Reading much of what appears on the vast network about the military equipment of the past, I made an amusing conclusion. People do not know how to think and reason - this time. And two - I understood why the idea was so tenacious that the corpses were buried.
Indeed, the heyday and formation of the Internet fell on the peak of anti-Sovietism. And thousands of tons of outright information shit were dumped into the network. And they filled it up, which is typical.
And today, if someone suddenly decided that it was time for him to become an "xperdom" and start dumping his opinion on this or that occasion, there is nothing easier. I copied and pasted from someone, rewrote, added a couple of photos - and voila!
The whole problem is that there is basically what on the network? Yeah, that's what I said above.
A striking example. Recently I came across as many as three "studies" about the LaGG-3 aircraft. Like a blueprint: "lacquered guaranteed coffin" and so on. According to the texts of the sample of the 90s.
Let's try to think seriously. Not using "from the Internet" creations and speculations, but simply applying logic.
Interesting? Me too.
So, on October 10, 1940, the Council of People's Commissars issued a decree on the adoption and launch into serial production of the MiG-1, Yak-1 and LaGG-3 aircraft.
We are used to taking this fact for granted. Well, we decided to launch three fighters into series, and we decided.
And the question "why?" Is extremely rare. and even less often there are attempts to understand this question and answer it.
First, let's agree on the following: Stalin was not an idiot. I hope the main majority will not argue with this. Further: People's Commissar of the Aviation Industry of the USSR Alexei Shakhurin was not an idiot.
The first deputy of the NKAP, Alexander Yakovlev, not only was not an idiot, he was also a talented aircraft designer.
All agree? Fine.
Smart people know that Yakovlev's closeness to Stalin in no way guaranteed to work carelessly and provide himself, his beloved, with a welfare regime. On the contrary, people flew out there, as if from a cannon, and more abruptly, and not always to the Kolyma. An example is the same Shakhurin.
So, three intelligent people, two - specialists in aviation, are adopting THREE aircraft. Three DIFFERENT planes. Three COMPLETELY DIFFERENT aircraft.
Why do I put so many big letters? Indeed, a lot of Xperds simply fail to understand why. Another thing is that they don't need it. The main thing is to bang louder that "Yak was good, but MiG and LaGG were not." And we catch the likes.
In fact, the same Alexander Yakovlev carefully climbed all over Germany, drunk there with Tank, Messerschmitt and others, handled with Hitler. And all for what? And all for the sake of purchasing German aircraft. So by 1940 we had a great idea of who we would have to fight with.
And three different planes are a manifestation of the mind.
Yakovlev and the company did a great job in general. What Germany already had and was in service, and what was planned, was well researched and analyzed.
MiG is a high-altitude interceptor fighter.
Excellent speed at high altitudes, good weapons. Yes Yes exactly. The MiG had a very good weapon. THREE BS machine guns (12, 7 mm) and two ShKAS. And the interceptor was supposed to work exactly at the height where the bombers would go. And three large-caliber machine guns at the beginning of the war were more than enough to pick out any bomber.
Actually, it is appropriate here to recall the memoirs of Alexander Pokryshkin. He was very pleased with the MiG. He flew. I knocked down. When did the complaints start? That's right, when the wing BSs were removed. And there were 1x12, 7-mm BS and 2x7, 62-mm ShKAS. And that's all, the shootings ended abruptly, because it is not enough for the same "Heinkel-111".
I found, by the way, a photo of these machine guns. This is what the "real" MiG-3 looked like. This is why Pokryshkin rebelled:
And it is clear that at low altitudes MiGs were "irons". It's true. Nevertheless, the clever man, Pokryshkin, on the Aircobra, which was very similar in properties to the MiG-3, fought in the same way as at the beginning of the war (with modifications, of course), and was very successful.
And, by the way, it is not Mikoyan and Gurevich's fault that the planes against which the MiG was intended did not go into production. Non-177, Non-274, Ju-89 and others.
Yak is a maneuverable combat fighter.
You can talk about Yaks for a long time, but I will try to be shorter. Fighter of maneuverable combat. Lightweight, fast and so on. Speed-maneuver-fire.
Alas, not everything turned out to be great with them either. But the common misfortune is to blame: in the USSR, aircraft were built for engines. Alas. And engines that are licensed copies of not the best imported motors (who would give us even better copy!), Let's say, were not the strong point of our industry.
The Klimovsk VK-105 and VK-107 of all modifications are just "Hispano-Suiza" 12Y of the 1932 model …
Nevertheless, all the planes in which they could be crammed flew on Klimovsk engines. But our engines lost the race with the German ones outright, since the Messerschmitts always had 100-150 hp. Benefits. With all that it implies.
LaGG is a heavy fighter.
Ambiguous, but true. The fighter was really heavy, comparable in mass to the MiG-3, but in terms of the engine it was the Yak-1. Only an inveterate optimist could expect high speeds from this aircraft.
Because 550 km / h, shown by LaGG, were already for the good.
Now the iksperds are howling: they say, what shit they took into service, the pilots died on it, the messers did what they wanted.
We look above. Where it is written about idiots.
What turns out, Shakhurin, Yakovlev, Gudkov, Lavochkin, Gorbunov cut the devil knows what, and no one sat down? Lavrenty Pavlovich went on vacation? So it seems like a war …
It's simple. It is difficult for gentlemen iksperdov, but for a normal person it is simple.
LaGG has passed ALL stages of state tests. Which then, I note, did not pass for the loot. And it was adopted because its performance characteristics fully corresponded to the tasks assigned to it in the Air Force.
Gorbunov, as the leading designer of bribes, did not stick either Yakovlev or Shakhurin on the plane. No one was in a hurry to visit Petlyakov and Tupolev.
And LaGG was conceived as a heavy fighter not by its mass. By arms.
Cannon ShVAK 20 mm or VYa 23 mm, 2 machine guns BS 12, 7 mm, 2 ShKASA 7, 62 mm. And all this comrades Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov managed to shove IN THE NOSE !!! There were no firing points in the wings !!!
In general, I do not understand well how the technicians serviced the engine there. Wherever you go, either a machine gun or cartridges.
On the wings, then the guides for the RS or the suspension of the bombs were installed.
So LaGG was a powerful weapon in the right hands. Destroy the bomber jacket? Sure, not a problem. Storm a weakly protected object? Wrap two.
And the main plus: unlike the Yak and MiG, it did not burn. Delta Wood couldn't do this. And it was very durable. This is the first Soviet fighter, into which they were able to shove the 37-mm NS-37 cannon. And in which, I note, the glider did not crack, like the Yak, from the shot of this monster.
It was bad against enemy fighters. Yes, that's a fact. But it was assumed the presence of Yaks, which would tie up enemy fighters in a maneuvering battle, and LaGGs would shred bombers into small pieces.
By the way, this is exactly the tactic that emerged after 1943 in our Air Force. Only instead of LaGGs there were "Aircobras" and "Lavochkin".
So it was not stupidity that ruined LaGG. More precisely, stupidity, but not where "xperds" are usually indicated.
Ruined by a weak engine and the complete impossibility of "digging" somewhere new? No! As soon as Gudkov's experiments with his Gu-82 and Lavochkin with La-5 to install the ASh-82 engine on the LaGG-3 glider (the progenitor was the American Wright R-1820-F3) successfully completed, then the plane appeared to fear the enemies …
And - misuse. It is clear that on 22.06 I had to play according to completely different rules, but this is a completely different matter. The fact is that instead of fighting the bombers, LaGGs began to send “cover the infantry” (there was such idiocy), storm the front line of the defense, bomb bridges during the day, and so on.
Accordingly, here are the losses.
And in the air defense of Moscow, Leningrad, and in general as a fighter of the air defense LaGG-3, it went very well. Especially "five-tank", with an increased supply of fuel. And as a night fighter, too, it turned out well. Could be in the air for a very long time, a useful quality.
The main problem in the Red Army, in general, for that time was the "die but do" rule. It did more damage than the weak Soviet engines.
When Alexander Pokryshkin in a MiG-3 at low level flies to search for tanks for reconnaissance, this is nonsense. Nikolai Skomorokhov on LaGG-3, covering the infantry - from the same opera.
Even the Mosin rifle can be used in different ways in different situations. And depending on how you approach the use, there will be either a miracle weapon or a drin-club at the exit.
It's the same with planes.
Our pilots learned to work with their heads, think, analyze and build a battle in their minds. Expensive, but learned. "Xsperds" have not yet mastered this function for the most part. They don’t need it. Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V work, and okay.
By the way, there is also a TB-3 tire for the iksperdam garden. Well, at least one brought up where the LaGG-3 nicknames came from. Like folk art. But in fact, the "well-known" nicknames of the aircraft "Lacquered guaranteed coffin" or "Flying aviation guaranteed coffin" were not used during the war.
They appeared after the release of one book in the 90s, where Lavochkin was watered with mud. It was painted by a little man who had absolutely no relation to aviation. But with connections in one of our Pravdorubsky publishing houses. That's where they appeared. In short, from afar, and forget about them.
In fact, at the end I want to say only one thing. LaGG-3 was a very thoughtful and competent aircraft. The country had problems with aviation aluminum. Therefore, delta wood. Unlike the Yak and MiG, where they even managed without it. Yes, it was hard. But if Gudkov were given the opportunity to experiment freely with the ASh-82, the plane would have been ready even earlier. In 1942. Not the fact that it would have been better than the La-5, but a year earlier.
And the main thing is the question of application. "Airacobra" in the States was also considered a complete crap …
LaGG-3 had to be used in accordance with the developed concept. Alas, it didn't work out. But to argue that "out of stupidity" a worthless machine was adopted and sent into battle is also nonsense.
There were many fools then, and there are many of them now, but the plane was good. For your tasks. Not great, but good. How to approach the issue of completing these tasks …
And the fact that the LaGG-3 became the platform for the creation of the La-5 is its only plus, also nonsense. If it had been a bad plane, it would have been sent to a landfill, and Lavochkin, and Gudkov, and Gorbunov would not have rushed to modify it. They, as designers, believed in their offspring. They knew that it would fly.
Or what, in addition to Stalin, Shakhurin, Yakovlev, and Lavochkin, Gudkov and Gorbunov, will we write down as idiots?
Sorry if it turned out illiberal! And how, then, the country of fools under the command of idiots won the war?
