just said that in captivity so that such "allies" would not be shot in the same ranks with the Vlasovites ...
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 29 June 2016 12: 55
          -1
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Yes, they all understood before they even started shooting!

          Do you have any evidence?
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 13: 02
            0
            Evidence of what? Such attacks on Soviet aircraft were widespread, and Kozhedub, before knocking down the first, was substituted twice showing him his red stars on the wings.
            1. Kenneth
              Kenneth 29 June 2016 13: 20
              0
              Can you quote from Kozhedub?
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 29 June 2016 13: 33
                0
                Quote: Kenneth
                Can you quote from Kozhedub?

                Why quote. He was personally present there!)) Of course, he will not give citations confirming his theory.
                Kozhedub replenished his combat account with two American F-51 Mustang fighters, which mistakenly tried to attack him over Berlin, but were immediately shot down while repelling the attack. As Ivan Nikitovich himself told me, on April 17, 1945, meeting the Flying Fortresses of the allies in the air, he drove off a couple of Messerschmitts from them with a barrage burst, but a second later he himself was attacked by American cover fighters. Kozhedub recalled with indignation half a century later. "The queue was long, with a long distance of a kilometer, with bright, unlike ours and German tracer shells. Because of the great distance, it was visible how the end of the queue was bent down. I turned over and, Having quickly approached, he attacked the extreme American (by the number of fighters in the escort, I already knew who it was) - something exploded in his fuselage, he was very worn out and went with a descent towards our troops. Having completed a combat turn in half-loop, from an inverted position, I I packed the next one.My shells went down very well - the plane exploded in the air ...
                When the tension of the battle subsided, my mood was not at all victorious - I had already managed to make out the white stars on the wings and fuselages. "They will arrange for me ... by the first number," I thought, putting the car down. But everything turned out In the cockpit "Mustang", landed on our territory, sat a hefty Negro. To the question of the guys who came to him, who had knocked him down (or rather, when this question could be translated), he answered: “Focke-Wulf” with a red nose ... I do not think he played along; even then the allies did not learn to look in both ...
                When the PCF films were shown, the main points of the battle were fixed on them very clearly. The films were watched by the regimental command, divisions, and corps. The division commander, Savitsky, to whom we then entered into operational subordination, after watching, said: "These victories are in the account of a future war." And Pavel Fyodorovich Chupikov, our regiment commander, soon gave me these tapes with the words: "Take them to yourself, Ivan, and do not show it to anyone."
                Incidentally, given that the crippled pilot turned out to be black, it should be assumed that the rivals of Kozhedub were the pilots of the 332th flight group from Taskigi - one of the best parts of the US Air Force.
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 29 June 2016 13: 49
                  0
                  Was this a long quote from Kozhedub, or from someone politically correct words?

                  It was to this group that he was ordered as part of the show who is the boss in the sky, after a series of similar and not entirely successful "tests of strength".
                  It was very easy to distinguish his plane from others, as well as Pokryshkin's "weave" (which was in the air and radio intercept).
              2. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 29 June 2016 13: 44
                0
                You can find it yourself.
    2. RPG_
      RPG_ 29 June 2016 14: 38
      +1
      The Spits won the Battle of Britain. For them it is like Stalingrad for us.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 16: 22
        +1
        yes, only it would be nice to always compare the duration, the forces of the parties, civilian and military losses ... which the BBC never does. Even in one raid on Stalingrad more German bombers were involved at a time
  • U-krop
    U-krop 29 June 2016 11: 23
    0
    Another article of the paid traitor-podovets-agent of the State Department! 11
  • Verdun
    Verdun 29 June 2016 11: 39
    0
    Where the main and most widespread enemy of the Germans in the air was the “Supermarine Spitfire”, which killed at least a third of all fascist aircraft during the war

    Absolute nonsense.
    During the Second World War, the aircraft of the warring countries lost: 1. German Air Force: 85.650 aircraft;
    according to our data and
    According to Germany itself, losses in the planes of the German Air Force, taking into account damage from 10% to the complete destruction of the aircraft, for the entire Second World War, from 01.09.39, are 71965.
    Moreover, statistics claim that
    German air forces on the Soviet-German front lost 52 aircraft
    Of this amount, non-combat losses are about 50% or a little more. That is, by any means, more than 60% of Germany has lost on the eastern front. At the same time, during the battle for Britain, the majority of German cars that were shot down fell not on Spitfire, but on the much more massive Hurricane at that time. But there was also anti-aircraft fire, and other aircraft, such as the same Mustang, posted by the author in the photograph, all sorts of Tempest and Wirlwind ...
    1. Two handed
      Two handed 29 June 2016 12: 02
      -2
      Well, Germans are unlikely to have lost so much on the Eastern Front, given that the bulk of the Luftwaffe fought on the Eastern Front only until the year 43. From 43 AD, up to 2/3 of German fighters were already in the west.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 29 June 2016 12: 06
        +3
        Since 1943, the Germans, who were tired of fighting on sapper blades, all went to the Western Front, taking with them all the planes. Left two Tigers for cover only. hi
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 46
          +1
          one of them is white wink
        2. Two handed
          Two handed 1 July 2016 11: 53
          -3
          statistics, she is. There were no such gigantic air battles on the Eastern Front when there were thousands of planes in the air at the same time, on the Eastern Front the Germans made almost 3 times less sorties than Soviet aircraft (approximately 1,3 million sorties versus 3,5 million sorties). Why do you think that IL-2, which had been losing enormous amounts of the entire war, in the second half of the war significantly increased combat survivability? It’s just that the number of fighters opposing them fell by a factor of 4. Of course, such a reaction touches, to say that out of 80 or more German planes shot down, 50-60 were shot down by Russians, then angry at the doubt in these words, German submarines will probably start writing that all sunk and the Japanese fleet soviet sailors sunk lol
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 1 July 2016 18: 22
            0
            The air battle in the Kuban is just one of these battles. The numerical superiority there was 3-4 times, which allowed separation by height to remove the problem of a significant lag in the power of Soviet aircraft engines.
            In the air battles after it in the West, the Anglo-Americans outnumbered the Germans in numbers 10-15 times, therefore, of these thousands, there were very few German aircraft.
            After the Kuban, the survivability of Soviet aircraft and their pilots increased significantly because the number of German aces was greatly reduced in its process. Before her, about 1/3 of Soviet pilots had their first sortie last, after it less than 1/7, and such proportions became a German problem.
            The statistics are such that all the XXI series submarines without crews were left by Marinesco, and the Japanese fleet without fuel was bombed for the most part by the US Air Force, much like the Lancaster finished off the battleship Tirpitz wounded by Lunin in Trondheim. Of course, you can try to blame it on a military case, but not the results of the Kuban air battle.
            pokryshkin before becoming an ace and then winning it, he came on foot from his first two flights, then shot down his Su-2 by mistake, then he began to teach others how to fight so that this would not happen.
            And now compare this with the fact that then, on the contrary, 2 months in the Luftwaffe, while the best of the best licked the wounds, and the Anglamerican gunners scrambled the recruits of the Luftwaffe from 0.5 in, there was no one who wanted to find out what was the matter and explain to his recruits that after attacking a heavy American bomber go under it and not take the pen on yourself, as after an attack on a ground target.
            1. Two handed
              Two handed 4 July 2016 05: 23
              0
              Again, cliches, cliches ... The battle for the Kuban is filled with propaganda, both sides stated that they shot down more aircraft than there were at all. The Germans generally claim that they lost in the Kuban killed only 24 pilots from late April to early June. According to Soviet data, the Germans lost including allies lost 135 fighter pilots killed. At least 3 times more planes participated in the battle for Britain and the losses of the parties were much higher. Even in the one-time Bodenplatte operation in the West, the Germans simultaneously lifted more aircraft into the air than participated in the battle of Kuban (about 900). By the beginning of the December battles of 1944 in the Ardennes on the Western Front, the Germans had about 3800 aircraft, mostly fighters, against 6000 Allied aircraft, where is there a superiority of 10-15 times? A raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944, reflected 25 groups of fighters. 25 groups of fighters on the entire Eastern Front have never been since October 1941. On July 7, 1944, 1850 allied planes flew over to factories in central Germany, more than 600 German fighters against them, etc. etc. As for the German sailors, apparently Marinescu didn’t drown them all if the Germans used them as regular infantry in the spring of the 45th :) As for the Japanese, call me at least 1 Japanese aircraft carrier that was bombed in the pool when it was without fuel?) Japanese fleet and sea they ground aviation in battles, for example, in the battle in Leyte Bay, the Japanese lost 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battleships, 8 cruisers and 12 destroyers, lost more than 10000 people, in the battle at Midway Atoll, the Japanese lost 4 aircraft carriers, etc. There were no such large-scale naval battles in other directions at all, and in history probably only the battle of Jutland was larger.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 4 July 2016 13: 50
                0
                Whether you like it or not - German dominance in the water was lost as a result of the Kuban air battle.

                The battle for Britain cannot be compared with the air attack on the USSR, even with the raids on Staddingrad it cannot be compared.
                some of them claim that they lost four tanks near Prokhorovka ...
                If there were 3800 then why only 900 flew?
                6500 bombers alone bombed the German missile research center alone (when Dr. Thiel was killed).
                Because of the lack of fuel, half of the Japanese fleet did not reach Leyte Gulf and turned back, as it did later with the Philippines, another half from Rabaul did not even try, the battles were such that in the Indonesian straits from coastal airfields, the Japanese fleet was in relative proximity to them bombed by non-aerial B-17s from above.
                All WWII carriers were much cheaper than battleships, even Sinano.
                The only carrier battle is the Midway, and that’s because the American cryptographer was sitting in the Japanese headquarters. The results of the battle of Jutland - the scale of the forces do not match, and almost none.
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 29 June 2016 12: 33
    -1
    Author plus for emotional writing. The aircraft is truly legendary and no one can disagree with the statement that it is one of the best 2MV fighters.
    And simulators still cannot do anything with Yaks (up to 3 thousand) and Spits (up to 6 thousand)
  • Taoist
    Taoist 29 June 2016 13: 08
    +6
    "It is worth noting that according to the results of air battles, the Second World Question “What is more effective: guns or“ garlands ”of machine guns?” Remained without an unambiguous answer." (with)

    As usual in the "corporate Kaptsov style" - la-la poplar, there are many beautiful words but almost no specifics, especially the one on which any conclusions of the type cited above are based. The fact that it was just the war that put everything in its place and the caliber and firepower of aircraft weapons was continuously increasing apparently is not an "unequivocal answer" ... Yes, the really necessary mass of a second salvo can be obtained by stupidly increasing the number of barrels, but this is what kind of "squiggle" exists also the so-called ballistic dependence - i.e. it is no longer possible to provide the required firing distance by increasing the number of barrels ...
    And Sleeps, a really excellent plane, is perhaps the only bright (apart from Mosquito) exception in a very peculiar design school of British aviation ...
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 30 June 2016 10: 13
      -1
      Quote: Taoist
      And Sleeps, a really excellent plane, is perhaps the only bright (apart from Mosquito) exception in a very peculiar design school of British aviation ...

      Excuse me, but Lancaster? and Tempest?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 30 June 2016 22: 33
        +1
        Lancaster is a classic example ... it was necessary to bungle such a shed studded with a hedgehog with a rifle caliber ... but at the same time absolutely defenseless from below. With such aerodynamics, even excellent engines did not help him, neither the ceiling nor the speed ... but the belly turned out to be big, it intermeddle a lot.
        The tempest is also cool, I don’t want to hang such a radiator beard ... I don’t want to shoot and at the same time assigning the car to attack aircraft ... The rifle bullet and the engine got up ...
        1. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 30 June 2016 22: 57
          -1
          Quote: Taoist
          ..but at the same time absolutely defenseless from below
          Well, I would say that almost all of them were like that.
          Quote: Taoist
          The tempest is also cool, to hang such a beard of a radiator without covering it.
          Actually, he was a fighter (in particular, a hunter for V-1), and, last but not least, istr. Bombs, not a ground attack aircraft.

          Dear Taoist, once again I am convinced of your high competence - indeed this is somewhat unusual, but on the whole a very true look at these machines. Although of course they had many advantages.
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth 29 June 2016 13: 13
    +1
    I guessed the author by reading the first paragraph. It’s sensible, interesting, but metaphorical and too unequivocal. However, the bias is not enough for the majority.
  • askold
    askold 29 June 2016 14: 54
    0
    Oh sport, you are the world! Since the family tree of the fighter began with racing aircraft, in the creation of which Reginald Mitchell gained worldwide fame and title, several photos of the racing Supermarine S6B:
  • askold
    askold 29 June 2016 14: 56
    0
    ... from a different angle.
  • askold
    askold 29 June 2016 14: 59
    0
    ... and yet, a general view ...
    1. askold
      askold 29 June 2016 15: 47
      0
      A participant in the races for the Schneider Cup, September 13, 1931 became the absolute winner (there were no other rivals due to technical malfunctions), forever (the 3rd victory in a row) winning the award for England, with an average speed of 547,32 km / h. On it on September 29, 1931, Lieutenant George Headley Steinfort set an absolute world speed record of 657,76 km / h, but ... In the picture of the 1929 race (second victory of England)
  • DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 29 June 2016 15: 18
    0
    Sleeping was clearly worse than a mustang. The iron argument: the sleeping people were painted in camouflage, but the Mustangs weren’t. The British were afraid, unlike the Americans, who scornfully neglected camouflage.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 44
      0
      Visually, you can just move away from the screen by 2-3 steps and try to immediately notice a pair of "uncamouflaged" mirror mustangs against the background of the sky and clouds on the illumination to the previous article by the same author, and not flog nonsense after him.
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 29 June 2016 15: 45
        0
        You can also find out what sarcasm is. ;-)
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 June 2016 15: 54
          0
          I think most of him also did not understand, especially without emoticons.

          The comment immediately below shows that some did not understand the subject itself.
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 29 June 2016 15: 48
      0
      Quote: DrVintorez
      Sleeping was clearly worse than a mustang.

      First, if the Americans had not received a license from the British to manufacture the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, which was produced in America under the name Packard 1650, Mustang would have remained a mediocre machine. Secondly, the British constantly improved this line of engines and there were modifications of Spitfires (Mk VII, IX, XVI) that were not inferior to Mustang in any of the components, including altitude. And as for camouflage, the US abandoned it closer to the end of the war, when quantitative superiority in the air allowed the enemy not to be very afraid.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 29 June 2016 16: 15
        +1
        Mirror camouflage, on the contrary, better disguises itself at a height, it reflects the same clouds and the sky around. See the comment above from 15: 44 and deliver this simple experience ...
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 29 June 2016 16: 35
          0
          ohohohoho ... remember the previous opus of the author, if you read it of course. there is a pearl, which is not at all masked by the brave Americans to mask. it was contempt for the enemy! from here and the conclusion that the Britons on their backs could not afford this
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 June 2016 17: 10
            0
            I refer to this opus for a visual experiment with the first illustration in it
        2. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 58
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Mirror camouflage, on the contrary, better disguises itself at a height, it reflects the same clouds and the sky around. See the comment above from 15: 44 and deliver this simple experience ...

          There is still a very important fact - in the presence of decent material that can be sanded to a mirror, high-speed data rises (after all, the paint gives extra weight + poor-quality coating requires updating with more and more layers - and the mirror is only sanded and that's it).
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 30 June 2016 01: 12
            +1
            This "worthy material" was not in short supply. The deficiency was transparent varnish without which thin duralumin in the air quickly deteriorated and crumbled. Especially the rivets.
            Painting aluminum with regular paint is the same idea as painting a bar of soap. She will not stay on it.
  • askold
    askold 29 June 2016 16: 21
    0
    ... But, and here is a competitor from Italy, which for technical reasons did not participate in Schneider's races, the record-setting seaplane Mario Castoldi Macchi MC-72. The power of the propulsion system was 3100 hp, it consisted of two twin 12-cylinder V-engines " Fiat ", rotating two propellers in opposite directions. By using coaxial propellers, they removed the reactive moment, which previously forced the floats of seaplanes to be asymmetrical. It belongs to him to the present !!! time, an absolute speed record among seaplanes with a piston engine. On September 23, 1934, pilot Ajello, for the first time in the history of mankind, overcame the bar of 700 km / h, his achievement was 709,20 km / h. Gilded inserts on the fuselage, wings and floats, - water and oil coolers for cooling systems.
    Graceful and handsome devil, perfection itself!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 29 June 2016 17: 22
      +1
      Record cars are always beautiful ... but they are ultimate. And it’s really that in a battle spitfire from that racing horseradish but a little ... There it was such a load on the wing that they couldn’t always turn and they had to run several kilometers to take off (by the way, one of the reasons why seaplanes kept a speed record for a long time (takeoff length is not limited).
  • balabol
    balabol 29 June 2016 18: 25
    +4
    "The Rolls-Royce Marilyn, named after a bird of prey of the falcon squad, has become the permanent symbol of the Royal Air Force (or did anyone seriously believe that the engine of a combat plane was named after a wizard from Oz?)"

    The author may be an expert in aviation, but not literature. The wizard Merlin of ancient Celtic legends is the mentor of King Arthur. Merlin has nothing to do with "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" - The Wizard of Oz by Frank Baum.
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 30 June 2016 00: 41
      0
      Quote: balabol
      The wizard Merlin of ancient Celtic legends is the mentor of King Arthur. Merlin has nothing to do with "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" - The Wizard of Oz by Frank Baum.

      But the airplane engine was named after a rather rare and fast bird.
  • Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 29 June 2016 20: 11
    0
    Quote: Wedmak

    The victory of Britain over German pilots is explained by the remoteness and, as a consequence, the impossibility of covering the bombers with fighters, weak calculations of the approach time to the target and the general lack of coordination of the raids.

    The victory of Britain, first of all, is explained by the strategic mistake of the Germans - the transfer of bombing from industrial facilities to civilian targets.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 22
      0
      There was no such transfer before using V-1/2. There was a transfer from the suppression of airfields to other military or transport-industrial purposes and belated work on English radars.
      1. Munchhausen
        Munchhausen 30 June 2016 19: 58
        0
        It was. September 15, 1940 the raid on London failed, the Luftwaffe got into a puddle.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 30 June 2016 20: 22
          -1
          Why did they bomb it? Station or port docks on the Thames as usual?
          1. Munchhausen
            Munchhausen 30 June 2016 21: 24
            0
            Residential neighborhoods. And on November 15, Coventry was almost completely destroyed.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 June 2016 23: 28
              0
              Of course, not Goering’s lawyer, but if there were residential quarters, then I didn’t see a single discussion in which the British would prove to the Germans that they began to bomb the residential quarters first. In Coventry, 12 aircraft factories were bombed; during the war, about 560 civilians died in it.
              1. Munchhausen
                Munchhausen 1 July 2016 21: 33
                -1
                No. The residential neighborhoods of London and Coventry were bombed.
                Avro firm with Landcaster, did not take long to wait.
                Do not confuse with the frail Xe-111
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 1 July 2016 23: 01
                  -1
                  The doctrine, like the word itself, "dehousing" is of English origin!
                  Judging by the second passage and the avatar, explaining something was pointless
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 2 July 2016 13: 34
                    0
                    In Blitz's razgraf in two German cities, the RAF bombed first so that the Germans would take revenge in response and this gave a little respite to the English airfields. Because of that, those very day or two were won. Thereafter everything was quiet until "dehousing". Then, being defeated over Sinai, the Israelis did the same, and they usually marked Egyptian schools during the regular hours when classes were in them, this pulled off part of the Egyptian aviation for the needs of air defense from the battlefield and allowed Arik to conduct a tank counterattack. The fact that the IDF then gave water to a part of the surrounded Egyptian group during the armistice after killing some of their children, it was certainly noble. The truth is not known what then the Arabs would do with the Israeli children after winning the war, but this is a somewhat different question - the United States could have intervened directly.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 29 June 2016 21: 06
    +4
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Quote: demiurg
    We won technologically, we had the most trained and motivated aircraft. We were just the best.

    Either you will be a steward soon, and you bounce on the clave cheerfully. Then my congratulations, I am very happy for you. You certainly have the right to eccentricities.
    Either your "we" extends to people to whom you have nothing to do. ("We flew into space", "We won the World Chess Championship"). Then the garbage that you write demonstrates, first of all, sincere contempt for these people. Although almost everyone has died, it’s still not good.

    I lived in that country. I am 43 years old. And I would love to come back.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 June 2016 16: 26
      -1
      It's easier to get her back. Just not working for those who do not want it.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 June 2016 17: 04
        +1
        Some olegarch of offense? Even some of them want ...
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 29 June 2016 21: 21
    0
    “Griffons” with a double supercharger could give out in flight of 2100-2200 hp, the German Uberingers did not even dream of this.

    I don't know what dreams the German "uberengineers" shared with the author, but ordinary German engineers brought them to the stage of bench and full-scale (on airplanes) tests, and some even to a small batch:
    BMW-802 - 18-cylinder double star, HP power 2800 with turbochargers
    BMW-803 - 28-cylinder quad star, horsepower 4500
    Deutz DZ-710 - 16-cylinder inline two-stroke, power 3100 hp
    Jumo-213E - 12-cylinder inline with a two-stage supercharger, power 2100 hp
    Jumo-222 - 24-cylinder multi-row, power 2500 hp
    Jumo-224 - Zh-shaped diesel, power 4000 hp
    Unfortunately, the photo could not be inserted.
    But what the British super-luxury engineers could not dream about was the direct fuel injection and the English pilots had to do extra body movements before the maneuver with negative overload (dive) so that the engine would not starve. And, by the way, the fuel additive to increase the octane number above 100 units was developed by the Angels and mattresses by General Ipatiev (an emigrant naturally), the brother of the same Ipatiev in whose house the imperial family was shot.
    1. Operator
      Operator 29 June 2016 22: 02
      0
      Jumo-213E is an 12-cylinder V-shaped liquid-cooled engine.
    2. Santa Fe
      30 June 2016 09: 03
      -1
      Quote: Fil743
      BMW-802 - 18-cylinder double star, HP power 2800 with turbochargers
      BMW-803 - 28-cylinder quad star, horsepower 4500
      Deutz DZ-710 - 16-cylinder inline two-stroke, power 3100 hp
      Jumo-213E - 12-cylinder inline with a two-stage supercharger, power 2100 hp
      Jumo-222 - 24-cylinder multi-row, power 2500 hp
      Jumo-224 - Zh-shaped diesel, power 4000 hp

      And how many of them stood on serial fighters
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 June 2016 15: 38
        0
        Half of the engines are bomber, piston engines to provide the required range. According to the program of the mass "popular exterminator" they were already using the reactive ones.
  • RUBEROID
    RUBEROID 29 June 2016 22: 36
    0
    I’ve read the article. I’ll go in WarThunder, drive out the hangar and dust off my sleep and shop-7. Join who in the subject.
  • minirulet
    minirulet 30 June 2016 07: 34
    -2
    Well, in what is the author of the article actually wrong that so many minuses have been set by urapatriots? Did he say that our fighters are garbage, and the English are kosher? Spitfire is truly one of the best WWII fighters, without any reservations. It was Spitfires and Hurricanes that held back the onslaught of the Luftwaffe in the battle for Britain. So enough here to mix politics with one thing. History does not tolerate subjunctive moods.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 June 2016 09: 40
      +5
      The fact that he wrote a panegyric, and not an objective study with an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages and practically without comparison with analogues
      1. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 30 June 2016 11: 17
        0
        The fact that in the last section I was only busy mixing Soviet fighters with ... but in reality Spit could pinch only Me-109E, and in 1942 they mixed them completely.
    2. Arikkhab
      Arikkhab 8 October 2016 21: 13
      0
      if you listen to the islanders, so the battle of Britain is the main battle of the 2nd World War ....
      and if without jokes - then the spitfire was very good as an air defense fighter (over the islands) and was actually used for its intended purpose
  • Papandopulo
    Papandopulo 30 June 2016 12: 08
    +1
    Which ... puts the cons?
  • Kir1984
    Kir1984 4 July 2016 07: 09
    0
    Pokryshkin in his book wrote about a training battle with spitfire, if I’m not mistaken, he sleeps behind in the peak (which surprised me a lot) and generally lost. Apparently, the wrong person was sitting in it. But still, the car class.
  • fitter71
    fitter71 31 July 2016 09: 38
    0
    Quote: Papandopulo
    And then in the Second World War or later shattered rivets pulled? Was the nut of which metal? And where does oxide from rubbing metal on metal tend to go?

    smiled right under the table :))) what kind of friction of metal on metal are we talking about in a non-separable connection? what under the rivet on your rubs? and even a collapsible (bolt / nut for example) - there is nothing to rub :))) otherwise - what for that curvature fitter ... in the same gulag - during the war more than justified measure.
    Quote: Verdun
    Many constantly confuse terminology. Direct injection is when fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. The task, not fully resolved today. At that time, and on the vast majority of modern engines, fuel was injected into the intake manifold. It can be a mono-injection - when there is one nozzle on all cylinders - and a distributed injection when each nozzle works on its own cylinder.

    you are confused. direct injection appeared even before you were born, long before. and the same me-109 did fly already with his darling - count it, huh? :)) moreover - long before you were born and the car drove with the same direct and direct injection - immediately into the pots bypassing all sorts of inlet and other tracts :)) yes, yes - I'm talking about the very same serial gelding, which with wings a la seagull :))) in the know at least that such were back in the 50s? :)) moreover - just don’t faint - even our fighter jets were equipped with direct injection engines, for example, the same la-5fn :))) can we learn the history of technology, and not think out non-existent?
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 July 2016 09: 42
      0
      Well, look for yourself there ... And why are they then regularly checked and changed on airplanes or sipped?
  • Arikkhab
    Arikkhab 8 October 2016 21: 08
    0
    Quote: Papandopulo
    The resource before the first repair of the M-105 wiggler is only 100 hours

    a resource to repair 100 hours - is it a lot or a little? if, on average, a combat flight to the Yak-3 (in terms of fuel supply) lasted 1 hour, then 100 hours is 100 (!) sorties ... not many combat aircraft survived
  • ritenyto
    ritenyto 16 March 2021 21: 28
    0
    Dear users! .. The author, sorry, idiot :). A serious person will not pay attention to such a text. There is enthusiastic (emotional) propaganda (very similar to agitation), moreover, without specifying reliable sources :), therefore, this is a lie ... perhaps more or less "subtle" :).