Military Review

Aviation in World War II: a story without controversy. Part of 1

438



And why did you end up losing?
Evert Gottfried (Lieutenant, Wehrmacht infantry): Because a flea can bite an elephant, and kill - not.


Anyone trying to learn history War in the air in World War II, is faced with a number of obvious contradictions. On the one hand, absolutely incredible personal accounts of the German aces, on the other - an obvious result in the form of complete defeat of Germany. On the one hand, the notorious brutality of the war on the Soviet-German front, on the other hand, the Luftwaffe suffered the most severe losses in the West. Other examples can be found.

To resolve these contradictions, historians and publicists are trying to build various kinds of theories. The theory should be such as to link all the facts together. Most do it pretty badly. To link the facts, historians need to invent fantastic, incredible arguments. For example, the fact that the Red Army Air Force overwhelmed the enemy with a number — therefrom the large bills of the aces. The great losses of the Germans in the West are explained by the fact that the air war on the Eastern Front was too easy: Soviet pilots were primitive and frivolous opponents. And most of the inhabitants believe in these fantasies. Although you do not need to rummage through the archives to understand how these theories are absurd. It is enough to have some life experience. If the shortcomings ascribed to the Red Army Air Force were in reality, then no victory over Nazi Germany would have been possible. There are no miracles. Victory is the result of hard and, most importantly, successful work.

In this article, the author tried to link some well-known facts about the war in the air into a single coherent theory without far-fetched fantastic explanations.

The beginning of the war in the East and the personal accounts of the German aces

The pre-war theory of air combat was based on the demand for a decisive victory in air combat. Each battle was required to end in victory - the destruction of the enemy's aircraft. This was the main way to gain air supremacy. Knocking down enemy planes, it was possible to inflict maximum damage to him, reducing the number of his fleet to a minimum. This theory was described in the writings of many pre-war tactics both in the USSR and in Germany.

It is impossible to say confidently, but, apparently, it was in accordance with this theory that the Germans built the tactics of using their fighters. Pre-war views demanded maximum concentration on the victory in aerial combat. The focus on the destruction of the maximum number of enemy aircraft is clearly visible by the criteria that were taken for the main, in assessing the effectiveness of hostilities - a personal account of downed enemy aircraft.

The accounts of the German aces themselves are often questioned. It seems incredible that the Germans managed to achieve such a number of victories. Why such a huge gap in the number of victories compared with the allies? Yes, in the initial period of the Second World War, the German pilots were better trained than their American, British or Soviet colleagues. But not at times! Therefore, there is a great temptation to accuse the German pilots of banal falsification of their accounts in favor of propaganda and their self-esteem.

However, the author of this article considers the accounts of German ases fairly true. Truthful - as far as possible in the confusion. Losses of the enemy are almost always overstated, but this is an objective process: it is difficult to ascertain in a combat situation whether you shot down an enemy plane or only damaged. Therefore, if the accounts of the German aces are overestimated, it is not 5-10 times, but 2-2,5 times, no more. Essentially it does not change. Whether Hartman shot down an 352 aircraft, or only 200, didn’t he get too far from the pilots of the anti-Hitler coalition. Why? Was he some kind of mystical cyborg killer? As will be shown below, he, like all German aces, was not much stronger than his colleagues from the USSR, the USA or Great Britain.

Indirectly, the high accuracy of the accounts of aces is confirmed by statistics. So, for example 93 best ace shot down 2 331 IL-2. The Soviet command considered dead from the attacks of 2 557 fighters Il-2. Plus, some of the number of "unidentified reason" was probably shot down by German fighters. Or another example - one hundred best aces shot down on the eastern front of 12 146 aircraft. And the Soviet command considers 12 189 airplanes shot down in the air, plus, as in the case of the IL-2, some part of the "unidentified". Figures as we see are comparable, although it is obvious that the aces still overestimated their victories.

If we take the victories of all the German pilots on the Eastern Front, it turns out that these victories are more than the Red Army air forces lost aircraft. Therefore, there is an overestimate, of course. But the problem is that the majority of researchers pay too much attention to this issue. The essence of the contradictions lies not in the accounts of the aces and the number of downed aircraft. And it will be shown below.

On the eve

Germany attacked the USSR, with significant qualitative superiority in aviation. First of all, this concerns pilots who had rich combat experience in the war in Europe. Behind the German pilots and commanders are full-scale campaigns with massive use of aviation: France, Poland, Scandinavia, the Balkans. The assets of the Soviet pilots are only local conflicts limited in scope and scale - the Soviet-Finnish war and ... and, perhaps, that's all. The remaining pre-war conflicts are too small in scope and mass use of troops, so that they can be compared with the war in Europe in 1939-1941.

The military equipment of the Germans was excellent: the most massive Soviet fighters I-16 and I-153 were inferior to the German Bf-109 model E in most characteristics, and model F absolutely. The author does not consider it right to compare the technique using tabular data, but in this particular case there is not even a need to get into the details of air battles to understand how far the X-NUMX is from Bf-153F.



The USSR approached the beginning of the war in the stage of rearmament and transition to new equipment. The samples that have just begun to arrive have not yet been mastered to perfection. The role of rearmament is traditionally undervalued. It is believed that if the plane left the gates of the plant, it already goes to offset the total number of aircraft in the Air Force. Although he still needs to arrive at the unit, the flight and ground crew must master it, and the commanders must understand the details of the fighting qualities of the new technology. On all this, a few Soviet pilots had a few months. The Red Army Air Force was distributed over a vast area from the border to Moscow and could not smoothly and concentrated repel blows in the early days of the war.

Aviation in World War II: a story without controversy. Part of 1


From the table it can be seen that the 732 pilot could actually fight on “new” types of aircraft. But for the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 they lacked aircraft. So the total number of combat ready units is 657. And finally, you need to carefully think about the term "retrained pilots." Retrained - this does not mean that they have mastered the new technique to perfection and caught up in the ability to conduct air combat with German opponents. Think about it yourself: the YK-1 and LaGG-3 types of aircraft began to arrive in the 1941 year, i.e. for the months remaining before the war, the pilots simply physically could not have time to gain sufficient and full experience of fighting in the new aircraft. This is simply unrealistic for the month 3-4. For this we need at least a year or two of continuous training. With the MiG-3, the situation is slightly better, but not at times. Only airplanes that got into the troops in 1940 could be mastered by crews more or less qualitatively. But in 1940, the entire 100 MiG-1 and 30 MiG-3 were received from the industry. Moreover, it was received in the autumn, and in the winter, spring and autumn in those years there were known difficulties with full-fledged combat training. There were no concrete runways in the border districts, they were just started to be built in the spring of 1941. Therefore, one should not overestimate the quality of training of pilots on new aircraft in the autumn and winter of the 1940-1941. After all, a fighter pilot should not just be able to fly - he should be able to squeeze everything out of his car to the limit and a little more. The Germans knew it. And ours just received new airplanes, there can be no equality. But those of our pilots, who have long and firmly grown into the cockpit of their aircraft, are pilots of the obsolete I-153 and I-16. It turns out that where there is experience of the pilot, there is no modern technology, and where there is modern technology, there is no experience yet.

Blitzkrieg in the air

The first battles brought the Soviet command heavy disappointment. It turned out that it was extremely difficult to destroy enemy aircraft in the air with existing military equipment. The high experience and skill of the German pilots, plus the perfection of technology left little chance. At the same time, it became obvious that the fate of the war was decided on the ground by the ground forces.

All this prompted to inscribe the actions of the Air Force in a single, global plan for the actions of the armed forces as a whole. Aviation could not be a thing in itself, act in isolation from the situation at the forefront. It was necessary to work in the interests of the ground forces, who decided the fate of the war. In this regard, the role of attack aircraft sharply increased, and IL-2, in fact, became the main striking force of the Air Force. Now all the actions of aviation were aimed at helping their infantry. The nature of the outbreak of war quickly took the form of the struggle over the front line and in the near rear of the parties.



Fighters were also reoriented to the solution of two main tasks. The first is the defense of their attack aircraft. The second is the defense of the orders of their ground forces against retaliatory strikes by enemy aircraft. Under these conditions, the value and meaning of the concept of “personal victory” and “shot down” began to fall sharply. The fighter’s effectiveness criterion was the percentage of the loss of the protected attack aircraft from enemy fighters. If you shoot down a German fighter, or simply shooting at a course will make him dodge an attack and step aside, whatever. The main thing - do not give the Germans sighting shoot at their IL-2.

Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich (fighter pilot): “We had a rule that“ it’s better not to knock down anyone, and not to lose one of our bomber players, than to knock down three and lose one bomber ”.

A similar situation is with the enemy's strike aircraft - the main thing is not to allow bombs to be dropped on their infantrymen. To do this, it is not necessary to shoot down a bomber - you can get him to get rid of bombs before approaching targets.

From the NKO Order No. 0489 of 17 June 1942 on the actions of fighters to destroy enemy bombers:
“Enemy fighters, covering their bombers, naturally strive to pin down our fighters, prevent them from getting to the bombers, and our fighters go on this enemy trick, get involved in an air duel with enemy fighters and thereby enable the enemy bombers, with impunity, to drop bombs on our fighters, and with this, we can drop the bombs of our fighters without reckoning on our bombers with our fighters, and thereby drop the bomb on our fighters. on other objects of attack.
Neither the pilots, nor the regimental commanders, nor the divisional commanders, nor the air force commanders of the fronts and air armies understand this and do not understand that the main and main task of our fighters is to destroy the enemy bombers first and foremost, to prevent them from dropping their bomb load on our troops, on our protected objects ".


These changes in the nature of the combat work of the Soviet aviation caused the post-war accusations of the losing Germans. Describing a typical Soviet fighter pilot, the Germans wrote about the lack of initiative, excitement, and desire to win.

Walter Schwabedissen (General of the Luftwaffe): “We should not forget that the Russian mentality, upbringing, specific character traits and education did not contribute to the development of the individual wrestling qualities of the Soviet pilot, which are essential in air combat. The primitive, and often stupid, adherence to the concept of group fighting made him inactive in an individual duel and, as a result, less aggressive and assertive than his German opponents. ”

From this arrogant quotation, in which a German officer, who lost the war, describes the Soviet pilots of the 1942-1943 period, it is clearly seen that the nimbus of the superman does not allow him to descend from the heights of fairy-tale “individual duels” to everyday, but very necessary in the fight of massacre. Again, we see a contradiction - how did the stupid collective Russian principle prevailed over the individually unsurpassed German knighthood? The answer is simple: the Red Army air forces used tactics absolutely correct in that war.

Klimenko Vitaly Ivanovich (fighter pilot): “If an air battle broke out, by agreement we had one couple left the battlefield and climbed up from where they watched what was happening. As soon as they saw that a German entered our place, they immediately fell on top of them. They don’t even have to get there, just in front of his nose to show the track, and he is already coming out of the attack. If it is possible to shoot down, they knock them down, but the main thing is to knock him out of position for the attack. ”


Apparently, the Germans did not understand that this behavior of the Soviet pilots was quite deliberate. They did not seek to shoot down, they tried not to let their own down. Therefore, having driven the German interceptors away from the patronized IL-2 for some distance, they left the battlefield and returned. IL-2 could not be left alone for a long time, because other enemy fighter groups could attack them from other directions. And for every lost IL-2 upon arrival they will be strictly asked. For having thrown the stormtroopers off the front line without cover, it was easy to go to the penal battalion. And for a non-beat messer, no. The main part of the sorties of the Soviet fighters fell on the support of the attack aircraft and bombers.



At the same time, nothing changed in the tactics of the Germans. The accounts of the aces continued to grow. Somewhere they continued to shoot down someone. But who? The famous Hartman shot down an 352 aircraft. But only 15 of them is IL-2. Another 10 - bombers. 25 impact aircraft, or 7% of the total number of shot down. Obviously, Mr. Hartman really wanted to live, and really didn’t want to go to the defensive firing units of the bombers and attack aircraft. It is better to turn around with fighters that may not be in the whole battle for the attack, while the attack of the IL-2 is a guaranteed fan of bullets in the face.

A similar picture with most German experts. Among their victories is no more than 20% strike aircraft. Only Otto Kittel stands out against this background - he shot down 94 Il-2, which brought his ground forces more benefits than, for example, Hartman, Novotny and Barkhorn combined. Truth and fate in Kittel was formed accordingly - he died in February 1945 of the year. During the attack of the Il-2, he was killed in the cockpit of his plane by the gunner of a Soviet attack aircraft.

But the Soviet aces to go into the attack on the "Junkers" were not afraid. Kozhedub shot down the 24 aircraft drums - almost as many as Hartman. On average, in the total number of victories in the first ten Soviet aces, strike aircraft make up 38%. Twice more than the Germans. What did Hartman actually do when he shot down so many fighters? Reflected their attacks of Soviet fighters on their dive bombers? It is doubtful. Apparently, he shot down the security of the stormtroopers, instead of breaking through this security to the main goal - the stormtroopers, who were killing Wehrmacht infantrymen.

Klimenko Vitaly Ivanovich (fighter pilot): “From the first attack, you have to knock down the lead — everyone is guided by it, and bombs are often thrown over it. And if you want to personally shoot down, then you need to catch the pilots who fly last. Those damn do not understand, there is usually - young people. If he got out - yeah, that's mine. ”

The Germans carried out the protection of their bombers in a completely different way than the Soviet air force. Their actions were proactive - clearing the sky in the path of the shock groups. They did not carry out direct escort, trying not to hinder their maneuver with affection for slow-moving bombers. The success of such tactics of the Germans depended on the skillful opposition of the Soviet command. If it singled out several groups of interceptor fighters, then German strike aircraft were intercepted with a high degree of probability. While one group was shackling German sky clearing fighters, another group attacked unprotected bombers. This is where the large number of Soviet air forces began to show, even if not with the most sophisticated technology.

Golodnikov Nikolai Gerasimovich: “The Germans could get involved in a fight when it was not at all necessary. For example, when covering their bombers. We used it all the war, we have one group in the battle with the fighter cover got involved, "themselves" distracted them, and the other attacked the bombers. The Germans are happy, the chance to shoot down appeared. "Bombers" they immediately sideways and do not care that our other group beats these bombers as far as they can. ... Formally, the Germans covered their strike airplanes very strongly, but only they would get involved in the battle, and everyone — side cover, was rather easily distracted, and throughout the whole war. ”

Defeat failed

So, having managed to rebuild the tactics and get a new technique, the Red Army Air Force began to achieve the first success. Received in a sufficiently large number of fighters "new types" are no longer inferior to German aircraft as disastrous as the I-16 and I-153. On this technique it was already possible to fight. The process of introducing new pilots into battle was adjusted. If in 41 and the beginning of 42, they were really “green” aviators, who barely mastered takeoff and landing, then at the beginning of 43, they were given the opportunity to carefully and gradually delve into the intricacies of air war. Newbies stopped throwing right into the thick of it. Having mastered the basics of piloting in the school, the pilots got into the Zapa, where they were used in combat, and only then went to the combat regiments. And on the shelves, they too stopped being thoughtlessly thrown into battle, giving them insight into the situation and flying experience. After Stalingrad, this practice has become the norm.



Klimenko Vitaly Ivanovich (fighter pilot): “A young pilot comes, let's say. School finished. He is given a little fly around the airfield, then - circled over the area, then in the end it can be taken in a couple. You won't let him go straight into battle. Gradually ... Gradually ... Because the target behind the tail I do not need to carry. "

The Red Army Air Force managed to achieve the main goal - it did not allow the enemy to gain air superiority. Of course, the Germans could still seek domination at a certain time, over a certain sector of the front. This was done by concentrating effort and clearing the sky. But, in general, they failed to completely paralyze the Soviet aircraft. Moreover, the volume of combat work increased. The industry was able to start mass production of not the best planes in the world, but in large quantities. And inferior to the German TTX very slightly. The first calls for the Luftwaffe sounded - continuing to shoot down as many planes as possible and spinning the counters of personal victories, the Germans gradually behaved to the abyss. Destroy the aircraft more than the Soviet aviation industry let out no longer work. The increase in the number of victories did not lead to real, tangible in practice results - the Soviet Air Force did not stop the combat work, and even increased its intensity.



1942 year is characterized by a surge in the number of Luftwaffe sorties. If in the 1941 year they made 37 760 departures, then already in 1942 - 520 082 departures. It looks like a stir in the calm and measured mechanism of the blitzkrieg, as an attempt to extinguish the fires that had been fired. All this combat work fell on the very small German air force — at the beginning of 1942 years, there were 5 178 planes of all types on all fronts in the Luftwaffe. For comparison, at the same time, the Red Army Air Force already had more than 7000 attack aircraft Il-2 and more 15000 fighters. Volumes are simply not comparable. For 1942 year of the Red Army Air Force made 852 000 sorties - a clear confirmation that the Germans had no domination. The survivability of the IL-2 increased from 13 departures to 1 the dead plane to 26 departures.



During the entire war from the actions of the Luftwaffe IA, the Soviet command reliably confirms the death of approximately 2550 IL-2. But there is still a column "unidentified causes of loss." If you make a big concession to the German aces and assume that all “unidentified” planes were shot down solely by them (and in fact this could not be), it turns out that in 1942, they only intercepted about 3% of IL-2 combat sorties. And, despite the continued growth in personal accounts, this figure is rapidly falling further, to 1,2% in 1943 and 0,5% in 1944. What does this mean in practice? What in 1942 year to their goals Il-2 flew 41 753 times. And in 41 753 times on the heads of German infantrymen something fell. Bombs, Nursa, shells. This, of course, is a rough estimate, since the Il-2 also died from anti-aircraft artillery, and in fact not every 41 753 sorties ended with bombs hitting the target. Another thing is important - the German fighters could not prevent this. Someone they shot down. But on the scale of a huge front, on which thousands of Soviet IL-2s worked, it was a drop in the ocean. German fighters were too few for the Eastern Front. Even making 5-6 sorties a day, they could not destroy the Soviet Air Force. And nothing, everything is fine with them, bills are growing, crosses are given with all sorts of leaves and diamonds - everything is normal, life is beautiful. And so it was until 9 May 1945.

Golodnikov Nikolay Gerasimovich: “We are covering up the attack aircraft. German fighters appear, spinning, but not attacking, they believe that there are few of them. "Elah" process the front edge - the Germans do not attack, concentrate, and drag down fighters from other sectors. The “silts” are moving away from the target, and here the attack begins. Well, what's the point of this attack? “Elahs” have already “worked”. Only on "personal account". And this was often. Yes, and even more interesting. The Germans could “scroll” like this around us and not attack at all. They are not fools, intelligence has worked for them. "Red-nosed" "cobras" - 2-th GIAP Navy CSF. Well, what are they, completely headless, to contact the elite Guards regiment? These and can bring down. It is better to wait for someone "simpler."

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
warwall.ru
438 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 28 July 2016 06: 22
    +41
    Bravo, Alex!
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 07: 07
      +22
      Quote: DrVintorez
      Bravo, Alex!

      Thank you.
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 28 July 2016 12: 08
      +12
      Quote: DrVintorez
      Bravo, Alex!

      "For some reason, without fear of sin, the cuckoo praises the rooster ..." Ivan Andreevich Krylov.
      I started with such a quote because I can not evaluate the article positively for a number of reasons.
      And why did you end up losing?
      Evert Gottfried (Lieutenant, Wehrmacht infantry): Because a flea can bite an elephant, and kill - not.
      The first doubt arose when I read the epigraph to the article. In general, I am very strange about the endless complaints of German soldiers and officers who wrote memoirs about the enormous size of Russia, about cold and bad roads ... But didn’t they, by their naivety, understand who they were going to fight with? Especially the command?
      On the one hand - the well-known fierce war on the Soviet-German front, on the other - the most severe losses of the Luftwaffe suffered in the West.
      With what drunken joy did the Luftwaffe suffer major losses on the western front?

      German Air Force: 85 aircraft;
      Japanese Air Force: 49 aircraft;
      USSR Air Force: 47 aircraft;
      US Air Force: 41 aircraft;
      British Air Force: 15 aircraft.
      This is the total. At the same time, the losses of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front amounted to 58,9 thousand aircraft. I know that Western sources (Britain and the USA) operate on other numbers. But the figures of German historians are pretty close to these. At the same time, there are other, no less interesting statistics.
      Human loss statistics.

      In the first place - Japan: 60 killed pilots (well, that's understandable, "kamikaze", traditions of honor, etc.)
      In second place is Germany: 57 killed pilots.
      In third place is England: 56 killed pilots.
      In fourth place - USA: 40 killed pilot.
      And in FIFTH, last place - the USSR: 34 killed pilots.

      Writing about the total technical superiority of German aviation over the Red Army aviation is also not worth it. At the time of the outbreak of the war, Germany, together with the Allies, concentrated about 4900 aircraft on the Eastern Front. Moreover, not all of them were of new types. And on the eve of the war, the Red Army aviation, according to various estimates, received from 2000 to 3000 new types of aircraft.
      Obviously, Mr. Hartman really wanted to live, and really did not want to go to the defensive fire installations of bombers and attack aircraft. It is better to spin around with fighters, which may never be in the attack position for the entire battle, while the IL-2 attack is a guaranteed fan of bullets in the face.
      More than a strange statement. As an ace pilot, Hartman spent most of the war free-hunting and choosing his targets. And the destruction of an experienced fighter pilot is no less significant than the destruction of the "green" attack aircraft pilot. At the same time, Hartman's plane, according to various sources, was shot down 4 to 14 times. This is probably due to the fact that the German ace was too careful? The contradictions in the article are above the roof, you cannot list them all in one comment. And zero of a systematic approach to the events that took place. And therefore the article is a minus.
      1. npzh
        npzh 29 July 2016 15: 10
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        This is the total. At the same time, the losses of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front amounted to 58,9 thousand aircraft. I know that Western sources (Britain and the USA) operate on other numbers. But the figures of German historians are pretty close to these.


        For Germany, you provide data on total losses, excluding losses in schools. For the USSR, Great Britain - only combat. If anything, then in the USSR the total loss is 106 thousand. The US Air Force has only 22 casualties. The comparison is not correct.

        Quote: Verdun
        This is the total. At the same time, the losses of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front amounted to 58,9 thousand aircraft. I know that Western sources (Britain and the USA) operate on other numbers. But the figures of German historians are pretty close to these.


        I wonder what kind of historians you write about. Here Olaf Greler (GDR), according to archival documents of the Quartermaster General of the Luftwaffe, wrote that in the second half of 1941 - 80% of military losses fell on the Eastern Front, in 1942 - about half. And in 1943-44 - 25% in the East, and the rest on the fronts against the Anglo-Americans.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. SergeBS
        SergeBS 29 July 2016 23: 27
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        With what drunken joy did the Luftwaffe suffer major losses on the western front?

        It is not known which one? So simple as simple - it was the heroic arrogant Saxons of the American bottling who defeated Hitler Germany and Imperial Japan.
        Russian savages dropped the nuclear bombs on the Japanese.
        And who doubts it - he will have the "import of democracy" a la Kosovo (for example). (sarcasm)
      4. hound
        hound 27 December 2016 12: 21
        0

        The first doubt arose when I read the epigraph to the article. In general, I am very strange about the endless complaints of German soldiers and officers who wrote memoirs about the enormous size of Russia, about cold and bad roads ... But didn’t they, by their naivety, understand who they were going to fight with? Especially the command?


        Why did you lose? Because they made a number of strategic miscalculations. But this is now obvious when Victory Day is May 9th. But when they were planning to evacuate Moscow, and when the fighting in Stalingrad was on, this was not such an obvious thing.

        With what drunken joy did the Luftwaffe suffer major losses on the western front?

        You read the article diagonally ?? Chukchi is not a reader, a Chukchi writer ?? Since when have the words "basic" and "heaviest" become synonymous? If an ace with a large personal score, known to everyone, is knocked down, then the loss will affect the morale. This is a heavy loss. But not the main one, and has nothing to do with quantity.

        Writing about the total technical superiority of German aviation over the Red Army aviation is also not worth it. At the time of the outbreak of the war, Germany, together with the Allies, concentrated about 4900 aircraft on the Eastern Front. Moreover, not all of them were of new types. And on the eve of the war, the Red Army aviation, according to various estimates, received from 2000 to 3000 new types of aircraft.


        An article about it says - what's the point of having a very good plane if you don’t know how to fly on it, but the mechanic isn’t able to handle it ?? The first moment, and the second is an outdated idea of ​​how to fight on them. Turn bout, troika as the main unit in fighter aircraft and other joys.

        More than a strange statement. As an ace pilot, Hartman spent most of the war free-hunting and choosing his targets. And the destruction of an experienced fighter pilot is no less significant than the destruction of the "green" attack aircraft pilot. At the same time, Hartman's plane, according to various sources, was shot down 4 to 14 times. This is probably due to the fact that the German ace was too careful? The contradictions in the article are above the roof, you cannot list them all in one comment. And zero of a systematic approach to the events that took place. And therefore the article is a minus.


        Hartmann was born an ace? Or did the command foresightedly see the future ace upon arrival at the front ?? Not quite so in the memoirs. Yes, and "experienced fighter pilots" Hartmann destroyed a little - an ambush tactic: an attack on the weakest and exit from the battle. Another thing is to shout that this is dishonest - the height of stupidity, in war, after all, they can kill, and he himself is alive and receives orders.
    3. Aqela
      Aqela 31 July 2016 07: 57
      0
      I look forward to continuing! Already met links to this article on other sites. good
  2. Yarik
    Yarik 28 July 2016 06: 35
    +1
    Do you read from the Germans something like "what could we do against the squadrons of B-17 and Mustangs"? About V.F. like a memoir is not so much.
    1. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 15: 23
      -3
      All right, what can you do with a squadron of 1000 b-17?))) And escort fighters to them? Do you even learn the number of planes? -They raided hundreds of planes!
      1. iouris
        iouris 22 January 2017 23: 14
        0
        It's not that simple. Up to 50% of the aircraft were out of order and idle due to poor equipment reliability. These highly automated machines were too complex. Often it was impossible to make such massive raids. The Germans worked out specific tactics of air warfare with such armadas, "processing" them along the entire route. For the first time, it was in Germany that the country's air defense was created. However, it was impossible to win the war with Germany and Japan by bombing alone.
  3. poma
    poma 28 July 2016 06: 40
    +6
    Much about the Great War has not yet been comprehended.

    But to say that the USSR won only by quantity is not true. War is the science of victory.

    And now the challenge is to fight myths. Both Western and Communist.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 28 July 2016 07: 18
      +15
      Quote: poma
      fight myths. Both Western and Communist.

      The communist myth in the Russian Federation was defeated in 1993 by the shooting of the White House, but not completely and not completely, since the beastly mug of capitalism in the post-Soviet space is not very popular with a good half of the population, whose brains still remain in working order.
      As for the victory of the Soviet people in the fight against fascism, this is not being discussed now, but is directly condemned by a part of the bipedal population: "We would drive Mercedes cars and drink Bavarian beer."
      1. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 04
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        , but is directly condemned by a part of the bipedal population: "We would drive Mercedes and drink Bavarian beer."

        The funny thing is that "part of the population" has the opportunity to drive Mercedes and drink Bavarian beer.

        By the way, among them are our esteemed comrades from the FSB, called upon to protect the interests of the nation.
        1. bocsman
          bocsman 27 September 2016 20: 19
          0
          Quote: Warrior2015
          Quote: V.ic
          , but is directly condemned by a part of the bipedal population: "We would drive Mercedes and drink Bavarian beer."

          The funny thing is that "part of the population" has the opportunity to drive Mercedes and drink Bavarian beer.

          By the way, among them are our esteemed comrades from the FSB, called upon to protect the interests of the nation.


          With beer and Mercier, everything is clear. It is not clear who will protect the homeland?
    2. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 28 July 2016 07: 45
      +8
      Quote: poma
      Much about the Great War has not yet been comprehended.

      Who does not make sense?
      If by you, then who prevents to fix this?
      There are enough opportunities. You can do it professionally (after completing the fact), you can do it as an amateur, but reading monographs and documents on this topic, and not fiction books, such as "alternative stories" and fantasy, or memoirs and memoirs (where everything is presented subjectively for obvious reasons). And it is absolutely impossible to study the history of the Second World War through fiction and non-fiction films, which have now filled all the channels in the zombie box.

      Quote: poma
      And now the challenge is to fight myths. Both Western and Communist.

      Stories about Ilya Muromets too MYTHSalthough it was a real person, a warrior, a monk.
      Myths are born through propaganda or popular memory (but more often than not both). There are no Western and communist myths. There is Western propaganda (or rather bourgeois propaganda) and communist propaganda (in different countries it often differs significantly).
      You, dear colleague of Roma, have porridge in my head from liberalistic patterns. If you gain the courage and seriously engage in the theme of the Second World War, then, over time, gain knowledge, and you will understand the processes that give rise to myths, including about the Second World War.
      In the meantime, try to understand one truth: the USSR and the Bolsheviks are one. They cannot be divided. This is our story. Communist ideology has not gone anywhere. It slowly penetrates all societies. The same major corporations in the USA, and other developed countries, confirm this. Their internal structure is a cell of a communist society.
      Good luck to you, and for moralizing do not rely on the old man.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 28 July 2016 08: 44
        +3
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        In the meantime, try to understand one truth: the USSR and the Bolsheviks are one. They cannot be divided. This is our story. Communist ideology has not gone anywhere. It slowly penetrates all societies. The same major corporations in the USA, and other developed countries, confirm this. Their internal structure is a cell of a communist society.
        Good luck to you, and for moralizing do not rely on the old man.

        Now I don't remember the name and surname of the Japanese billionaire, who said that the production experience gained by the Japanese when they worked in the USSR after the Second World War helped the Japanese quickly heal the wounds of the war and make such a leap that after 15 years they were able to reach the pre-war level of production And it is very well described in Ovchinnikov's book "The Sakura Branch." How the Japanese applied the Soviet experience at their level, including socialist competition.
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 July 2016 09: 18
          0
          Now I don't remember the name and surname of the Japanese billionaire, who said that the production experience gained by the Japanese when they worked in the USSR after the Second World War helped the Japanese quickly heal the wounds of the war and make such a leap that after 15 years they were able to reach the pre-war level of production And it is very well described in Ovchinnikov's book "The Sakura Branch." How the Japanese applied the Soviet experience at their level, including socialist competition.


          Are you hinting that the USSR and communism are Asian?
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 28 July 2016 13: 11
            +5
            Quote: AK64

            Are you hinting that the USSR and communism are Asian?

            No, I say straight away that they took all the best not only from the Germans and Americans, but also from the USSR. By the way, without humor or jokes, the Japanese even bought the magazines UT and Murzilka and found ideas there that could go into development. And Karl's "Capital" They appreciated Marx very much, calling this the best textbook on economics. Unfortunately, the last time we had to communicate with them at the production level was a quarter of a century ago. And I would not consider the Japanese as Asian. We just have to admit that we need to learn from the Japanese, since at one time they studied with us.
            1. AK64
              AK64 28 July 2016 15: 45
              0
              .A Japanese, I would not consider Asian.

              It's your right. Like mine, however ...

              We just have to admit that we need to learn from the Japanese, because at one time they studied with us.

              Nothing to learn from them. Is that what sushi do? I can teach ...

              I lived there .. I lived for almost three years. I left when I realized that I was going crazy - I started talking to ATM. I basically like the Japanese as people, but there’s nothing to learn from them: a rather backward country. Now, of course, they are holding the Russian Federation, but in the mid-1980s they were not ahead of the USSR. Were not.
        2. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 12: 49
          +4
          Quote: Amurets
          Now I don't remember the name and surname of the Japanese billionaire, who said that the production experience gained by the Japanese when they worked in the USSR after the Second World War helped the Japanese quickly heal the wounds of the war and make such a leap that after 15 years they were able to reach the pre-war level of production And it is very well described in Ovchinnikov's book "The Sakura Branch." How the Japanese applied the Soviet experience at their level, including socialist competition.


          Do not read any nonsense.
          We are up to the Japanese culture of production - and then it was far away, and now even more so - on their Kaizen system, it is rare that any of the Russians can hold out for half a year-year - the mentality is not the same.

          Japan did not have military expenses - its protection was provided by the US occupation forces.
          As a result, funds were spent on infrastructure and manufacturing. Western technologies were bought and brought to perfection and new ones were created - this is the reason for the "Japanese miracle".
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 28 July 2016 14: 47
            +2
            Quote: DimerVladimer

            Do not read any nonsense.
            We are up to the Japanese culture of production - and then it was far away, and now even more so - on their Kaizen system, it is rare that any of the Russians can hold out for half a year-year - the mentality is not the same.

            You read all nonsense. The Kaizen system is the beginning of the 21st century, and Japan of the 1940-1950s is different. And it was destroyed just like the USSR and Germany. And the development and rise of Japan began in the mid-50s. The first motorcycles of famous Japanese firms were DKV-125 and DKV-350 of the beginning of World War II. http://militera.lib.ru/h/istoriya_voyny_na_tihom_okeane/41.html This is what began the story of the revival of Japan after the end of World War II.
            1. AK64
              AK64 28 July 2016 15: 51
              +2
              You read all nonsense. The Kaizen system is the beginning of the 21st century, and Japan of the 1940-1950s is different. And it was destroyed just like the USSR and Germany. And the development and rise of Japan began in the mid-50s. The first motorcycles of famous Japanese firms were DKV-125 and DKV-350 of the beginning of World War II. //militera.lib.ru/h/istoriya_voyny_na_tihom_okeane/41.html This is what began the story of the rebirth of Japan after the end of World War II.


              No need to swear. Moreover, Dmitry is "in the main" right.
              Japan swinging Britain and the United States. And after the US war. If they invested so much in the USSR, yes, the same geographical position would be ....
              And by the end of the 80s, the United States lost interest in them - more precisely, other interests appeared in the United States. Well, here is the result: today Japan is not a cake at all: not the cake that Japan was in the 70s and 80s.

              In general, they ceased to be a "beloved wife".

              And I, mind you, I am affectionate to the Japanese - I even somehow love them (albeit a crazy nation - a "nation of sexual perverts")
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 29 July 2016 15: 31
              +2
              Quote: Amurets
              You read all nonsense. The Kaizen system is the beginning of the 21st century, and Japan of the 1940-1950s is different. And it was destroyed just like the USSR and Germany. And the development and rise of Japan began in the mid-50s. The first motorcycles of famous Japanese firms were DKV-125 and DKV-350 of the beginning of World War II. //militera.lib.ru/h/istoriya_voyny_na_tihom_okeane/41.html This is what began the story of the rebirth of Japan after the end of World War II.


              Are you this to me? - Do you tell the technologist? :))
              Kaizen did not arise out of nowhere - the development of a production culture in Japan went precisely from the 50s. The national character of the Japanese is to achieve excellence.
              The term itself may come from the 21st century. But as kaizen technology and the like are continuous improvement of 50-60-70 years.
              Each corporation built and improved its system.

              For example, a photo - a mechatronics factory in Italy, where he visited - it was built specifically by Toyota players, based on kaizen philosophy (a characteristic structure for constructing a production line, devices, quality control and production philosophy).
              PS Thank you for the link - I read this book a long time ago - it is a generalization and represents one of the points of view, but thanks anyway - we read the same sources.
          2. iouris
            iouris 22 January 2017 23: 18
            0
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            on their Kaizen system, it’s rare that some of the Russians can hold out for half a year

            And what's so good about that? The Japanese are also hung from this system. That's right, the Japanese took a lot from both Russia and the USSR. The USSR also knew how to provide high quality. You just have to strive for a lofty goal.
      2. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 05
        -1
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        The USSR and the Bolsheviks are one.

        Fuck. But Comrade Stalin had a different opinion - and the absolute majority of the "old Bolsheviks" were shot gradually.
        1. bubalik
          bubalik 5 August 2016 00: 18
          +1
          Ratnik 2015  Today, 00:05 ↑ most of the "old Bolsheviks" were shot gradually.
          ,,,Good day, hi can you bring proofs?
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 5 August 2016 10: 50
            0
            Quote: bubalik
            can you bring proofs?

            Seek and ye shall find. laughing Do you like - in percentage or by name?

            Or do you not know at all about the changes in party doctrines? and about the dissolution of the Comintern? and the introduction of "Belguard" shoulder straps in the same army - which suddenly lost its revolutionary character and turned from the Red Army into the Red Army and then into the Soviet Army?
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Stas57
      Stas57 28 July 2016 10: 22
      +4
      Quote: poma
      Much about the Great War has not yet been comprehended.

      The Great War-PMV.

      And now the challenge is to fight myths. Both Western and Communist.

      no need to fight, you have to tell the truth.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  4. svp67
    svp67 28 July 2016 07: 04
    0
    There is truth, there is a lie and there are statistics. The numbers of sorties are of course interesting, but they would become more voluminous if they also showed the numbers of the total number of planes and the number of sorties per plane. Then it would become clear which side used its aircraft more intensively.
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 07: 06
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      The numbers of sorties are certainly interesting, but they would become more voluminous if they also showed the numbers of the total number of planes and the number of sorties per plane.

      Something will be in the 2-th part.
      Quote: svp67
      Then it would become clear which side used its aircraft more intensively.

      More intensively - definitely the Germans. We are more effective. Unless, of course, counting as combat effectiveness is not counting the shot down, but the damage actually done to the enemy troops.
      1. Leto
        Leto 28 July 2016 07: 41
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Unless, of course, counting as combat effectiveness is not counting the shot down, but the damage actually done to the enemy troops.

        And how do you calculate it? There is no such data, and it is impossible to determine the damage caused by the air strikes. Unless you take into account the reports on combat missions, where "truthfully" it is written how many soldiers were destroyed, how many tanks, carts and horses ...
        Returning to our previous disputes, I advise you to evaluate by the perception of the participants in the war.
        In the recollections of Soviet soldiers, there is a frequent mention of frequent bombing.
        In the memoirs of the Germans, Soviet aviation was practically not mentioned, and all the curses were only addressed to Soviet artillery.
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 08: 05
          +5
          Quote: Leto
          And how do you calculate it?

          Re-read the article again.
          Quote: Leto
          Returning to our previous disputes, I advise you to evaluate by the perception of the participants in the war.

          This is one of the sources. I studied about 20 memoirs of German infantrymen for the evaluation of Soviet aviation. But all these memoirs are mainly valuable in describing the fighting on earth (it’s logical - they are infantry). Therefore, I found it more useful to quote from the memoirs of pilots, rather than infantrymen. As for the memories of the German infantry about our aviation, I will disappoint you, as a whole they are not in your favor. In general - because everywhere it was different. At different times over different sectors of the front, everything was not the same everywhere. Somewhere our pilots set the heat, but somewhere not. Many Germans recall that in the 41-42 years our aircraft were not at all. Others remember that during this period there were also heavy raids. The third one struck in memory precisely the night bombing of the U-2. But almost all of them write that after Stalingrad the Red Army aviation acted very powerfully. Of course, failures also occurred in 44, and not everywhere aviation operated successfully. Because in life - not like in your reasoning, life is not as direct as scrap, it is complicated. But in general, all Germans agree that everything changed in the 43-44 years, exactly the opposite - there are few Luftwaffes in the sky, many Russians.
          1. Leto
            Leto 28 July 2016 10: 05
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            in 43-44, everything changed exactly the opposite - there are few Luftwaffes in the sky, there are many Russians.

            Of course, I didn’t read 200 memoirs of the German military, to be honest I didn’t even see so many books of memoirs, probably this is on some website? But I, as it were, said the same thing earlier. In 1943 The Luftwaffe was torn into three parts, and the production forces were driven underground by constant air raids, which could not but affect efficiency.
            Guy Sayer. The last soldier of the Third Reich.
            1943, crossing the Dnieper.
            In such disgusting weather, planes did not fly. A day without "Yaks" meant salvation for several hundred people. German aircraft, employed in the south, gave our part of the sky to the “Yaks”. They did not fail to seize the opportunity and attacked us, taking advantage of their numerical advantage. That is why, despite the heavy clothes soaked in water, worn boots, fever, inability to sleep, we thanked fate for the rain. In the morning, five Bolshevik planes appeared, to which the weather was not an obstacle. Our soldiers reacted, as it should be to anyone who wants to save their lives: they began to seek shelter in a flat valley. But, like animals trapped, we understood that there was no way out. The companies located in the immediate line of fire threw themselves face down, as prescribed by the instructions. Several people were torn to pieces, but nevertheless one aircraft was shot down. However, we were not lucky: this plane fell directly onto our convoy, hitting a truck with the wounded and forming a funnel twenty meters wide. No one screamed. Most did not even look that way. We grabbed our bags and continued on.


            As far as I remember, you tried to prove that in 1941-1942. it was the same.
            1. Alex_59
              28 July 2016 10: 19
              +5
              Quote: Leto
              As far as I remember, you tried to prove that in 1941-1942. it was the same.

              No, you thought so that I tried to prove it. I tried to prove that in 41-42, the Germans, having superiority in general, still did not have absolute dominance in the sky, and the Red Army air force inflicted painful attacks on the enemy. Not everywhere and not always. But nevertheless they fought. Those. it was not a one-goal game. The Germans did not stop the combat missions of the Red Army completely, but of course they caused serious damage - it's silly to argue with this.
              You then just wrote something about the rule of the Germans. Domination - that was among the Americans in Iraq. Americans fly where they want and how they want. And the Iraqis - a dozen sorties and an end. This is domination. But in 41-42, the Germans did not have dominance. There was a definite advantage - yes. But the advantage does not exclude the passage of a number of painful retaliatory strikes.
              1. AK64
                AK64 28 July 2016 10: 26
                +3
                And in the years 41-42, the Germans did not have dominance.


                The first two, two and a half months, while there was a fierce struggle for air supremacy, really was not.

                But starting in the fall of 1941, the Germans secured dominance where they needed it. That is, in areas crucial for them.

                (The exception is the battle for Moscow, when the Air Force flew from good concrete concrete near Moscow, and the Germans sat in the mud or in the snow. But even here the Air Force was not able to use this huge advantage.)
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. denker1945
            denker1945 28 July 2016 11: 28
            0
            I completely agree. According to our veteran infantryman, in 43, during the crossing of the Dnieper (although there were many sections), he didn’t see a single plane of ours all the time !!! - The German bombers hung over them from morning to night and mercilessly bombed. In Kursk, the situation was the same — there is evidence that for the first 2-3 days ours did not see a single plane, and the Germans frolic over them as they wanted. Although I doubt that this was the case everywhere and without exception. But the fact is a fact - the veteran probably will not lie. And the losses according to the fighter they suffered from aviation are very large
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 28 July 2016 12: 15
              +4
              Quote: denker1945
              about. But the fact is a fact - the veteran probably will not lie. And the losses according to the fighter they suffered from aviation are very large

              do not trump veteran opinion.

              bombers could bomb transport routes, stations and communications in the rear of the enemy, which is a thousand times more important than the moral support of a veteran
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. denker1945
                denker1945 29 July 2016 10: 18
                -1
                The bombers couldn’t make any difference if the Germans ironed the front line on the Kursk without a break. Before you throw such words as flaunting more interviews with veterans, read and not the statistics of the headquarters there from the rear, there were still those storytellers. And if you take the information more truthful then just using the stories of veterans because they were there themselves and they saw everything. So about flaunting, it's just blah blah blah
              3. todessichel01
                todessichel01 29 July 2016 13: 53
                -1
                Wow, you sir, what do you mean by saying, you must trump the veteran opinion?
                What is generally a trump card?
                And why not?
                Are you sane?
                Do you understand what you are writing?
                1. hound
                  hound 27 December 2016 12: 57
                  0
                  Quote: todessichel01
                  Wow, you sir, what do you mean by saying, you must trump the veteran opinion?
                  What is generally a trump card?
                  And why not?
                  Are you sane?
                  Do you understand what you are writing?


                  A veteran, is he by default with a halo ?? Veterans are the same people, among them there are bastards, and liars, and balabol. Anyway, the war was 70 years ago, something could have been corny forgotten or remembered differently from what it really was.
            2. Verdun
              Verdun 28 July 2016 12: 17
              +2
              Quote: denker1945
              .According to our veteran infantryman in '43, during the crossing of the Dnieper (although there were many sections), he did not see a single aircraft of ours all the time !!!

              Typically, many German veterans write the same thing about German aviation. It’s just that the technical capabilities of detecting the enemy in the air at that time did not always allow capturing the enemy directly above the trenches, if at all. Therefore, it often happened like this: the enemy flew in, started to bomb, they informed about it by phone and sent fighters. While the fighters took off and flew to the target, the bombers bombed and flew away. And far from always, aviation was concentrated in the place where the author of various memoirs was located. Alas, these are the realities of war.
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 28 July 2016 12: 51
                +9
                Quote: Verdun
                Typically, many German veterans write the same thing about German aviation

                I repeat the axiom-infantry is always a little of its aviation and artillery
              2. denker1945
                denker1945 29 July 2016 11: 38
                0
                Just forcing sections on the Dnieper, for example, was not even 10 but more, so that anything could be. The length of the river was great, there were many bridgeheads
        2. Moore
          Moore 28 July 2016 08: 09
          +8
          Quote: Leto
          In the memoirs of the Germans, Soviet aviation was practically not mentioned, and all the curses were only addressed to Soviet artillery.

          Yes, the Germans called the IL-2 "Schwarztodt" (plague), of course, with pure Aryan humor.
          And here are the soldiers' letters:
          “... November 23. After lunch, Russian planes incredibly fired at us. We have not experienced anything like it yet. But there are not a single German aircraft. Is this called air supremacy? November 24th. After dinner, a terrible fire. Our company has lost half of its composition. Russian tanks are moving around in our position, planes are attacking us. We have killed and wounded. This is just indescribable horror ... "
          they were incited to write by a secret agent of the Comintern ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 28 July 2016 09: 23
            +1
            the Germans nicknamed the IL-2 "Schwarztodt" (plague), of course, with pure Aryan humor.


            The fact did not have a place. That is, an invention of it.
            In practice -- "cement bomber"Or"Iron Gustov"

            I will add that the IL-2 is a harmful aircraft. That is wrecking it.
            But few people here will be able to understand this thesis.
            1. Alex_59
              28 July 2016 09: 40
              +9
              Quote: AK64
              I will add that the IL-2 is a harmful aircraft.

              Why can't it? I can. The plane is so-so. But here the point is different. It's about the balance of the country. There were a lot of planes. They were to be collected by women, children and other "non-specialists" to put it mildly. They were to be assembled from cheap materials. Fast and a lot. With such initial data on that industrial base, only IL-2 is obtained. We have no other universe for you.

              As the general designer of "Buran" Lozino-Lozinsky said in response to a journalist's question - Can you launch Buran into space a year ahead of schedule? - We can even two years earlier, only bread will rise in price by 2 rubles.
              1. Leto
                Leto 28 July 2016 10: 16
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                They should have been assembled from cheap materials. Fast and a lot. With such initial data, only Il-2 is obtained at that industrial base. We have no other universe for you.

                The history of the creation of the IL-2 was described in the journal Aviation and Cosmonautics, and because of the fact that it was designed for non-professional hands, there was nothing there. About "Pegasus" Tomashevich yes, but not about the IL-2.

                PS: Su-6 in production would not be harder, but he did not go into the series, although he had much better characteristics.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 28 July 2016 10: 21
                  +1
                  The Su-6 in production would not be harder, but it did not go into the series, although it had much better characteristics.

                  Late.

                  BUT if you really wanted an armored attack aircraft (not the fact that this is a good idea), then you should declare a competition, and not do it behind the scenes and quietly ...
                  1. Warrior2015
                    Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 11
                    0
                    Quote: AK64
                    then you should declare a competition, and not do it behind the scenes and quietly ...

                    Free competition in the USSR 30x? funny ...
                2. Alex_59
                  28 July 2016 12: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Leto
                  PS: Su-6 in production would not be harder, but he did not go into the series, although he had much better characteristics.

                  With the M-71 engine, which was only brought to mind in the 42 year, and the production was not adjusted. The M-82 was not enough for the Lavochkins, and the Su-6 with the M-82 in TTX was not significantly superior to the IL-2.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 28 July 2016 15: 57
                    +1
                    With the M-71 engine, which was brought to mind only in the 42nd year,

                    AM-82 is unique. He was terrible in 1942.

                    M-82 was not enough for the Lavochkins,

                    And apparently that's why they demanded to put him on a Tu-2?

                    and the Su-6 with the M-82 in terms of performance characteristics was superior to IL-2 not significantly.

                    This is on the tablets. But in truth ... In truth, something else: air-cooled engines are much more tenacious than water. Water: one bullet - coolant leaked - the plane crashed. And air cooling with three completely broken cylinders will also pull ... (if only not the bottom ones - so that the oil does not leak out.) And a broken cylinder is nothing at all.

                    That’s the difference. But in the tabular TTX this is not visible.
                3. Arkady Kharitonov
                  Arkady Kharitonov 27 June 2017 19: 23
                  0
                  maybe IL2 was not easier to manufacture but he used an outdated German engine discontinued by BMW already from production. But in the USSR there were capacities for the manufacture of this engine and it was necessary to use it. In the USSR, 4 engines were produced and it was necessary to use all the possibilities of production. Su used the same engines as on DB airplanes
              2. AK64
                AK64 28 July 2016 10: 18
                0
                Why can't? I can.


                That is why I said "very few": a dozen participants here have it either and so it is clear, or they will immediately understand what it is about.

                But the rest will be hysterical and minus.

                It's about the balance of the country. There were a lot of planes. They were to be collected by women, children and other "non-specialists" to put it mildly. They were to be assembled from cheap materials. Fast and a lot. With such initial data on that industrial base, only IL-2 is obtained. We have no other universe for you.

                This thesis is not true with Wams.
                That is, he is faithful - but it is PLAIN way, when exactly win by quantity... ("filled with corpses")
                And there is a difficult one - when you need to think.

                So the task of "thinking" is the task of the leadership, which it did not cope with.

                And there are ways, there are.
                1. Alex_59
                  28 July 2016 10: 33
                  +5
                  Quote: AK64
                  That is, it is correct - but this is an EASY way, when it is precisely the quantity that is won. ("filled with corpses")

                  Let's avoid the phrase "filled up with corpses." All the same, this is not true, even if the Il-2 is a harmful aircraft and there were many of them, this does not mean that they fought solely on the basis of quantity.
                  In fact, yes, it was an easy way. Thinking is wonderful. When there is time to think. Was it in those years? We didn't have enough time. Everything was too neglected - here the roots go back to tsarist Russia, where the aviation industry was in its infancy. And then they destroyed something that they had - revolution, civil war, emigration (Sikorsky, for example). They looked around at this ashes in the 20s. Devastation is everywhere. Industrialization started. Faster Faster. We bought technology, motors. We did a lot, but apparently not enough. By the 40s we had not reached the quality level of the Germans. And it's funny to talk about the United States. They would have fallen with laughter at the factories where Mustangs were assembled if our IL-2 had been seen. They did what they could - I think. And then they climbed out of their skin. After all, it was necessary to give an opportunity to "think" not only to Ilyushin, but also to signalmen, instrument operators, material scientists, chemists, technologists. The United States had both time and energy to think. We do not have.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 28 July 2016 10: 44
                    -1
                    Let's avoid the phrase "filled up with corpses." All the same, this is not true, even if the Il-2 is a harmful aircraft and there were many of them, this does not mean that they fought solely on the basis of quantity.


                    Just a minute --- but you have described exactly this method above. And even justified.
                    And that's why I tell you that it is possible, of course, and so too --- this is also a method (especially when you can’t think it over). But I tell you that this method is not the only possible one.

                    When there is time to think. And was it in those years? There was not enough time for us.

                    Why don’t you rush - there’s nothing at all. Now, there’s not even time ... And even to think about it.

                    Maybe then it was not worth taking power from the hands of those who knew how to think professionally?

                    Too everything was neglected - here the roots go back to Tsarist Russia, where the aircraft industry was in its infancy.

                    Lyalyashek is not necessary, okay?
                    The aviation industry in those years, everyone, all over the world was in this very "embryonic state". And by the way, it was Russia that entered WWI with the largest aviation of all strontium. Yes Yes.
                    That is, they knew how to think THERE. And fairy tales about "yes there was no time to think" were not told.

                    On this ashes looked around in the 20s. Around devastation.

                    And who is to blame? Who destroyed something?
                    Just do not need fairy tales about the Civil War --- because it was destroyed and where there was no fighting at all (!!!)
                    So who is to blame? Maybe all the same, the cooks should not have taken up the government? And then it happened: no food was cooked (the cooks in the parliaments are sitting), no toilets are cleaned (the janitors in the parliaments too), and the devastation was around.
                    What will the cook decide in Parliament? How much cabbage to put in cabbage soup? So why discuss here - go and cook without parliamentary discussions.

                    After all, it was necessary to give an opportunity to "think" not only to Ilyushin, but also to signalmen, instrument operators, material scientists, chemists, technologists.

                    Don’t need lallas, okay?
                    Well, if I wanted BS, then who prevented the announcement of an open tender for the design?
                    Then you look at least an air-cooled engine on a base station would be standing. At least this stupidity would not have been done.
                    1. Alex_59
                      28 July 2016 12: 04
                      +6
                      Quote: AK64
                      Just a minute --- but you have described exactly this method above. And even justified.

                      You do not see the difference between "filled up with corpses" and "numerical superiority"? If not, then I see no reason to continue talking.
                      Quote: AK64
                      And by the way, it was Russia that entered the WWII with the largest aviation of all. Yes Yes.

                      I ask for statistics on the production of aircraft engines over the years of WWI in Russia and for comparison in Germany, France and the UK - in the studio!

                      Quote: AK64
                      That is, TAM knew how to think.
                      They were able to. Thought, thought ... then bam - the February revolution. She wasn’t cooked, if that.

                      Quote: AK64
                      Maybe all the same, the cooks should not have taken up the government?
                      And were the cooks in power? Or are you talking about the Bolsheviks? Duck would not let them into government, what is the problem? It would be great. Only the Republic of Ingushetia did not destroy the Bolsheviks. That's the problem. However, this is already too far from the topic.
                      Quote: AK64
                      Well, if I wanted BS, then who prevented the announcement of an open tender for the design?
                      Could have been a competition. Like now, for example, for road repairs. After all, they also hold contests. They will hold a competition in May. Who lost - writes an appeal. In the yard is June. There is a trial in court to see if the competition was organized correctly. In the yard is July. The trial is over, a repeated competition is announced. In the yard is August. The second competition ended - cheers, we are starting the construction. September. Rains. Asphalt in puddles. Pits. Mat-remat drivers.
                      But we have nowhere to hurry with the roads - the roads are not fascists, although they also kill people in places. But the USSR had to move.
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 28 July 2016 16: 09
                        +1
                        You do not see the difference between "filled up with corpses" and "numerical superiority"? If not, then I see no reason to continue talking.

                        No need for tales about "numerical superiority". It’s about “ignoring losses”. "Regardless of losses" - this is "to fill up with corpses."

                        There are, as it were, two main ways: let's say "extensive" and "intensive". So in the USSR they could only know the first, extensive, and the second they did not know at all. Extensive, of course, is also a method. Yes, just do not want to die here.

                        And to speak \ not to speak - so I don’t hold you by a button.

                        I ask for statistics on the production of aircraft engines over the years of WWI in Russia and for comparison in Germany, France and the UK - in the studio!

                        Excuse me to hysteria? And hit into demagoguery?
                        okay - then let's honestly: post statistics on the production of aircraft engines during the Second World War in the USSR. And for comparison, the same list: Germany, Britain, USA.
                        (And then do not forget to mention the licensing motors in the USSR in brackets).

                        They were able to. Thought, thought ... then bam - the February revolution. She wasn’t cooked, if that.

                        Indeed --- in England, not cooks. People are able. So in only the result were the cooks.
                      2. Alex_59
                        29 July 2016 06: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: AK64
                        It's about "regardless of losses"

                        No one ever fights "regardless of losses." You need anti-liberal therapy.
                        Quote: AK64
                        So in the USSR they knew only the first, extensive

                        I repeat once again - you would be in the defense committee. You would be there wow! They showed an intense example.
                        Quote: AK64
                        Excuse me to hysteria?

                        Please merge your thesis. I did not see statistics on WWI. Drain.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Alex_59
                        29 July 2016 21: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        That is, there are no arguments, I understand correctly?

                        There are arguments. But they will not convince you. I see no reason to continue the conversation in this vein.
                        Quote: AK64
                        So after all, I did not see statistics on WWII / WWII

                        I first offered you. Want to talk further? If so, then you post the statistics on WWII, immediately after that I post statistics on the WWII. Not a problem at all. Just what will it give? Neither you nor I will change our opinion.
              3. The comment was deleted.
          2. Leto
            Leto 28 July 2016 10: 43
            +4
            Quote: AK64
            But the rest will be hysterical and minus.

            Here is already something to not be afraid of. Here, many bring themselves to a state of patriotic exaltation, but do not become like them and do not follow their lead ...
            1. Tanya
              Tanya 28 July 2016 11: 02
              +5
              Quote: Leto
              Quote: AK64
              But the rest will be hysterical and minus.

              Here is already something to not be afraid of. Here, many bring themselves to a state of patriotic exaltation, but do not become like them and do not follow their lead ...



              My father from 1941 to 1951 was an aircraft mechanic (Pe-2). I am for a fair and respectful attitude to both defeats and victories of our aviation. The main result and criterion of combat work, including that of our pilots, is the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany. This is such a "patriotic exaltation". good
          3. Two handed
            Two handed 29 July 2016 05: 22
            +1
            IL-2 is certainly not the most outstanding aircraft in terms of quality, but what did the Germans have from analogues? Ancient 123 and Henschels, outdated 87th Junkers and FV-190s who threw meat as attack aircraft.
            1. denker1945
              denker1945 29 July 2016 15: 06
              -1
              Yyyyy FV -190 took on board a ton !!! Bombs !!! - our IL-2 -900 kg-ton with overload-given that the fv-190 could drop bombs and fight like an IL-2 fighter with its 900 kg I didn’t even breathe close to FV-190 !!!!! ! Another question is that we had no other, and without IL-2 it was simply not enough
            2. denker1945
              denker1945 29 July 2016 15: 06
              -1
              Yyyyy FV -190 took on board a ton !!! Bombs !!! - our IL-2 -900 kg-ton with overload-given that the fv-190 could drop bombs and fight like an IL-2 fighter with its 900 kg I didn’t even breathe close to FV-190 !!!!! ! Another question is that we had no other, and without IL-2 it was simply not enough
      2. Moore
        Moore 28 July 2016 09: 55
        +11
        Quote: AK64
        The fact had no place. That is, this is a fiction. In fact, it is a "cement bomber" or "iron Gustov". I will add that the Il-2 is a harmful aircraft. That is, it is sabotage. But few people here can understand this thesis.

        The fact was. Which does not negate other nicknames: Der Schwartzer Todt (Black Death - by ground forces), Zement Flugzeug (Concrete Bomber - by fighters) and, of course, Der Eiserne Gustav. Compare with what you wrote.
        Ask the remaining veterans about the "harmfulness" of the IL-2, what went on the attack after their work. Without your most authoritative opinion, of course, the People's Commissariat of Armaments was doing sheer lawlessness and diverting valuable resources to create worthless Lokhov crafts. Is it the case with the rest of the civilized participants in the war, right?
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 July 2016 10: 34
          -5
          The fact was.

          Yes Yes Yes.
          Agiprop is more visible than the Germans!


          Ask the remaining veterans about the "harmfulness" of the IL-2, what went on the attack after their work.

          Yes, yes, yes --- tell tales further.
          You might think you "asked".

          Tellers of fairy tales.

          You are in ignore, congratulations.
          1. Warrior2015
            Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 29
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            Yes Yes Yes.
            Agiprop is more visible than the Germans!

            By the way, the respected AK-64 is right - the Germans called the Il-2 "cement bomber" or "flying porcupine". "Schwarzetode" is a political propaganda name allegedly used by the Germans, created by Soviet propaganda to raise morale.
        2. alpamys
          alpamys 28 July 2016 12: 02
          +1
          Quote: Moore
          Zement Flugzeug (Concrete Bomber - Fighter)

          Zement Flugzeug cement aircraft, why cement, not for nothing called? concrete bomber in german will betonbomber
        3. novel66
          novel66 28 July 2016 13: 11
          +6
          in fact, after the July tank defeat, the IL-2 was one of the few anti-tank weapons, I don’t understand at all what claims may be to the plane that went through the whole war.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Amurets
        Amurets 28 July 2016 13: 39
        +2
        Quote: AK64

        I will add that the IL-2 is a harmful aircraft. That is wrecking it.
        But few people here will be able to understand this thesis.

        Low speed, low altitude, no outstanding characteristics. Test I, Shelest recalled “I wanted to shine. Alas! Against the background of experienced fighters, my plane did not look the latest model - too bulky, clumsy, with a thick wing, on solid, widely spaced landing gear legs, with a steel nose pointed like a projectile head. It was the IL-2, its first single-seat version. The cabin, armored with thick glass and steel, looked humped. The leading engineer gave me a sign, the mechanic freed the rudders from the clamps.

        Could then I, still a young tester, have imagined that this aircraft would become a legendary air soldier on the fronts of the Patriotic War, which was only one month away! >> II.
      5. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 28 July 2016 14: 27
        +7
        Another reason to hear sound reason therefore ...
        Of course, an American fighter !!! The F-4 Corsair of that time (not to be confused with the Phantom) had a carrying capacity of twice or even three times higher, a speed of 200 km more and looked much better in terms of performance characteristics than the Il-2 attack aircraft, but ...
        1. did not have armor from the word at all, only protected tanks
        2. It had an engine for, and some modifications for 2500 hp, and this is not 1300 for you in the IL-2.
        Sorry, but it’s a pity that you weren’t there at that time, you probably would have developed a worthy engine and would have started production, and you would have got duralumin in order to facilitate the construction of Il or Su-6. And in general, everything would be done harmlessly. They would wave from a saber ...
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 July 2016 16: 17
          0
          Another reason to hear sound reason therefore ...
          Of course, an American fighter !!! The F-4 Corsair of that time (not to be confused with the Phantom) had a carrying capacity of twice or even three times higher, a speed of 200 km more and looked much better in terms of performance characteristics than the Il-2 attack aircraft, but ...
          1. did not have armor from the word at all, only protected tanks
          2. It had an engine for, and some modifications for 2500 hp, and this is not 1300 for you in the IL-2.
          Sorry, but it’s a pity that you weren’t there at that time, you probably would have developed a worthy engine and would have started production, and you would have got duralumin in order to facilitate the construction of Il or Su-6. And in general, everything would be done harmlessly. They would wave from a saber ...


          (1) And it’s nothing that that Corsair was originally and basically a carrier-based fighter — is this a completely different genre? In fact, the first requirement for the deck is the ability to act from the deck - and everything else will come later.
          Or do you suggest IL-2 from the deck to try?
          (2) On the IL-10, as a result of the war, the armor was noticeably lightened. Draw conclusions.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 29 July 2016 23: 52
            +3
            Well, dear, you deducted this, about reducing the reservation ??
            The IL-10 was really geometrically less than two and almost 2 tons lighter. But! The thickness of the armor of the engine and the cabin has doubled !!! THICKER, moreover, unlike the IL-2, the arrow cabin also received a reservation.
            With this, the wingspan of the tens became less by 2 m, and the wing area by as much as 8 sq m !!!
            The aircraft, due to the all-metal construction, became much smaller and lighter, but the armor became even more powerful. And it is not necessary to compare the distant decks with the most powerful motors at that time with the Ilams. They, Corsaram, were not shining in the European meat grinder, one single line of MP40 at low altitude would have landed the Corsair at all!
            Armor steers! Even if the Il-10 bombs take only 600 kg, instead of a ton from the Corsair, that Corsair flies twice as far. And over the battlefield he is powerless, unlike Sil.
            1. denker1945
              denker1945 30 July 2016 08: 41
              0
              Even because of the MP-40? -Nothing imagination you have! And the same FV-190 - by the way, it’s also armored not bad, but notice this is a fighter! -Ton !!!! bomb load !!! - IL-2 took a ton with overload and never nearly loaded a ton. 900 kg is what he could pick up. Thunderbolt lifted more than 2 !!! tons and these machines were famous for their survivability. Those who fought in the north talked about the disgusting qualities of Hurricanes and p-40 different versions, however, mentioning their fantastic survivability and decent lifting weight
        2. denker1945
          denker1945 30 July 2016 00: 00
          -2
          1600 horses dviglo-from Miga stuck
        3. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 31
          0
          Quote: Vlad.by
          and dural

          Dural really was, if not unmeasured, then more than enough. Why planes were not made of it at the will of the "great" Stalin is another question.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 13 August 2016 13: 37
            +1
            A reference to "more than enough" is possible? This is not in terms of sarcasm, there was just a strong belief that up to 40 we did not produce our duralumin in commercial quantities. During the war, increase production for a non-existent technology? After all, our first duralumin fighter is La-11, if memory serves. And this is already 46-47 years. And all pre-war and military designs were based on percale. Yak3 won from delta wood with a frame of pipes evolved, but steel. Even in it there was duralumin the cat wept.
    2. Leto
      Leto 28 July 2016 10: 11
      0
      Quote: Moore
      And here are the soldiers' letters:

      Do you trust agitprop? I somehow do not, fictional letters of fictional soldiers can not be trusted.
    3. Stas57
      Stas57 28 July 2016 10: 45
      +4
      Quote: Moore
      Quote: Leto
      In the memoirs of the Germans, Soviet aviation was practically not mentioned, and all the curses were only addressed to Soviet artillery.

      Yes, the Germans called the IL-2 "Schwarztodt" (plague), of course, with pure Aryan humor.
      And here are the soldiers' letters:
      .

      The German infantry usually called the Il-2 "Fleischer" ("the butcher"), and the pilots simply called "Il-Tsvay".
      The nicknames "Iron Gustav" and "Cementbomber" seem to be less common and were in circulation only at the beginning of the war.

      Regarding the letter, the infantry always suffers from a lack of art, aircraft, and the fools of commanders
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 10: 57
        0
        The German infantry usually called the Il-2 "Fleischer" ("butcher")

        Yes, the butcher forgot.

        By the word "black death" this is actually plague. If you literally translate.
        That is, the nickname "plague" is like: positively or negatively.

        Cementbomber - for clumsiness even in visible from the ground maneuvers
    4. todessichel01
      todessichel01 29 July 2016 13: 50
      +1
      Plague in German is not translated so ...
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 13: 06
    +1
    Quote: Leto
    Returning to our previous disputes, I advise you to evaluate by the perception of the participants in the war.
    In the recollections of Soviet soldiers, there is a frequent mention of frequent bombing.
    In the memoirs of the Germans, Soviet aviation was practically not mentioned, and all the curses were only addressed to Soviet artillery.


    Well, it’s not quite mentioned in the memoirs of German soldiers - near Stalingrad in 1943, Soviet aircraft attacked railway units in the tactical rear, less often memories of the IL-2 attack (apparently there was no one to remember after their attacks :). Very often, in many memories, the disturbing, exhausting work of the Po-2 night bombers.

    Especially often under Stalingrad it is mentioned that the Germans were afraid to open anti-aircraft fire (if it was not an anti-aircraft battery), because for single-handed airplanes, fighter aircraft and attack aircraft were immediately worked out.
    For firing MG-42 on airplanes, a zealous German soldier could get in the face, from his more experienced comrades, unmasking positions, leading to an immediate strike by the Soviet Air Force.
  • igordok
    igordok 28 July 2016 07: 42
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    Something will be in the 2-th part.

    I hope not something, but hoo. good Thank you.
    Regarding the destroyed aircraft at the airfields lined up in line. Judging by the photo, these are usually I-15, I-16, which were written off and replaced with new equipment. In the event of an evacuation of an air unit, newer, more valuable aircraft will be evacuated. And "old stuff" will remain at the airfields, which the Germans will mercilessly photograph from all angles, often lumping together emergency aircraft. It is clear that the "old" can fight, but it is better to fight on something new.
    Airfield Crosses (Pskov), before the war 158 IAP.
    The I-16 type 5 with tail number 7 from the 31st Fighter Regiment was the most popular among German soldiers for photographing at the Kresty airfield. At first he was photographed just standing on the field, then the jokers put him on the priest, then they knocked him down and finally broke.
    1. igordok
      igordok 28 July 2016 07: 42
      +1
      Later, the jokers put the plane on the ass.
      1. igordok
        igordok 28 July 2016 07: 43
        +1
        Then he was thrown to the ground and finally broken. Trophy lovers removed the screw from it, cut a star from the right plane, number from the rudder.
      2. novel66
        novel66 28 July 2016 08: 41
        +1
        poor pastor is a barrier!
  • AK64
    AK64 28 July 2016 09: 15
    +3
    More intensively - definitely the Germans. We are more effective. Unless, of course, counting as combat effectiveness is not counting the shot down, but the damage actually done to the enemy troops.

    Yeah ....
    For example, in the Battle of Kursk?
    More air force at the Air Force. And for some reason the Germans had flights to support the troops. And the bombs were dropped ---... the Germans almost an order of magnitude more.
    Apparent result: German aviation was able to disrupt the movement of Soviet units in the rear. (At least one example of breaking the march of shopping malls is known.)
    And this, we note, the 1943rd! Not the 41st.

    (I remember the numbers, EMNIP, Zemfirova has --- it’s clear that Zemfirova will be written in slanderers immediately)
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 09: 28
      +3
      Quote: AK64
      More air force at the Air Force. And for some reason the Germans had flights to support the troops.

      I do not argue. However, the Battle of Kursk, although it is a key event of the 43 campaign of the year, is not the only one. I wonder how many sorties the Germans made on other sectors of the front, not as part of the Battle of Kursk? And how many are ours. Throughout the length of contact between troops from the Arctic to the Caucasus? This figure would be useful. I suppose that the balance will not be in favor of the Luftwaffe. They actively maneuvered along the front. Pulling to key places. Ours did this less intensively, but due to the large number of fleets, they had the opportunity not to bare secondary directions and fly there, too, at the same time. And in general, in general, I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe is weaklings. This is a very professional adversary, they snapped at 45, ours perished. They maneuvered perfectly, but they overlooked the scope of the DB theater - in Russia one can’t win with one maneuver, you need to be in many places at the same time, and not just near Kursk.
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 09: 50
        +3
        I do not argue. However, the Battle of Kursk, although it is a key event in the campaign of the 43rd year, is not the only one. I wonder how many sorties the Germans made on other sectors of the front, not as part of the Battle of Kursk? And how many are ours. Throughout the length of contact between troops from the Arctic to the Caucasus?


        Firstly, you did not understand the thesis. And the thesis is that
        (1) with a significant numerical advantage in the Air Force, even by takeoffs, the play was ahead.
        (2) by the order of tonnage of dropped bombs, it’s generally an order of magnitude

        Here is a thesis.

        Well, and secondly ... So after all, if the fights are in the Kursk region, then it is there that you must fly! There is no need to fly in the region of Rzhev if there are no fights there --- profanity is this and deceit is it. Stalin, the party and the people --- catch up flights in a safe (and useless) area
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 10: 13
          +2
          Quote: AK64
          Well, and secondly ... So after all, if the fights are in the Kursk region, then it is there that you must fly!

          You should be on the defense committee, but at that time ...
          Well, yes, on the whole you are right, the main efforts should be made exactly where the decisive battle unfolds. But to say that there are "no battles" in other sectors of the front is very bold. If you can fly there too, without prejudice to the main battle, that's great. So I'm wondering if the Germans flew somewhere other than Kursk, and flew more than ours, or not?

          And I would also like a link to a source on the tonnage of dropped bombs during the Battle of Kursk. Not out of harm, just if I really don’t know something, I will be glad to replenish my knowledge.
          1. AK64
            AK64 28 July 2016 10: 53
            +1
            You should be on the defense committee, but at that time ...

            The Defense Committee has nothing to do with it, believe me: there were also figures on the ground.

            If it is possible to fly there too, without prejudice to the main battle - this is great.

            The principle of concentration of forces in the decisive sector has not been canceled.

            And I would also like a link to a source on the tonnage of dropped bombs during the Battle of Kursk.

            I said - it seems to be (EMNIP) Zemfirov.
            (But he is not kosher, Not highly approved)
      2. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 35
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        in Russia, one maneuver cannot be defeated; one must be in many places at the same time, and not just near Kursk.

        Incidentally, it was precisely by speed and maneuver that they won even in the USSR.

        And when they switched to a positional or simply more static defense, they began to merge. By the way, many German commanders understood this - for example, the same Manstein.
    2. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 04
      0
      Yes, I read this about Kursk. Some units holding the defenses did not see our planes for 2-3 days from the start of the fighting. Strange ... but the fact
    3. Parsec
      Parsec 28 July 2016 12: 35
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      (I remember the numbers, EMNIP, Zemfirova has --- it’s clear that Zemfirova will be written in slanderers immediately)


      Twice you call Zefirova Zemfirov.

      Books in his eyes did not see, but heard something? You’re also pushing about kosher, shabesgy.

      He is Zefirov, Mikhail Zefirov.
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 16: 19
        0
        The boor is in the emergency.
        (Interestingly, the admins will give him a warning? Not that it was all the same to me - purely out of curiosity.)

        PS: Zemfirov, yes. CM
    4. SergeBS
      SergeBS 30 July 2016 00: 18
      +2
      Quote: AK64
      More air force at the Air Force. And for some reason the Germans had flights to support the troops. And the bombs were dropped ---... the Germans almost an order of magnitude more.

      Well, how can one not recall an indicative example.
      A squadron of "Halifax" torpedo bombers is attacking a "pocket battleship". 12 torpedoes fired from the aft corner. All by. The squadron "ordered to live long", flying along the course forward. They were "shredded" by their 30-mm air defense cannons and medium caliber too.
      BUT! By tonnage - they were awesomely attacked.
      What am I doing? Besides, dropping bombs is EASY. But to reset so that the RESULT is a PROBLEM. With the appropriate "desire to live" - ​​took off, flew to the "front end" and poured bombs anywhere. As many as TWO plus points.
      1. Far from flying away from the "front end" - there is less chance of running into cover of railway stations or ammunition depots. The shelves "on the front end" were not covered with antiaircraft guns - LAFA!
      2. Quickly dumped the bombs - quickly and returned. Hanged up again - again "bombed". With prizes and medals "on tonnage" - VERY nice. There is almost no risk, and the bonuses are dripping.
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 28 July 2016 11: 06
    +6
    Quote: Alex_59
    More intensively - definitely the Germans.

    By drawing down attack and fighter aircraft from other (secondary) sectors of the front to the places of the upcoming strikes on the positions of the spacecraft, the Luftwaffen leadership achieved numerical superiority in the air. The daily departure of pilots Me-109, FV-190, Yu-87 at the initial phase of the Oryol-Kursk battle sometimes reached 8-10 flights on a combat mission.
    1. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 08
      0
      9-10 sorties of one fighter? -Our counted 5-6 flights per day is the limit or something I misunderstood?
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 16: 24
        +2
        9-10 sorties of one fighter? -Our counted 5-6 flights per day is the limit or something I misunderstood?


        9-10 --- these are individual monsters like Rudel, and for near missions from a jump airfield: for less than half an hour on the whole flight, he didn’t even manage to gain altitude (attack the tanks, the height was not needed).

        That is, this is NOT a rule - these are isolated cases. But in general, the Germans flew much more often in the Battle of Kursk
    2. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 08
      0
      9-10 sorties of one fighter? -Our counted 5-6 flights per day is the limit or something I misunderstood?
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 12: 56
    +6
    Quote: Alex_59
    More intensively - definitely the Germans. We are more effective. Unless, of course, counting as combat effectiveness is not counting the shot down, but the damage actually done to the enemy troops.


    Well - a newly-born technique for calculating aviation efficiency?
    That is, it’s stupid to burn the resource of engines and high-octane fuel above the square with four-six fighters - 12 messers came, fighters tied the barrage in battle, the bombers worked out for the troops - is this considered effective?

    The vicious practice of "spreading" aviation evenly along the fronts led to the fact that the Germans, with three times less aviation, could create a numerical superiority in any direction. This practice existed until 1944.
  • iouris
    iouris 22 January 2017 23: 20
    0
    Quote: svp67
    There is truth, there is a lie and there are statistics.

    There is a lie, there is a blatant lie, no statistics. That is the whole problem. Only when there will be statistics, only then will the country become manageable.
  • avia12005
    avia12005 28 July 2016 07: 04
    +2
    Those who hate Russia are pouring mud on the Great Patriotic War and the Red Army. They would be put in such an I-16 on June 22, 1941 and sent to repel raids on our peaceful cities ...
    1. aba
      aba 28 July 2016 07: 12
      +6
      To put them in such an "I-16"

      This is still good, but if on the I-15, which were still flying at the very beginning of the war.
      1. Kpox
        Kpox 28 July 2016 07: 59
        0
        On the 2 and bomb at night.
        1. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 45
          0
          Quote: Kpox
          On the 2 and bomb at night.

          Yeah, it's tin. And night hunters will come to them - as I painted the German technique in my article about Po-2.
      2. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 09: 28
        +1
        In 19141 and most of the I-16 and I-153 were in the assault regiments.
        Not fighter but assault
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 July 2016 10: 19
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          In 19141 and most of the I-16 and I-153 were in the assault regiments.
          Not fighter but assault

          At the end of the year, it’s possible. But on June 01, 1941, it was I-16 and I-153 that formed the basis of fighter aircraft of the Red Army Air Force.

          Take the STOCK:
          9th garden: 41, 124, 126 and 129 IAPs have a double set of machines, but most of the pilots (60-100%) were trained precisely on the I-16 / I-153.
          Garden 10: in 33 IAP only I-16, in 123 IAP - I-16 with pilots and Yak-1 without pilots.
          11 garden: in 122 and 127 IAP only I-16, I-153, I-15bis (!) And I-15 (!!).
          43 Iad: in 160, 161, 162 and 163 IAP only I-16 and I-153.

          Maybe the situation is better in the KOVO? Avotfig!
          14 garden: in 17, 46 and 89 IAP only I-16 and I-153.
          15 garden: 23 and 28 IAPs have a double set of machines, but most of the pilots (60-100%) were trained specifically for I-16 / I-153; 164 IAP has only I-16 and I-153.
          16th garden: 87 IAP has I-16 with pilots and MiG-3 without pilots; 92 IAP has only I-16 and I-153.
          36 Iad: in Iap 2 and 43 only I-16 and I-153.
          1. denker1945
            denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 10
            0
            Everything was right — I-16 and seagulls from 153 were like the foundation of the park ... Pokryshkin, who served in the regiment in jars, in my opinion, began to receive MiGs only by the summer of 41 — arrived in boxes — green and without wings — collected equipment on the spot
          2. denker1945
            denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 10
            +1
            Everything was right — I-16 and seagulls from 153 were like the foundation of the park ... Pokryshkin, who served in the regiment in jars, in my opinion, began to receive MiGs only by the summer of 41 — arrived in boxes — green and without wings — collected equipment on the spot
        2. denker1945
          denker1945 28 July 2016 23: 52
          0
          Yes, they tried mainly to use them for attack, like Pokryshkin grilled that the I-16 with ERESs was still a formidable force !!!!
        3. denker1945
          denker1945 28 July 2016 23: 52
          0
          Yes, they tried mainly to use them for attack, like Pokryshkin grilled that the I-16 with ERESs was still a formidable force !!!!
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 28 July 2016 13: 57
      +2
      Quote: avia12005
      To put them in such an "I-16" on June 22, 1941 and send them to repel the raids

      I will support you. In the book "The Sky of War" A.I. Pokryshkin mentions a certain pilot who died because of an exhaust cable broken by a bullet (the parachute did not open). It was Captain Karmanov. It seems that he fought in the Finnish I-16, saved his comrade as Gritsevets. In the Patriotic War, he shot down four German planes on a MiG-3, but he himself died on the second day of the war.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 28 July 2016 07: 20
    +1
    As one Anglo-Saxon politician used to say: "... war is too serious a matter to trust the military ...", but where are the politicians there is propaganda, manipulation, PR in one word! I don't remember who said, but I remember the words : "... there are liars, there are pathological liars and there are politicians ..." and that says it all ...
  • Moore
    Moore 28 July 2016 07: 30
    +6
    In favor of the arguments cited by the author, we can add the following. Hitler, no matter how possessed he was, was primarily a pragmatist and well understood that aviation was primarily needed for victory on earth.
    Therefore, he told the Luftwaffe command to direct the main forces to the development and production of the Me-262 in the form of a high-speed bomber. That the valiant "knights of the sky" and was fucked in the bud. In the new car, they saw primarily a means of increasing the total number of victories.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 28 July 2016 12: 41
      0
      Quote: Moore
      Therefore, he indicated to the Luftwaffe command the main forces to direct the development and production of the Me-262 in the form of a high-speed bomber.

      But what the hell was he needed in the high-speed bomber version when:
      1. On the one hand, the machine appeared when Germany was already conducting defensive battles and aircraft were needed that could effectively shoot down enemy bombers.
      2. Did the Germans separately develop exactly the Arado 234 Blitz blaster?
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 31 July 2016 21: 11
        +1
        Precisely because ordinary piston bombers ended up trite. Industry no longer covered the decline for natural reasons. Hitler saw a miracle weapon in a jet plane. And perhaps he was right. If 262 appeared in significant numbers on the Eastern Front, we would have much more problems. As well as losses. Again, nuclear weapons were on the way. The fighters did not know this, but the Führer knew it.
  • Vladycat
    Vladycat 28 July 2016 07: 35
    +6
    Straight BRAVO !!!. There would be more such articles with detailed analytics. For the seriousness of the work, there are not enough links to sources. But everything is described so that the mind does not reject the submitted thought :). While still at school I was sick with military memoirs of the Second World War, including our falcons. And even then, doubts arose in the official history. Much of what history has described as a complete rout has been described as a planned (sometimes emergency) retreat.
  • Parabelum
    Parabelum 28 July 2016 07: 36
    +4
    Great article and analysis. Everything is laid out on shelves. Author, take off my hat
  • parusnik
    parusnik 28 July 2016 07: 47
    +3
    Respect hi , great article .. We look forward to continuing ..
  • svskor80
    svskor80 28 July 2016 07: 55
    0
    The article is a big plus. We need as much objective information as possible about the Second World War. And then the glorification of the glorious, skillful, ingenious warriors of the Aryans (and not only with regards to aviation) became a direct obsession. And as soon as they defeated them.
  • Leto
    Leto 28 July 2016 08: 02
    +2
    Most German experts have a similar picture. Among their victories - no more than 20% of strike aircraft.

    But the Soviet aces were not afraid to go on the attack on the "Junkers". Kozhedub shot down 24 attack aircraft - almost as many as Hartman.

    The author creates a false impression, saying that the Germans being carried away by fighters did not pay attention to attack aircraft and vice versa. However, there are dry statistics, IL-2 produced 36 thousand, and pieces only 6,5 thousand.
    As they write lost 23,5 thousand IL-2, i.e. almost four times more than Pieces produced.
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 08: 09
      +3
      Quote: Leto
      As they write lost 23,5 thousand IL-2, i.e. almost four times more than Pieces produced.

      belay How much IL-2 is lost? 23,5 thousands? Hmm ... This is a million shot personally by Stalin - something from this series ...

      Quote: Leto
      IL-2 produced 36 thousand, and Pieces of all 6,5 thousand

      You would have compared with Henschel. Where is the break!
      1. Leto
        Leto 28 July 2016 10: 53
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        How much IL-2 is lost? 23,5 thousands? Hmm ... This is a million shot personally by Stalin - something from this series ...

        What is implausible in these figures? Let's see the data on the production of IL-2 during the war, 36 183 were produced in total (I hope you will not dispute this?) Of them from 1941 to 1944. 32 inclusive, these machines 074% participated in battles. On January 100, 1 there were 1945 combat aircraft in the air force of the spacecraft (personal data), these are both domestic-made fighters and bombers, as well as those obtained by Lend-Lease. Let's say 14 of them are IL-500 (although this is simply impossible), where are the missing 8 cars?
        Can you speculate?
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 11: 49
          0
          Quote: Leto
          On 1 January 1945 there were 14 500 combat aircraft in the air force of the aircraft (personal data)

          Table 185
          http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w08.htm-_Toc536603411
          43 300 aircraft in the army at 01.01.1945.
          1. Leto
            Leto 28 July 2016 13: 42
            +1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Table 185
            //lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w08.htm-_Toc536603411
            43 300 aircraft in the army at 01.01.1945.

            I found something better.
            Aviation and Cosmonautics Magazine, No. 2,3 for 2000.
            Soviet aviation on the eve of and during the Second World War. Vasily Alekseenko
            Table No. 11. (reference to TsAMO, f. 35, on. 11258, d. 460, l, 90) The aircraft fleet of the Air Force of the spacecraft as of May 1, 1945
            We look at the column "Attack aircraft", as of 01.05.1945/9316/4293. the spacecraft air force had 499 attack aircraft, of which 185 were at the front; Air Force DVF - 3621; ZabVO - 718; rear - XNUMX; schools - XNUMX.
            Those. of the produced 36 183, as of 01.05.1945/9/316 there were 2 IL-10s (a bit of IL-XNUMXs, but there were few of them and they didn’t affect the statistics).
            36 183 - 9 316 = 26 867 cars that were lost.
            1. Alex_59
              28 July 2016 14: 03
              +1
              Quote: Leto
              Table No.11. (

              Have you tried to look at Table No. 6?
              It follows from this that the combat losses of the IL-2 for the 1944 year amounted to 3724 aircraft. (According to the sources I have - 3434, i.e. almost coincided)
              But! Besides:
              Accidents and disasters: 1141 aircraft
              Decommissioned: 2594 aircraft
              Total we have 3724 aircraft combat losses and 3735 aircraft decreased for non-combat reasons.
              So you're being careful with the word "utryany" at the end. They are exactly lost, and not destroyed by the enemy. Lost, for example, due to resource depletion (wear). Normal practice. Do not send soldiers on decommissioned trash into battle.
              1. Leto
                Leto 28 July 2016 14: 43
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                But! Besides

                Let's be objective. 26 thousand cars LOST for any reason. Do you accept it?
                1. Alex_59
                  28 July 2016 14: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Leto
                  Let's be objective. 26 thousand cars LOST for any reason. Do you accept it?

                  Let's. I accept that approximately this number of cars amounted to a decline. I hope that you accept data that 2557 IL-2 is lost from the actions of German fighters. From the same source in fact infa.
                  1. Leto
                    Leto 29 July 2016 05: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    I hope that you accept data that the actions of German fighters lost 2557 IL-2

                    Of course not. For statistics of the same 1944 states:
                    Lost IL-2 attack aircraft - 7461
                    Of them:
                    Depreciation - 2594
                    Accidents and disasters - 1140
                    Destroyed at the airdromes - 38
                    Shot anti-aircraft art. - 583
                    Shot in aerial combat - 107
                    And the most important!
                    Has not returned from a combat mission - 2999!
                    The fate of 2999 cars is simply unknown! This is 40% loss. And this is more likely a victim of German fighters flying out on a "free hunt".
                    Note, this is 1944. when there was no Luftwaffe superiority in the air.
                    1. Alex_59
                      29 July 2016 06: 50
                      -1
                      Quote: Leto
                      For statistics of the same 1944, says:

                      This table, which is # 6, is not the only source of knowledge. From it we can reliably say that 107 were shot down by fighters. 2999 is "the cause of the loss has not been established." And here's this statement:
                      Quote: Leto
                      The fate of 2999 cars is simply unknown! This is 40% loss. And this is more likely a victim of German fighters flying out on a "free hunt".

                      It’s not just delirium, it’s a heresy. smile That in 1944 year 2999 + 107 = 3106 IL-2 was shot down by fighters? And anti-aircraft guns of all 583? Sorry, but even the German aces themselves will laugh like horses over this. Even in 42-m - where it didn’t go, so lie, but not in 44.
                      If you rummage, there are other sources that give a more detailed breakdown for reasons of combat losses, where most of these 2999 shot down are already separated for specific reasons:
                      Enemy IA downed: 882
                      Enemy air defense shot down: 1859
                      Destroyed on Earth: 34
                      Reasons not found: 659
                      And they made sorties about 290 thousand. 290000-3434 = 286566 successful sorties with bombs on Wehrmacht heads.
                      From the MZA and air defense in the second half of the war were the main losses. This is confirmed by the numerous memories of the pilots of the Il-Xnumx.
        2. Tanya
          Tanya 28 July 2016 12: 58
          -4
          Quote: Leto
          Quote: Alex_59
          How much IL-2 is lost? 23,5 thousands? Hmm ... This is a million shot personally by Stalin - something from this series ...

          What is implausible in these figures? Let's see the data on the production of IL-2 during the war, 36 183 were produced in total (I hope you will not dispute this?) Of them from 1941 to 1944. 32 inclusive, these machines 074% participated in battles. On January 100, 1 there were 1945 combat aircraft in the air force of the spacecraft (personal data), these are both domestic-made fighters and bombers, as well as those obtained by Lend-Lease. Let's say 14 of them are IL-500 (although this is simply impossible), where are the missing 8 cars?
          Can you speculate?


          Most of the planes delivered under Lend-Lease were used, badly battered in the "Battle of England".
          They had to be rebuilt and endlessly repaired, in addition, changing weapons to Soviet. All this was done not in enterprises, but in the field. So most of these aircraft are not lost in battle, because they did not fly. request
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 28 July 2016 13: 26
            +2
            Quote: Tanya
            Most of the planes delivered under Lend-Lease were used, badly battered in the "Battle of England".
            They had to be rebuilt and endlessly repaired, in addition, changing weapons to Soviet. All this was done not in enterprises, but in the field. So most of these planes are not lost in battle, because they did not fly


            Lend-Lease Supplies
            from USA:
            Fighters: 9
            Bombers: 3
            Other types: 813

            From the UK fighters: 4

            Total: 18

            And all this armada fought in the battle for England?
            Especially 3 bombers and 632 transport and naval aircraft?

            Replacing weapons with Soviet weapons with a shortage of such weapons is generally nowhere.
            1. Tanya
              Tanya 28 July 2016 13: 42
              0
              The whole armada did not fight, but all 18297 pieces. also were not new. Although thanks to them and that.
              And about rearmament it is better to ask technicians and mechanics of the Second World War. The trouble was with Western weapons. Naturally, not total, but it was. hi
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 29 July 2016 15: 56
                0
                I quote again:

                Quote: Tanya
                Most of the planes delivered under Lend-Lease were used, badly battered in the "Battle of England"


                You do not write "delivered in 1941", but "delivered under Lend-Lease."
                The battle for England ended when, when? And in 1944 and in 1945, do you think the battered old veterans of this battle still arrive.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 29 July 2016 16: 31
                +1
                Quote: Parsec
                The trouble was with Western weapons. Naturally, not total, but it was.


                The trouble was with the service technology. When they learned, trouble disappeared.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 28 July 2016 14: 08
              +1
              Quote: Parsec
              Replacing weapons with Soviet weapons with a shortage of such weapons is generally nowhere.

              It was like this:
              The GKO Decree of September 24 approved the rearmament scheme proposed by the Design Bureau of Plant No. 43: two stationary UBCs on the sides of the navigational cabin, on top of the UTK-1 with UBT and another UBT in the hatch on the Pe-2 installation. All B-3s (i.e. DB-7B, DB-7C and A-20C) were subject to alteration. The first 30 aircraft were required to rearm in September 1942.

              However, the "Bostons" delivered later did not undergo such radical alterations - they changed, in the main, the turrets.
            3. Tanya
              Tanya 29 July 2016 10: 36
              -1
              Lend-Lease Supplies
              from USA:
              Fighters: 9


              In the most difficult period for us, 1941-1942, the United States supplied us with fighter jets as many as 250 pieces. A drop in the sea. But thanks anyway.

              From the UK fighters: 4

              Great Britain in the same critical period gave more - 1599 cars. If all of them were brand new from the assembly line, then why I.V. Stalin wrote in a letter to Churchill on 8.11.41: "Your planes are so badly packed that we get them broken."?

              And all this armada fought in the battle for England?
              Especially 3 bombers and 632 transport and naval aircraft?


              Weird question. Bomber and transport aircraft are not related to air combat, which is discussed in the article. In this sense, they could not help us, even if they were at least three new.

              Replacing weapons with Soviet weapons with a shortage of such weapons is generally nowhere.

              In the USSR Air Force, armament was strengthened on machine-gun modifications of the Hurricanes (there were no such claims to the cannon ones from British Hispano). Standard installation on machine gun modifications in the USSR -
              4 12,7mm UBT machine guns or 4 20mm ShVAK guns. Or option 2 + 2. hi
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 29 July 2016 16: 01
                0
                Quote: Tanya
                Weird question. Bomber and transport aircraft are not related to air combat, which is discussed in the article. In this sense, they could not help us, even if they were at least three new.


                Even as they have.
                A bombed convoy or train with jet fuel and spare parts, an open airfield, bombing strikes in an adjacent area, the reflection of which must be distracted by the IA from this area - they still have it.

                Transport workers do not affect? This is how a regiment will be left without fuel / oil / ammunition due to slime, and it immediately affects it. Either replacement engines will be loaded onto a train, and from a motorcade station under attack aircraft or bypassing an impassable road, this is affected once again, and there are thousands of options, not to mention relocating IAPs, which also require time and time without a transporter.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 July 2016 14: 05
            +3
            Quote: Tanya
            Most of the planes delivered under Lend-Lease were used, badly battered in the "Battle of England".

            Uh-huh ... models of planes put into series after the end of "Battle of Britain" - "Mitchells", "Bostons", "Aircobras" were especially shabby. laughing

            3 cases are well known with the receipt of used USSR machines:
            - left by the British "harricane" RAF from the squadrons, covering Murmansk;
            - mistakenly assembled by our technicians poyuzanny fighter, arrived as a set of spare parts;
            - 1943 Spit-Vs demanded by Stalin from Churchill in 150 - at the expense of the supply of American bombers. Ours agreed to the planes from the overhaul - the cars were so urgently needed.
            1. Tanya
              Tanya 29 July 2016 10: 55
              +1
              Uh-huh ... models of planes put into series after the end of "Battle of Britain" - "Mitchells", "Bostons", "Aircobras" were especially shabby.

              The Mitchells and Bostons did not affect the air battles in our skies, as they were bombers, not fighters.
              Aerial cobras came to our Air Force in 1941-1942 in the amount of 193 pieces. Not enough for substantial assistance in gaining air supremacy. But you're right, the cars were great. love
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 29 July 2016 12: 27
                +2
                Quote: Tanya
                The Mitchells and Bostons did not affect the air battles in our skies, as they were bombers, not fighters.

                thus bombing of Orlovsky or Seshchinskogo air hub did not affect the air situation? it's great!
                Quote: Tanya
                Aero cobras came to our Air Force in 1941-1942 in the amount of 193 pieces. Not enough for substantial assistance in gaining air supremacy.

                45% Moscow air defense at the time of the Battle of Moscow - foreign cars.
                1. Tanya
                  Tanya 29 July 2016 13: 13
                  +1
                  thus bombing of Orlovsky or Seshchinskogo air hub did not affect the air situation? it's great!

                  I was not talking about the effect of bombers on the air situation. It was about air battles between fighters. Therefore, the emphasis is precisely on the number of fighters.
                  And the fact that other types of aircraft did their work and contributed to the Victory is understandable.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 29 July 2016 14: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Tanya
                    I was not talking about the effect of bombers on the air situation. It was about air battles between fighters. Therefore, the emphasis is precisely on the number of fighters.
                    And the fact that other types of aircraft did their work and contributed to the Victory is understandable.

                    Yes, I probably forgot how to read ...
                    The Mitchells and Bostons did not affect the air battles in our skies, as they were bombers, not fighters.
                  2. Parsec
                    Parsec 29 July 2016 16: 08
                    +3
                    Quote: Tanya
                    It was about air battles between fighters. Therefore, the emphasis is precisely on the number of fighters.
                    And the fact that other types of aircraft did their work and contributed to the Victory is understandable.


                    Fighter and pilot - the top of the pyramid, at the base of which are prosaic things.

                    During the war years, about 70 people provided the departure of the aircraft, now 150 ... 170.
                    The number of aircraft departing, not only correlated, directly depended on and depends on all types of support, the type of armed forces is too sensitive to security.
                    1. Tanya
                      Tanya 29 July 2016 16: 24
                      0
                      During the war years, about 70 people provided the departure of the aircraft, now 150 ... 170.

                      Thank you very much from me for these words!
                      From my childhood I was inspired by "Ohne uns - keine Flug" - "there are no flights without us". good
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. denker1945
                denker1945 29 July 2016 15: 09
                0
                But considering that even on the battered A-20 and all the cobras who came all in the mud from Britain, the pilots literally prayed ... And when they handed them in, they were literally crying ...
              4. Warrior2015
                Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 52
                0
                Quote: Tanya
                The Mitchells and Bostons did not affect the air battles in our skies, as they were bombers, not fighters.

                You don’t know much at all. The types you indicated were the most effective red army bombers for reference.
      2. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 11: 02
        0
        How much IL-2 is lost? 23,5 thousands? Hmm ... This is a million shot personally by Stalin - something from this series ...

        Looks in a book edited by Krivosheev.
        This is "for all reasons" including the emergency gang.
        By the way, to 36 thousand IL-2, another 4-5 IL-10 would be worth adding.
        1. Tanya
          Tanya 28 July 2016 12: 43
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          How much IL-2 is lost? 23,5 thousands? Hmm ... This is a million shot personally by Stalin - something from this series ...

          Looks in a book edited by Krivosheev.
          This is "for all reasons" including the emergency gang.
          By the way, to 36 thousand IL-2, another 4-5 IL-10 would be worth adding.


          IL-10. a prototype appeared in March 1944. Delivery in parts began in January 1945.
          Participation in hostilities:
          15.04.1945/571/XNUMX (Poland) XNUMX ShAP,
          16.04.1945/108/XNUMX (Berlin operation) XNUMX ShAP,
          08.05.1945/118/XNUMX XNUMX ShAP.
          Complete retraining of the pilots was completed by 1.05.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX.
          4000-5000 IL-10 did not participate in the Second World War. Did not make it. hi
          1. AK64
            AK64 28 July 2016 16: 38
            0
            Tanya, the three regiments that you listed are not those who had IL-10, but those who actually fought on them.
            And there was an IL-10 from a slightly longer list.

            I’m talking only about production.

            (however, you are right, until the end of the war, thousands of IL-10s weren’t produced)
      3. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 49
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        You would have compared with Henschel. Where is the break!

        Let me clarify - with Hs-123 or with Hs-129?
        If with the first - then dumb but effective.

        And the second - so normal a battlefield plane, fought until spring 45, despite the release in scanty amounts.
    2. Tanya
      Tanya 28 July 2016 08: 50
      +3
      And what, apart from "pieces" of other bombers, did the Germans have? belay
      Or do we think according to the principle "we eat here, we don't eat here, but here we wrap the fish"?
      1. AK64
        AK64 28 July 2016 11: 05
        0
        And what, apart from "pieces" of other bombers, did the Germans have? belay
        Or do we think according to the principle "we eat here, we don't eat here, but here we wrap the fish"?


        Hehe ...

        That's just the point that the Germans had. But the Air Force just didn’t have it: for the war, about 4.5 thousand Il-4 and 11 ty-Pe-2 were produced. Compare this with 36 th IL-2 + 4 thousand IL-10.
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 11: 55
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          That's just the point that the Germans had. But the Air Force just didn’t have it: for the war, about 4.5 thousand Il-4 and 11 ty-Pe-2 were produced. Compare this with 36 th IL-2 + 4 thousand IL-10.

          11200 Pe-2
          924 Tu-2
          4349 or 4
          768 Su-2
          3066 A-20
          806 B-25
          Total: about 21700 bombers

          For comparison, the Germans fired 17800 bombers, 941 attack aircraft and 6600 fighter-bombers (modifications FW-190)
          1. AK64
            AK64 28 July 2016 16: 47
            +1
            First of all, it would be necessary to compare 11.200 Pe-2 + 4.350 + about 800 Tu-2 with "more than" 50 thousand fighters and "more than" 36 thousand Il-2. 16 thousand versus more than 90 thousand. So this is precisely the bias in the "assault-assault faction."
            The Germans began such a warp only in the 44th, when they had to defend themselves everywhere. And the Air Force did not have normal bombers in the entire war.

            And so yes, thanks to the amers - they threw the bombers.

            And you could add Li-2 (and Lend-Lease Dakota) to the list (used as bombers in ADD, and were as if no better in this role than even EP-2, not to mention IL-4 )

            Well, about the quality of the bombers ... It’s better to keep silent here.

            So the Air Force didn’t have any bombers.
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 13: 41
      +3
      Quote: Leto
      The author creates a false impression, saying that the Germans being carried away by fighters did not pay attention to attack aircraft and vice versa. However, there are dry statistics, IL-2 produced 36 thousand, and pieces only 6,5 thousand.
      As they write lost 23,5 thousand IL-2, i.e. almost four times more than Pieces produced.


      Stop stop!
      However, one should not forget that the Shtuk regiments were transplanted onto the FW-190 - which could carry a bomb and served as a multi-purpose aircraft, including a strike one!
      It is not true to consider only Stucks as percussion. after 1943, they were replaced by FW-190.
      1. Leto
        Leto 28 July 2016 14: 24
        +2
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        It is not true to consider only Stucks as percussion. after 1943, they were replaced by FW-190.

        That is not the question. And in losses, in 1945. even taking into account the losses in the Luftwaffe, there remained about 200 Pieces, while only 323 Pieces participated in the attack on the USSR.
        The author claims that bombers and attack aircraft were the destruction priority for the Air Force, while in the Luftwaffe it was the other way around, but the numbers refute this. G.W. Rudel completed 2530! military sorties and has never been shot down by fighters, only anti-aircraft artillery, if it were as the author claims, then Rudel should have been shot down at least once, purely statistically, I do not believe in luck.
        1418 days of war and 2530 sorties, but he was shot down, he was in the hospital, went on vacation, rehabilitation after amputation of his legs, etc. He then flew to combat, not alone, but as part of his squadron Immelman, imagine what the intensity of flights. If our aviation had priority on the destruction of attack aircraft, and the fighter cover of the Germans would not pay attention to ensuring the actions of assault and bomber aircraft (as they try to argue here), then the Germans would have had their Stucks gone back in 1943. for they were used very intensively.
      2. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 54
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        It is not true to consider only Stucks as percussion. after 1943, they were replaced by FW-190.

        Some on the Eastern Front also flew the whole 1944 year, and the last units on the Stucks fought back in the spring of 45.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 28 July 2016 08: 18
    +3
    Chic-s for an amateur good ! A huge plus! Fresh opinion of an ordinary person can successfully dilute the ossified interpretation of "venerable" historians and make you think about many things in search of truth hi
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 28 July 2016 08: 21
    0
    Thanks to the author, it is sensibly written. The Germans themselves recognized the loss of air supremacy ... in the first days of the war with the USSR. Albeit in quantity, but the Soviet pilots brought a lot of trouble to the aggressor. It's funny to read the accusations of inability to fight from the losing side, maybe that's why they lost with their "academicism", couldn't figure out the Russian ingenuity? Regarding the famous IL-2, in the memoirs of veterans, there were more than one mentions of the use of attack aircraft as fighters, maybe they did not get involved with the "Messers" and "Fokkers", but the bombers got it in full
    1. heruv1me
      heruv1me 28 July 2016 09: 45
      +1
      Who recognized this? Can I look at the source? All the surviving German pilots did not speak very flatteringly about the actions of our aviation and almost all unanimously claimed that they had always had superiority over the "Ivans" (we can write off this on the bitterness of insult from defeat and the ideological trend that was fashionable at that time).
      In general, I agree with the article, with some clarifications:
      1. a small percentage of our planes shot down in relation to total sorties does not mean at all that the remaining planes were able to carry out the combat mission normally;
      2. Until 3 decades 43, the Germans overwhelmingly always managed to secure an advantage in the air on selected area military operations, and even after 43 they also succeeded, although less often and with heavy losses.

      As for the actions of German aviation in the first years of the war (about the absence of our aviation), then you don't have to go far (memoirs and memoirs, this is understandable), it is enough to watch any Soviet film about that period, in each film we see how the attack of our troops by German aviation is going on during the absence (well, or a very thin presence) of cover for our phrase in every film "where are our falcons ???".
      What I want to say by this, in 41, for many reasons, there was a terrible defeat of our Air Force, they were practically destroyed and completely demoralized, especially with regard to fighter aircraft. Many pilots retained their messerious fear until the end of the war (I didn’t come up with this idea; such thoughts were expressed by our outstanding aces in their memoirs about their colleagues “Pokryshkin, Rechkalov, etc.”). The arrival of new aircraft, the improvement of the situation on the fronts, new tactics and of course the courage and heroism of our pilots gradually turned the tide in their favor. But I repeat once again, the enemy was very strong and was a very serious enemy until the very last days of the war, and the fact that we defeated perhaps the strongest air fleet at that time (you can scold me, but I want to say thank you very much to the allies for help) only adds honor and respect to our great-grandfathers.
      1. Alex_59
        28 July 2016 09: 52
        +3
        Quote: heruv1me
        it is enough to watch any Soviet film about that period, in each film we see how the attack of our troops by German aviation goes on in the absence (or very thin presence) of our phrase in every film "where are our falcons ???".

        Yeah. There are still all Germans with their sleeves rolled up and without exception with the MP-40 submachine gun (Kar98k suffers from this depression and tears from the trunk, from such an injustice). Saw, remember. And more tanks. Tanks, tanks, tanks. Rod from all the cracks.

        You should not rely on the cinema as a reliable source.
        1. heruv1me
          heruv1me 28 July 2016 10: 16
          0
          Well, why, many of them were filmed according to the books of the participants of the Second World War, take at least my favorite one according to Simonov's book "The Living and the Dead"
  • Chazoy
    Chazoy 28 July 2016 08: 25
    +1
    The article is good, but not new. Mukhin Yu.I. (he writes well, but he is "jaded" on the subject of Putin) I have read similar materials for a long time and in large volumes.
  • Tanya
    Tanya 28 July 2016 08: 40
    +2
    Great article! Thanks to the author.
    Tired of the endless praises of the Hartman, who performed a completely different task and, as a result, had a completely different performance criterion - the number of shot down. The main tasks of our fighters were different. At the cover of troops and the destruction of ground targets accounted for 80% of sorties. And only the remaining 20% ​​- free hunting, intelligence and so on.
    What was the effectiveness of pilot I. Kozhemyako, flying on Yak in the cover of attack aircraft, if he only had one shot down, but during the whole war those groups of attack aircraft and bombers that accompanied his unit did not lose a single machine? I suppose - 100% good
    1. AK64
      AK64 28 July 2016 11: 36
      +1
      Tanya first the task of extermination is ... gaining dominance in the air.
      That is so in the charters and manuals.

      Do you think this is a mistake with them?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 July 2016 14: 19
        +2
        Quote: AK64
        Tanya, the first task of extermination is ... gaining dominance in the air.
        That is so in the charters and manuals.

        There is one subtle point - what is considered the criterion for gaining dominance in the air? smile
        Rising aces accounts (i.e. the number of enemy cars downed)?
        Or is it the reduction of the impact of enemy aircraft on their own troops and aircraft (i.e., the prohibition of enemy aircraft from performing their combat missions - shock and air defense)?
        1. AK64
          AK64 28 July 2016 17: 06
          0
          There is one subtle point - what is considered the criterion for gaining dominance in the air? smile
          Rising aces accounts (i.e. the number of enemy cars downed)?
          Or is it the reduction of the impact of enemy aircraft on their own troops and aircraft (i.e., the prohibition of enemy aircraft from performing their combat missions - shock and air defense)?


          There are no subtle points, because everything is described in the same instructions and charters :)
          (and you yourself know this very well)

          Both the goal and the method are described: close to the text (i.e. from memory)
          "The tasks of fighter aircraft are:
          (1) gaining air supremacy by destroying enemy aircraft in the air and at aerodromes ...
          (2) .... "

          As you can see, there is both a goal and a method for achieving it.

          Well, it’s not possible in principle to seize supremacy in the air on a 1000-kilometer front, well, it’s just such a scale.

          The score of individual aces, of course, is not a good indicator of the Air Force's activity or backlash "in general" - these figures only make sense "within themselves." Moreover, as I noted above, the Germans clearly show 20/80, and even "5% are responsible for 2/3 victories." By the way, in the Air Force it is not so sharp - the distribution of performance is much more even.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 July 2016 17: 53
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            "The tasks of fighter aircraft are:
            (1) gaining air supremacy by destroying enemy aircraft in the air and at aerodromes ...
            (2) .... "

            An excellent definition in its generality. It is interesting - how many planes need to be destroyed in the air and at aerodromes in order for air dominance to be conquered? smile

            And then the Germans in 1940, counting the shot down and burned at the bases of limes, thought that they had gained dominance in the air - until they were met over London by RAF fighters assembled in one fist - Bader’s large wing.
      2. Tanya
        Tanya 29 July 2016 11: 27
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        Tanya first the task of extermination is ... gaining dominance in the air.
        That is so in the charters and manuals.

        Do you think this is a mistake with them?


        The field charter of the Red Army read: "The main task of aviation is to contribute to the success of the ground forces in battle and operation."
        But since at the beginning of the war the successes were frankly "not very", then after a serious analysis of the situation, the tactics of aviation were revised in mid-1943.
        One of the documents, for example: "Order of the First Deputy Commander of the Red Army Air Force No. 137 to the commander of the 2nd and 16th Air Armies, to the commanders of air corps on organizing the struggle for air supremacy "
        14 May 1943 city
        But the document itself did not solve much without the fact that in 1943 the aircraft industry started operating at full capacity, pilots were retrained and trained, production defects decreased and aid for lend-lease significantly increased.
        Also in 1943 the air armies were fully formed and the country's air defense was significantly strengthened and centralized. The VNOS system, instead of observers, received and deployed a radar. Enemies could now be seen at distant approaches, and not beyond 10 km.
        In my humble opinion, this enabled our Air Force to turn the tide in the sky from the second half of 1943. hi
  • Fox
    Fox 28 July 2016 08: 49
    0
    so cool ... but Nikolai Gerasimovich has interestingly described the technical details of the operation and battles on the "outdated" I 16. how much and to whom who was inferior ... the author, apparently, did not read this section.
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 09: 19
      +2
      Quote: Fox
      the author, apparently, did not read this section.

      I read a lot of things. But the format of the article and its meaning do not allow me to quote all the memoirs of all pilots. At the end of the cycle there will be a list of sources.
  • Basil50
    Basil50 28 July 2016 08: 54
    0
    The Germans accounted for combat losses in a very peculiar way, both for planes, for tanks, and for personnel. I met the Germans' data on losses on the * eastern front *, so there the Germans indicated fewer than the graves on the territory of the SOVIET UNION.
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 28 July 2016 13: 04
      -2
      Some comments are frankly surprising, however, like the author. The Germans were carefully brought up for the war, and Goebels took upon himself a small part of the upbringing, everyone knows that a lie, and frank and not restrained by anything, was the official * policy * of the Nazis. So all references to the Germans or their memoirs on the war or * historical * research of modern Germans are simply not serious. What is this accounting for losses if in the reports of downed planes there is more than was made. The German account of prisoners of war in the battle of Kiev showed that there were more prisoners of war than all the soldiers of the RED Army in that theater of operations. There are many such inconsistencies, the most eloquent episode of the KURSK BATTLE war, today there are allegations of the victory of the Germans, even contrary to German reports.
      The author tried * to * combine * the inconsistencies of the German victorious relations with reality.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 28 July 2016 13: 08
        +2
        Quote: Vasily50
        Some comments are frankly surprising, however, like the author

        agree
        So all references to the Germans or their memoirs on the war or * historical * research of modern Germans are simply not serious.

        and Roush came up with a brew near the Bassein, there was nothing like that, and there was no 45 report on Brest, all are bullshit!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 July 2016 14: 27
          +2
          Quote: Stas57
          and Roush came up with a brew near the Bassein, there was nothing like that, and there was no 45 report on Brest, all are bullshit!

          And the photographs of the destroyed "prags" and "fours" on the Ilyinsky frontiers are the work of the retouchers of Goebbels. smile

          In short - only Mukhin, only hardcore!
          1. Basil50
            Basil50 30 July 2016 12: 12
            -1
            Surprising unconditional faith in German sources. Of course, they work with the German archives, but experts know about this * feature * of German documents when they minimize their own losses, and if they fail, they describe the REAL resistance of the RED ARMY to justify the losses. Even today, the Germans underestimate their losses during WWII, and it becomes incomprehensible, but why did they unconditionally surrender? All of Europe had a population of more than five hundred million, and the military potential was fifty million soldiers. Europeans often voluntarily replenished German troops. Why, if there were almost no losses, they began to call youngsters and the elderly over sixty years of age? Why all of a sudden? And the technique is about the same picture, I had to read German articles where the Germans counted the downed Soviet aircraft more than they built.
  • Ruby
    Ruby 28 July 2016 08: 58
    +1
    Respect to the author for the article. Honestly, starting to read, I expected to see another gem on a topic like "What kind of Germans were cool aces", or "How the Germans attributed to themselves a bunch of shot down."
    The article in my opinion fully reflects the differences in the concept of the use of aviation by our and Germans. This is not new, Schwabedissen writes the same about it, if you read it carefully, but for many it is a revelation.
    Our aviation has always acted in the interests of the ground forces. Not always successful and effective, but nevertheless. By the way, even in the combat orders, the fighters had the wording "Fighter support for a bomb attack", and not "Cover of attack aircraft."
    Success on earth has always been paramount.
    1. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 01
      -2
      Complete nonsense — specially dedicated regiments — mainly flying on the Yak-ah — were engaged in covering the attack flights, and they flew to La to gain air superiority, to repel the attacks of bomber aircraft, etc. Support Ylov in particular and were engaged in Yaki. Such was their fate of suicides. For there is no worse punishment than accompanying Ila. This is almost certain death
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 July 2016 15: 15
        +1
        Quote: denker1945
        A complete nonsense — specially dedicated regiments — mainly flying on the Yak-ah — were engaged in covering the attack flights, and they flew to La to gain air superiority,

        La-5 from the very beginning was used to accompany the attack aircraft. Here is December 1942 near Stalingrad:
        The striking force of the group was the 214th ShAD, part of the crews of the 206th ShAD and the 25th Guards. NLBAP, to which the 596th NLBAP joined a little later. The fighters of the 201st and 235th IAD, as well as one regiment from the 218th and 268th IAD, were to support them. The Lavochkins were in service with the 13th IAP of the 201st IAD and the 181st IAP of the 235th IAD.

        1943, Kursk:
        18 La-5 covered 12 IL-2, stormed the airfield Rogan. Attack aircraft made 2-3 approaches using all their weapons, and La-5 took part in attacking and suppressing the positions of MZA.
        (...)
        ... to strike at the Osnova airfield near Kharkov, where, according to intelligence, there were up to 150 German aircraft, 16 Il-2 from the 237th ShAP went under cover of 10 La-5 from the 31st IAP of the 295th IAD.
        (...)
        A characteristic aerial battle took place on July 9 in the vicinity of the village of Ponyri. 14 Il-2 from the 218th ShAP attacked a column of tanks and infantry. They covered them with La-5 from the 165th IAP.

        1944, Belarus:
        ... in the 21st IAP, cameras were installed on several La-5s. But the main task of this regiment, as well as the entire 259th Gorodok IAD, was to support the IL-2.
        1. denker1945
          denker1945 29 July 2016 09: 05
          +1
          La and other planes covered Ila if there were no Jacob or there weren’t enough cars, did they also cover the cobras, and what of this? Http: //iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/
          here's the link, look for the pilots of Jacob and you will see what the pilots of these cars were doing by and large. There you yourself will be told by veterans how and what. The yaks were used mainly to cover attack aircraft.
    2. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 12: 01
      -2
      Complete nonsense — specially dedicated regiments — mainly flying on the Yak-ah — were engaged in covering the attack flights, and they flew to La to gain air superiority, to repel the attacks of bomber aircraft, etc. Support Ylov in particular and were engaged in Yaki. Such was their fate of suicides. For there is no worse punishment than accompanying Ila. This is almost certain death
  • Ryabtsev Grigory Evgenievich
    Ryabtsev Grigory Evgenievich 28 July 2016 09: 02
    0
    The tactics of the Germans can be briefly described with the words "hitting the weak." These are wingmen (less trained), "wounded" (sorry, but I did not find a more appropriate definition), loners, weakly armed, returning after completing a combat mission (ammunition used up). Hence such figures. Our people always tried to bring down the leader, the leader.
    1. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 13: 56
      +1
      Do not carry nonsense, the Germans fought bravely, and so they flew to Moscow in 5 incomplete months with cowards. The Germans were good warriors and brave pilots. By definition, cowards in the sky have nothing to do
  • alpamys
    alpamys 28 July 2016 09: 13
    +1
    These can bring down. Better to wait for someone “simpler”

    the Germans are cowards, the bill was overstated, etc., etc. ... tired of it, such articles seem like an excuse, why? following this logic, the Red Army should defeat the Germans in a month, but the war lasted 4 years. Schumacher is also a multiple champion about aces, Schumacher also had his own backlash, and witnesses about Marcel tell about this, that he was an extremely gifted pilot, no one can repeat what he is doing, namely, shoot small carousels ahead of schedule the amount of ammunition spent to shoot down planes.
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 09: 33
      +3
      Quote: alpamys
      german underpants

      I did not say that cowards. It is a pity that you did not understand the essence. They are not coward pilots — it is their commanders and the military-industrial leadership made a fatal mistake by attacking the USSR being completely unprepared for the realities of the impending war. Wrong motivation of fighters is not cowardice of pilots, it is a mistake of command. For their pilots, the main problem was not cowardice, but in relation to war, for them it was a sport, for us the question of survival. But they were not cowards.
      Quote: alpamys
      overpriced

      All overpriced. And the Germans too. This is exactly what I wanted to say - not in elevations, the essence of the matter.
      1. alpamys
        alpamys 28 July 2016 09: 42
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        made a fatal mistake by attacking the USSR being completely unprepared for the realities of the upcoming war. Wrong motivation of fighters is not cowardice of pilots, it is a mistake of command

        maybe we don’t know everything about what made Hitler unprepared to attack the USSR. Here is the legend of Soviet intelligence Yuri Drozdov says interesting things:
        - No, because the blame for the fact that the Germans in 1941 attacked the USSR, including the United States. For some reason, they don’t remember about it now, but in 1940, the adviser to the British Prime Minister Churchill, Montgomery Hyde, who helped William Donovan (one of the leaders of the American special services - author) to create the Office of Strategic Services, handed it over to the President The United States Roosevelt wrote a letter to Churchill, where he wrote: since the United States is not at war with Germany, could you encourage Hitler to leave the Balkans alone and speed up measures against Russia. Many years have passed since then, and many in the West think that everyone has forgotten about this letter. But you can forget only when you do not want to remember something.

        Today, no one also recalls that, in fact, preparations for the Second World War began in 1929 with the meeting of US President Herbert Hoover with prominent US businessmen from the center of Russell; they have such a secret society. It stated to Hoover:

        “The crisis is approaching, trying to avoid the difficult situation that the United States may find itself in is possible only by changing the balance of power in the world. To do this, we need to help Russia so that it finally gets rid of the devastation - the consequences of the civil war, and help Germany get rid of the grip of the Treaty of Versailles. ” “But it takes money,” objected Hoover, “a few billion.” And why do we need it, what will happen next? ” “And then we need to push Russia and Germany with their foreheads, so that, having risen after the crisis, the United States will be only one on one with the remaining of these opponents.”

        https://cont.ws/post/315933
      2. Leto
        Leto 28 July 2016 10: 37
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        it’s their commanders and the military-industrial leadership made a fatal mistake by attacking the USSR being completely unprepared for the realities of the upcoming war

        As you say in the plural, the culprit is there alone, dunce (censorship does not allow other words) Adolf.
        So the "unreadiness" was not fatal, Germany had chances, but Hitler did not see them, despite the fact that they were pointed out to him. For our luck, of course ...
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 10: 52
          +1
          Quote: Leto
          So the "unreadiness" was not fatal, Germany had chances

          I believe that with the initial data that were available for the 41 year, Germany did not have a chance. Absolutely. Moreover, the Germans were very lucky that ours made a number of grave mistakes and mistakes in the 41, otherwise they would have been completely broken right away, without a rollback to Moscow. And only our own stupidity gave them the opportunity to teleport on our open spaces for three long years. They had a key mistake - the blitzkrieg in Russia does not work. From the word in general. And without the blitzkrieg, the Germans simply did not want to fight. The USSR was immediately preparing for a war of attrition, which provided itself with a basis for victory in advance. Before the war, the Germans needed to saturate the army with equipment in quantities comparable to the USSR - 30 thousand aircraft, 30 thousand tanks. To do this, it was necessary to transfer the economy to war footing in 38-39, and not in 43. And life in Vaterland would have become very, very poor. But the Germans did not want this. They also wanted to eat the USSR, and not strain at the same time. With this approach to our country, drain is inevitable.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 July 2016 15: 37
          +3
          Quote: Leto
          As you say in the plural, the culprit is there alone, dunce (censorship does not allow other words) Adolf.

          Yeah ... but the German generals who survived and managed to write memoirs are all in white. smile

          At least the story with the Dunkirk stop order, which, as it turned out, was given not by Hitler, but by von Rundstedt, speaks about the veracity of these memoirs - Hitler only approved the order that had already been executed from the previous day.
          Quote: Leto
          So the "unreadiness" was not fatal, Germany had chances

          There was no chance there - if the Germans were not slowed down by the Red Army, then they were sewn up with logistics. EMNIP, Shein wrote that GA "North" in August 1941 was forced to actually "remove from the allowance" infantry units, transferring all supplies to 4 TGy.
          And there was nothing to strengthen the rear - the Germans put out all the transport and all the resources they could. If you look at the graphs of the accumulation of the same fuel (they were in the American SAC reports on the results of the war in Europe), then for four months of the "Barbarossa" the Germans dwindled the fuel supply that had accumulated since the end of the French campaign.
      3. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 00: 58
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        For their pilots, the main problem was not cowardice, but in relation to war, for them it was a sport, for us the question of survival.

        The war for them was a sport until the 1943 of the year, then - after Stalingrad and general mobilization, and even the start of the Anglo-Saxon air attack also became a matter of survival.
  • Azzi
    Azzi 28 July 2016 09: 42
    +2
    The article is good. After reading numerous memoirs, he himself came to the same conclusion. However, the author either missed it or did not have time to tell - a high number of "free hunts" among the Germans, low and later with us. For the same Hartman, this was almost the main activity. The tactics are appropriate, we don't fall into the dog dumps, suddenly jumped out, bummed, left. For a personal account - that's it.
  • karllex
    karllex 28 July 2016 10: 26
    +4
    In defense of the author, I will bring the thing dock. you can’t argue against it!
    http://iskatelklada.tuapse.ru/razdely-sajta/velikaya-otechestvennaya-vojna/karta
    -mest-padenij-samoletov.html

    A map of the found remains of aircraft in the Kuban, of course it is all aircraft, regardless of how it was shot down. The remains still lie in the mountains and will find many more.
    For example, estimate the number of dead planes of the parties, the advantage is clearly not in the direction of the Soviet troops. But the main thing is how they are distributed ... Over Krymsky (the Blue Line breakthrough) our men were there, and the Germans defended and lost fighter jets, and in the Tuapse area they attacked and were torn to the sea, there were losses of bombers .... There are reports of our dead planes in the archives, and therefore our planes often seek out purposefully with information, there is no information on German planes, and finds are mostly a matter of chance. (I know where our fighter, the grandfather’s story exactly died, and that in this battle the German smoked, but went west), but on the map of this place there is NO what was unknown to the German. How many planes in general remain in the floodplains of Taman and Primorsko-Akhtarsk we do not know. During the construction of the bridge, only two of our IL-2 aircraft were found, but they went to Kerch and Eltinger, and there were VERY MUCH antiaircraft guns!
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 28 July 2016 10: 48
      +2
      the preponderance of downed aircraft following the Second World War is just in favor of our Air Force by about 5000
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 July 2016 10: 29
    0
    Good article. Everything about the case. Write more.
  • Gloomy
    Gloomy 28 July 2016 11: 05
    0
    It would be interesting to find out what explained the overwhelming superiority of the Germans in the characteristics of aircraft for new aircraft at the beginning of the invasion of the USSR, despite the fact that the USSR was also preparing for the war and the information on German technology was probably exhaustive.
    I met Old that the Germans were well helped because of the mound ...
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 28 July 2016 11: 25
      +2
      I think rather the coherence of combat units (infantry, aviation, tanks, reconnaissance), which formed a "fist" and struck in a narrow sector of the front. During the offensive in June 41, in some sectors of the front, the superiority in the attackers to the defenders reached 1 in 500 people. A similar tactic was used in the Luftwaffe. And ours, having no communication and coordination between the units, could only oppose the personal courage of individual soldiers or pilots
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2016 15: 51
      +1
      Quote: Gloomy
      It would be interesting to find out what explained the overwhelming superiority of the Germans in the characteristics of aircraft for new aircraft at the beginning of the invasion of the USSR, despite the fact that the USSR was also preparing for the war and the information on German technology was probably exhaustive.

      You cannot lift information into the air.

      SW M. Svirin gave a good example: before the war, our Germans bought a truck crane and a 20-ton semi-trailer for transporting tanks — with all the documentation. We transferred everything to the profile lifting equipment plant named after Kirov demanding to do the same. The work was under the control of Himself. The result is zero.

      The main ambush in Soviet industry lay during the transition from prototypes to the series. With regard to aviation - experienced cars with experienced engines of the assembly team flew great. As soon as it came to the series, either the engine could not be launched into production, or after putting into production it was removed for revision (M-88), or the quality of the series was extremely poor:
      “Of course, there were and are a number of phenomena in our lives that negatively influenced and affect the mood of the flight crew. Such phenomena include: sending us wrecked-built I-16 aircraft with an M-25 engine (April-May). In these motors we found shavings and rags; these motors worked very poorly, rattling and shaking. There was almost no departure, so that someone did not burn the motor. Part of the aircraft of this series sent to us was not tested in the air even at the factory.
      As a result, as you know, we suffered serious losses outside the battle when the console on the right or left plane broke on simple piloting. So comrades Kolesnikov and Foresters died. It is possible that the same console was the cause of the death of comrade. Moiseiko, Burov, Arzhanov, and possibly some others ”(regimental commissar S. F Agaltsov, report dated 20.12/1937/XNUMX)
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 28 July 2016 16: 11
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        and 20-t tank semi-trailer - with all the documentation.

        and if he drove him? FAMO did not guess the license?
        Sd.Anh.116 in the USSR, with his departing ass? Didn’t work out? And why am I not surprised?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 July 2016 17: 20
          +1
          Quote: Stas57
          and if he drove him? FAMO did not guess the license?

          Duc ... "Voroshilovtsy", obviously. Do you remember Fedorenko's Wishlist:
          1. To organize the production of special articulated vehicles that fully meet the tactical and technical requirements of NPOs.
          2. To build, by 1.01.1943, a plant for the production of tractors “Voroshilovets” up to 2500 per year and a plant for the production of tractors of the S-2 type - 10000 per year.
          3. Transfer all tractor plants to multi-shift work. All the Voroshilovets, S-2, ChTZ-65 and STZ-5 tractors produced by the plants should be transferred to NPOs.

          To increase the combat readiness of mechanized troops and to provide the Red Army with armored vehicles and property, it is necessary:
          (...)
          2. To provide the ARGK and KAPs artillery with powerful tractors, build a new plant for the production of tractors “Voroshilovets” up to 2500 per year and a second factory for the production of tractors of the type “S-2” - 10000 per year.
          3. Transfer the tractor plants STZ, KhTZ, ChTZ and workshop “200” of plant No. 183 to multi-shift work. The Voroshilovets, S-2, ChTZ-65 and STZ-5 tractors produced by industrial plants are fully transferred to NPOs.
          4. Proceed immediately to the production of cross-country vehicles with 2 to 3 driving axles, for the acquisition of mechanized troops by them.
          5. Increase the supply of VMS trucks to 70-80% of the total number of trucks supplied by NPOs.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 28 July 2016 18: 11
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Duc ... "Voroshilovtsy", obviously. Do you remember Fedorenko's Wishlist:

            This is me for the gentlemen of the debaters.
            but yes, the artillery tractor "Stalinets-2" - clearly C2, but what is ST-2?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 28 July 2016 18: 30
              +1
              Quote: Stas57
              This is me for the gentlemen of the debaters.
              but yes, the artillery tractor "Stalinets-2" - clearly C2, but what is ST-2?

              On the adoption of the Red Army tanks, armored vehicles. artillery trucks and their production in 1940. Based on the review and test results of new models of tanks, armored vehicles and tractors manufactured in accordance with the decisions of the Defense Committee No. 198ss dated July 7, 1938 and No. 118ss May 15, 1939, the DEFENSE COMMITTEE under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR Decides:

              1. Adopt the Red Army:
              (...)
              VII. Tractor ST-2 - (artillery tractor) with a diesel engine manufactured by the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant of Narkomsredmash.
              © Decree No. 443cc of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on December 19, 1939 Moscow Kremlin
    3. AK64
      AK64 28 July 2016 17: 28
      +2
      It would be interesting to find out what explained the overwhelming superiority of the Germans in the characteristics of aircraft for new aircraft at the beginning of the invasion of the USSR, despite the fact that the USSR was also preparing for the war and the information on German technology was probably exhaustive.

      The fact that the Germans, at that time, 50 years ahead of the USSR in industrial development
      I met Old that the Germans were well helped because of the mound ...

      yep - with alpha centauri
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 July 2016 18: 27
        0
        Quote: AK64
        yep - with alpha centauri

        Direct deliveries from the Centauri empire. smile
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. denker1945
      denker1945 29 July 2016 15: 17
      0
      Only the English dviglo at the initial stage helped the Germans. At us, the aircraft business was poorly developed before the revolution, and even how many specialists left after the coup over the hill, at least such an experience has sailed away. And whoever constructs the planes, they started from scratch and started using engines in including. There was not enough duralumin. I had to sharpen the structure under the tree and its specific gravity was greater and with weak engines the situation was generally depressing. because a special was created. the commission that traveled around the world and bought up any equipment that could (suspension of Christie's example is the motor of Yak and Lavochkin, prad and whitney) -and everything was all. I had to master it from scratch. because the Germans saved their engineering and fighting experience in there was more than the first world war and valuable pilots left, that's the result
  • denker1945
    denker1945 28 July 2016 11: 09
    -4
    The assets of the Soviet pilots are only local conflicts, limited in scope and scale - the Soviet-Finnish war and ... and, perhaps, that's all. The remaining pre-war conflicts are too small in scope and mass use of troops to be comparable with the war in Europe in 1939-1941.
    the author of the clown-pro Hankhin -gol and Spain, he somehow forgot something, But there aren’t one hero from these as he says local wars !!! - Let the Japanese fuck us, motherfucker quality training. The Japanese fired their fighters that had 600 air raids !!! Hours. It got to the point that they called a team of highly qualified pilots from the USSR and they taught others already on the ground, that is, directly on the battlefield. Second-Aircraft the KI-series surpassed the I-16 in all respects and even experienced pilots had a hard time competing with them. Like the gladiators during the Great Patriotic War, the Finns flew and they flew great according to fighter veterans! -According to one of them, they landed all the tunics were wet with sweat. Yes, the Germans had local wars before that, upa rock author
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2016 19: 05
      +2
      Quote: denker1945
      . Second-KI-series aircraft in all respects surpassed the I-16 and even experienced pilots were hard to compete with them

      The tactical advantage of the I-97 aircraft is especially evident at altitudes over 3000 meters. The I-16 aircraft makes a turn in 16-17 seconds, the I-97 has a turn time of 12 seconds. On a bend, the I-16 is not stable enough. When you drag the handle, it can either get out of the bend, or break into a "spin". The I-97 turns steadily with the handle fully selected and has no tendency to stall into a "spin". In bend battles the I-97 has an advantage. In battles on vertical maneuvers, the advantage also remains with the I-97. The Japanese plane climbs higher than the I-16 and finds itself in a more advantageous position. It is better for the I-16 to get out of the battle only by a prolonged steep dive, because the I-97 cannot dive for a long time. The usual method of air combat for the I-16: the use of altitude and higher horizontal speed to climb after an attack by acceleration. The I-16 attacking the enemy leaves with a descent and, making sure that there is no pursuit, again gains altitude for the attack.
      © Test pilot S.P.Suprun

      By the way, familiar tactics are practically wildcat and zero. smile
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2016 19: 17
      +2
      Quote: denker1945
      As well as with the gladiators during the Great Patriotic War on which the Finns flew and they flew according to the fighter veterans great!

      "Gladiators" in WWII? Maybe "Buffalo" or "Fokkers"?
      And then the Finnish "gladiators" distinguished themselves only in the SFV - and that was due to the poor training of our pilots.
      The most spectacular fight that day was held by senior sergeant Oiva Emil Kalervo Tuominen, later one of the best Finnish aces. On his Gladiator, he single-handedly attacked a group of Soviet aircraft consisting of a pair of DB-3s from the 85th Special Purpose Air Regiment, marching under the escort of just six I-16s of the 149th IAP. At the same time, Tuominen was “lucky” to meet with the latest at that time cannon I-16 type 27, which significantly exceeded the “Gladiator” in almost all respects. But luck loves the brave!

      Soviet pilots in time noticed the Gladiator coming in to attack them from the tail, and one link under the command of Art. Lieutenant Kiselyov began a U-turn to attack the enemy. It was at this moment that Tuominen opened fire. Trying to evade, one of the followers Kiseleva darted to the side and fell into a tailspin. The second slave, too, unsuccessfully maneuvered, trying at the same time as maneuver to drop the tanks, and also fell into a tailspin! Without starting to pursue a randomly somersaulting enemy, Tuominen attacked the leader, who eventually sat on the ice in the area of ​​the city of Kotka. After that, Tuominen rushed in pursuit of another I-16 (probably one of Kiselev’s followers). The I-16 pilot could easily break away from the Gladiator, but, apparently, he simply did not notice the threat, calmly leaving the Gulf of Finland in the direction of his airfield. After 20 minutes of chasing at full throttle, Tuominen still overtook the I-16 near the island of Gogland and, according to him, was shot down by a Soviet fighter. In fact, only Art. Lieutenant A. L. Kiselyov, and both of his followers safely returned to their airfield. Tuominen counted two shot down and one damaged I-16.

      Moreover, it was the only successful battle. Then everything was much sadder - in February the six "gladiators", carried away by the battle with the R-3et, caught 6 I-16s of the 68th IAP - and shot down 2 vehicles dry.
      A couple of days later, a flight of I-16 found and shot the "gladiator" approaching landing and, returning, reported on the found airfield. And there were guests - 6 assault I-153 and 17 I-16. The result is minus 5 "gladiators" and 1 "fokker" at the cost of 2 I-16s.
      The Swedish "gladiators" operating north of Ladoga also had little success.

      And in Continuation War, the "gladiators" were removed from the fighters altogether.
      It's funny, but in the early days of the war, the Finnish command continued to consider the “Gladiators” as completely fighter fighters. They even tried to involve them in the interception of bombers, but after several unsuccessful battles with the Security Council on July 3, the command of the Karelian army spat and assigned to the "Gladiators" only tasks for conducting reconnaissance and assault ground forces.
      For the entire war on their account - the only downed P-5 from the structure of 679 transport ap (15.02.1943)
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 28 July 2016 11: 33
    +1
    Good article, interesting analysis. But most of all I liked this one-Victory is the result of hard and, most importantly, successful work.
  • sancho16
    sancho16 28 July 2016 11: 50
    -1
    Counting air victories in that war was initially biased.
    On German planes was a machine gun, which was turned on by pressing the trigger and turned off immediately after
    Her release. The German returns to the base, they took out the film, showed it and saw how many hits he had,
    only it was impossible to find out if he got into different planes or 10 lines in one and the same.
    It was also impossible to unequivocally confirm whether the plane was shot down, or the battered one returned home.
    Because the Germans believed-once hit, then shot down,-hence the sky-high performance.
    For ours, it was required to unequivocally confirm the irrevocability of the loss of an enemy aircraft.
    For this, ground troops had to find the downed enemy plane and cut down the nameplate from the engine a
    if a German fell on its territory, then those who were with ours in the same group should confirm
    that the german fell and destroyed.
    Here is such bookkeeping war.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. denker1945
      denker1945 28 July 2016 11: 54
      0
      the machine gun did not turn off immediately after releasing the trigger and continued to take off for a few more seconds to confirm the damage to the aircraft. You are wrong. No nameplates, I hear the first time, I needed confirmation of aiming or infantry or so that someone from the group saw it .http: / /iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/
      read at your leisure-many interesting things for yourself subtract-who-how much and how ... Sometimes it’s very interesting to learn about the losses — how the regiments were completely burned by the Germans in 2 weeks
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 28 July 2016 12: 40
        +1
        The machine gun and the confirmation of the Luftwaffe partner was sufficient reason to account for the victory. And we really needed confirmation from the ground (air raid observation posts, infantry, etc.) and other pilots (from at least three sources). The fact is that our pilots were paid money for the shot down (1000 for a fighter and 1500 for a "bomber") and the accounting was very strict. The Germans were promised land on the territory of the USSR and a certain number of Slavic slaves for the knocked down, because they considered our knocked down "kilometers", not particularly messing with the truth. There were cases when the IL-2 flew to its airfield with 200 holes, I wonder how many "victories" were recorded by German photo-machine guns and how many downed Il-s were recorded by the valiant German aces
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 28 July 2016 12: 56
          +1
          Quote: vvvjak
          The Luftwaffe's machine gun and teammate confirmation was sufficient to account for the victory. And we really needed confirmation from the ground (air raid observation posts,

          Of course, of course, and they never wrote on the reminder, just like pilots and anti-aircraft gunners wrote down one plane ....

          The Luftwaffe air victory counting system involved one downed aircraft, precisely identified by a photographic machine gun or one or two other witnesses.
          In this case, the aircraft was recorded on a personal account only if it was recorded destroyed in the air, engulfed in flames abandoned by its pilot in the air or recorded its fall to the ground and destruction.
          To register a victory, the Luftwaffe pilot filled out an application consisting of 21 points.
          It stated:
          1. Time (date, hour, minute) and the place the plane crashed.
          2. Names of crew members applying.
          3. Type of aircraft destroyed.
          4. Nationality of the adversary.
          5. The essence of the damage:
          a) flame and black smoke;
          b) whether the enemy plane fell apart (call them) or exploded;
          c) whether he made an emergency landing (indicate in which place of the front and whether it was a normal or emergency landing);
          e) if it landed behind the front line, did it catch fire on the ground.
          6. The nature of the fall (only if it could be observed):
          a) in which place of the front;
          b) whether it was vertical or it broke out;
          c) if not observed, for what reason.
          7. The fate of the enemy crew (killed, parachuted, etc.).
          8. A personal pilot report must be attached.
          9. Witnesses:
          a) in the air;
          b) on the ground.
          10. The number of attacks an enemy plane was subjected to.
          11. The direction from which each attack was carried out.
          12. The distance from which effective fire was fired.
          13. Tactical attack position.
          14. Were the enemy arrows disabled.
          15. Type of weapons used.
          16. Ammunition Consumption.
          17. The type and number of machine guns used to destroy an enemy aircraft.
          18. Type of own plane.
          19. Anything else that has tactical and technical value.
          20. Damage to your own car as a result of enemy actions.
          21. Other units involved in the battle (including anti-aircraft artillery).
          The squadron commander signed the questionnaire. The main points were 9 (witnesses) and 21 (other units).
          The application was accompanied by a personal report of the pilot, in which he first indicated the date and time of take-off, the threshold and the start of the battle, and then only announced victories and listed them from the time the attack began, including altitude and range.
          Then he indicated the essence of the destruction, the nature of the fall, his observation and the recorded time.
          A report on the battle, written by a witness or an eyewitness, was attached to the report on the downed aircraft. All this made it possible to double-check the pilot's messages about the victory. Commander of a group or squadron after receiving reports of other pilots, data from ground observation posts, decoding of film machine gun films, etc. He wrote on the form his conclusion, which, in turn, served as the basis for official confirmation or not confirmation of victory.
          As an official recognition of his victory, the Luftwaffe pilot received a special certificate, which indicated the date, time and place of the battle, as well as the type of aircraft he shot down.
          If you believe the sources of Germany, the Germans did not share victories. “One pilot - one victory,” their law read. For example, the Allied pilots divided the victories as follows: if two pilots fired at one aircraft and it was shot down, each of them wrote half. (// www.airpages.ru/dc/hist_4.shtml)
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 July 2016 19: 22
            +1
            Quote: Stas57
            Of course, of course, and they never wrote on the reminder, just like pilots and anti-aircraft gunners wrote down one plane ....

            Hehe hehe ... You still remember how well-known Baron Jerome von Ivan Evgrafovich Fedorov was caught double and even quadrupled.
            In the month of February 1944, the commander of the 6th IAK re-presented the award sheet with the application of certificates of downed enemy aircraft. Considering the award sheet and the certificates attached to it, I had a doubt about the correctness of the latter, i.e. whether certificates for the same downed planes were issued, only in different parts and persons. Having asked the Commander of the Air Force 3 on the merits of this question, I received an answer as I had previously assumed that Colonel FEDOROV showed exceptional dishonesty and fraud, attributing to himself twice the same aircraft shot down by him.
            For the unworthy behavior of a senior officer, expressed in extortion and fraud, as well as unsatisfactory work as a division commander, I petition for the removal of Colonel FEDOROV from his post and for his appointment with demotion.

            Former inspector of piloting technique of the 3rd Air Army and commander of a group of fines, Lieutenant Colonel, now Colonel FEDOROV Ivan Evgrafovich, during his entire stay on the Kalinin Front, according to combat reports and accounting data, shot down 8 enemy aircraft, which he was told by the Army Headquarters on March 5, 1943 and was Help issued. Confirming the reliability of this certificate, I inform you that all other certificates of the flight personnel of 157 and 163 fighter regiments and the GROMOV telegram confirm the same aircraft that are indicated in the final certificate of 5.3.1943 on the combat work of FEDOROV on the Kalinin Front.
          2. dvaposto
            dvaposto 28 July 2016 22: 04
            0
            poor bomber. if he was "lucky" to be attacked by 4-5 fighters, then two got the "wing", one the butt, one the front.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 28 July 2016 11: 52
    +2
    The article is not bad, in any case, it is detailed in detail that it is not fighters that are important for winning an air war (and war in general) ... and in general not aircraft as such. First of all, the fulfillment of a combat mission is important. Paradoxically, the Germans with their "ordnung" had serious problems with discipline in the Luftwaffe ... More precisely, not even with discipline, but with the fact that the "Goering chicks" were considered valor and how they interpreted their tasks ... In this regard, tough The (often brutal) system of the Soviet Air Force, where for non-observance of the order went to the tribunal, turned out to be much more effective.
  • Civilian62
    Civilian62 28 July 2016 11: 56
    0
    As a child, I read a book with the memories of our pilots about the war, especially about the beginning and first months. Particularly struck by the phrase, what 570 km / h? God forbid, if 430, especially after take-off from the ground, when the chassis does not close due to dirt. This is YAKah. They wrote a lot about the unreliability of engines, especially the assembly of 41-42 years, but there a lot depended on the plant. But even at 45, when the order came to hand over the aerocobras set for the Lend-Lease, the pilots cried. This is from the recollections of my uncle who served in the airdrome security battalion. In general, the article gives the impression of a biased, and one-sided. What is the claim that a fighter is easier to shoot down than an attack aircraft or a bomber.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 28 July 2016 14: 10
      +2
      Do not distort - the article does not say that shooting down a fighter is easier than an attack aircraft. The article refers to the fact that in group tactics, to attack a system of bombers or attack aircraft, and even covered by fighters, is often more dangerous than participating in a duel match with a fighter.
      The same German aces wrote a lot about terrible fear during attacks by formations of Anglo-American bombers in the West. Still - 12 large-caliber barrels on each B-26, cars from each other at a distance of 3-5 hundred meters, interaction with fire, and even cover groups of spitfires and hurricanes. That was a favorite trick - an attack in the frontal and ... carry me legs ...
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 12: 30
    +4
    2 .... at the beginning of 1942, the Luftwaffe had 5 aircraft of all types on all fronts. For comparison, at the same moment in the Red Army Air Force there were already more than 178 Il-7000 attack aircraft and more than 2 fighters ... "

    This is where you got such monstrous figures - 7000 attack aircraft at the beginning of 1942 year?
    Yes, after this nonsense, there’s no sense in reading this scribble ... The amateur!
    They were almost individually distributed among the shelves. and in the direction of attacks on Stalingrad in the assault regiments by the summer there were 3-4 Il-2 attack aircraft !!!
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 12: 49
      +4
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      This is where you got such monstrous figures - 7000 attack aircraft at the beginning of 1942 year?

      To be honest, this is my jamb. It was not about that year, I missed this mistake, it’s my fault. sad
      I give you a plus for your attention.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Yes, after this nonsense, there’s no sense in reading this scribble ... The amateur!

      The fact that I am an amateur - I do not hide. Better to be a thoughtful amateur than a mindless professional. And read the rest all the same, all of a sudden there is something clever written. smile
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 13: 50
        +3
        Statistics of the production of IL-2
        Заводы/год 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
        № 1 (Куйбышев) 5 2991 4257 3719 957
        № 18 (Куйбышев) 1510 3942 4702 4014 931
        № 30 (Москва) — 1053 2234 3377 2201
        No. 381 (Leningrad) 27 243 - - -
        That is, at the beginning of 1942 there could never have been an IL-2 MORE than they were released in 1941! And this is a total of 1542 aircraft - WHERE 7000 ???? Subtract losses from neither - so at the beginning of the year, 300-400 pieces of them on all fronts will not be typed
        Be careful what you write.
        1. Alex_59
          28 July 2016 14: 05
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Be careful what you write.

          Your remark is absolutely true. Sorry again, this is a mistake.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 14: 02
        +1
        Even by the end of 1943, 7000 Il-2s could not be in the troops (there were about 3.5 thousand of them at the end of the war)
        here we need documents, not fortune-telling and calculations of the produced / lost IL-2 and Fighters
        1. dvaposto
          dvaposto 28 July 2016 22: 12
          -1
          Here it was! poor wife. a bore.
  • nivander
    nivander 28 July 2016 13: 10
    +1
    and the point system in the East units of the Luftwaffe is pure swindle (one point, one motor). In practice, it looked like this - Staffel (8-10-12 planes) watched over a formation of "Pawns" that was scattered after the bombing, immediately followed by a quick surprise attack. ... 1-2-3 "Pawns" are knocked down another 2-3 are badly damaged. The rest have got lost in a ball / circle and beat from the turrets at everything that moves. So the Staffel with the whole collective farm will start extinguishing the wounded animals and spit on the whole swarm. the presenters write to themselves all victories, two three for each of the 4 Staffel supers, and the shtafirkas write points for the motors, 4-5 per snout, and then these points turn into a personal score. Depending on the patron's goodwill / mood, the follower could calculate one shot down for 10 points. and could be 1 to 5.A in 1945 and 1 to 1
    1. 2ez
      2ez 28 July 2016 13: 43
      -1
      The Germans still had that count .. They thought they were not shot down! And which hit! And it doesn’t matter that after Hartman got on a Soviet plane, he reversed Hartman himself on a U-turn! Did the machine gun show a hit? He showed, then there is a German victory! True, after such a victory, he had to flee from Soviet captivity ...
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 28 July 2016 13: 58
        +4
        Quote: 2ez
        The Germans still had that count .. They thought they were not shot down! And which hit! And it doesn’t matter that after Hartman got on a Soviet plane, he reversed Hartman himself on a U-turn! Did the machine gun show a hit? He showed, then there is a German victory! True, after such a victory, he had to flee from Soviet captivity ...

        one more....
  • 2ez
    2ez 28 July 2016 13: 39
    +1
    I believe Vitaly Popkov, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, the prototype of the Maestro from the film "Only Old Men Go to Battle". He wrote that "according to the Hamburg score" Otto Graf, one of the Luftwaffe aces shot down only 47 planes, not 300 ... They found out this in a personal conversation after the war, and the Germans could not come up with it .. I trust our pilot more , and not "primedyvalkin based on German data" from the office ... Link: http://www.leonid-bykov.ru/staty/36.htm
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 28 July 2016 14: 10
      +3
      Quote: 2ez
      I believe Vitaly Popkov, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, the prototype of the Maestro from the film "Only Old Men Go to Battle". He wrote that Otto Graf, one of the aces of the Luftwaffe, shot down only 47 aircraft, and not 300, "according to the Hambur count."

      47 is more than Popkov’s, even taking into account the fact that there is no Otto Graf with 300 victories ...
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 28 July 2016 14: 50
        +1
        Quote: Stas57
        47 is more than Popkov’s, even taking into account the fact that there is no Otto Graf with 300 victories ...

        Most likely we are talking about Hermann Graff (212 air victories). Nevertheless, it was precisely Popkov that the Americans included in the top ten aces. at the same time, by and large, the number of those shot down still does not mean anything.
        How many total shot down? Asked Le Gan.

        “Don't worry, old fellow,” Casal said with the condescending grin of the veteran, “here you will be taught to understand that the accomplishment is more important than personal victory.”

        Le Gan frantically stuck out his chin.

        - I want a fritz!

        “Each one is a Fritz,” came the voice of a guy with a coffee-milk-colored face. It was a mulatto Lafarge.

        “Not less,” said Le Gan.

        Castor turned around, still holding a piece of chalk in his hands. He smiled sadly at Lemaitre and set to work again.

        “Does that remind you of anything?” - he asked.

        “Reminds me,” answered Lemeter. “It all starts all over again.” These guys are still like in kindergarten.
        "Normandie-Niemen" By Francois de Joffre
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 28 July 2016 15: 14
          +3
          Quote: Verdun
          Most likely we are talking about Hermann Graff (212 air victories). Nevertheless, it was precisely Popkov that the Americans included in the top ten aces. at the same time, by and large, the number of those shot down still does not mean anything.


          turn to the text
          And with ace Otto Graf, who shot down more than five planesod Stalingrad - he himself was shot down there, - we talked in a train compartment when we went to Volgograd. The worldview of this man has changed - he has become an anti-fascist. Wilhelm Peak took him from Soviet captivity, and the Count collaborated with him. After the reunification of Germany, he became senator of the Bundestagwealthy man. And in that compartment, we also checked the number of aircraft shot down by a German pilot on a Hamburg account.

          and he was captured in what? in xnumx to the americans? just at that time was the battle of Stalingrad?
          and when did he become a senator? how is footman Otto Graf Lamsdorff in 1972? and how he became a senator when he died in 1988 for 2 years before unification in 1990 and rolled into Volgograd ...
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 28 July 2016 15: 41
            0
            Quote: Stas57
            turn to the text

            Now, if I had heard these words from the mouth of Popkov himself, then yes. and so, from personal experience, I know how different scribblers and zhurnalyugi can distort the meaning of what has been said by making five semantic errors in four sentences. Vitaly Ivanovich himself, who came across him at some events, was a man extremely adequate even at an advanced age. Not a lie.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 28 July 2016 16: 00
              +2
              Quote: Verdun
              Now, if I had heard these words from the mouth of Popkov himself, then yes. and so, from personal experience, I know how different scribblers and zhurnalyugi can distort the meaning of what has been said by making five semantic errors in four sentences. Vitaly Ivanovich himself, who came across him at some events, was a man extremely adequate even at an advanced age. Not a lie.

              so I’ve been talking about journalists for a long time ...
              but they tell us here .. I trust our pilot more than the "primedyvalkin based on German data" from the office.
              but you read the text and you don’t even know what to think, which inventions are worse ...
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 28 July 2016 13: 56
    0
    Until June 22.06, 1941, 322 LaGG-3 fighters were released.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 28 July 2016 13: 56
    0
    All this combat work fell on the very small German aviation forces - at the beginning of 1942 there were 5 aircraft of all types on all fronts in the Luftwaffe. For comparison, at the same time there were already more than 178 Il-7000 attack aircraft and more than 2 fighters in the Red Army Air Force.
    I quote the author and do not understand where these figures come from.
    Amount of weapons produced during the Second World War (in thousands)
    aircraft
    USA 296.1
    England 102.6
    Germany 104
    USSR 120
    Where does such excellence come from?
    1. Alex_59
      28 July 2016 14: 07
      +1
      Quote: Verdun
      I quote the author and do not understand where such figures come from.

      I already unsubscribed above that this is a mistake. Guilty, I’ll correct it.
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 28 July 2016 13: 57
    +2

    The regiment of attack aircraft could, during 1 month during active battles, lose the entire materiel and most of the pilots / riflemen and be redeployed.

    Even by the end of the war, all the assault units did not even have 3,5 attack aircraft.
  • uskrabut
    uskrabut 28 July 2016 15: 20
    0
    In the armed forces, especially during the war, all actions are counted according to the latter. This means that more important is not a personal account, but collective achievements, i.e. overall result for the regiment, army, front. By this and only this victory is achieved. Personal accounts are valor, propaganda, but only a statistical deviation in the overall result.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 July 2016 17: 07
    0
    "since the Il-2 was killed by anti-aircraft artillery, and
    in fact, not every of the 41 sorties ended with bombs hitting the target "////

    And how could a bomb hit an IL-2 target if it wasn’t
    no sighting device? The pilot fired bombs intuitively,
    based on my experience. And where could experience come from if the plane was shot down
    after a couple of dozen sorties?
    Efficiency of IL-2 - the biggest question in considering effectiveness
    Red Army aviation in general. After all, all fighter aircraft served
    namely IL-2.
    There is a point of view that replacing IL-2 with twin-engine bombers, for example, a Boston type with a bomb load much larger than that of IL-2, and sighting devices could significantly
    increase the effectiveness of ground strikes and the effectiveness of the air force as a whole ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 28 July 2016 20: 36
      +1
      Do not confuse a bomber and an attack aircraft - these are different classes of vehicles and different tasks. No Boston could hang over the leading edge, literally not allowing the enemy to "raise his head" ... And then even "did not hit" the tenth thing ... Because during this time the infantry will take its toll. And Il's task was not to "throw bombs", but to "isolate the battlefield" and in this he had no equal ...
      By the way, the bomb sight on Ile was originally, only they consciously abandoned it, because improving the accuracy of the bombing did not justify the pilot’s distraction ... So they simplified it to the marks on the hood ... we still work from extremely low altitudes ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 July 2016 23: 09
        0
        "And then even" did not hit "the tenth case" /////

        I cannot agree with you. Still, "hit or miss" is the first thing.
        After the Battle of Kursk, where the assessment of the actions of Soviet aviation was very
        contradictory, decided to do a check. Arranged trophy immobilized in a row
        German tanks. And they called several aces Ilov. They took turns making raids, bombing and PTABs
        and ordinary bombs. Each time they checked the hit. And the reports were disappointing:
        there were almost no hits, as well as damage. Although stationary tanks were bombed in perfect surroundings without interference.
        Result: IL-2 could only bomb large targets such as airfields, railways. nodes, clusters of equipment on
        on the roads.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 28 July 2016 23: 24
          0
          Once again, for those who are "on an armored train" the Sturmovik is not a bomber ... Bombs are not its main weapon, moreover, IL was not a specialized anti-tank aircraft ... Before the appearance of PTAB, its anti-tank efficiency was generally questionable ... IL did not stop tanks knocking them out and "isolating" - depriving them of supplies and fuel ... But for bombing convoys, parks, etc. accuracy is quite enough for targets, especially since there were also RS and much more effective guns ... I'll tell you more - to hit such a protected and small target like a tank in general, before the appearance of the missile launcher, could not stably from the air ... no one. Or do you believe in bikes "from Rudel"?
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 28 July 2016 23: 30
            +2
            Quote: Taoist
            I'll tell you more - to hit such a protected and small target like a tank in general, before the appearance of the missile launcher, could not stably from the air ... no one. Or do you believe in bikes "from Rudel"?
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 29 July 2016 10: 50
              0
              So what? if a large mass of tanks for a large mass of airplanes, the result will be the result ... But how many air sorties for one damaged tank did you know?
              And how many tanks were lost as a result of aircraft operations as a percentage?
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 29 July 2016 12: 31
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                So what?

                and the one who said above
                to hit such a protected and small target like a tank in general, before the appearance of the missile launcher, they could not stably from the air ... no one. Or do you believe in bikes "from Rudel"?
                don't know who said ?? but it turns out that it is possible.
                Quote: Taoist
                And how many tanks were lost as a result of aircraft operations as a percentage?

                specific tank brigade, from the effects of aviation could not carry out the task.
                but they say that no one could take tanks from planes; do not remember who said that?
                But how many air sorties on one wrecked tank did you have to know?

                I don’t care how much, it’s just that a certain gentleman said that to hit such a protected and small-sized target as a tank in general, before the appearance of SD, they could not be stably from the air ... no one.
                and there it turns out, almost all the tanks were disabled ...
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 29 July 2016 15: 41
                  0
                  You only read what you want to read ... I wrote about the fact that it is "STABLE" to amaze ... ie. guaranteed to hit and hit. At least with a probability of 50% ... And not 1 tank for 10-15 aircraft sorties ...
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 29 July 2016 16: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Taoist
                    You only read what you want to read ... I wrote about the fact that it is "STABLE" to amaze ... ie. guaranteed to hit and hit. At least with a probability of 50% ... And not 1 tank for 10-15 aircraft sorties ...

                    ridiculous attempt to jump off .... to hit such a protected and small-sized target as a tank in general, before the appearance of SD, they could not be stably from the air ... no one.
                  2. Stas57
                    Stas57 29 July 2016 16: 37
                    0
                    and the day before
              2. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 29 July 2016 19: 22
                +3
                Quote: Taoist
                And how many tanks were lost as a result of aircraft operations as a percentage?

                In the frontier battle of the mechanized corps, spacecraft of the Western and South-Western fronts lost the lion's share of tanks precisely from air strikes. Both on marches and starting positions before the attack.
                A similar picture took place both on the southern front and on the northern Kursk Bulge in the July battles. The Luftwaffen was widely used Yu-87 with a 30-mm air gun. The air forces of the spacecraft used cumulative PTABs.
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 29 July 2016 21: 12
                  +1
                  In border battles, the lion's share of tanks was lost not from the effects of aviation but from breakdowns, without fuel and ammunition ... Yes, bombing of concentration points and columns on the march gave a certain effect, especially since 10-15 mm armor of the main tanks of that time made their way through fragments of the FAB from decent distances ... but compared with real losses from other causes, losses from aircraft were negligible.
                  The effectiveness of "flying cannons" is also greatly exaggerated ... if only because for a real defeat of a tank with a 37mm projectile with its negligible armor-plating effect, there was not enough ... And the BC "pieces" were only 24 projectiles, despite the fact that to hit at least 1 in a run already it was good ... (do not read Rudel's memoirs) But Stuck could no longer dive with such guns ... The efficiency of Ila with 37mm cannons turned out to be approximately the same and therefore they were used mainly not against tanks but against steam locomotives ... PTABs turned out to be effective precisely because their salvo discharge covered a sufficient area and the armor penetration did not depend on the speed and angle of the meeting with the target ...
          2. AK64
            AK64 29 July 2016 11: 12
            +2
            Once again, for those who are "on an armored train" the Attack aircraft is not a bomber ... Bombs are not its main weapon,

            Tell Comrade Stalin about this, so that you don't call the Il-2 "the best day bomber"

            Il stopped tanks without knocking them out, but "isolating" them - depriving them of supplies and fuel ... But for bombing convoys, parks, etc. accuracy is sufficient for purposes


            Uh-huh ... As an example of combat use (Emelianenko, "notes of an attack aircraft"): the four Ilov caught a convoy of cars. We carried out four attacks.
            Result: destroyed ... only four trucks. And all - by the same pilot (Sami Emelianenko) who knew how to pilot and came close enough to the target. And so I got it.
            And what about the rest? And the rest - "dug up the garden" (the term of Emelianenko himself, and it characterizes the dispersion of the VYa-23 cannon.)

            , all the more there were RSs and much more effective guns ...

            Even talking to you is not interesting ...
            It's enough to tell tales, in the wrong place you do it.
            According to the recollections of the pilots (including the same Emelianenko), RS twisted the lace in the air. And this happened because of the way bent stabilizers. Well, and who exactly bent them .... But who only did not bend them.

            And the nozzles were welded with "high accuracy": the eccentricity of the nozzles was such that ... it was possible to get into something with a PC only by accident.


            I'll tell you more - to hit such a protected and small target like a tank in general, before the appearance of the missile launcher, could not stably from the air ... no one. Or do you believe in bikes "from Rudel"?

            Yu-87 put a bomb in the artillery fire - this is offset by the flight school. In the absence of wind, of course - well, the Germans knew how to make amendments.
            In the Battle of Kursk, at least one accurately confirmed case of falling into Elephant with a bomb from Pe-2 is known.
            In the same Battle of Kursk, several cases were known when Soviet shopping malls could not enter the area due to Luftov attacks - attack tanks, not cars

            In general, I highly recommend lowering your level of self-confidence - not your ammunition
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 29 July 2016 15: 46
              0
              Well, you can advise anyone, but unlike you, I do not choose quotes confirming my point of view ... Since there are enough (especially in memoirs) and strictly opposite ones. Tug? Dive bombers as a class (by the way, the Germans called them stormtroopers), of course, they could have bombed more accurately - that's just unfortunately only in a "clear sky" - that's why they left the scene as early as possible ... But the armored aircraft "battlefield" working for tasks of direct support and is still alive and well ...
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 July 2016 10: 20
        +4
        Quote: Taoist
        And Il's task was not to "throw bombs", but to "isolate the battlefield" and in this he had no equal ...

        Ahem ... You mean this:
        Isolating the battlefield by disrupting supplies, preventing reinforcements from approaching, and transferring enemy reserves.

        Judging by Perov / Rastrenin, the IL-2 did not cope very well with this task. And precisely because shoot and hit are different things: High fire efficiency multiplied by zero with low accuracy and a small percentage of hits.
        The experience of combat operations of Il-2 attack aircraft against motorized mechanized convoys showed that the effectiveness of its onboard fire against targets that made up the columns (infantry in vehicles, armored vehicles, artillery, etc., excluding tanks) was quite high. Although, in fairness, it should be noted that aiming along the "column in general", as shown by field tests, in most cases gave low accuracy and target attack, with all its swiftness and surprise, led only to the aimless waste of ammunition with practically no damage to the enemy ...

        So, during a test range of the Il-2 small arms and cannon armament at the NIP of the Air Force, as applied to the method of attack of German motorized mechanized columns rooted in the assault aviation regiments of the operating army, it became clear that when attacking a convoy consisting of tanks, vehicles and infantry with a total length of about 600 m, three pilots of the 245th Shap, who had combat experience in field conditions, that is, in the absence of opposition from fighters and anti-aircraft artillery of the enemy, were able to achieve only 9 (!) Bullet hits in the tank with a total ammunition consumption of 300 shells for ShVAK guns and 1290 rounds of machine guns for ShKAS. Shooting with aiming at a separate tank from the convoy under the same attack conditions ensured 553 hits in the convoy of tanks in three sorties with a total consumption of 20 shells, of which 6 hit the aiming point in the tank, and the rest into other tanks from the convoy.

        Moreover, when operating with the PMV, the effectiveness of bomb weapons increased by zero:
        However, the advantage of 100 kg high-explosive bombs was reapisized only if they were dropped from heights of at least 300-500 m with APUV type instant detonators, which contradicted the tactics of the combat use of IL-2 during this period. The use of the FAB-100 from a low-level flight was possible only with the use of a slow-blow fuse, which greatly reduced the effectiveness of hitting moving targets (motorized infantry, tanks, cars, etc.), since the latter had time to move off during the slowing-down of the fuse (22 sec). a considerable distance from the place where the bomb fell. In addition, when they hit the ground, bombs ricocheted and burst far from the target.

        And when leaving for the NE, losses from air defense increased, which managed to prepare for the raid and fired aimed fire.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 29 July 2016 10: 56
          0
          It's strange, you are quoting "on a separate tank" ... but you are talking about the lack of efficiency of Ila in convoys and formations on the march ... Bombing with FABs (even taking into account the fact that there was really no tactics) is certainly a bad thing ... But the use of fragmentation from the KMB gave out a completely different effect ... You are all quoting what was understood as shortcomings and led in the end to the development of more effective tactics and weapons systems. IL could not effectively hit armored vehicles with FABs and cannons (and no one could), but PTABs appeared ... and earlier their effectiveness (albeit dangerous in operation) was proved by AJ ...
    2. Alex_59
      29 July 2016 06: 59
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And how could a bomb hit an IL-2 target if it wasn’t
      no sighting device? The pilot fired bombs intuitively,
      based on my experience. And where could experience come from if the plane was shot down
      after a couple of dozen sorties?

      In general, according to the recollections of the pilots, the experience came after 5-10 sorties, and yes, at the beginning of the war, when the survivability was terrible, the effectiveness of the BShU was low. It is absolutely impossible to establish its effectiveness in terms of "hit by bombs / not hit by bombs". Therefore, of course, the estimate for the number of flights is very rough, but this is the only possible unit of measurement of the IL-2's activity. However, this also applies to the Germans with their bombers - although there is a sight there, they did not always hit. And then, on the Il-2, there were only FABs, but also small PTABs, which are poured out essentially like cluster munitions today - across the squares. There were guns and NURS.
      1. Dm-sl
        Dm-sl 29 July 2016 12: 41
        0
        On IL-2 in the 43rd, in my opinion, they began to install cameras combined with a trigger, shoot and photograph the result.
  • jurikberlin
    jurikberlin 28 July 2016 18: 51
    +1
    Quote: Andrey NM
    There would be radio communication, there would be less loss

    grandfather fought as a tankman. Also complained about the lack of communication. The current in the commander’s tank, but the Germans covered him first. Then when on 34
    moved, it got better, but still the quality of the connection was disgusting.
    after 42 years tanks began to be equipped with new types of stations and the thing
    went uphill. like the American began to put, or under a license
    American. and yes ... a lot of losses in the initial period due to
    there was a connection.
  • slavick1969
    slavick1969 28 July 2016 20: 53
    0
    very good article I will wait for the next
  • Erwin
    Erwin 28 July 2016 20: 54
    0
    Thanks to the author for the article and for the comments.
  • dvaposto
    dvaposto 28 July 2016 21: 16
    0
    how does the author relate to the works of M. Solonin?
    1. Alex_59
      29 July 2016 07: 01
      +1
      Quote: dvaposto
      how does the author relate to the works of M. Solonin?

      negatively.
    2. AK64
      AK64 30 July 2016 11: 31
      0
      how does the author relate to the works of M. Solonin?


      Do corned beef have "labors"?
      Fantastic graphomania - is it "work"?
  • motorized rifle
    motorized rifle 29 July 2016 01: 31
    +1
    As always, I go down the curtain and no one will read my post, but still ...
    The author, in my opinion, correctly grasped the meaning of the air struggle between the Red Army Air Force and the Luftwaffe, on this basis more or less, you can understand the difference, but ...
    This analysis is possible only if there are three components:
    1) A thorough knowledge of the subject, i.e. confirmation of their statements by archives and memoirs.
    2) Absolute professionalism, i.e. full understanding of tactics and strategies, including an understanding of the principles of air combat, the use of aviation, its production and operation.
    3) The ability to stand on the point of view of the opposite side.
    Otherwise, this is a memorandum of a fan who is rooting for his team, it is not yet clear for which one. Judge for yourself: I don't sit in the archives, in principle I agree with the accounts of German experts, I-16, a worthy opponent of the Bf-109E! As a result, to hell with them, with the archives, indeed, the Germans could shoot down so many Soviet planes, but we, we realized that aviation works for ground forces and therefore, without being distracted by air battles, we ironed the ground, i.e. everything is in favor of strike aircraft. You might think that the Germans had little interaction between the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht! Even M.F Richtofen worked on these issues for the Polish company, his officers were in the forward units and coordinated the work of aviation. The Red Army Air Force, unfortunately, began to do this only in 1943. The author does not analyze, he is engaged in propaganda, and this is unlikely to benefit the team for which he is rooting. The simplest example: I-16 versus Bf-109E, it has been proven - re-proven, who has more speed, who has more initiative in battle, what an initiative is, I hope there is no need to explain, the difference in 100 km / h is quite significant, just not very smart the pilot will have an advantage in speed and will conduct a maneuverable battle. Well, there were no fools in such quantities on any of the warring parties! Everyone used the advantages that they had and tried to level the disadvantages. Stalin's falcons flew as their planes allowed them, from defense, at least until they received aerocobras. Well, the speed does not increase from political information! At the same time, the Germans could not afford a long maneuvering battle, where their aircraft were obviously worse. So they fought, to deny the advantage of numerical superiority is also stupid, in this, by the way, and the miscalculation of the German leadership, a strategic miscalculation. They lost the war on June 22, 1941, strategically, but tactically they were broken in 1943. Here is how air combat is interpreted in the Air Force textbook "Practical aerodynamics of maneuverable aircraft" edited by N.M. Lysenko Moscow 1977:
    Analyzing Air Combat from the point of view of aircraft control, the following main stages can be distinguished:
    - rapprochement - entering the area of ​​possible attacks;
    - attack - strike on the enemy with the use of weapons;
    - exit from the attack;
    - exit from the battle;
    By the nature of mutual maneuvering ..., as well as the nature of the counteraction, one can consider:
    -simple air battle (attack of a non-maneuvering air target), consisting of a single, sequential execution of such elements as rapprochement, attack, exit from attack and exit from battle;
    - complex air combat, i.e. battle with an adversary engaged in counteraction and active offensive operations with repeated repetition of certain elements of a simple battle. (p. 396)
    Now, and see who, what, the type of battle could be applied! I draw your attention to the word MTF.

    1. Alex_59
      29 July 2016 07: 11
      -1
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      , I-16, worthy adversary of Bf-109Е!
      Have you read the article? It says exactly the opposite.
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      You might think that the Germans had a weak interaction between the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht!

      They had a great interaction. However, this moment is not described by me. I agree, one might mention, the criticism is fair.
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      Stalin's falcons flew as their planes allowed them, from defense, at least to receiving aerial cobras.
      Yes, I-16 could only conduct a defensive battle. The Germans had the opportunity to impose their own battle scenario and leave the battle whenever they wanted.
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      to deny the advantage of numerical superiority is also stupid, and this, by the way, is a miscalculation of the German leadership, a strategic miscalculation.

      This is what we are talking about. Did you read the article for sure?
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      This analysis is possible only if there are three components:

      That's right. I am an amateur amateur. I do what I can and what I can reach. I can’t reach the archives. Why not do just that? If professionals who can reach the archives and paint more and more qualitatively do not pamper us with their work? Where, in which book is detailed what I am analyzing? Maybe I'm certainly not in the know, tell me if there are such works? Isaev not to offer - he is the same as I am an amateur.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 29 July 2016 15: 26
        +1
        If Isaev, who has permission, is an amateur ... It is terrible to ask who you are?
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 29 July 2016 19: 28
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        Isaev not to offer - he is the same as I am an amateur.

        With all due respect to you - A. Isaev wrote more than 30 books. Both about the Great Patriotic War, and about the Second World War.
        1. Alex_59
          29 July 2016 21: 52
          +1
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          With all due respect to you - A. Isaev wrote more than 30 books. Both about the Great Patriotic War, and about the Second World War.

          An amateur, in my understanding, is not a professional. Isaev writes well and I like it. But he is not a historian - he has no history education. So also an amateur. But his experience and knowledge is certainly greater than mine. Perhaps I am not correctly interpreting the word "dilettante", I do not know.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 29 July 2016 22: 30
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            he does not have a historical education.

            he drags a kin ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 30 July 2016 11: 28
              +1
              he drags a kin ...


              Nevertheless, he does not have a historical education (MEPhI, if I am not mistaken).

              And this lack of historical education is very noticeable: all the same, some basic principles are laid down in the university.
    2. Dm-sl
      Dm-sl 29 July 2016 12: 22
      0
      In fact, the boom-zoom that the Germans mainly worked at was not a single repetition of an attack of a low-maneuverable target from a height, followed by their departure to their own heights, those who tried to reach for those leaving, knocked down the second link. Iron tactics - it’s simple and effective, and most importantly safe, to shoot at the speed of 700 km / h falling from above and at the same speed as starting a way out of an attack upwards is practically impossible, as well as catching up.
  • Dm-sl
    Dm-sl 29 July 2016 04: 02
    -1
    AFFFTORR! Hartman had 350 not shot down planes, but aerial victories !!! Smoke a bomber, he dropped bombs half way and on a turn - victory and did not even catch up, because from the same pawn with its speed they could easily catch a bullet into the lantern). In the Red Army, it was the downed and CONFIRMED who were counted !!! Considering that they paid for the knocked down denyuzhka and was not sickly, they just did not give out victories. Confirmation had to be from your pilot, ground troops and even from the Germans in the reports of losses (here the mechanism needs to be clarified). The account of those shot down was divided into those shot down personally and as part of a group, that is, if the plane was shot down not from one approach, (and the same bomber was sawed with the whole link, and given the machine gun armament of donkeys and MiGs, the same armored henkel was usually shot down only in compartment with a low convergence speed on a donkey, combined with the tactics of hanging on the tail, armor and a bunch of Henkel's machine guns, he could still have won aerial victories), then the victory goes not to the personal but to the "team" standings. Moreover, the Soviet aces (Pokryshkin, infa from the memoirs of his wingman) who shot down more than 10 aircraft, knocking out the engine, control or making holes in the planes and thereby making the enemy's aircraft an easy target, substituted it for their less experienced comrades and wingmen, so that they would also receive first of all experience and personal score ... Everything is simple with the number of victories, no need to paint articles and philosophize. Unclear amount counted? Deal with the calculation method first, and do not inflate theories. That's why I do not like the humanities. Balaboly stupid.
    1. npzh
      npzh 29 July 2016 14: 27
      0
      Quote: Dm-sl
      In the Red Army, it was the downed and CONFIRMED that were counted !!! Considering that for the shot down denyuzhku paid and not frail, just do not give out victory. Confirmation had to be from his pilot, ground forces and even from the Germans in the loss reports (here you need to clarify the mechanism)


      Unfortunately, the total number of combat losses of the Germans on the Eastern Front is about 2-2,5 times less than ours. According to Krivosheev - about 55 thousand, the Germans counted about 20-25 thousand. The Germans overestimate - about 1,5 times.
      1. Dm-sl
        Dm-sl 29 July 2016 14: 51
        0
        Probably.
  • _Krechet_
    _Krechet_ 29 July 2016 10: 43
    +3
    Quote: Aspeed
    But what, the remaining tens of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots didn’t shoot anything at all?


    You talk about inaccuracies in the author, but you yourself make inaccuracies. Moreover, rude, and having before my eyes the numbers. The author has a number total fleet Luftwaffe at the beginning of 1942 - 5 pieces. There can be no talk of any tens of thousands of pilots.
    Even with a reservation for the remaining years and "staff turnover".

    Quote: Aspeed
    2. The very dubious thesis about the overwhelming superiority of Bf-109E over I-16


    Where in the text is said about the overwhelming superiority of the Messerschmitt E-series? It is said that by most characteristics.
    And yes, Messer's second salvo was much "heavier", the speed is higher, the rate of climb is higher. These are all key characteristics for fighters. Because they were allowed to impose their own "battle pattern".

    In your comments, try to rely on the text that you criticize. And your calculations will look more solid.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 29 July 2016 11: 20
    +2
    Congratulations to the author!

    1. The Soviet Air Force helped with all the forces of the ground forces, and the ground forces irrevocably destroyed German aircraft.
    2. The role of fighters in the air war is very exaggerated. More than half the loss of aircraft in combat flights from an accident, loss of orientation and other pilot mistakes. Of the remaining 50%, half of anti-aircraft artillery and small arms. So the share of fighters is not more than 25% of all lost aircraft in combat flights. But besides this there are many losses outside combat flights. In 1941, thousands of Soviet aircraft were abandoned due to the advance of the German ground forces, and in 1945 the same thing happened with German aircraft.
    3. Comparison of Hartman and Kozhedub. We take for comparison their official score, although of course it is exaggerated at least 2 times. Hartman shot down 352 and himself lost about 10 aircraft, and Kozhedub shot down 62 and lost 1 of his aircraft. Hartman has a 30: 1 ratio of Kozhedub 60: 1. Since German aircraft are about 3 times more expensive than Soviet ones, and since Kozhedub has a larger percentage of attack aircraft, which are heavier and more expensive than fighters, Kozhedub's superiority is undoubted. He is about 6 times more effective than Hartman.
    1. Dm-sl
      Dm-sl 29 July 2016 12: 13
      0
      Yes, damn it did not knock down the hartman of 350 aircraft, his victories are 350
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 29 July 2016 15: 20
        +1
        But the victory in the Luftwaffe had to be proved (like ours). Maybe he shot down 500, but 350 is proved. As proved and by whom - this is a separate conversation. According to reports, by 1942 we had all shot down the Luftwaffe.
        1. gadrut24
          gadrut24 April 28 2018 23: 42
          0
          I didn’t see any large additions than Soviet aviation during the war.
          22 times overstating the enemy’s losses, despite the fact that they didn’t bring down a single enemy at all and fled from the battlefield (this is typical of Soviet aviation in 1944)
      2. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 5 August 2016 10: 34
        +1
        Quote: Dm-sl
        Yes, damn it did not knock down the hartman of 350 aircraft, his victories are 350

        1 aircraft - 1 victory - the basic principle of the Luftwaffe.

        The percentage of overlay is not as large as is commonly believed. Look at the number of sorties and the number of air battles - and compare with the same Kozhedub.
    2. gadrut24
      gadrut24 April 28 2018 23: 45
      0
      air battles in the second world is a collective matter, these calculations are idiotic.

      and have nothing to do with matters of weight to the war.

      there were pilots who didn’t bring down a single one, but who made more staff flaws for victory, the cltors flew their flights and successes at the end of the war
  • Kir1984
    Kir1984 29 July 2016 13: 41
    +1
    Well, according to the results of the war, something about what is described in the article just comes out.
  • Rusfaner
    Rusfaner 29 July 2016 14: 42
    +2
    Quote: Aspeed
    Here! Desperately plus, with all my might. I have already said that the units that managed to knock out the complete radio system of their I-16s from the first days of the war felt great against the Messers. If the radios and transmitters were on EVERY airplane, the start of the war could be completely different.

    "Signalers and translators are to blame for everything in the war, therefore, be prepared for the fact that aviation and ground all their flaws will blame you, platoon commander!" - my regiment commander in 1985. And the "08.08.08" war showed that nothing had changed. Although, according to the latest publications on VO, it seems that the situation is improving.
    And what about the losses. Everyone will agree, both tankers, pilots, and sailors - a person who knows how to use it makes weapons technology. And, of course, a commander, capable of competently placing and moving all these tanks, airplanes and ships on the "chessboard of the battlefield".
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 29 July 2016 15: 16
    0
    Memoirs the author himself recorded? Then you need to give links to iremember or other sources. Otherwise ugly. But in general, the article is solid. We look forward to continuing.
  • pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 29 July 2016 19: 03
    +1
    I read it with pleasure. Especially at the very end.
    In our school, one teacher flew into the war on the Cobra. The plane is very interesting. As he said: “The main thing is to smoothly enter the takeoff mode, otherwise it will turn over (her shaft from the engine to the propeller through the half of the plane went under the pilot's feet.