Legendary planes. Legendary planes in the night sky

The newest best military aircraft of the Russian Air Force and the world photos, pictures, videos about the value of a fighter aircraft as a combat weapon capable of ensuring “superiority in the air” was recognized by the military circles of all states by the spring of 1916. This required the creation of a special combat aircraft superior to all others in speed, maneuverability, altitude and the use of offensive small arms. In November 1915, Nieuport II Webe biplanes arrived at the front. This was the first aircraft built in France that was intended for air combat.

The most modern domestic military aircraft in Russia and the world owe their appearance to the popularization and development of aviation in Russia, which was facilitated by the flights of Russian pilots M. Efimov, N. Popov, G. Alekhnovich, A. Shiukov, B. Rossiysky, S. Utochkin. The first domestic cars of designers J. Gakkel, I. Sikorsky, D. Grigorovich, V. Slesarev, I. Steglau began to appear. In 1913, the Russian Knight heavy aircraft made its first flight. But one cannot help but recall the first creator of the aircraft in the world - Captain 1st Rank Alexander Fedorovich Mozhaisky.

Soviet military aircraft of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War sought to hit enemy troops, their communications and other targets in the rear with air strikes, which led to the creation of bomber aircraft capable of carrying a large bomb load over considerable distances. The variety of combat missions to bomb enemy forces in the tactical and operational depth of the fronts led to the understanding of the fact that their implementation must be commensurate with the tactical and technical capabilities of a particular aircraft. Therefore, the design teams had to resolve the issue of specialization of bomber aircraft, which led to the emergence of several classes of these machines.

Types and classification, latest models of military aircraft in Russia and the world. It was obvious that it would take time to create a specialized fighter aircraft, so the first step in this direction was an attempt to arm existing aircraft with small offensive weapons. Mobile machine gun mounts, which began to be equipped with aircraft, required excessive efforts from pilots, since controlling the machine in maneuverable combat and simultaneously firing from unstable weapons reduced the effectiveness of shooting. The use of a two-seater aircraft as a fighter, where one of the crew members served as a gunner, also created certain problems, because the increase in weight and drag of the machine led to a decrease in its flight qualities.

What types of planes are there? In our years, aviation has made a big qualitative leap, expressed in a significant increase in flight speed. This was facilitated by progress in the field of aerodynamics, the creation of new, more powerful engines, structural materials, and electronic equipment. computerization of calculation methods, etc. Supersonic speeds have become the main flight modes of fighter aircraft. However, the race for speed also had its negative sides - the takeoff and landing characteristics and maneuverability of the aircraft sharply deteriorated. During these years, the level of aircraft construction reached such a level that it became possible to begin creating aircraft with variable sweep wings.

For Russian combat aircraft, in order to further increase the flight speeds of jet fighters exceeding the speed of sound, it was necessary to increase their power supply, increase the specific characteristics of turbojet engines, and also improve the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft. For this purpose, engines with an axial compressor were developed, which had smaller frontal dimensions, higher efficiency and better weight characteristics. To significantly increase thrust, and therefore flight speed, afterburners were introduced into the engine design. Improving the aerodynamic shapes of aircraft consisted of using wings and tail surfaces with large sweep angles (in the transition to thin delta wings), as well as supersonic air intakes.

BATTLE SCORE TB-3

At first the enemy was filled with disdain for this aircraft. On the fourth day of the war, Halder noted in his diary: the Russians switched to the use of old low-speed four-engine bombers - they say, things are very bad for the “Red” aviation... Time will pass, and well-trained night-light fighters will be sent to intercept the TB-3. After each night battle with TB-3, marks were drawn on their Messerschmitts about the next air victory they had won. But the day passed, night came, and the “downed” giants flew in again to bomb the enemy.

The plane flew over the target so slowly that it seemed to hover in the air - “anchored”, and threw bombs at the target, despite the shelling, completely indifferently passing through its corrugated body dozens of fragments and even large-caliber shells of German anti-aircraft guns. In combat operation, the Tupolev giant showed true miracles. He could fly from plowed fields, land in snow up to 1 m deep. He carried heavy oversized loads on an external sling - T-38 tanks, GAZ-AA trucks, artillery... And, despite his age, he worked extremely actively. By the end of the first year of the war, a significant number of TB-3 crews had completed 100 combat missions, and by the end of the Battle of Stalingrad, some had up to two hundred. The work of the aviators who flew the TB-3 was worthily noted - one of the first air regiments to receive a guards rank was the 250th TBAP...

Before the German invasion, the Red Army Air Force had 4 TB-3 regiments on the western border of the USSR: 7 TBAP (40 BAD 1 DBAC), northwestern direction, had 44 aircraft, of which 18 were serviceable. The 1st and 3rd TBAP (3 DBAC), western direction, had 94 TB-3. In addition, in the area where the 3rd TBAP was based there were 14 faulty TB-3s. 14 TBAP (18 BAD Air Force KOVO), southwestern direction, had 32 serviceable aircraft (data as of 1.6.41). There were 6 TB-3s under repair, 1 aircraft was assigned to the 16th BBP.

The main focus in the combat training of heavy bomber regiments was on practicing landings. In the 3rd and 7th TBAP, some crews had experience in transporting heavy loads on an external sling (between the main racks). The relocation of air regiments to field airfields was also not possible without the participation of the TB-3, the most load-lifting aircraft at that time.

Training bombing missions were also carried out in the heavy bomber regiments. The crews of the 3rd and 7th TBAP had experience of night combat operations in the Finnish war. The crews' training was at a high level.

Attitudes towards the equipment that we had to fly on were different. Somewhere - friendly, somewhere - hostile. So, the 14th Heavy Bomber Regiment received the TB-7, and they looked at the TB-3 as junk, from which nothing could be squeezed out. This attitude towards the veteran vehicle grew stronger in the regiment as the crews of 2 AE mastered the TB-7. And one can imagine the disappointment of the pilots of the 14th regiment when they had to enter the war on the much unloved TB-3.

Beginning of the war

3 TBAP was located closest to the western border. The concrete strip of its main base, Borovichi, was under reconstruction; the work was carried out by prisoners under the guidance (and protection) of NKVD specialists. And the regiment, since the summer training period had arrived, flew to a nearby reserve unpaved airfield. Early in the morning of June 22, the camp was alerted. Accustomed to the recent increase in drill alerts, the regiment’s personnel were not particularly worried, deciding that one of them had taken place on this Sunday morning.

And in the morning, even before Molotov spoke and received any explanations of the situation, we saw a column of smoke rising above the part of the horizon where Minsk was located. The wind carried ashes and burnt forms from USSR government agencies to the airfield...

The 1st and 3rd TBAP entered battle on the evening of June 22, 1941, bombing enemy troops, and by the beginning of July, all TB-3 regiments located on the Soviet-German front were making night bombing missions.

Although the TB-3 was not perceived in 1941 as a long-range bomber (wear and tear of materiel, coupled with operational limitations, led to a decrease in flight characteristics), one of the first it was assigned to a long-range bomber operation: on the night of June 24, 1941 1 and 3 TBAP bombed railway junctions in Poland: Biala Podlaska, Siedlce, Ciechonowiec, Ostrow, Malkina Tura. With the beginning of the war, the bomb stockpile, created in the warehouses of units in peacetime, was used in anticipation of the tasks that, as planned, would have to be carried out during the war. 7 TBAP had an arsenal suitable for solving a variety of tasks - from the destruction of bridges to the destruction of objects scattered over a large area. Before the war, the warehouses of 7 TBAP received not only high-explosive bombs of various calibers, but also SABs, ZABs, RRABs (the latter received AO-2.5-8 bombs; KS balls). This made it possible to carry out successful bombing against a variety of targets.

1 and 14 TBAP were armed with old vehicles with M-176 and M-17f engines, which were expected to be used in war only as transport and landing aircraft. 14 TBAP before the war even bore the name “airborne bomber”, with emphasis on the first word. Some aircraft in 14 TBAP met the war disarmed, without bomb racks, so they had to be used mainly for landing people and cargo, as well as for scattering leaflets in the rear of German troops. Accordingly, the type of bombs in warehouses 1 and 14 TBAP in 1941 was limited. There were no flare bombs, which is why the bombing was carried out “blindly” at first. Due to the lack of aerial cameras in the regiments, the effectiveness of bomb attacks there was estimated approximately.

Much has been written about the chaos that reigned in the early days of the war on the Western Front. Communications worked unstably, headquarters did not have intelligence information, and if they did receive it, it was usually already outdated due to the pace at which it was passed through the chain of command. Because of this, the direction of the enemy's actions, his numbers, and the pace of advance were determined incorrectly. As a result, the Germans captured airfield after airfield, and it was not always possible to evacuate faulty equipment to the rear. On November 26, 1941, an aerial reconnaissance aircraft from the 750th DBAP discovered 8 TB-3 aircraft at the Vitebsk airfield, captured by the Germans, some of which probably belonged to the 3rd TBAP.

3 TBAP turned out to be the most unlucky of all. The regiment was tormented by absurd orders from the very beginning of the war. So, on the afternoon of June 23, TB-3 was lost, one of four sent to... reconnaissance of the movement of tank columns! As a result, by June 30, 1941, the regiment lost 11 vehicles, 7 of them from enemy fighters.

In the night sky

During the day, any enemy aircraft became an enemy of the TB-3 in the air. Not only fighters were eager to hunt for the giant slowly crawling across the sky: another Heinkel, returning from bombing, tried to chalk up the downed TB-3 to its account... Even a strong fighter cover was not able to save the TB-3 regiments from large losses during daytime flights, including over their territory. A significant number of crews in heavy bomber regiments were trained for night combat flights, and there was no need for daytime bombing. Fortunately, “those at the top” also understood this; the TB-3 crews began to fly combat missions exclusively at night, and in 1941, for a long time by military standards, they found themselves in relative safety. Although the exhaust manifolds of the TB-3 engines did not have flame arresters, and the exhaust lights were clearly visible in the darkness of the night from aircraft flying above, encounters with German fighters began to occur much less frequently. The 14th Air Regiment had no encounters with fighters during night sorties. Others were less fortunate. However, TB-3 was not as harmless as it seems today. The air gunners, discovering that the bomber was being pursued by an enemy aircraft, opened intense fire on it from all points. The fiery trails in the night sky psychologically had a very strong effect on enemy pilots, and there were few who wanted to test the caliber of the weapon protecting the air giant first-hand. During night air battles with German fighters, the TB-3 was not doomed to destruction, even if the air gunners were disabled. The following episodes are typical in this regard.

On the night of February 23, 1942, the crew of Major Mosolov (3 TBAP) took off to deliver the command of the airborne corps led by Major General Levashov beyond the front line. When approaching the landing site, the ship was attacked by a Bf-110 fighter. Levashov was killed by a shell fragment. The pilot landed on the first available landing pad (the main one was unsuitable - black bomb craters were clearly visible in the snow), landed the paratroopers' headquarters and, despite the engine damage received during the attack, took off. Once in the air, he was fired a second time by a Bf-110 patrolling nearby. After two attacks, the TB-3 fuselage was riddled with bullets, and one of the crew members was killed. But the plane did not burn and stayed in the air. Maneuvering, the pilot left the fighter and returned to his airfield.

During a flight to the Vyazma area, Captain Plyashechnik's TB-3 (1 TBAP) was attacked by two Bf 110s. Both air gunners were killed, the gas system was broken, and a fire broke out on board. But the enemy rejoiced prematurely. The radio operator led the battle, repelling the Messerschmitt attacks with the tower UBT. Navigator Mikhailov prevented the fire from spreading throughout the plane by clamping the damaged fuel system tube. Having simulated the fall of the ship and evaded pursuit, the crew, 40 minutes after the attack, flew over the front line and landed in a field. The fire was extinguished, after which the plane took off and returned to its airfield.

Losses in the first year of the war

In the first year of the war, the losses of the TB-3 regiments from German bombing (16 vehicles) were also not so significant. Although it seemed that everything was leading to the opposite. Due to the continued retreat of troops, it was difficult to create a reliably functioning warning system about enemy raids in the front-line zone. The dimensions of the aircraft made it difficult to camouflage it at the airfield. But German bombing was not equally effective on all sectors of the front. 1 TBAP lost the most aircraft from enemy bombing in the summer of 1941 - 7 TB-3. The situation was different in the southwestern direction. On the afternoon of June 25, 1941, the Germans bombed the airfields of the 14th regiment - Boryspil and Gogolevo. At the Gogol airfield at that moment there were 30 TB-3s, dispersed throughout the field. The Germans dropped 36 bombs and made 2 attack runs, but even weak anti-aircraft fire reduced the effect of the strike: the result of enemy attacks was only one burned TB-3. In the 14th Regiment, it was the only loss from bombing in the entire 1941.

3 TBAP lost only one aircraft from bombing in 1941 - thanks to the large amount of work carried out by ground personnel to camouflage ships. In the first year of the war, when 3 TBAP was based in a wooded area, a parking space was cut down in the forest for each of the aircraft, where they rolled in after takeoff, and then covered with a camouflage net.

Camouflage TB-3

As you know, until the war, the coloring of Soviet aircraft was monochromatic. The first German strikes were enough to confirm its ineffectiveness and take appropriate measures. Immediately after the start of the war, an order was issued to camouflage vehicles, however, this process was interpreted very generally, which led to the appearance of a wide variety of colors. This applied to almost all types of aircraft. Regarding the TB-3, there was one peculiarity: the size of the bomber, and even with the intensity of hostilities characteristic of the beginning of the war, made it difficult to carry out the order. In addition, the command of the heavy bomber regiments was skeptical about the effectiveness of camouflage. The winged ship was too huge, it was almost impossible to hide the TB-3 from the eye of aerial reconnaissance in this way, and wasting paint for the most part did not make sense.

Only by the beginning of 1942 did most TB-3s acquire a “protective coloring” and by the summer, almost all bombers that fought on the Soviet-German front had black (or dark green) stripes applied over the pre-war green-khaki paint. The undersides of the planes were not repainted, remaining light blue.

In the winter of 1942/43. Attempts were made to repaint bombers white. In the 14th regiment, due to a lack of paint for such large vehicles, they ended in nothing. In 7 TBAP, after half the wing of one of the TB-3s was painted, such experiments were abandoned. The 325th Regiment was ordered to repaint three bombers white, but how the order was carried out remains unknown. Work on winter camouflage was also carried out in the 1st regiment - this is evidenced by a surviving photograph.

Improving the combat qualities of TB-3

By the spring of 1942, measures were taken to improve the combat qualities of the TB-3. The defensive armament of the bombers was replaced: aircraft that had a central (sometimes also tail) turret with ShKAS began to be equipped with UTK-1 turrets with 12.7 mm UBT machine guns. This increased the aircraft's protection from air attack. Installation of a large-caliber machine gun (BS, UBT) in the hatch installation allowed the shooters to “extinguish” enemy searchlights when flying at low altitudes. Instructions were given to equip all TB-3s in heavy bomber regiments with NKPB-3 night collimator sights. Their installation on aircraft helped to improve the accuracy of bombing.

Replenishment of the TB-3 fleet at the front

The number of TB-3 regiments operating on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War in 1941 not only did not decrease, but, on the contrary, increased. On June 28, 1941, the Kharkov Military District began forming the 325th Airborne Bomber Regiment (later the 325th Heavy Bomber Regiment). To equip it, 22 TB-3 were received from flight schools. By September 1, 1941, the unit had trained 7 night crews, who immediately began combat missions. In addition, on June 25, 1941, the entire 250 heavy bomber regiment (49 vehicles) flew from the Far East to the west and arrived in the Voroshilovgrad area by July 9. In the fall of 1941, after the completion of the operation in Iran, the 39th separate squadron, which had 12 TB-3-4M-17 aircraft, was relocated from the Central Asian Military District to the Western Front.

The appearance on the Soviet-German front of new air units equipped with the “grandfathers of Russian aviation” can hardly be called “patching holes.” The course of the war in its first days was still unpredictable, and therefore the arrival of TB-3 at the front speaks rather of the importance that was attached to their combat and especially transport capabilities.

From the very first days of the war, the TB-3 regiments began to come under direct command of the front air forces. The use of these aircraft as heavy-duty night front-line bombers was very effective. The concentration of all heavy bomber regiments in the ADD, carried out in March 1942, contributed to the even greater effectiveness of the use of TB-3. Two Long-Range divisions were formed: the 53rd - based on the 23rd SAD, and the 62nd based on the 22nd BAD. Each of them had 3 TB-3 regiments, 3 squadrons each. The number of materiel in the regiments was determined not by the number of staff, but by the serviceability of the aircraft fleet. By mid-1942, the regiment's readiness for combat missions with 15 TB-3s could be considered a good result. The number of combat-ready vehicles, thanks to the fantastic work of repairmen and technical staff, could rise to 20, but this happened extremely rarely. The main difficulties were associated with the lack of spare parts for the M-17 and M-34 engines, which had long been discontinued.

Combat tactics

The tactics of the TB-3 during the Patriotic War were built taking into account the full use of its positive qualities, as well as the activity of enemy air defense systems on one or another sector of the front. Access to the target was carried out at different heights, from different directions and with a time delay. The TB-3 (with the possible exception of the 325th Regiment, whose personnel were recruited from reserve officers) was, as a rule, flown by “old” crews who had sufficient experience, which allowed them to confidently reach the target, maintain a combat course and understand the navigator’s signals about amendments to the course “without words,” since most TB-3s did not have intercom systems. The high accuracy of bombing was facilitated by the low flight speed of the TB-3 and good visibility from the navigator's cabin, and the large mass of the bomb load lifted by the aircraft allowed the suspension of bombs of almost all types and calibers then available on the TB-3, and in various combinations. After a year of war, front commanders noted that the TB-3 had fully justified itself as a night bomber.

The main targets for this bomber were area, large-sized targets: railway junctions, airfields, concentrations of enemy troops. When striking them, bombs of predominantly large caliber (250 and 500 kg) were used, which destroyed objects not only with a direct hit, but also with a blast wave. To increase the lethality, fragmentation and incendiary bombs and RRABs equipped with KS glass balls were dropped simultaneously with high-explosive bombs.

The affected area covered by balls ejected by centrifugal force from a rotating RRAB could be a hectare or more, depending on the height of the release. The disadvantage was that some of the glass balls, colliding with each other in the air, ignited before falling to the ground. Special precautions had to be taken when equipping RRABs with them.

Bombs of 1000 kg caliber were dropped from TB-3 only twice during the war: on March 17, 1942, by the crew of Senior Lieutenant Borodkin from the 7th Air Regiment, and on March 23, 1942, by the crew of Captain Yakushkin from the 3rd Air Regiment (both from 53 BP DD). They were used in combination with fragmentation and incendiary bombs against enemy troops in the area of ​​Gzhatsk.

When destroying enemy columns, bombing of the target was carried out from heights of 700-1000 m. When operating against railway junctions and airfields well covered by anti-aircraft guns, the combat flight altitude rose to 2000 m (for TB-3-4M-34 and TB-3-4M-17 aircraft ), 2600-2800 m (TB-3-4M-34R) and 3300-3500 m (TB-3-4M-34RN). Of course, even at these heights the bombers were within reach of German artillery systems. And the noise created by the “direct” (gearless) motors M-17 and M-34 indicated their position in the night sky. The roar of an invisible armada (which often turned out to be a single TB-3) slowly “creeping” towards the enemy gave the enemy anti-aircraft gunners time to prepare for the “meeting”. The AM-34R, RB, RN and RNB engines operated much “softer”, but were also not silent.

But strange as it may seem, targeted shooting at the TB-3 from anti-aircraft guns showed its complete ineffectiveness during the war. There was something mystical about this: the ship, captured by searchlights and subjected to intense fire, hung in the air, threw bombs and did not want to fall. In the German units, over which TB-3s regularly appeared, there was a rumor that the plane was covered with armor and therefore invulnerable...

Of course, it was not the additional kilograms of iron, but the low speed of the airship that became his salvation: the German large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery was not designed for it. The situation with the U-2 biplane was repeated. It should be taken into account that when approaching the target, TB-3 pilots often reduced the flight speed, “muting” the engines, and it did not exceed 145 km/h.

The barrage fire was more worrying. Since the shells exploded chaotically, at different heights without any system, it was incredibly difficult to protect ourselves from their explosions. But the TB-3 had a minimal number of pneumatic and electrical units, so multiple fragmentation damage from an exploding shell in the vast majority of cases did not lead to fires or loss of control. In addition, the aircraft and its crew were helped by the greater structural strength of the TB-3 airframe. The following example of the survivability of a bomber is indicative:
On the night of March 20, 1943, while bombing enemy trains at Bakhmach station, the plane of Senior Lieutenant Alekseev (7 AP DD) was caught by the beams of eight searchlights and fired upon by large-caliber artillery and MZA fire. Engine No. 4 (far right) caught fire from a direct hit from a shell. It was not possible to extinguish the fire. However, a rare accident: another large-caliber shell, hitting the wing, knocked off the engine, and it fell to the ground, burning. The anti-aircraft guns stopped firing at the plane, but the situation still remained difficult. Shell fragments pierced the gas tanks and interrupted the thrust to the left aileron. The plane glided slightly, but stayed in the air. The ship's commander, having leveled the bomber at an altitude of 1400 m, led it to his territory. After an hour and a half of flight, having flown over the front line, Alekseev landed at a suitable site.

The Oerlikon fire posed a much greater danger to the aircraft. A “ladder” of luminous shells, “built” by a rapid-fire cannon, forced the crews to raise the bombing altitude by more than 2000 m. Of course, when bombing from lower altitudes, about 500-700 m, the hit accuracy was higher, but the TB-3 was superior to the others The bombers already had a trump card - low flight speed, which worked to reduce the spread of bombs. Therefore, moving to heights inaccessible to MZA shells had little effect on the accuracy of bombing from the TB-3.

In order to reduce the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire, various techniques were used. When approaching the target, the TB-3 crews were advised to stay at “non-circular” heights. The calculation was that the remote tubes, set to a “round” height, would prevent a large-caliber projectile from exploding even if it directly hit the plane. And often this calculation was justified. In addition, there were many cases when pilots, wanting to mislead enemy anti-aircraft gunners, ignited Holt landing rockets suspended under the wing. The bright flames of the rockets gave the impression that the plane was on fire, and the anti-aircraft gunners left it alone.

Measures to combat FOR the enemy were not limited to “passive” methods. Back in 1941, some crews saved a few bombs for enemy searchlights, which they dropped on them after finishing the bombing on the main target. Sometimes such attacks had some success, and anti-aircraft resistance decreased. From the beginning of 1942, this initiative was legalized: crews began to be assigned to heavy bomber regiments to combat anti-aircraft guns and searchlight installations. As a rule, RRABs equipped with fragmentation bombs, FAB-50 and FAB-100 landmines were dropped onto air defense systems. The enemy anti-aircraft gunners changed tactics - they did not fire before the bombing began, hoping that the TB-3s would target the intensely illuminated decoy target. The bomber crews did not drop all the bombs at once, expecting that the anti-aircraft gunners would not stand it and show themselves, thereby opening up their own position for both the leading bomber and the aircraft approaching behind them.

Machine gun fire was fired at anti-aircraft points and searchlights during flights at low altitudes. However, it was noted that in 325 AP some shooters got carried away and opened fire even from flight altitudes of 2000-2500 m. In addition to the fact that the effectiveness of shooting from such altitudes was zero, there was a threat of hitting aircraft approaching the target at lower altitudes. Once, in the combat report of the 62nd AD DD, lines appeared that the shooters of the departing bombers, firing at the searchlights, interfered with the bombing. Therefore, in 1942, by special order, machine-gun fire at anti-aircraft points was limited in height.

Photo control of bombing results

The heavy bomber regiments did not begin photomonitoring the results of the bombing at the same time. 53 AD DD took up this task only in January 1943, having received NAFA-19 night cameras. The division's 7th Regiment was assigned two photo control aircraft; Experienced crews N. Bobin and V. Kalygin were assigned to perform control flights. 1 TBAP did not record the results of the raids. In the 62nd Air Division, photographing the results of the bombing was carried out by the crews of the 250th TBAP: the photographs they took were of exceptionally high quality, since photographic reconnaissance was part of the regiment’s UBP plan even during its stay in the Far East. When taking photographs, FotAB-35 bombs were dropped.

The photocontrol technique was as follows. Before the raid, a controller aircraft came to the target and photographed it, then stepped aside, and its crew observed the actions of the bombers; The navigator recorded on the map the impact points of all the bombs, noting the time of the explosions and fires that occurred. After completing the bombing, the controller aircraft passed over the target and took repeated photographs. The NAFA-19 night camera was installed in the rear fuselage (on 7 AP DD aircraft) or in the navigation cabin (on 250 AP DD aircraft).

Transport and landing operations

When in the pre-war period some aviation commanders considered the TB-3 only as a transport aircraft, considering it in this role as a temporary machine (they say, how could it compete with the promising Li-2), they could not even imagine how events would develop in the first year of the war ...

On the afternoon of June 22, having dispersed, the crews of the 7th TBAP began delivering fuel to field airfields for units of the 1st DBAC (North-Western Front). On June 29, 1941, the 14th TBAP, consisting of 24 aircraft, carried out a landing in the Slutsk area. This was the first landing operation of the war.

In July, TB-3 regiments transferred a large sabotage group to the Kyiv area. 3 TBAP in the summer and autumn of 1941 carried out the delivery of fuel to tankers of the Western Front. From August 30 to September 10, in the sector of the North-Western Front, 7 TBAP dropped cargo to the Luga group emerging from encirclement. On October 3, 1941, 40 heavy bombers delivered T-38 tanks, anti-tank artillery, trucks, weapons, and ammunition to Mtsensk for the 5th Airborne Brigade that landed in the area. She was tasked with closing the gap in the defense of the Soviet troops.

TB-3 made a great contribution to the organization of the “air bridge” to Leningrad. In November-December 1941 and early January 1942, 7 TBAP with eighteen aircraft, 14 TBAP with five aircraft of the 1st and 3rd AE delivered food to the besieged city. To increase the payload, bomb racks, stepladders, and some equipment were removed from the bombers.

At the end of 1941, the Special Purpose Heavy Bomber Group was formed from fourteen crews of the 250th Regiment and five crews of the 14th Regiment. The group was entrusted with the delivery of fuel, aviation oil and antifreeze to the 8, 12 and 347 IAP based at the airfields of the Kerch Peninsula. Drop tanks, new engines, and searchlight installations were also transported to Kerch, Bagerovo, and the Seven Wells airfield. Reinforcements were delivered and the wounded were transported. The group's planes dropped paratroopers behind enemy lines; Mines, ammunition, and food were dropped on them; The bombing of the enemy-occupied Dzhankoy and Simferopol stations was carried out. The autumn of 1941 and winter of 1942 in Crimea were not characterized by good weather; enemy fighter aircraft were confined to the ground by frequent snowfalls, and on rare flying days they acted rather passively. One day, a delayed TB-3 carried out a landing mission behind enemy lines in the morning. Having noticed a Bf-109 loitering in the drop zone, he completed the landing and disappeared from pursuit in the clouds. But the air giants also suffered from the vagaries of the weather. Heavy snowfalls filled airfields with snow. Then all available ground personnel and local residents were thrown into clearing them. Without their continuous work on the airfield, it would be difficult to carry out the orders of the command. To a large extent, the intensity of TB-3 flights in Crimea is due to the dedication of the people working on the ground. However, this was also the case in other sectors of the Soviet-German front. The Crimean disaster in the spring of 1942 forced the command to reduce transport and landing operations on the peninsula. By July 1942, the group of heavy bombers was relocated to the Nikiforovka airfield, near Michurinsk (Central Front). The crews joined the 62nd AD DD and began bombing the enemy advancing on Voronezh. Until the fall of 1942, flights to Crimea continued to be carried out by the crews of the 325 AP DD, but due to the large distance of the home airfields from the Crimean Peninsula, this was done with less intensity.

In the twenties of January 1942, the preparation of air regiments for the Vyazma airborne operation began. Aircraft of the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 14th TBAP and the 4th separate airborne squadron (25 TB-3 in total) flew to the Grabtsevo airfield near Kaluga. Concentration proceeded slowly, the size of the ships did not contribute to the secrecy of the preparation of the operation, and it is not surprising that their appearance close to the front line interested German intelligence.

On the afternoon of January 27, a Bf-110 appeared over Grabtsevo. Coming from the direction of the sun, he shot down a LaGG-3 that was performing aerobatics and left. Not wanting to waste energy without proper efficiency, the Germans carried out additional reconnaissance of the target on the same day. At 17.00 two Bf-110s appeared over the airfield. One of them, descending to low level, fired at the ships in the parking lots, drawing fire from air defense systems, while the other, meanwhile, at an altitude of about 1000 m, passed over the airfield, apparently photographing it. At 19.30 enemy bombers appeared over Grabtsevo. The bomb strike caused significant damage to the group of aircraft providing the landing. 1 TBAP lost 4 aircraft, 3 TBAP - 3, 14 TBAP and the 4th separate airborne squadron - 2 each, one bomber from the 7 TBAP was destroyed. During the second raid by German aviation on February 3, two more TB-3s were burned - from the 3rd and 7th TBAP, which were undergoing repairs in Grabtsevo after the raid on January 27.

We had to shift the timing of the landing operation and abandon the idea of ​​​​using front-line airfields. The paratroopers were dropped near Vyazma in the second half of February 1942, this time the planes took off from the Vnukovo and Lyubertsy airfields.

The TB-3 drop site was approached at the highest possible height. Not reaching 25-30 km from the drop point, the engines were muffled, and the plane descended to an altitude of 300-600 m. The paratroopers left it through the bomb bay and the upper gunner turrets. Heavy weapons were also delivered to Vyazma. Airplanes of 3 TBAP delivered snowmobiles to the paratroopers.

Spring 1942 was the time of intensive use of TB-3. Due to a number of circumstances, the advancing armies of generals Belov and Efremov (Western Front) were surrounded. The task of providing food and ammunition to the encircled troops, as well as the paratroopers sent to support them, was carried out by the TB-3 regiments until the beginning of April 1942. At the same time, the TB-3 crews bombed enemy units in Vyazma and Gzhatsk.

In April 1942, it was necessary to provide emergency assistance to the troops of the North-Western Front, which were holding a German group in the Demyansk area. Ground troops fighting in swampy areas, cut off from their troops by the spring thaw, found themselves in a difficult situation. The TB-3 regiments were tasked with uninterrupted supply of those surrounded by everything necessary for combat.

Cargo delivery was carried out from April 19, 1942 by shuttle flights. Loaded TB-3s took off from the Monino airfield. On the section of the route from Pola station to the drop site, they flew at an altitude of 1000-1200 m along a narrow corridor 10-15 km wide; were repeatedly shelled by German troops located on both sides of the corridor. Having arrived at the target, the planes descended to a height of 150-200 m and threw out the cargo in bags with a parachute suspension according to posted signals from the fires. Without parachutes, the cargo was dropped from heights of 20-50 m (sometimes it came in packaging made of high-strength paper - designers even in wartime were looking for ways to reduce the cost of landing operations). The planes landed at the Yam-Khotilovo jump airfield. We refueled, loaded up and flew out again that same night to the line of contact between the troops. Having dropped off at established sites near the villages of Lyakhovichi and Shchelgunovo, we returned to the Monino airfield at dawn the next day. And so night after night. The intensity of the flights was very high: individual crews (for example, N. Bobina from the 7th AP DD) made three flights per night, with two landings at the jump airfield.

Due to the mud, the German group was also supplied by air, with transport aircraft landing on a dirt airfield near the village. Glebovschina. Knowing about the regular flights of TB-3 in this area, German aviation, apparently, as soon as the take-off pads dried up, began the struggle for local air supremacy. At night, German fighters began to appear in the landing area. At first they acted hesitantly; after the bomber gunners opened intense fire on them, they rolled to the side and walked away. But soon the actions of enemy aircraft intensified. In the area where the cargo was dropped, TB-3s began to be met by patrolling Bf-110s: they lay in wait for them at altitudes of 1000-1500 m, so that when the ship descended to a drop height of 100-300 m, they would strike from above. Along the way, the landing sites, marked by fires, were bombed.

The TB-3 crews also did not remain in debt, carrying out a bomb attack on the German airfield near the village of Glebovshchina. Up to 10 Ju-52 aircraft were destroyed.

In May 1942, the TB-3 regiments supplied the cavalry units of the Red Army, which carried out a raid on the rear of the German troops. The cargo was delivered to the area west of Vyazma, to sites near the villages of B. Vergovo, Glukhovo, Preobrazhenskoye. In just one night on May 4, they delivered 1.8 tons of ammunition, 6.7 tons of food and 1 ton of fuel.

The effectiveness of these flights was appreciated primarily by the enemy: the relationship between the intensity of TB-3 flights and their own losses in battles with cavalry turned out to be direct. And for the first time since the beginning of the war, large forces were sent to destroy this “air bridge”. Cases of failure to complete combat missions due to strong anti-aircraft resistance have become more frequent. The landing sites were bombarded by the enemy. To detect TB-3s in the air, loitering fighters, as soon as signal fires were lit on the sites, dropped SABs at an altitude of about 4000 m. Flying TB-3s were illuminated and became visible to night fighters. In the regiments of the 53rd AD DD there were losses, although not as numerous as they could have been - this was due to the good training of the air gunners.

In August 1942, TB-3 regiments delivered fuel for tankers to the Rzhev area.

TB-3 TB-3s of the 53rd and 62nd AD began their participation in the defense of Stalingrad with the bombing of crossings across the Don. The Battle of Stalingrad required a lot of effort from all forces, and in the fall of 1942 the TB-3 regiments largely stopped participating in landing operations, concentrating on bombing German troops. In mid-1942, a conference was held at the 53rd AD DD, at which the crews of TB-3 bombers shared their combat experience. The units that had this type of aircraft in service (and by that time there were 6 of them on the Soviet-German front) were given recommendations on its effective use.

Conclusion

Despite the skepticism towards the slow-moving giant that prevailed at the beginning of the war, the TB-3 proved to be very worthy and made a significant contribution to the cause of Victory. Moreover, the aircraft was not decommissioned from combat service even after the end of the war - on TB-3, the crews of the 52nd Guards Regiment continued to carry out combat training plans until the fall of 1946.

Dozens of four-engine giants, “floating” in the sky over Red Square during parades, personified the power of Soviet aviation. The TB-3 aircraft became one of the symbols of the USSR Air Force in the 1930s.

The development of a four-engine bomber began under the leadership of Andrei Nikolaevich Tupolev back in 1927. The vehicle, which received the “branded” designation ANT-6, was created taking into account the experience of developing the twin-engine ANT-4 (TB-1) bomber. It incorporated all the typical elements of heavy aircraft of the turn of the 20-30s of the last century: a thick wing profile, corrugated airframe skin, open cockpits, and fixed landing gear.

The ANT-6 prototype first flew on December 22, 1930. Initially, it was powered by American Curtiss and Conqueror engines, but in April 1931 they were replaced by German BMW VIs. Subsequently, this 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine began to be produced in the USSR under license under the designation M-17. It was precisely this power plant that equipped the first production four-engine bombers, which were put into service under the designation TB-3.

The main manufacturer of the TB-3 was aircraft plant No. 22 in Fili near Moscow. The enterprise, built in the early 1920s as a concession of the German company Junker, and subsequently nationalized (taken away from the owner), was the most modern in the USSR. In addition, it was “tailored” for the production of all-metal aircraft. In 1932-1937, 763 TB-3 aircraft were produced in Fili. Another 50 aircraft were produced by Moscow aircraft plant No. 39 in 1932-1934. They were going to start production of TB-3 at plant No. 18 in Voronezh, but after the production of six aircraft they abandoned this intention. Thus, a total of 819 TB-3 aircraft were produced.

MAIN MODIFICATIONS

During production, the TB-3 underwent systematic improvements in two areas - power plant and weapons. Approximately half of all TB-3s produced were equipped with M-17 (715 hp), M-17B or M-17F (730 hp) engines. The small arms of these aircraft consisted of eight 7.62-mm DA machine guns: two were installed in the nose and two upper turrets, one each in the underwing retractable mounts. The nominal mass of the bomb load was 2000 kg, but when overloaded the aircraft could lift 5000 kg of bombs. The crew initially consisted of 12 people, but was later reduced to eight.

With the advent of the M-34 engine with a power of 850 hp. With. Such engines began to be installed on the TB-3. However, everything was limited to a small batch - the efficiency of such a power plant was lower than expected. Geared motors M-34R (830 hp) became more efficient.

173 TB-3R aircraft were manufactured with such engines. In addition to the power plant, they differed in the location of the weapons - one of the upper turrets was moved to the rear of the fuselage, behind the tail.

In 1936, the TB-3RN aircraft appeared with M-34RN engines equipped with superchargers. They not only developed more power (970 hp), but also had better altitude characteristics. In addition, the defensive weapons were once again redone. On the turrets, instead of the DA pairs, single high-speed ShKAS machine guns were installed, and instead of retractable underwing installations, a hatch ventral rifle installation with the same machine gun was installed. The last production version of the bomber was an aircraft with M-34FRN or M-34FRNV engines with a power of 1200 hp. With.

SERVICE AND COMBAT USE

Mass deliveries of TB-3, which began in 1932, allowed the USSR to create powerful strategic aviation. It consisted of heavy bomber brigades, which in 1936 were consolidated into three special purpose armies (AS). In addition to their direct purpose, TB-3 aircraft were widely used to provide combat training for airborne troops. Acting as transport aircraft, they provided landing not only for paratroopers, but also for various equipment, including tankettes. By January 1, 1938, the Red Army Air Force had 626 serviceable TB-3s.

According to the prevailing views in the mid-1930s, TB-3s were to be used during the day, in large groups, with salvo bombing from medium altitudes, with complete air supremacy. The only episode in the entire career of the TB-3 when bombers were used in this way was the battles near Lake Khasan in the summer of 1938. On August 6, Japanese positions near the Zaozernaya hill were bombed by 41 TB-3RNs, which used 1000-kg bombs along with smaller ammunition. In 1939, 23 TB-3s were used at Khalkhin Gol (first as transport aircraft, and from August 19 as night bombers).

The TB-3 armed 7th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment (TBAP), as well as several squadrons detached from other regiments, participated in the Winter War with Finland. At first, TB-3s flew during the day, in single aircraft or in small groups, striking targets with weak air defense. From January 1940, more and more raids were carried out at night, and from March 10, a ban on TB-3 combat missions during the day was introduced. Most of the 7,000 sorties flown by these aircraft during the Winter War were transport missions. Combat losses amounted to five aircraft, another eight were written off due to accidents.

As of February 1, 1940, the Soviet Air Force consisted of 509 TB-3 aircraft. By that time, the low-speed bomb carrier was considered completely obsolete, and it was supposed to be removed from service, replaced by twin-engine aircraft DB-ZF (Il-4) and DB-240 (Er-2).

These plans were not destined to come true. The production of new bombers was behind schedule, and Tupolev's battered four-engine aircraft continued to serve. Moreover, due to repairs, the number of TB-3s even increased slightly: on June 22, 1941, the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army Air Force had 516 TB-3s, and another 25 were in naval aviation. Six heavy bomber regiments were equipped with such aircraft.

AGAINST THE NAZIS

The first combat missions in the Great Patriotic War were carried out on the night of June 23 by TB-3s from the 3rd TBAP, striking enemy troop concentrations. The next night, vehicles of the 1st and 3rd TBAP worked at several German airfields. Such raids continued in the following weeks. TB-3s were also used to fly during the day, which led to significant losses among low-speed bombers. However, the presence of a significant number of TB-3 aircraft in rear districts and educational institutions made it possible to relatively quickly compensate for the losses of the first weeks of the war. If on July 22, 1941, 51 aircraft of this type were operating on the Soviet-German front, then a month later this number increased to 127. The transfer of aircraft from rear units and schools even made it possible to form new regiments - for example, in August 1941, an armed TB-3 325 was created -th TBAP.

In the first, most difficult, months of the war, old bombers played a very noticeable role on the main axes. The Air Force of the Western Front, which was holding back the onslaught on Moscow, had 25 TB-3s on September 25, 1941 (about 40% of the front’s total bomber fleet). On the night of October 9-10, planes of the 1st and 3rd TBAP of this front bombed a concentration of enemy troops south of Yukhnov, the next night near Vyazma, then worked on airfields in Borovsky, Shatalovo, and Orsha. In 1942, TB-3s increasingly focused on transport missions. But from time to time they were also called in for bombing attacks. For example, in July they took part in the bombing of a railway junction in Bryansk. At the same time, one 2000-kg bomb was dropped - the heaviest ammunition used with the TB-3. Aircraft from the 53rd and 62nd Long-Range Aviation divisions took part in the Battle of Stalingrad, bombing crossings across the Don at night. By the end of 1943, regiments armed with TB-3s finally switched to the role of transport aviation, but even as of May 10, 1945, the 18th Air Army (former Long-Range Aviation) had 39 TB-3 aircraft. These vehicles were finally withdrawn from service only at the beginning of 1946.

“LINK” VAKHMISTROV

In June 1931, the Air Force Research Institute, under the leadership of Vladimir Vakhmistrov, began development of the “Link” project, in which a heavy bomber was used as a fighter carrier. Initially, the twin-engine TB-1 was used as a carrier aircraft, then the heavier TB-3. Several configurations of the “Link” were tested, in one of which (dubbed “Aviamatka”) the TB-3 carried five fighters at once: two I-16s were under the wings, two I-5s on the wings, and one I-Z was attached and unhooked under the fuselage already in flight. However, another variant, called “Zveno-SPB”, received practical application - a TR-ZRN carrier aircraft with a pair of I-16s suspended under the wing, adapted for dive bombing. Such a fighter was designated SPB - that is, “high-speed dive bomber.” It could carry two 250 kg FAB-250 bombs.

By the time the Great Patriotic War began, the Zveno-SPB system was in service with the Navy aviation. The Black Sea Fleet had five TB-3RN carrier aircraft. On August 1, 1941, two TB-3RNs fired four I-16s on the approaches to Constanta. The fighters set fire to the oil storage facility and successfully landed at the airfield near Odessa. In the following weeks, several more operations were carried out using Zvena-SPB against targets in Constanta and the Chernovodsky Bridge on the Danube. On September 18, 1941, Zvena planes bombed a pontoon bridge across the Dnieper near Kakhovka, then were used to attack enemy mechanized columns. Some sorties using the Zveno-SPB system were carried out until the fall of 1942.

You might be interested:

• 
  

TB-3 M-17 model 1932

The first production copies of the TB-3, built in 1932, were quite different from the prototype, including in appearance. On the prototype, the ailerons had horn compensation extending beyond the edge of the wing. This was abandoned in the series, and special spring compensators were used to reduce the load on the steering wheels.

The dimensions of the keel and rudder were increased, and the vertical tail became taller.

But the main changes affected the chassis. Since the Soviet rubber industry could not yet master the production of large-diameter tires, and installing small wheels on an aircraft led to unacceptably high ground pressure (TB-3 was intended for operation from field airfields without a hard surface), it was necessary to install two-wheeled landing gear bogies to distribute the load.

The tail crutch was also redesigned. On the prototype it was made of wood and came out from the bottom of the fuselage under the stabilizer. For production vehicles, the crutches were made of metal and attached to the rear edge of the fuselage, so that the shock-absorbing strut passed through the cutout of the rudder.

An interesting feature of the machine was that its design was collapsible. The fuselage was divided into three parts, the wing into 14 parts, and even the keel consisted of two fragments. This was done so that aircraft could be transported over long distances by rail without wasting jet fuel and precious motor resources on flights.

In 1932, the Soviet Air Force received 160 TB-3s. 155 of them were produced by the 22nd plant, and another five were produced by the Menzhinsky aircraft plant N2 39, which was connected at the end of the year to the construction of heavy bombers.

TB-3 M-17 model 1933

As serial production progressed, changes continued to be made to the design of the vehicle. Since 1933, to facilitate the work of the navigator-bombardier, a so-called “cradle” or “beard” began to be made under the bow - a small partially glazed protrusion in which a bomb sight was placed (German Hertz sights were used, and then their Soviet analogues OPB-1 and OPB -2).

To improve the aerodynamics of the wing, the corrugated leading edge skin was replaced with a smooth one, and to reduce flight weight, some of the internal partitions were abandoned. For the same purpose, the radio operator was removed from the crew, and one of the gunners began to perform his duties.

A toilet was installed in the tail. Previously, TB-3 crews were deprived of this seemingly natural and necessary convenience, although flights at maximum range lasted eight to ten hours.

By the end of 1933, the 22nd plant had built 270 bombers with M-17 engines, and the 39th plant had built 37.

TB-3 M-34

Back in 1932, it was planned to begin equipping the TB-3 with new powerful M-34 engines. Unlike the M-17, it was a completely Soviet development. The first 38 copies of the TB-3 with the M-34 left the workshops of the 22nd plant at the end of 1933. For them, streamlined engine nacelles with radiators shifted back were designed.

Early M-34s did not yet have gearboxes. This did not allow large diameter screws to be installed on them for more efficient removal of increased power. Therefore, the performance of bombers with the new power plant improved very little. Nevertheless, in 1933-1934, about 100 TB-3s with gearless M-34s were assembled.

An aircraft with M-34 engines from the so-called “parade ten” - a demonstration group intended to participate in air parades and air shows. It is painted white, the bow is decorated with flags, and the weapons have been removed.

TB-3 M-34R (TB-ZR)

In 1933, the M-34R engine, equipped with a reduction gearbox, was successfully tested, which made it possible to use low-speed large-diameter propellers with increased efficiency. TB-3 with these engines was introduced into mass production in 1934. They were equipped with propellers with a diameter of 4.4 m - almost a meter more than on previous modifications. Flight data jumped sharply, especially the climb rate increased.

In addition to the engines, the new, once again converted TB-ZR engine nacelles had many differences from previous versions. Small arms have changed radically. The extremely inconvenient underwing turrets were removed, and one of the Tur-6 turrets was moved from the middle of the fuselage to its rear end. Thanks to this, she received a very wide and practically unlimited firing zone of the rear hemisphere.

To accommodate the turret, the rear fuselage and tail had to be completely redesigned. The keel and rudder became higher, and a semicircular cutout appeared at the bottom of the rudder. Protection from below was provided by a hatch machine-gun installation in the bottom of the fuselage.

The tail crutch was replaced with a wheel filled with foam rubber (gusmatic). In addition, this modification was the first to receive a cabin heating system. Flying in winter has become much more comfortable. Other innovations include a trimmer on the rudder, hatches for climbing out onto the wing (the plane was intended to be used not only as a bomber, but also for dropping paratroopers), a pneumatic mail between the front and rear cockpits, an AFA-15 aerial camera and new electrified bomb releasers.

TB-3R were produced by the 22nd plant in 1934-1936; a total of 173 aircraft were built.

TB-3 M-34RN (TB-ZRN)

The development of the M-34RN high-altitude aircraft engine with a driven centrifugal supercharger led to the emergence of the latest and most advanced serial modification of the TB-3. It was planned to go into production at the end of 1934, but the long development of the engine to the required degree of reliability delayed this date by almost a year. It was only in October 1935 that the prototype of a new version of the heavy bomber successfully completed testing.

Outwardly, it was very noticeably different from its predecessors. The characteristic ledge in the forward part of the fuselage disappeared, and instead of the Tur-6 turret exposed to all winds with a twin YES, there appeared a glassed Tur-8 turret with one ShKAC machine gun. Since the rate of fire of the ShKAS was almost twice the rate of fire of the DA, this replacement did not lead to a decrease in defense capability. The same turret with a hemispherical dome appeared at the top of the fuselage. ShKAC was also installed in the tail, protecting the shooter from the oncoming air flow with a sliding transparent visor.

The wing span was increased by almost two meters. Aerodynamics were improved by installing fairings - “fairings” between the wing and fuselage. The two-wheeled chassis bogies were replaced with single wheels of two meters in diameter, the production of which was finally mastered by subcontractors. The M-34RN engines rotated four-blade wooden fixed-pitch propellers, which in the mid-1930s was already considered archaic. In the future, it was planned to replace them with metal variable-pitch propellers, but in reality only a few prototypes and three “presentation” vehicles were equipped with such propellers, which were used to participate in air shows and foreign demonstration flights.

The internal equipment was supplemented with an SPU-7 intercom, with the help of which crew members located in different cabins could communicate with each other.

The TB-ZRN had the highest flight performance of all large-scale modifications of the TB-3. It is not surprising that the military showed increased interest in him. For 1936, the Air Force ordered 185 such bombers. The last of them were commissioned in 1937, after which the production of TB-3 ceased. Some aircraft from the last batch received uprated M-34FRN engines with 1000 hp each. and additional gas tanks in the wing consoles.

Zveno-SPB

In 1931, military engineer B.C. Vakhmistrov put forward the idea of ​​an “airplane” - a bomber carrying fighters, which, in the event of an attack by enemy interceptors, detached from the carrier and entered into battle. “Aviamatki” were supposed to be used when flying deep into enemy lines, where conventional escort fighters could not reach due to lack of fuel. The program was called “Aircraft-Link” or simply “Link”.

Initially, the twin-engine TB-1 bomber was tested as a “womb,” but the appearance of the much more powerful and load-lifting TB-3 immediately turned attention to it.

Experiments on launching fighters in the air from the TB-3 began in 1932. At first, fighters were mounted on top of the wing and fuselage, rolling them there along special wooden ramps. But since this was quite inconvenient, they soon came up with the idea of ​​hanging the planes from below under the wing. The “Aviamatka” was equipped with different types of fighters - , I-7 and . The most suitable option turned out to be with two I-16s. It was eventually brought to practical use, but in a slightly different capacity.

I-16 type 5 fighter from Zvena-SPB, mounted under the wing of a TB-3 with M-34R engines. 250-kilogram high-explosive bombs are suspended under the wing of the I-16. The I-16 could not take off on its own with a bomb load of 500 kg, however, being raised to a height and delivered to the target with the help of its carrier, it turned into a very effective high-speed dive bomber. Such bombers were successfully used by the Soviet Air Force at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

In the summer of 1937, Vakhmistrov came up with a new role for Zven as a composite dive bomber (SPB). The designer's idea was that the carrier should deliver to a given area a pair of fighters loaded with heavy bombs, with which they themselves could not take off. At the same time, the slow-moving aircraft does not enter the air defense zone, and high-speed fighters hit the target from a dive and return home “light.”

The SPB consisted of a TB-ZRN and two suspended below it, each of which in turn carried two 250-kilogram bombs. In 1938, the complex was successfully tested: the fighters accurately placed the bombs on the target - the silhouette of a ship drawn on the ground. As a result, Zveno-SPB was adopted by the Navy aviation and equipped with the appropriate equipment the aircraft of the 18th military transport detachment, as well as the fighters of the 32nd IAP of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force.

G-2

A cargo and passenger modification of the TB-3 (the name stands for “civilian-second”). In 1936, decommissioned and disarmed bombers of obsolete models began to be transferred to the East Siberian, Far Eastern, Central Asian and other peripheral departments of Aeroflot.

The alteration was minimal - they closed the holes for the turrets with metal plugs and made a glazed ceiling over the pilot's cabin. Sometimes passenger seats were installed in the former bomb bay and in the rear fuselage cabin.

By the beginning of 1940, Aeroflot had 41 copies of the G-2, and by the beginning of World War II - 45.

(“Aviaarktika”) Four TB-3RNs, converted in 1936 by order of the Polar Aviation Administration for civilian operation in the Far North. The aircraft received fully enclosed heated cabins, improved air navigation equipment, three-blade variable-pitch propellers with anti-icing systems, single-wheel landing gear and braking parachutes to reduce landing distances.

One of four aircraft of the ANT-6A Aviaarktika type - a civilian modification of the TB-3 with special equipment for operation in polar latitudes. The photo shows that the aircraft is equipped with three-blade propellers, instead of the upper turret there is a large glass window, and the hole for the rear turret is covered with a metal fairing. The pennant of the Main Directorate of the Northern Sea Route is painted on the tail.

Requirements for the bomber's performance grew, forcing it to continue its modernization. The next step was to improve his altitude data. This was a response to the resolution of the Council of Labor and Defense (STO), which stated: “Recognize that the TB-3 ships in their range (1150-1200 km) satisfy the minimum operational requirements, but have a completely insufficient ceiling of about 3000 m in the area targets after 6-8 hours of flight)..."

M-34RN engines with driven centrifugal superchargers were supposed to raise the ceiling. The use of supercharging promised to significantly improve the altitude characteristics of the vehicle. It was planned to have prototypes of the engine of this modification back in December 1932. In reality, this happened much later.

Prototypes of the M-34RN were first delivered to the TB-3 at the beginning of 1934. In this case, aircraft No. 22202, which was previously a prototype of the TB-3R, was used. Factory tests began on March 7, 1934, and state tests took place in August-September. It turned out that the new engines significantly improved speed, climb rate and ceiling. At the factory, the aircraft reached a speed of 280 km/h - approximately 30 km/h higher than the production TB-3R.

UVVS expected to receive serial TB-3s with M-34RN engines (often abbreviated as TB-3RN) already in the same year. Initially it was assumed that the TB-3R airframe with a new power plant would be used. The chassis was still made in the form of two-wheeled bogies, but the bogies were covered with fairings. The main differences lay in the composition of the weapons. The Der-9 cassettes were replaced with more modern KD-2, but with the same number of locks - 26. Instead of YES machine guns, they wanted to install new ShKAS with belt feed at all points. It was assumed that the TB-3RN would first be equipped with five ShKAS machine guns: one in the forward fuselage, two in the upper turret, two in the rear mount. One YES remained in the lower hatch. From February 1935, ShKAS was supposed to appear at this point. The total ammunition was 4,000 rounds.

A few months later they came to the conclusion that, given the high rate of fire of the ShKAS, we could limit ourselves to four machine guns. Three were to be mounted on the new Tur-Tok turrets designed by Tokarev. The fourth is on a pivot in the hatch, with power from the “beard” - the under-barrel box.

Aircraft TB-3 4 M-34RN No. 22570. State tests, October 1935

But the path from the prototype to the series was long. The determining factor here was the reliability of the supercharger. Its first version, two-speed, designed by P.I. Orlov, A.A. Mikulin and A.I. Danilevsky, turned out to be overly complicated. There was no way they could fix the switching device from one speed to another. Then Danilevsky created a simpler, single-speed supercharger. Its characteristics were lower, the rated power was maintained only up to an altitude of 3000 m (in the first version - up to 5000 m). But the experienced motor worked quite reliably with it.

There were also problems with heat stress and unstable operation at low gas. The M-34RN was removed from repeated state tests in September 1934 - the pistons burned out and the piston rings collapsed. The development of the engine plant was carried out jointly by plant No. 22, the Air Force Research Institute, CIAM and engine plant No. 24.

The second reason for the delay in the introduction of the new modification into production was a change in the requirements for small arms. Serial TB-3Rs had a maximum flight speed of about 250 km/h. During their operation in units, it became clear that even at 200-220 km/h it is impossible to conduct aimed fire from open installations, and at 250 km/h it is not even possible to turn the turret forward. On October 2, 1934, the UVVS proposed to postpone the deadline for presenting the standard with M-34RN engines, subject to the modernization of its weapons. It was planned to install an electrified shielded (closed) turret in the nose, moving it down from the position of the old Tur-6 to improve pilots' forward visibility. The middle and aft installations also had to be shielded and mechanized. In the future, they were going to install ShVAK cannons at all these points.

The plan for 1934 included 100 TB-3RN. But already in September, People's Commissar of Heavy Industry Ordzhonikidze proposed cutting this figure by four. Alksnis protested violently, but then was forced to give up: “... assessing the actual situation... we have to agree with the proposals of the People's Commissar of Heavy Industry...”. The plan was reduced to 25 cars.

But they were not built in 1934 either. Moreover, the development of the reference TB-3RN actually took another year. This was partly due to changing requirements for the new modification. On January 25, Alksnis approved new tactical and technical requirements for the TB-3RN. They greatly increased the amount of rework. The UVVS demanded the introduction of a lightweight wing with an increased span (up to 41.65 m), and with spars made of titanium alloy. At the same time, they wanted to completely replace imported chromium-nickel steels with domestic chromium steels in the design. The carts had to be replaced again with single wheels of large diameter, but with brakes and domestic production. The entire chassis was subject to reinforcement taking into account the increase in take-off weight. It was proposed to introduce electrified control of radiators and emergency draining of fuel from console gas tanks. They demanded changes to the equipment: install SPU, radio station 15SUD (RES), rearrange the instrument panels, as well as bombs and small arms. Rifle mounts for ShKAS machine guns have already been discussed. The internal Der-9 cassettes were supposed to be replaced with KD-2 with 26 locks, and additional KD-2 cassettes with 8 locks for sighting and flare bombs were installed in the wing. The UVVS required the TB-3RN standard to be put up for testing by June 1st.

Plant No. 22 responded to the innovation immediately. There are no titanium pipes in the country, just as there are no suitable electric motors to drive radiator shutters. The required electrical equipment does not exist even in prototypes. New instrument panels have not yet been designed at TsAGI. The plant does not have any drawings of the KD-2. And further in the same spirit...

And the most important thing about the new modification is that the M-34RN engines were far from being fully ready. For example, in May 1935, a problem with condensation of the mixture in the supercharger was discovered. Complaints reached Voroshilov himself, who began to threaten GUAP with refusal to accept aircraft with the M-34RN.

Plant No. 24 struggled with the development of serial production of engines. The superchargers kept falling apart. It turned out that their hulls did not correspond to the prototype tested at CIAM. They were thinner, with sharper thickness transitions and casting defects. Only in October 1935 did they receive the first batch of truly suitable engines.

As a result, the standard was fine-tuned by the plant and the Air Force Research Institute for almost the entire 1935. Then they calculated that the fine-tuning took four times longer than planned. Only in October the prototype completed state tests and was approved as the “standard of 1936.” The bomber has changed significantly in terms of airframe, equipment and weapons. Many points of the task were actually completed. The characteristic ledge of the forward fuselage has disappeared. The wingspan increased by more than 2 m. They switched from paired bogies to large brake wheels with a diameter of 2 m. The engines received new hoods and radiators. Now they rotated four-blade propellers with a diameter of 4.1 m. The propellers were still wooden and of a fixed pitch, which was already archaic. True, in the future it was planned to install metal propellers with variable pitch; they were tested at the Air Force Research Institute in 1935. The defensive armament consisted of two shielded Tur-8 turrets - one on top and one in the bow. They were covered with hemispherical plexiglass domes on a metal frame. Each of them had a ShKAS machine gun. The third machine gun of the same type was located in the rear installation. There, the Tur-8 did not have a screen, but if necessary, it was covered with a sliding visor, the sections of which folded like a shell on the tail of a crayfish. The fourth ShKAS on the Tur-7 turret fired into the hatch in the bottom of the fuselage. The Tur-8 was equipped with ANII sights, and the Tur-7 - KPT with an MF-5 front sight.

Bomb FAB-2000 under TB-3RN, 1936

Turret TsKB SV#17

As an alternative to the Tur-8, they tested the TsKB SV No. 1 7 turret designed by Tokarev (aka Tur-Tok). Its rotation was carried out by a pneumatic drive, and the raising and lowering of the barrel was carried out manually. The accuracy of fire during testing turned out to be higher than that of the Tur-8, but the pneumatic motor worked jerkily, and the view through the screen was considered unsatisfactory. In addition, the diameter of the new turret exceeded a meter (they could not fit the pneumatic drive), and installing it on the TB-3 required significant design modifications. I had to give it up.

The range of bomb weapons for the aircraft has expanded significantly - from small “lighters” ZAB-1 weighing a kilogram and 8-kg fragmentation weapons AO-8M2 to the two-ton AF-2000. A novelty was the use of “rotational dispersal” (cluster) bombs RRAB-250, RRAB-500 and RRAB-1000. It was in them that ammunition with a caliber of less than 50 kg was loaded. On the external sling, the TB-3RN could carry chemical weapons - four VAP-500 pouring devices and two VAP-6K. To suspend them from the bomb rack beams, special bridges were attached.

The equipment of the machine has been enriched. In particular, the SPU-7 intercom device appeared on the bomber. This device was created at TsVIRL in 1934 and was first tested on the TB-3 with M-1 7 engines in May of the same year. A year later it was tested on an experimental TB-3 with an M-34RN. The system did not work completely reliably, but communication between crew members was still better than before.

Initially, they wanted to equip the TB-3RN with 11SK-2 radio stations, designed to be powered by an electric generator on a motor, but then they decided to release the first series with the old 1 1SK-2, the dynamo of which was rotated by a windmill.

For 1936, the Air Force ordered 185 TB-3RN. In fact, preparations for their production had been underway since mid-1935, and the plant was just waiting for the final approval of the standard. As of September 1, 60 vehicles had already been docked and 20 of them had installed motors. But the bombers lacked propellers, wheels, and bomb racks. The aircraft was considered especially important for the Air Force along with the Security Service, so daily reports on the state of production and acceptance of finished aircraft were placed on Alksnis’s desk. On February 1, 1936, 82 TB-3RNs were already brought to the factory airfield, where various modifications were made. On February 27, the first three vehicles were flown, and on March 3 they went to Monino for military tests. On the same day, while flying another bomber, No. 22686, an emergency occurred. The plane caught fire in the air - the engine suction pipe fell apart. After this, plant No. 24 sent a team that replaced the cast pipes on all TB-3RNs with welded steel ones.

On April 3, 14 TB-3RNs were already undergoing military trials in Monino. During the tests, the actual consumption of fuel and oil was determined, and training bombings were carried out with various ammunition. For the first time, aircraft of this modification successfully bombed from an altitude of 8000 m. On June 1, one aircraft covered a closed route of 2870 km in 13.5 hours, dropping a ton of bombs on the test site along the way. Thus, they proved the practical range of the vehicle and its radius of action, equal to 1,100-1,200 km. Five days later, the TB-3RN took off from Shchelkovo and landed in Yevpatoria, before dropping bombs into the sea. They also carried out shooting along the route, testing all the machine guns.

TB-3RN was diligently shown to foreign guests. In August 1936, it was demonstrated to the British and French aviation delegations, and a little later to the Minister of War of Afghanistan. When showing the car, they lied - they said that the flight range with two tons of bombs was supposedly 3,500 km. Whether they believed this or not is unknown. But the British were surprised by the installation of fixed-pitch propellers on the plane - they considered it long ago outdated.

TB-3RN in flight

By June 7, 1936, 18 aircraft were sent to various combat units. Priority in receiving new bombers was given to the 23rd Tab in Monino, where military tests were carried out, and units of the OKDVA Air Force. Planes were again flown to the Far East by air. This event was carried out by the combined squadron of the 26th Tab, which underwent retraining in Moscow. Aircraft departing for the Far East were equipped with APR-1 or APR-3 direction finders.

At one of the last stages of the route, Domno - Khabarovsk, an accident occurred. It all started when the command ship got stuck on takeoff. The remaining bombers walked in circles for half an hour, waiting for him to take off. Without waiting, the deputy commander led the group forward. The commander took off only an hour and a half later and went to catch up with his own. Meanwhile, fifteen TB-3RNs were flying above the clouds at an altitude of 5600 m. Having become tired, the crews descended into the clouds. This is where it all started. As it turned out later, even almost all the ship commanders did not know how to truly fly blind. The group dispersed. Four planes landed safely in Bochkarevo, seven in Khabarovsk, and one of the latter without two crew members. The young navigator, in the fifth hour of the flight in the "milk", freaked out and jumped overboard with a parachute. He was followed by a technician who decided that the plane was in an accident. These two were then searched for a long time in the taiga.

Of the five remaining aircraft, three were found the next day. Two made emergency landings and broke down, but the people were alive. The third was destroyed, the crew died. The same thing happened with two more TB-3RNs discovered later.

Nevertheless, distillation was resumed, and a year later there were 45 TB-3RNs in the Far East. They partially staffed the 26th and 28th TB. Aircraft of this type also entered the Leningrad Military District. On January 1, 1937, the Red Army Air Force had 67 TB-3RNs, about two-thirds of them were in combat units.

In operation, the TB-3RN revealed a number of shortcomings. As before, M-34RN engines suffered from fuel condensation in the cold. The motor mounts turned out to be not strong enough, and they began to be replaced with reinforced ones. The oil consumption of the M-34RN was higher than that of the M-34R, and the volume of the oil tanks was the same; On long flights there was not enough oil. Due to the fact that all four engines had the same direction of rotation, the plane turned to the right during takeoff - it was difficult to maintain the takeoff direction. The TB-3RN was equipped with pneumatic tail wheels; With a lot of weight, they often burst on uneven field airfields.

Like the “ceremonial ten”, three “representative” cars for foreign flights were also produced with M-34RN engines. The Soviet aviation delegation led by Alksnis flew to Prague in 1936.

This year was the last year when TB-3s were built in large quantities. The designers continued to work. Back in 1935, even more powerful M-34FRN engines were tested on the aircraft. This engine also took a long time to perfect and went into production only at the end of 1936. It managed to pass state tests only in 1937. Two modifications were produced - M-34FRNA (with four carburetors) and M-34FRNB (with six). Both had a power of 1000/1050 hp.

A disarmed TB-3R, leased by Osoaviakhim, flies to an air festival in Bucharest

TB-3D (No. 22638)

These engines were installed on some aircraft produced in 1937. Several of the latest aircraft received even more powerful M-34FRNV (1050/1200 hp). On the latest TB-3 series, additional gas tanks were installed in the consoles, the aerodynamics were somewhat improved, the control system and equipment were improved, in particular, an SPU-7R intercom and a VHF radio station RES were installed. Vehicles with M-34FRN engines were distinguished by rounded stabilizer tips and developed fairings between the wing and fuselage.

In September-October 1936, on a specially prepared aircraft with then experimental M-34FRNV engines, A.B. Yumashev’s crew set four world altitude records with various loads (up to 12 tons).

Unfortunately, none of the TB-3s received sealed fuel tanks. The first version of such a tank for TB-3 was proposed by engineer Stezhinsky back in 1934. Inside the tank, a brass mesh was stretched parallel to the bottoms, and on the outside the tank was covered with a rubber shell, under which there was... a layer of thick molasses! The new tank weighed 186 kg, 126 kg heavier than usual. The tests ended unsuccessfully. The bullet-ridden “sweet” tanks flowed just like the old ones, without a protector. In January 1935, Stezhinsky took a new sample to the test site, even heavier - 270 kg. The meshes became thicker, and the outer shell was made multi-layered (rubber and molasses were again interspersed). This time the design passed the test. There was a government decree to introduce protected tanks on serial TB-3.

At the same time, the Research Institute of the Rubber Industry (NIIRP) proposed its own tread made from layers of gasoline-resistant and gasoline-swellable rubber, as well as a cord with raw rubber. The NIIRP tank weighed significantly less - 130 kg. In response, Stezhinsky also prepared lightweight tanks - 96 kg. In April 1936, comparative tests were carried out. The NIIRP design won. But such tanks never appeared on the TB-3.

But in 1937 they planned to introduce a completely enclosed heated pilot's cabin and a cannon top mount (with a 20-mm ShVAK cannon).

In parallel, work was carried out on TB-3D with diesel engines. They have been flying since 1935. One of the aircraft was equipped with four AN-1A engines of 900 hp each. These were four-stroke V-shaped 12-cylinder diesel engines, created at CIAM under the leadership of A.D. Charomsky. With lower fuel consumption, they could significantly increase flight range. The experimental TB-3D entered testing in August 1937. The serial TB-3RN was converted to a diesel engine. We made new engine mounts, strengthened the wing by adding two new ribs against each engine, reinforced the fuselage connectors with aluminum tapes, and strengthened the empennage braces. The fuel and oil systems have been changed. The new engines were covered with new hoods and new exhaust manifolds were installed. The diesel engines were rotated by three-bladed metal fixed-pitch propellers with a diameter of 3.45 m. The aircraft became significantly heavier. The weight of an empty TB-3D with incomplete military equipment and weapons was 1,3566 kg, while the serial TB-3RN with full equipment weighed 12,585 kg. This extra weight paid for itself in the form of lower fuel consumption after about 7-8 hours of flight.

Diesel AN-1 on TB-3 aircraft

M-34RN with TK-1 turbochargers and VRSh-34 propellers on the TB-3 aircraft No. 22682

The results of the tests, which took place in two stages - in August-November 1937 and in March 1938, were twofold. On the one hand, the increase in length turned out to be quite significant. Thus, with 1000 kg of bombs, the range increased by 710 km (approximately 20%). The testers successfully completed the flights Kashin - Shchelkovo - Zaporozhye - Evpatoria and Evpatoria - Kharkov - Kyiv - Evpatoria. The speed at the ground dropped slightly compared to vehicles with the M-34RN, and at altitude it increased by 15-30 km/h. The rate of climb has improved - climbing 5000 m took 1.5-2.5 minutes less. The takeoff distance has decreased by more than 40%.

It would seem that there are only advantages. But the reliability of diesel engines left much to be desired. The main problem was unreliable operation at low speeds. The engines stalled while taxiing and, what was much more dangerous, during landing. They wanted to find a solution in the use of new AN-1RTK diesel engines with turbocharging. They planned to install them on the TB-3D and repeat the tests. The next stage was planned to convert ten TB-3RNs into diesel engines and conduct military tests. But these decisions remained unfulfilled. In 1938, the TB-3D crashed, in which the aircraft technician died.

We also worked to improve the altitude characteristics of the motor unit. There were two directions here. Group S.A. Treskina from the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1935 created the central pressurization unit ACN-1. The fifth M-34 engine, located in the fuselage, rotated a powerful compressor that supplied compressed air to the four main engines. ACN-1 was built and successfully tested on TB-3. The disadvantage of this scheme was the cumbersome system of long air ducts. Subsequently, a similar ACN-2 system (driven by an M-YUZA engine) was used on early TB-7s.

The use of turbocharging was considered a more promising direction. In April-July 1939, the Air Force Research Institute tested the TB-3RN, on which TK-1 turbochargers were installed in the Research Institute's workshops

(two on each motor). During the modification, it was necessary to replace the engine hoods, suction pipes, and redo the cooling system. The changes raised the empty weight of the car by 463 kg. At first, the aircraft was tested with standard wooden four-blade propellers, but at altitudes of more than 6500 m (almost at the practical ceiling of a regular TB-3RN), overspin of the propellers appeared. We had to throttle the engines, which affected the speed. Then the bomber was equipped with experimental VRSh-34 automatic propellers, created at the Air Force Design Bureau under the leadership of Bas-Dubov.

Testers Lisitsin, Datsko and Khripkov were tasked with determining whether it would be advisable to remake aircraft in the Air Force units in a similar way. Turbocharging raised the bomber's ceiling to 8900 m - more than 2000 m. But the aircraft did not receive any other advantages. The maximum speed increased by 10-15 km/h, and it was achieved at an altitude of 7000-8000 m. Below, there was almost no gain, and near the ground the speed even dropped a little. The rate of climb up to the 5000 m mark has deteriorated. The automatic propellers provided some reduction in the take-off run, but did not provide anything else. Moreover, the pitch switching mechanism constantly failed due to fluid leaks.

TB-3 4M-34RN TK No. 22682

The reliability of the first Soviet turbochargers was also very low. This was determined, first of all, by the lag of the domestic metallurgy - there were no suitable heat-resistant alloys. Turbochargers did not last long and constantly suffered from burnouts of manifolds, broken blades and destruction of turbine disks.

Flights at high altitudes also revealed the archaism of the open cockpit. Increasing the ceiling urgently required the transition to an enclosed heated cabin.

All this together led to the conclusion of the Air Force Research Institute: “It is not practical to modernize the serial TB3-4AM34PH aircraft located in combat units of the Red Army Air Force...”

But all this is the development of traditional power plants with piston aircraft engines. Much more exotic designs were also prepared for TB-3. For example, they tried to convert the bomber to steam propulsion. On August 14, 1934, the head of the Air Force approved the technical specifications for the PT-1 steam turbine unit with a total power of 3000/3600 hp. The main goal was to switch to cheaper and more accessible fuel - crude oil or fuel oil.

The development of the PT-1 was carried out by the design bureau at the Kirov plant in Leningrad. Two turbines of 1500 hp each. (with a short-term boost to 1800 hp) were installed on the wing on sub-engine frames. A common boiler-steam generator with a turbofan, a pump group with an auxiliary turbine and all plant controls were located in the fuselage. There were also starting pumps and a blower fan, powered by an auxiliary gasoline engine. They wanted to install the capacitors, each of four sections, in the “slots” in the wing. The TB-3 flight engineer was supposed to operate the installation.

By 1937, the pilot unit was manufactured and brought to the required level of reliability (a TBO of at least 100 flight hours was required). But tests on the ground showed that the two turbines together developed only 1,600 hp, which was significantly less than the minimum power required for takeoff of the TB-3RN (about 2,200 hp). If we consider that the installation weighed more than three tons, then the feasibility of its installation on an aircraft became very doubtful. They tried to modify it, but in September 1938 they decided to leave it as a ground test bench for testing design innovations.

Can you imagine a turboprop TB-3? There was such a project. The GT-1 engine (“aviation internal combustion turbine”) was more likely a turboshaft engine – akin to modern tank and helicopter engines; it did not use the energy of exhaust gases; it did not have a jet nozzle. The order for the gas turbine plant was issued in October 1934. It was developed by the Thermotechnical Institute. Even before the official issuance of the assignment, they prepared the general layout of the installation.

The layout was more consistent with the traditions of shipbuilders than with the “real” turboprop engines that appeared later. The compressor with its own turbine and intermediate radiator-intercooler stood separately in the fuselage. From there, the air went into the wing, where the “gas generators” (combustion chambers) and working turbines that rotated the propellers were located. A reduction gearbox was located between the propeller and the turbine. They wanted to move the turbine and gearbox forward of the wing, placing it on the sub-engine frame. Since Soviet metallurgy could not provide the designers with the necessary heat-resistant alloys, the disks and blades of the turbines were going to be cooled with water. The plane had to carry a supply of water for 15 hours of flight. Interestingly, they again wanted to use crude oil or fuel oil as fuel, as on ships. The installation was going to be started from some kind of “starting drive”, most likely from an auxiliary piston motor.

One turbine was supposed to produce 1000 hp. The weight of the installation was specified as two tons, the service life was 100 hours.

GT-1 was considered a purely experimental work, the purpose of which was to study the applicability of gas turbine plants on aircraft. It was planned to convert one TB-3 into a flying laboratory equipped with two turbines. External cylinder engines were going to be retained, since the GT-1 did not have enough power for takeoff and for in-flight insurance.

Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to find any materials on the implementation of this idea. Whether the GT-1 was built is unknown. In any case, it was not installed on the plane.

In 1936, the RNII worked on reducing the take-off distance using rocket boosters. It turned out that installing missiles required a serious change in the design of the machine (against the harmful effects of the gas jet), which no one wanted to do.

Missile weapons were also designed there for the four-engine giant. Also in 1936, they proposed a project to equip the TB-3 with 245 mm caliber rockets. And in December 1938, an aircraft with YuFS-203 shells was tested at the Scientific Research Site of Aviation Weapons (NIPAV).

TB-3 with rocket guns

But all these new features were not adopted on the serial TB-3. And in general, the time of the slow corrugated bomb carrier is gone. The modification of the TB-3 with the M-34FRN was the pinnacle of improvement of the TB-3, but by this time the aircraft had already begun to become obsolete. Representatives of a new generation of heavy bombers - high-altitude and high-speed - have appeared in the world. In December 1936, the ANT-42 (TB-7) entered testing, and in 1937 the United States created the Boeing 299, the future “Flying Fortress” B-17. Against this background, the corrugated skin, fixed landing gear and open pilot's cabin of the TB-3 looked anachronistic. The aircraft’s lag behind the latest developments of other countries was already noted in the conclusion based on the results of state tests of the M-34RN variant. Therefore, car production gradually began to decline. In 1937, Plant No. 22 delivered only 22 bombers, and another one - Plant No. 18. In the spring of 1938, the last TB-3 was released in Moscow, and in May the 23rd TBB received it in Monino.