Military Review

Kaiser Flying Battleship

61



The story of the armored ground attack aircraft of the First World War will be incomplete without mentioning the most outstanding and most advanced machine of this class, the Junkers JI, which appeared on the western front in August 1917 of the year. In contrast to the aircraft company "Albatross" and AEG she was all-metal, and her wings did not have braces. It can be said that this car was ahead of its time by a half decade, but the lack of an adequate power plant prevented it from reaching its full potential.

The 200-strong Benz Bz-IV engine, which stood on the armored junkers, was too weak for a rather large airplane with a take-off weight of 2200 kg, but the German engine builders could not offer anything more powerful at that time. Therefore, JI had low flight data, raised a small bomb load, and most importantly - it required a very large take-off distance. Because of this, he could not be based on short frontal runways. Crews usually had to fly for a long time to their targets from the rear airfields, wasting gasoline, which was not much on board. Accordingly, the time to "process" targets was reduced.

However, the security of the machine was beyond all praise. This is what one of the JI pilots wrote after another combat departure: "28 March 1918, we flew to support infantry, the height was no more than 80 meters. My plane received more than 100 hits from anti-aircraft machine guns, but none of them caused him serious damage. I am convinced that only a Junkers machine in such a situation could save my life. No other aircraft could have withstood such a dense fire. "

In total, until the end of the war, they managed to build and send 189 armored "Junkers" to the front. Another 38 machines made after the truce, but the Germans had to be destroyed in accordance with the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty.



The Junkers' JI armored hull, assembled from steel sheets with a thickness from 4 to 5,5 mm, completely covered the engine, gas tank and cockpit from below and from the sides. The radiator, reinforced under the upper wing, was also housed in an armored casing.



JI on the field airfield.



Typical camouflage JI Above - early, from below - later, using the fabric "lozeng".



The aerodrome team rolls up the aircraft with the engine at idle to the starting position.



The box was protected by the crew not only from enemy fire, but also during emergency landings. The crew of a conventional (wooden) aircraft of the First World War after such a landing would hardly have had such a cheerful appearance.



Armored "Junkers" were used not only for reconnaissance, attack and adjustment of artillery fire, but also for the operational supply of advanced units. In the right picture, loaves of bread and cans of canned food are loaded into the rear cockpit of the attack aircraft instead of bombs.



To simplify transportation, JI has a collapsible design. Console wings and stabilizer fit along the fuselage. In the picture - the Scots inspect the attack aircraft captured at one of the German airfields.



Allies were able to answer the German "flying tanks"only at the very end of the war. The first squadron of British armored attack aircraft Sopvich TF.2" Salamander "went to the front two weeks before the end of hostilities. She did not play any role in the hostilities. Unlike the Germans, the British made their attack aircraft on the base of a single-seat fighter "Snipe" with a rotary engine of air cooling.



The Salamander box protected the pilot, the gas tank and the machine gun cartridge boxes. The motor was out of the armored hull and was covered only with a light aluminum hood. The British believed that air-cooled engines are less vulnerable than the "liquid", and therefore do not need armor protection. Similarly, they argued in the Ilyushin Design Bureau, creating through 24 a variant of the Il-2 attack aircraft with a star-shaped M-82 engine, which was also not armored. However, for several reasons, this aircraft was not launched into mass production. "Salamander" also built quite a lot - 419 pieces, but due to the end of the war, most of them were immediately sent to the storage bases, and from there after a while - to the dump.
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/512562.html
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. igordok
    igordok 30 July 2016 08: 25
    +4
    Thanks for the interesting topic. good Especially a series. I would like more, with a smooth transition to WWII.
  2. Torins
    Torins 30 July 2016 09: 56
    +2
    After the first world war and until the second, attack aircraft almost did not develop, although there is something to tell) Apparently, the Germans did not create a similar-purpose aircraft like our Il-2 hi
    1. DMB_95
      DMB_95 30 July 2016 11: 57
      0
      Indeed, it is strange that the Germans could not create (or copy) an attack aircraft comparable to IL-2. After all, the school was not bad. Apparently, they relied on front-line bombers and fighters.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 30 July 2016 13: 00
        +3
        Not quite the same either, the Germans had a very good (in my opinion even the best Ila scheme) Henschel 129 ... His problem was as before in weak engines ... the Germans stupidly lacked production and therefore a successful aircraft was forced to be content thin French. As a result, the series was small and flight data did not contribute ...
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 30 July 2016 12: 57
      0
      Not quite so, almost all cars of that time had variations of "action" - ie. assault. Another question is that it was not possible to defeat the insufficient engine power in order to compensate for the weight of the armor protection before the Second World War - therefore, all these options did not become widespread due to low performance characteristics.
    3. AK64
      AK64 30 July 2016 13: 57
      -2
      Apparently this is why the Germans did not create a similar purpose aircraft as our IL-2


      And what is the U-87?

      Since you did not understand: the purpose of the IL-2 and Yu-87 is the direct support of the ground forces, and especially mobile units.
      At first glance, their methods (IL-2 and Yu-87) are different. But in general, the Yu-87 coped with the task better, that is, more effective.

      Emelianenko, Hero of the Soviet Union and the author of two books, already in his old age said in a private conversation, "Oh, I would be on the Ju-87 - I would then ...."
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 30 July 2016 14: 02
        +8
        These are all the same different machines with completely different tactics and, in general, tasks ... Simplifying the Yu-87 this is "flying artillery", and the Il 2 "flying bunker" (a tank is heavily worn out cliché) ... As for the effectiveness of the "piece" is also a question highly controversial ... its effectiveness is strongly related to the ability to work in a "clear sky" ... Otherwise, you will not stupidly enter the dive position ... but Il worked in any case ...
        1. AK64
          AK64 30 July 2016 14: 08
          -5
          These are all the same different machines with completely different tactics and, in general, the tasks ... Simplifying the U-87 is "flying artillery", and IL 2 is a "flying bunker" (a tank is heavily worn out cliché) ...


          These machines have one and the same task - the direct support of the ground forces (or especially mobile units).
          They solved this problem in different ways - but the Yu-87 solved better.

          What is there to argue about, I don’t understand?


          As for the effectiveness of the "piece" is also a very controversial question ... its effectiveness is strongly related to the ability to work in a "clear sky" ... Otherwise, you will not stupidly enter the dive position ...


          However, it usually came out. The exception is the Battle of Britain, where the density of extermination was absolutely fantastic.
          In all other situations, the Germans were able to create at least temporary opportunities for U-87 actions.

          I’m not that the Yu-87 is different --- it is the maximum adequate for the task, and by the 41st it is outdated (although on the Soviet front this became visible only in the 43rd).


          but Il worked anyway ...

          Compare the losses.
          "Works", yeah ...
          The target for fighters and all stripes of anti-aircraft gunners "works".

          To dump Stuck, you need a minimum of 37mm machine gun or its equivalent, 40mm Bofors. You can’t just dump her in nothing less. And the IL-2 on itself all the way up to 7.62mm bullets collected.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 30 July 2016 14: 48
            +5
            Why does Stuka have such a "miracle survivability"? If you are delusional, then at least be logical ... Slow-moving, almost uncontrollable at the exit from the dive ... while having no protection for tanks and engine, a rather large aircraft ... Or from the "good life" the Germans tried to build an armored version of the Stuck "Friedrich "? Only when the armor was mounted, the car stopped flying at all and, as is clear, did not go into production ...
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 5 August 2016 10: 57
              0
              Quote: Taoist
              Why does Stuka have such a "miracle survivability"? if you are delusional, then at least be logical ... Slow-moving, almost uncontrollable at the exit from the dive ...

              Oh well - at the exit from the dive thing is not controllable? Well, Pe-2 - yes, it was a bit daunting, and Ju-87 was unique in this property.

              And survivability - practice has shown that if the Ju-87 is probably no better than the IL-2 then it is comparable - due to the all-metal glider (in which bullets and shells left small holes) and the reservation of individual nodes - while even small hits in wooden wings and tail huge holes were left, which led to deformation and then roll off of the planes or tail (I don’t speak about shots at the side of the cabin or at the glass of the cabin or at the oil cooler).
          2. zombirusrev
            zombirusrev 30 July 2016 16: 46
            +3
            Aha you tell the pilots who brought him down on the I-16 Type 5! We read "An entertaining brotherhood of Sevastopol." ... U-87 is a wretched miracle without a normal sight. He could only bomb in ideal conditions from low altitudes, which is proven by Rudel's experience. Which could bring him out of a dive low above the ground with a large overload because there was still that BULL. The rest could not get anywhere on it at all, because there was no navigator on it to aim, there was no one to aim, introduces corrections for the wind, etc. In general, the Pe-2 was a more successful PB and concept.
            1. AK64
              AK64 30 July 2016 18: 29
              -7
              Aha you tell the pilots who brought him down on the I-16 Type 5! We read "An entertaining brotherhood of Sevastopol." ... U-87 is a wretched miracle without a normal sight. He could only bomb in ideal conditions from low altitudes, which is proven by Rudel's experience. Which could bring him out of a dive low above the ground with a large overload because there was still that BULL. The rest could not get anywhere on it at all, because there was no navigator on it to aim, there was no one to aim, introduces corrections for the wind, etc. In general, the Pe-2 was a more successful PB and concept.


              I will not talk to you, excuse me: you are ignorant and at the same time rude.
              I am not interested.
              Ciao.
              1. Cat
                Cat 31 July 2016 19: 44
                0
                Pe2 makes sense to compare with U88.
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 July 2016 20: 53
              0
              Which ones are all literate ... or are you all just for distillation, who better to cheat on a brand new one?
            3. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 4 August 2016 22: 57
              0
              Quote: zombirusrev
              Yu-87 wretched miracle without a normal sight.

              Which is considered the most effective bomber of the Second World War.
          3. Wasiliy1985
            Wasiliy1985 30 July 2016 19: 00
            +1
            Something I did not read from Pokryshkin to confirm your thoughts. He clearly traced the idea that the 87th was just an aerial target, but the 88th had to be pretty tricky. The "Laptezhnik" collapsed "at once".
            1. AK64
              AK64 30 July 2016 19: 16
              -1
              Something I did not read from Pokryshkin to confirm your thoughts. He clearly traced the idea that the 87th was just an aerial target, but the 88th had to be pretty tricky. The "Laptezhnik" collapsed "at once".


              What year "The bastier fell at one time?"
              И what fighter?
              I wrote: by the 43rd Yu-87 it had become outdated for the Eastern Front. By the 43rd, understand?
              And in 41st and 42nd the same Pokryshkin for some reason did not boast about knocked down bast shoes. And only when he moved to the Cobra - he became "at once"

              Although he drank blood, Yu-87 and after the 43rd too.

              Well, in the West, especially where the density of destruction was higher, the Yu-87 was already obsolete in the 40th. (The main IMHO problem is very low speed, and as a result it is easy to intercept.)

              Well, the Yu-88 is not at all involved here, I don’t understand why you even mentioned it.
            2. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 4 August 2016 22: 58
              0
              Quote: Wasiliy1985
              . He clearly has the idea that the 87 is just an air target, but with the 88 he had to tinker a lot ..

              And there are no such "heavenly super animals" as Ju-188 among the lists of victories of Soviet aces ...
          4. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 31 July 2016 15: 56
            0
            If Stuck was so good, why did the Germans stop releasing it ??? IL-2, despite the seemingly obvious shortcomings - low load, low speed, lack of maneuverability ... were released almost to the end of the war with acceleration, and the accurate and invincible Stuka came to naught by the end of the 42nd. Is it a paradox?
            1. AK64
              AK64 31 July 2016 16: 30
              -2
              If Stuck was so good, why did the Germans stop releasing it ???

              I explained - out of date.
              For the Western Front, Stuck was outdated by 1940.
              In the East, due to the weakness of both anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft guns, it quite successfully fought until the summer of 1943. But already in the summer of 1943, with the advent of new fighters and their numbers, quite significant losses began.

              Deprecated Piece.

              IL-2, despite the seemingly obvious shortcomings - low load, low speed, lack of maneuverability ... were released almost to the end of the war with acceleration, and the accurate and invincible Stuka came to naught by the end of the 42nd. Is it a paradox?

              In 1944, about 1500 pieces were produced.
              In the Battle of Kursk, they were still very actively flying.
              "No," yeah ...

              Well, what IL-2 was produced --- could the USSR begin to produce another product in the war? Or substantially change the existing? That's why they released it.

              Although this was a mistake initially
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 1 August 2016 10: 52
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          Simplifying the Ju-87 is "flying artillery", and the Il 2 "flying bunker"

          Ju-87 is a Division support weapon. IL-2 is a support weapon for a battalion regiment. That’s the whole difference. Both aircraft are battlegrounds. But in different tactical niches, sometimes intersecting, but only occasionally.

          With this logic, it can also be argued that the ZiS-3 is a bad gun - compared to the ML-20. Of course the bad - not the range, the security, nor the power of the projectile. Laugh.
      2. zombirusrev
        zombirusrev 30 July 2016 16: 41
        0
        He told you this personally! A link to the studio? "Otherwise ffftopku!" (C)
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 1 August 2016 10: 48
        0
        Quote: AK64
        But in general, Yu-87 coped with the task better, that is, more efficiently.

        The Ju-87 is a dive bomber not designed to destroy point or mobile targets on the battlefield. He could destroy objects such as accumulations of equipment, fortifications, bridges, columns of troops. But are individual objects, such as a tank, a machine gun nest, scattered point objects? The Ju-87 did not possess (even with excellent German optics) such bombing accuracy. Then no one possessed it - it was necessary either to climb down under the bullets, or to create guided weapons. For example - look at the recorded places of falling bombs during the raids on the battleship "Marat". And the battleship "Marat" is not a machine gun nest. Those. Ju-87, of course, also being an aircraft of close support, worked in the interests of the division-army.
        IL-2 has a different task, just working at a level even lower — in the interests of a regiment battalion. Ju-87 must be matched with Pe-2 and Ju-88. All this, of course, does not exclude the success of some 87 mixtures in freestanding tanks. As does not exclude the use of IL-2 as a bomber. But these are exceptions to the rules. Even such a perfect avionics aircraft as the Su-24 could not hollow apart the basmachi - for this they called the Su-25.
        1. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 5 August 2016 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Ju-87 is a dive bomber, not designed to destroy point or moving targets on the battlefield. He could destroy objects like accumulations of equipment, fortifications, bridges, columns of troops. But are separate objects, such as a tank, a machine gun nest, dispersed point objects? Ju-87 did not possess

          Are you sure, dear Alexei, that Il-2 had such sparingness? when attacking from the same level of height, without the ability to dive, without an adequate sight, not seeing anything in front of you, having a weapon that could not be used with a single salvo and had a different range?

          Quote: Alex_59
          For example - look at the recorded places of falling bombs during the raids on the battleship "Marat". And the battleship "Marat" is not a machine gun nest.

          For reference, the German pilot recalled - "I have never seen such a density of anti-aircraft fire in the entire war." Hence the hits and bombing from high altitudes.
  3. Bayonet
    Bayonet 30 July 2016 11: 34
    +3
    Armored hull "Junkers" JI, assembled from steel sheets with a thickness of 4 to 5,5 mm, completely covered the bottom and sides of the engine, gas tank and cockpit.

    And then there was an IL-2 with a similar armored capsule - a motor, a crew, a gas tank.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 30 July 2016 13: 02
      +2
      Well, it was clear that it was necessary to protect from the very beginning ... Il was distinguished primarily by the fact that his armor was part of the power set, which sharply increased the weight return. For all others, the design was hung with armor plates ...
    2. Wasiliy1985
      Wasiliy1985 30 July 2016 19: 02
      +1
      Plus manufacturing technology of bent armor, which significantly reduced its mass while maintaining a given resistance to penetration.
  4. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 30 July 2016 11: 45
    +2
    The plane is good for its time, but what did the pilot see from behind the radiator? There is no review before.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 30 July 2016 13: 02
      +1
      and then, in general, they looked forward not through the nose, but through the side of the cabin - since it was open ...
  5. Torins
    Torins 31 July 2016 12: 53
    +2
    Quote: AK64

    What is there to argue about, I don’t understand?

    The fact that you are writing complete nonsense. The huge losses of the Il-2 in the first two years of the war were due to the fact that there was no one to cover them. And only armor and the ability to work at ultra-low altitudes allowed them to perform combat missions. Ju-87 could not do that. "Stuka" was generally used only until the Soviet fighter aircraft became comparable in strength to the German. Then, due to catastrophic losses, the Stukas were replaced with other aircraft at the earliest opportunity, their production volumes were constantly decreasing in favor of other aircraft. If "Stuck" was damn effective, thousands of them would fly until the last day of the war, but somehow it did not work out. The losses of the Il-2 dropped sharply after the gunner was put on the plane. Those. most of the losses were from fighters, and that very armor helped from fire from the ground. It is not for nothing that the Germans called the Il-2 a concrete plane. Next, about the effectiveness of armor. The 20mm cannon penetrated the Il-2 armor only at an angle of 90 degrees. It is almost impossible to get into a flying plane from such an angle. On the Internet there are hundreds of photographs of Il-2 returning from combat missions, where furrows from ricocheting shells are clearly visible on the armor. As for the relatively small losses of the Su-2, I will also disappoint you. These aircraft were mainly used as light frontline bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. As a rule, they did not hang over the line of the German trenches and did not storm the machine-gun pillboxes.
    1. AK64
      AK64 31 July 2016 16: 54
      -1
      The fact that you write complete nonsense.

      Oh yeah.

      Or maybe you just don’t know something, but don’t want to think? Could this be?

      The huge losses of IL-2 in the first two years of the war were due to the fact that there was no one to cover them.

      And who needs such happiness: to cover which shelves you need to drive?


      And only armor and the ability to work at ultra-low altitudes allowed them to perform combat missions. Ju-87 could not do that. "


      WHAT FOR? Who needs "ultra-low heights" and why? WHAT did the plane lose there?

      That Yu-87 was just something produced, from the 37th to the 44th inclusive, 5.800 pieces. I write for you: five thousand and eight hundred pieces But remember this bastard on all fronts and all theaters, and everywhere as an extremely effective bomber. And this despite the fact that in fact the Yu-87 was already outdated by 1940.

      So why crawl "at ultra-low heights"? Is this a task or something - to achieve crawling at "ultra-low heights"? The plane is actually in order to destroy the enemy and solve problems, and not for circuses.

      The rest did not comment: laziness - docks, read at least books, or something --- they rulez
    2. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 4 August 2016 23: 03
      0
      Quote: Torins
      Losses of IL-2 fell sharply after they put the shooter on the plane.

      I’m disappointing that IL-2 losses sharply decreased only by the 1945 year, when a zilch remained from both the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. It breaks the pattern, but true.

      Just in 41-42 years. single IL-2s were generally "meat on a platter" (similar to the German Hs-129).

      Starting from the end of the 42 spring of the 43, the Il-2 regiments finally began to completely change their combat strength on average 2 times a year. Well, such as losses have decreased even more.
  6. Two handed
    Two handed 1 August 2016 05: 31
    +2
    "The state of affairs in the squadrons of dive bombers is clearly characterized by the recognition of the commander of the StG2 Oberst Lieutenant E. Kupfer, who wrote:" Ju-87 can no longer be used on any front, even in the East. For example, my squadron lost 89 crews in eight months. On a yearly basis, this is consistent. 100% flight personnel renewal. If this continues for another year, the result will be the complete end of the assault units ... I have squadrons with one aircraft in service. ... We must start re-equipping units from Ju87 to Fw190 as soon as possible, I would say immediately. The situation with the personnel of the assault units can be defined as the "last parade". Since 5 July 1943, I have lost two squadron commanders, six squadron commanders and two group adjutants, each of whom flew over 600 sorties. Such experience cannot be replaced ... We cannot afford to lose those few who remained ... "" The ju-87 f created, but never flown (supposedly due to the "emergency fighter program") is actually a copy of the silt concept. 2, why would they do it if the IL-2 is so bad? Junkers without cover are just meat, there were many cases when one fighter pilot shot down 5-9 bastards per battle. Fv-190, thanks to its speed, is more tenacious, although it is ineffective against ground targets, but at low altitudes, it is also just a target for fighters. In the 44th, the bulk of those shot down in the east were FV-190s.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 1 August 2016 08: 54
      0
      You only with the number shot down in one battle do not get excited
      1. Two handed
        Two handed 1 August 2016 14: 34
        +2
        Okay, not often, but still there were such cases) From the wiki "A striking example of the great vulnerability of the Ju 87 to enemy fighters is the case when on December 5, 1941, over Libya, Australian ace Clive Caldwell shot down five Ju 87s within a few minutes in his P-40 Tomahawk.

        Large numbers of "Stuka" were used on the eastern front, but with the growth of the power of the Soviet Air Force, the units equipped with this aircraft began to suffer heavy losses in the final stages of the war. Thus, Senior Lieutenant Gorovets shot down 9 bombers in one battle. "
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 1 August 2016 19: 40
          +2
          Don’t worry, Rudorfer has 13 spitfires, or IL-2, or even Yak-7 and Yak-9 in general in one battle. They can when they really want to.
          True, all Spitfires fell into the sea, and IL-2 and Yaki into a deep, deep lake. bully
          Horovets' victories were confirmed by the earth, and he himself died in that battle. True, with the presence of 200 shells per barrel, it turns out that he spent only 22 shells on a shot, including misses ...
          Mack Campbell, who also shot down 9 allegedly confirmed Japanese (again, everyone fell and sank deeply), hung for a whole 95 minutes over a group of Japanese who were cutting walnut transports (American by surprise too) and periodically shot gaping ones. And when they completely used up ammunition for the infantry, he shot safe partridges to 9. He could have done more, but ... mom called for lunch. True, the partner counted him 11, for which he received 6 confirmations from Kembel in response, but the hero was not counted. But the fact remains that Gorovets alone climbed 20 Pieces and prevented the bombing, and Mac Campbell haughtily chose a goal easier and simpler, while these goals turned the boshko to his fellow tribesmen.
          1. Two handed
            Two handed 2 August 2016 04: 36
            +2
            La-5 has 220 shots per barrel, and it has 2 barrels. Thus, it spent 1 shots on shooting down 48 aircraft, which is also small, but does not look as unrealistic as 22 shots, out, Hartman, supposedly three IL-2 120 shots spent)
            1. Warrior2015
              Warrior2015 4 August 2016 23: 04
              0
              Quote: Zweihander
              Thus, he spent 1 shots on shooting down an 48 aircraft, which is also small, but does not look as unrealistic as the 22 shots, out, Hartman, allegedly spent three IL-2 120 shots)

              Sorry, but you are not familiar with the tactics of Hartman, or even with the methods of shooting down the German pilots of IL-2.