Stormtrooper. It is clear that 90% of ordinary people immediately have an IL-2 in their heads. Indeed, no other plane in the world can personify and symbolize what is contained in the term "attack aircraft".
But today I would like to speculate about things that seem to be assault, but not quite.
In our time, there are many publications of a different plan, and quite successful, and not quite. This is all very good, because as long as people have an interest in the topic of aviation, the authors will work, which will be extremely beneficial.
If you read many authors (may Yandex. Zen forgive me, replicating sheer nonsense), you might get the impression that almost all the armies of the world in World War II were armed with attack aircraft and used them on the battlefield.
I strongly disagree with this approach, and in this regard, I would like to suggest looking at the attack aircraft from a slightly different angle.
Naturally, the Il-2 will serve as the main example for consideration. It would be strange to roll someone else out of the historic hangar.
So, let's start with what tasks the attack aircraft faced. Yes, exactly in front of the IL-2, since this is our classic attack aircraft, which has taken its worthy place in history.
Naturally, this is an attack on the enemy's front line of defense. And for this, Ila had a whole arsenal:
a) rockets;
b) bombs;
c) 23-mm shells of VYa cannons;
d) 7, 62-mm ShKAS bullets.
Yes, here ShKAS was very, very appropriate. This is for an armored target, he is absolutely nothing, but for the infantry, trucks, wagons, steam locomotives - but only forward!
The Il-2 worked quite calmly on lightly armored vehicles and even on ships. Not for cruisers, of course, but it was better for submarines and boats not to fall under the trunks.
According to the memoirs of the pilots, the principle of operation on the IL-2 was as follows: they flew to the target, dispersed (often with the help of fighters) air defense calculations so as not to interfere, then began to work. The first hit - RS, the second - bombs (or vice versa, it doesn't matter), the third call - who did not hide, received from the trunks.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Everything is correct, at least 3 (THREE) approaches over the target. And it happened (according to memoirs) and more. If the goal was stubborn.
As a result, we have planes that roundly enter positions or objects in very ugly conditions, because everything that can shoot (in the sense, weapons whose owners did not chicken out) will shoot. From all the German soul will be. Moreover, we can confidently say that the Germans "adored" the Il-2 - and turned inside out, just to shoot it down.
And for fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe it was an honor in general to kill a humpbacked one. But not everyone succeeded, megaas like Hartmann preferred simpler targets.
In general, anything that can shoot will shoot. Machine guns (and whoever said that the quad MG-42 is nice), MZA (small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, and for the Germans it is 20, 30 and 37 mm), everything will shoot. Perhaps only large-caliber anti-aircraft guns are not in the subject here, since the Il-2 flies low. But what was available was more than enough.
Armor. Yes, it was. The armored box is pretty durable. Yes, armor did not save from shells of 20-mm and higher, but it still had to be hit. The 13mm machine gun seems to me a more lethal contraption for an attack aircraft, since it has a faster firing and belt ammunition supply, and not the clips. More chance of getting hit. It is good that a large-caliber machine gun in the Wehrmacht is a very rare phenomenon.
In general, what is the output? At the exit we have a car that is more protected from fire from the front. Which is logical, albeit not entirely. I will not go into the details and aspects of booking at the back, there are a lot of things that come out at once, and does not quite relate to the topic of today.
Total: an attack aircraft is an armored (primarily from fire from the ground) vehicle that is able to reach the target, and then make several rounds to hit it (the target) with all available means.
It seems to be logical.
And the Il-2, no matter what the opponents, of whom there are now hundreds, are ready to get Ilyushin from the other world and teach airplanes to build, met these conditions.
Why am I all this? And here's what.
Dozens (if not hundreds) of modern researchers and publicists on the Internet today say, referring to various documents, that in 1941-1942 aircraft of the "old" types were massively converted into attack aircraft.
Indeed, the transcripts of the meetings have preserved to this day such a proposal of the People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry A. I.
In the third quarter (July-August) of 1940, according to the plan, 20% of the aircraft of each type were subject to re-equipment, in the fourth quarter - 35%, and in the first quarter of 41 - 45% of the aircraft.
The aircraft DI-6, I-15, I-15bis, I-16 of the first series and R-10 were subject to conversion.
In 1940, the plan was not approved, but in 1941 they returned to it in order to somehow compensate for the losses of the first months of the war.
After the start of World War II, the I-153 and (in 1942) LaGG-3 were included in the list of aircraft to be converted. The latter, of course, not because it is suddenly outdated, but for a completely different reason. But LaGG-3 will be a completely separate conversation.
Let's now see what was meant by "conversion into an attack aircraft."
Taking into account the fact that, according to Shakhurin's plan, the re-equipment of the aircraft regiments and divisions should have been engaged in, it immediately becomes clear: the maximum that can be done by the hands of the technical staff of the re-bases is to install external bomb racks and guides for rockets.
Naturally, the installation of bombsights was not even discussed, in fact, and on the IL-2, in fact, they did without them.
And what is the result?
And at the exit we have no stormtroopers. There are fighters equipped according to the American "strike aircraft" concept. That is, the same "hit-and-run" principle. Yes, all of the aircraft listed above were anything but attack aircraft.
As we found out, an attack aircraft is an aircraft that can at least somehow oppose air defense weapons. All the armor that the old biplanes and I-16s possessed is just the pilot's armored back. Well, it was possible to hide behind an air-cooled engine with a fortunate coincidence.
And of course, the I-15, I-16 in no way could actually storm objects covered by at least some air defense. If the I-16 could withstand a couple of hits from 20-mm shells, then the I-15 and its derivatives were completely unsuitable for this.
I-15
I-15bis
I-153
So all these machines were good for was acting as a strike aircraft. I flew up to the front line, struck ONE blow to everyone that was, and that was all. It is necessary to return, until the enemy fighters pulled up and the air defense did not wake up. Otherwise…
However, even with this use, everything that was old and outdated in the Red Army Air Force ended its life. It just couldn't be long for a strike plane. Simply because it was primarily a fighter, which had to ensure its survivability not at the expense of armor, but at the expense of speed and maneuver.
And given the air superiority of the Luftwaffe, and even the equipment of the Wehrmacht with air defense means, probably it is not worth saying that the life of attack aircraft and their pilots was very short. Too many enemies (fighters, air defense, MZA), too little opportunity to complete the task to inflict damage on the enemy and survive.
Meanwhile, it cannot be said that the other participants in the war were doing better. The Americans, British, Japanese and Italians tried to create an airplane for an attack, but, alas, they did not achieve success. Many projects were created, some of which went into series, but all of these were just strike aircraft.
The clearest example is the North American A36. Initially - "Apache", in the end - "Invader".
In essence, this is the "Mustang" from which the attack aircraft was made. More precisely, they tried to do it. The aircraft of this modification were distinguished by more powerful V-1710-87 engines with 1325 hp. The armament consisted of six 12.7 mm machine guns: four were located in the wing, two were synchronous. Later at the front, synchronous machine guns were often removed, and without them the firepower was considered sufficient.
Under the wings, bomb racks were mounted, designed for bombs up to 500 pounds (227 kg). Two bombs.
But unlike the others, the Invader was equipped with dive brake flaps!
Aerodynamic brakes in the form of slotted plates were released by a cable mechanism when the aircraft entered a dive, being installed perpendicular to the wing surface. In normal flight, they fit flush into the wing recesses.
But here's the problem (ours would have it): initially "Mustang" had excellent aerodynamics. Accordingly, on a dive, it accelerated extremely quickly. Logically, it was a fighter! But what's good for a fighter is sad for a bomber or attack aircraft. The pilot simply didn't have enough time to aim.
So the Invader did not become a full-fledged attack aircraft. Like many similar alterations.
The only aircraft that, besides the Il-2, can correspond to the canons I have drawn, is the German Hs-129. Probably the most underrated aircraft of the Luftwaffe. If the "Henschel-129" had received normal engines, and not the wretched French trophy weak "Gnomes", it is difficult to say how the fate of this promising (at the time of creation) machine would have developed. Well, the second member of the crew would not have been in the way with a machine gun.
At least the 129th could normally be used as an attack aircraft, since the armor and firepower allowed it to be done. Both Germans and Romanians used it in this way, not as a declared "tank destroyer", but as an attack aircraft.
The conclusion, of course, is more than strange. It turns out that if you look at it that way, then in the entire Second World War, the parties involved used only three (Il-2, Il-10, Hs-129) real attack aircraft. Aircraft capable of delivering strikes in conditions of counteraction against small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, small arms and enemy fighters.
The rest can be called whatever you want: strike aircraft, light bombers, fighter-bombers, but not attack aircraft for sure. Perhaps this is more correct and fair.
And this, by the way, does not detract from the merits and military exploits of those who sat in the cabins of the I-15, I-15bis, I-16, I-153 and flew to the front line to inflict damage on the enemy. On the contrary, their feat is more valuable, because with each flight on ancient biplanes our pilots brought closer the moment when a machine of destruction and killing would replace wooden fighters with 25- or 50-kilogram bombs suspended under their wings.
Real, from my point of view, an attack aircraft.
