# Sturmovik: how good was it really?



## wiking85 (Feb 3, 2015)

Pretty much what it says on the tin, was the Sturmovik really all that good or was it just a question of quantity having a quality all its own? I've read mixed things about it being poorly made and highly vulnerable and it was only the fact that Germany was forced to shift its air force to other theaters starting in late 1942 that made it a viable weapon due to lack of German fighters hunting them; that and there were a lot of them and the Soviets didn't care about losses, so they pushed home the attacks regardless of risk.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 3, 2015)

Years ago I read "Red Star Against the Swastika" by Vasily B Emelianenko, a Sturmovik pilot. His account of his experiences is not flattering to the machine .... underpowered, a sitting duck when first introduced without the rear gunner, engine cooling problems, bad vibrations, the design never met the original specifications. He writes with eny of the Stuka as well engineered machines.

Having said all that they provided good pilot protection with the 'tub' that enclosed the engine, radiator and pilot ... rear gunner not so much.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 3, 2015)

I dunno about the "highly vulnerable" bit. I've always read that they were difficult to bring down. Either had to kill the pilot outright or hit the cooling system.


----------



## GregP (Feb 3, 2015)

At their peak of development, they were VERY hard to bring down. The armor tub is amazing. It looks like it's an inch thick! 

Of course, the PILOT was armored. The rear gunner wasn't, so the gunners died in droves while the planes kept flying.

To effectively shoot them down you had to get LOWER than the Sturmovik ... which typically flew at 50 - 150 feet high, and take careful aim at the oil cooler.

The Germans found it VERY hard to kill them with Bf 109s and Fw 190s.

Yes, they were slow and underpowered, but they got the bomb there, dropped it, and got home most of the time. If it hadn't been for the armor, it would have been a TERRIBLE plane ... but it DID have the armor and wasn't. The early Klimovs weren't anything to write home about, but with development (the Typhoon and Tempest ALSO had engine development issues, as did several others, and they were worked through, too) the Klimovs were reliable and, more important, operated in conditions that our engines could NOT operate in most of the time.

From the viewpoint of the gunner, it was TERRIBLE. From the viewpoint of the pilot it was great. From an effectivity standpoint, it was stupendous. All that said, neither the USA nor the UK would have accepted it into service.

If you ever get a chance, go see Paul Allen's IL-2.

Here is Steve Hinton flying Paul ALlen's Il-2:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXejUgnxQps_

The engine, if you notice, turns left. Since there are zero running Klimovs in the world and only one running Mikulin ... sometimes, anyway, Paul Allen wanted the IL-2 as original as it could be. He used an overauled IL-2 prop and installed a left-turning Allion from Joe Yancey. It is the ONLY left-turning Allison installed in other than a P-38 anywhere in the world. It fits, it flies, and there is no possibility of getting enough Klimov parts to make a complete, running engine ... so you do what you can. The Allison makes a bit more HP than the Klimov, but it is still underpowered according to Steve. Paul Allen bought the airframe and had it restored as original as possible (everything but the engine and a modern radio and the required US instruments for flight in the USA), including using paint colors from Soviet tanks that were used originally by the Soviet Union for the IL-2! .. and new tires.

I do believe he used cable from US suppliers, though, for the control cables, and US-made turnbuckles for the connections to the Soviet control horns. Otherwise it is STOCK, though it is not allowed to SMELL stock. Most IL-2's were allowed to get very oily and dirty ... and they did NOT smell good when you got close or in the cockpit.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you like the smell of oil and grease everywhere. This IL-2 is CLEAN, like everything in his collection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2015)

Erich Hartmann's first victory, was over an IL-2 (5 November 42) and went on to down 14 more during his career. Alfred Grislawski downed 16, Walter Krupinski downed 12. Gerhard Thyben scored 28 victories over the IL-2 and Gerhard Barkhorn had 33.

Helmut Lipfert held the impressive tally of 38 IL-2 aircraft downed however, one of the heavy hitters against the IL-2, was Otto Kittel, who had a tally of 94 IL-2 aircraft downed.

And this is just a small example of how the IL-2 fared against the Luftwaffe. It was a tough aircraft, but was not invincible.


----------



## GregP (Feb 4, 2015)

No, not invincible. 

But Erich Hartmann had a score of 352 victories ... and only 15 were IL-2's despite being the plane he saw the most. That says a LOT. Ditto for others on the Russian Front, where the IL-2 was the low altitude king of being the most numerous and among the hardest to shoot down.

Go look at how may LaGG's he shot down .... it was 189. That's a damned far cry from 15.

Barkhorn got 20 IL-2s but more of 4 other types including LaGG-3, LaGG (probably a -3), Lagg-5 (an La-5 in reality) and the P-39. 

I haven't seen a breakout for Rall and his 275 victories, but I seriously dolubt the IL-2 was at the top or anywhere NEAR the top. But ... he did see them the most ... and they were slow ... and they were probably shot at often.

Nowotny shot down 24 IL-2s but 38 La-5s that were MUCH more capable aircraft and 74 LaGG-3s that, while sluggish by fighters standards, were head and shoulders better performers than Il-2s were.


So ... the lowest-performing modern Soviet warplane of the war .... was shot down VERY significantly less than the fighters. They made over 36,000 IL-2s, 6528 LaGG-3s, 9920 La-5s .... so the aces there saw IL-2s about 3.5 times more than La-5s, about 5 times more than LaGG-3s, and WAY more than P-39s ... and the top guys ALL got fewer Il-2s than all the others.

I'd say it was a tough SOB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2015)

Ok, fair enough...how many RAF pilots shot down more Stukas than Bf109s? I simply posted a few out of hundreds of Luftwaffe pilots that downed a good many IL-2s.


----------



## GregP (Feb 4, 2015)

If you can FIND those data ... I'd appreciate knowing where. The I'd research it and answer.

I can find data for VERY few Luftwaffe pilots as far as the breakdown goes, but I DID find it for the pilots posted above. I'm sure you have it, too.

Any sources you want to pass along for your question? I have gross numbers by name but not a breakout by victim type. The aerial victory credits I have accumulated over 30+ years give totals, but not the victim type OR by the type the pilot was flying ... jujst aerial victores awarded.

The USA vetted its victories after WWII, but I NEVER seen a post-war confirmed list for any other country in the world.
Hence I DO have a VERY good list the Luftwaffe CLAIMS (about 63,324) ... but not a list of confirmed victories by victiom type that includes names.

The Luftwaffe claims ist, as stated above, is 63,324 aircraft in a file. The most claimed aircraft is the Spitfire at 4,997. The second-most-claimed aircraft is the Il-2 at 4,850.

They made 20,000 Spitfires and 36,000+ IL-2s or about 1.75 times as many.

The third aircraft on the claims list is the B-17 with 4,296 claimed, followed by the LaGG-3 at 3,381. Number 5 is the B-24 at 2,192. Number 56 is the Lancaster at 2,038 ... and it goes on from there ... they DID claim 1 P-61 Black Widow.

As stated, these are CLAIMS files, not confirmed victories.

I have NOTHING for the British claims or victories broken out by victim type, but would LOVE to get it.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 4, 2015)

They couldn't shoot down that many Il-2 as they protected their weak spot very well by flying at treetop level. If they were spotted at higher alt they were in deep trouble if the attacker news their weak spot and was able to hit it there.
Stukas on a standard bomb mission had to fly higher for dive bombing and were extremely vulnerable there. It wasn't that easy if they flew low over ground or water due to its rapid firing twin rear gun. The MG 15 in earlier version was no real help there due to limited ammo in the drums


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2015)

Here's a quote from a monograph done on the Illyushin Il-2 in Aeroplane Monthly by Yefim Gordon back in 2001; "The Luftwaffe Command claimed that the Russians lost no fewer than 6,900 Il-2s in 1943 and 7,300 in the following year. Although these figures are exaggerated by a factor of 2 to 2.2, the real losses were nonetheless substantial. In 1943 one Il-2 was shot down in 26 sorties, and even fewer in certain operations. Approximately half of those were shot down by enemy fighters, the others falling to anti-aircraft fire."

"Assessing the main reasons for these great losses, Soviet Air Force C-in-C, A. Novikov stated that individual pilot and unit training was not to blame; he saw flawed tactical proceedures in attack aircraft operations as the main cause. On almost all fronts, Il-2 pilots adopted a particular technique to which they rigidly adhered, approaching a target at 3,300 to 4,900 feet without considering its nature, then gliding down and recovering after the attack with a turn to port. The Germans soon noticed this and, anticipating their attackers' manoeuvres, prepared their AA defences before the Il-2s appeared over the battlefield."

"The Bf 109s and Fw 190s attacked successfully when the Il-2 gunners grew careless, and the strike group's formation was broken. A damaged Il-2 falling behind the group often became the victim of German fighters. Attack aircraft pilots often failed to use effective defensive tactics, and gunners were not always sufficiently well trained in aggressive fire techniques."

According to the article, much effort was put into reducing these shortcomings and by 1944 the type's losses had fallen dramatically as a result, a figure quoted was, within the 3rd Air Army, airframe losses were 2.8 percent of the number of sorties. Gen von Sauken Commander of the East Prussia Group in the final stages of the war. He wrote: "The effectiveness of Russian aviation activity in the Danzig Region was enormous, and petrified the troops. Neither our air power nor our powerful artillery could oppose their air power."

It's interesting to note that the Il-2 was also used as a fighter interceptor during the war, although ineffective against German fighters, it did quite well against bombers and transports, particularly against Ju 52/3ms and Fw 200s engaged in resupply and evacuation duties during Stalingrad. The type did well against Ju 87s, whose defensive armament was little match for the Il-2's armour plating. As a result of this apparent success, a pure fighter interceptor version, the Il-2I (for Istrebitel) was built and underwent trials, but since its performance was not much improved over the two-seaters, it was not continued with.

The Il-2 was widely liked and easy to fly. Pilot A Yefimov: "it was one of the easiest aircraft to master. There were no difficult instrument opperations to distract the pilot from aiming at the target. The aircraft forgave even serious piloting errors."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

Pluses of the Il-2: well armored to withstand the most common German Flak - 20mm; 

Minuses: low speed and, for the 1st two years, lack of rear gunner - the fighter pilots can lob the cannon fire on it without much problems; small bomb load (600 kg max, 400 kg normal); until the AM-38F arrived they were not carrying second crew member AND max bomb load; installation of 37mm cannons also have had to wait until a more powerful engine was installed; 

It might be the case of one major plus outweights several small minuses. If one want to 'delete' the threat from light AAA from the 'threat list', the Il-2 was probably the way to go. We might recall that Germany was fielding around 10000 (ten thousand) 20 mm Flak barrels by the time they attacked SU, and majority of those were deployed on East.



GregP said:


> ...
> The engine, if you notice, turns left. Since there are zero running Klimovs in the world and only one running Mikulin ... sometimes, anyway, Paul Allen wanted the IL-2 as original as it could be. He used an overauled IL-2 prop and installed a left-turning Allion from Joe Yancey. It is the ONLY left-turning Allison installed in other than a P-38 anywhere in the world. It fits, it flies, and there is no possibility of getting enough Klimov parts to make a complete, running engine ... so you do what you can. The Allison makes a bit more HP than the Klimov, but it is still underpowered according to Steve. Paul Allen bought the airframe and had it restored as original as possible (everything but the engine and a modern radio and the required US instruments for flight in the USA), including using paint colors from Soviet tanks that were used originally by the Soviet Union for the IL-2! .. and new tires.
> 
> I do believe he used cable from US suppliers, though, for the control cables, and US-made turnbuckles for the connections to the Soviet control horns. Otherwise it is STOCK, though it is not allowed to SMELL stock. Most IL-2's were allowed to get very oily and dirty ... and they did NOT smell good when you got close or in the cockpit.
> ...



Good post.
A note about engines: Klimovs and Mikulins were not related engines. Under 8000-10000 ft, on same setting the AM-38 will have much more power than M-105 or V-1710; the AM-38F will have more power on emergency setting than VK-105F or V-1710.
Klimov engines were never installed in the Il-2. An Il-2 with V-1710 will certainly be underpowered.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 4, 2015)

When RAF pilots evaluated the type they claimed that armour was the best they had seen so far. I think the main issue with the type was the combination of untrained crews and bad quality due to factories evacuation. Also, VVS was not able to provide a proper escort.

By 1944 tactics and armament (PTAB bombs) had been refined and the type was operating very successfully.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

By 1944 the Soviets were also able to provide more/better escort, than prior 1943. It took quite some time (until late 1942/early 1943?) to improve the fit finish.
The installation of the 37mm cannons was not sattisfactory, the cannons on each wing were not to be persuaded to fire in same split second, and the resulting uneven recoil, thus spoiling the aim. PTAB bombs were better solution to the problem, those will also harm 'soft' vehicles better than solid AP shot.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 4, 2015)

> The installation of the 37mm cannons was not sattisfactory, the cannons on each wing were not to be persuaded to fire in same split second, and the resulting uneven recoil, thus spoiling the aim. PTAB bombs were better solution to the problem, those will also harm 'soft' vehicles better than solid AP shot.



A few weeks ago I was discussing about armament with a Russian guy. He could not understand why Luftwaffe pressed ahead with cannon versions of Ju 87 and Hs 129 instead of using PTAB bombs. They had a similar model for airfield attacks (SD4) but nothing against tanks/vehicles.


----------



## stona (Feb 4, 2015)

The numbers game, Ju 87/IL-2, is not simple.
How many Sturmoviks did the Soviets operate and for how long on the Eastern Front? In July 1940 the Luftwaffe had about 280 Ju 87s in France, a few months later they were gone. Many 11 Group pilots never saw one.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

Didnt the IL2 routinely operate from bases so close to the front that only standing patrols would have any chance of catching them attacking?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

That pretty much goes for a lot CAS and short range interdiction. Not many countries had radar _with_ the front line army troops (at least in the first few years of the war) and even hitting a rail point 50 miles behind the lines gives you only 15 minutes warning for a 200mph bomber. This also assumes that the bombers fly a straight line after crossing the front 

Dog leg takes more time but defending fighters have to cover more space. 

IL-2 was important to the Russians because their fighters were pretty crappy at ground attack. The IL-2 carried twice the number of guns (roughly) as a Russian fighter and twice the _normal_ bomb load. and once the 23mm cannon start showing up in quantity it is no contest. "The total weight and filling of HE rounds were more than twice that of the 20 mm ammunition used by the ShVAK and Berezin B-20 cannons.The armor-piercing round could penetrate 25 mm (1 in) of armor at 400 m (1,300 ft)" 
The Russian 20mm cannon used a light projectile. 
You would need 2-3 Laggs or Yaks for every IL-2, and that is the comparison the Russians had to make, not if it was better than a German airplane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm not sure that we should use fighters as a measure for value of ground attack aircraft qualities. Use of fighters to do the ground attack should take a back seat to use of bombers for that work.


----------



## stona (Feb 4, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that we should use fighters as a measure for value of ground attack aircraft qualities. Use of fighters to do the ground attack should take a back seat to use of bombers for that work.



But the reference was to 'CAS and short range interdiction' which was carried out largely by fighters for the RAF and USAAF and to a considerable extent, late war, by the Luftwaffe. The Soviets had a purpose built aircraft for the task (doctrine again) but the comparison with fighters tasked as fighter bombers is valid in this context I think.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Njaco (Feb 4, 2015)

GregP said:


> If you can FIND those data ... I'd appreciate knowing where. The I'd research it and answer.
> 
> I can find data for VERY few Luftwaffe pilots as far as the breakdown goes, but I DID find it for the pilots posted above. I'm sure you have it, too.
> 
> ...




If you have the time, I think Tony Woods claim sheets might have that for you.


----------



## Juha (Feb 4, 2015)

On Il-2
a) IIRC up to early 44 the produced Il-2s had wooden rear fuselages and maybe wooden outer wings too. So 190 with its four 20mm cannons could simply shot the rear part of Il-2 to pieces. One other way to down Il-2 was to attack from side shooting at wing root, AP rounds of MG 151 should be able to penetrate there if the angle wasn't too acute and ignite the plane because there was a fuel tank there. So Il was a hard but not an impossible nut to crack.
b) At first Il-2s were a problem to 20mm AA but using 50/50 mix of Minen and AP rounds that was overcome. Same to Finns, the number of Il-2 CLAIMS of the highest scoring 40mm and 20mm AA batteries were appr. identical.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Feb 4, 2015)

LW's top Il-2 claimers Stormovik Killers


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that we should use fighters as a measure for value of ground attack aircraft qualities. Use of fighters to do the ground attack should take a back seat to use of bombers for that work.



Ok, Russians had the SU-2







Powered, in most part, by the M-88 engine 1000-1100hp clone/development of Gnome-Rhone K/N.
Four forward firing 7.62 mg and one or two 7.62s for rearward defense. A rugged plane but not armored like an IL-2. Practical bombload not much different. 

Needed escorting fighters to survive. 

SB-2 bombers? 






two forward firing 7.62 mgs, and while the bomb load is better this aircraft is rather similar to a Blenheim in performance in most versions. Use of under wing racks on later versions boost bomb load but costs performance. 

DB-3? 





Kind of like using a HP Hampden for close support 

Leaves the PE-2






And now we are into the 2 small engines vs one big one and 3 man crew vs 1-2man crew and so on.


----------



## davebender (Feb 4, 2015)

And that's all it needed to be. Might be a different story if Soviets tried to fight a mechanized army that included plenty of mechanized light flak.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

stona said:


> But the reference was to 'CAS and short range interdiction' which was carried out largely by fighters for the RAF and USAAF and to a considerable extent, late war, by the Luftwaffe. The Soviets had a purpose built aircraft for the task (doctrine again) but the comparison with fighters tasked as fighter bombers is valid in this context I think.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



The comparison above was with Soviet-made fighters: _2-3 Laggs or Yaks for every IL-2_ (ie. fighters needed to do the job of one Il-2). 
The Germans used the Ju-87 as an attack aircraft, and persisted with Hs 129. The USAF have had the 'attack' aircraft category, eg. A-20, A-26, A-36, while initially wanted also the SBD (A-24) and SB2C (A-25), Vultee Vengenace (A-31). Italians wanted the Breda Ba.65 to do the similar job. In the RAF, the Lysander was to support Army.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 4, 2015)

The Il2 is terribly overestimated.
It had strong armor but that s all. A bf 109 with single MG151 need careful aiming but scored heavily against the IL2, Fw s with 4x20mm had not problem at all,the Mk 108 30mm equiped bf 109s could completely destroy the Il2 at will.
In order to protect the IL2 s the soviets used their fighters like Human shields. They were placing their fighters just above the Il2s, sitting ducks for the higher flying german fighters. Also , since Human life was of no concern to them, the gunners were totaly unprotected.Can we discuss seriously about such choises?
The surviving rate of il2 improved durin 44/45 only because of the very few german fighters present on the Eastern front, the massive presence of soviet fighters, and the American long range fighters
Furthermore the Claims of the il2 units, very often have no touch with reality. Often claiming 2-3 times the Number of tanks availamble to the german unit they attacked
It was a CAS aircraft with liquied cooled engine, limited bomb load,unprotected gunner,very poor quality production, poor gun sights, with limited instumentation,
It s not true that it was invulnerable to 20mm and 37mm flak.It suffered very heavu casualties.
I wonder what history would say for the Il2 , if LW could keep 6-7 figter wings(as in Barbarossa) on the Eastern front for the entire war

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok, Russians had the SU-2...
> Needed escorting fighters to survive.



Il-2 also needed fighter escort to survive 
But, agreed, it is a dead duck, like Devastator, Kate, Battle, Stuka, when going against half decent air defense.




> SB-2 bombers? ...
> two forward firing 7.62 mgs, and while the bomb load is better this aircraft is rather similar to a Blenheim in performance in most versions. Use of under wing racks on later versions boost bomb load but costs performance.



Not the best platform either. Ditch the bombardier so cannons can be installed? The rear gunner is there from day one. Flak will tear it to pieces, though, not just because the protection is at low level.



> DB-3?
> Kind of like using a HP Hampden for close support



Yep, not much of a sturmovik 



> Leaves the PE-2
> And now we are into the 2 small engines vs one big one and 3 man crew vs 1-2man crew and so on.


[/QUOTE]

The Pe-2 have had the bigger bomb load than the Il-2, 600-1000 kg vs. 400-600 kg of the Il-2. One needs 10 Stormoviks to deliver what 6 Pe-2 were capable? 10 big engines vs. 12 small ones, also 10 pilots vs. six for the Pe-2 force.
Also it have greater speed, that precluded LW fighters racking scores on it, unlike what was the case for the Il-2. It did have rear gunner, the Il-2 won't get it until the uprated AM-38F is installed. The gun armament of the Pe-2 was lighter, though; the installation of 23mm cannons meant that max bomb load for the Il-2 is 400 kg.
Pe-2 also sported twice the range of the Il-2, and Soviet Union was a vast land. It was also better built, so the actual performance was far closer to prototypes than it was the case for the Il-2, that was 30-50 km slower than own prototype (TsKB-55P, same engine). More than 11400 Pe-2 was produced.
Granted, the Il-2 was better armored.

Too bad the Soviets did not adopted the Tupolev's '103', but with AM-38, into production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

The 23mm cannon was a powerful weapon for ground attack, trouble is it weighed 68kg compared to the 20mm ShVAk's 40kg. Next problem is that that the ammo weighed 2 1/2 times as much per round. IL-2 with 150 rpg was carrying 140kg worth of 23mm ammo not including belt links. 

You _could_ stick it other aircraft but a pair of them is going to have an impact on bomb-load/performance no matter what you stick them in. 
On the PE-2 you normally had two 7.62mgs or one 12.7mm mg and one 7.62mg firing forward. Adding about 100kg worth of guns and a bit over 100kg worth of ammo to the PE-2 means something is happening  

Most any bombload over 600kg involved outside bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 4, 2015)

the russian front is where LW pilots racked up hundreds of kills...this specks volumes about the equipment ( with lack of armor ), pilot training, and tactics of the ussr.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 4, 2015)

The STURMOVICK was, like the T-34 tank, a representative Soviet design, reflecting design/manufacturing capabilities of the time and Soviet leadership's attitude to '_acceptable_' losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

Soviets also designed the KV and IS series of heavy tanks, along with Pe-2 and Tu-2 bombers, that would look good in any armed force of ww2 

@ Shortround6:
All fair points - the Pe-2 was a compromise that worked well. 
Number of guns was two 12.7mm (three 12,7mm from 1942 on) and two 7,62mm (one 7,62 from 1943 on, with version Pe-2B), per Khazanov and Gordon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Number of guns was two 12.7mm (three 12,7mm from 1942 on) and two 7,62mm (one 7,62 from 1943 on, with version Pe-2B), per Khazanov and Gordon.



Yes but one 12.7mm gun was fired out the top rear and one 12.7mm gun fired out the lower rear hatch. Sometimes a fifth gun was carried, a 7.62 that could be shifted from one side of the fuselage to the other for "beam" defense. 

For strafing/ground attack you pretty much have the forward firing guns without the plane or crew-members performing acrobatics. 

On an IL-2 the guns were a large part of the ground attack armament. On the PE-2 not so much. PE-2 wasn't going to handle ground fire as well either, (lots of 7.9mm bullets). Hitting the PE-2 would be harder as it was faster but the Germans had an awful lot of MG 34s and 42s and the reason for the high rate of fire was the AA role.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

I'll get back to a design what was IMO a better use of Mikulin's engines, the ANT-58, or aircraft '103', the predecessor of the Tu-2. The data about it and the '103U' (the 4-seater; '103' was 3-seater) can be accessed here (link), translation of a table from Shavrov's book; can be translated online (the '10ZU' is actually the '103U' - typo). Despite the high-alt engines, it's prototype was 40-60 km/h faster at SL than the prototypes of Il-2 powered by low-alt engine. 1000-2000 kg of bombs, 2 cannons + defensive MGs.
Please note the coolers buried in the wings, often found in Soviet designs of the era. Again, too bad it was not produced with AM-38 aboard.


----------



## GregP (Feb 4, 2015)

Hi Tomo,

Of course you are right, my memory got the Mikulin and Klimov backwards. I checked with Joe Yancey and he said that he thought Paul Allen HAD a Soviet prop, but there was too much corrosion and they went with an American prop (from a DC-3) instead so they could fly. They are still looking for a Soviet prop that can be restored to running order, so far without luck.

Njaco, thanks for the possible source! I really appreciate that!

I have offered my claims list on here before and I think I posted it once, but any updates would be very good to get when I'm not preparing to teach a new course. That usually takes all the spare time, at LEAST for the first semester you teach it. After that, things settle down. So I'll be visiting that page when I get the chance. Again, much thanks ...


----------



## davebender (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm under the impression KV series heavy tank was a lemon with terrible reliability record and a relatively weak 76mm main gun. Reliability was so poor even by Soviet standards that later versions had less armor in a futile hope that less weight would place less strain on the drivetrain. 

Sure it looked invincible when confronted by German light tanks during 1941 but that situation changed completely when Germany began fielding medium tanks during 1942. Soviet's own evaluation admitted KV was far inferior to the German heavy tank (i.e. Tiger) when Germany finally began fielding heavy tanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

Once again, timing is everything. 

In the Summer of 1941 there were around five hundred KV tanks . 

The *relatively weak 76mm main gun* was actually the most powerful commonly mounted tank gun in the world in 1941, and was pretty much equal in power to the 75mm guns mounted in Grants, Shermans and a host of British tanks. 

Again timing is key, what was a powerful gun in 1941 was distinctly 2nd rate in 1943/44, just as what was first rate in 1942 (German L48 gun) was 2nd rate in late 1944 and 1945. 

Just what _medium_ tank did Germany begin fielding in 1942? 

MK IV had been fielded years before and the Panther wasn't fielded until 1943. 

KV did have number of problems but then it was the first _heavy_ tank built in large numbers (by the hundreds if not thousands when other heavies were being built by the dozen).


----------



## net_sailor (Feb 5, 2015)

alejandro_ said:


> A few weeks ago I was discussing about armament with a Russian guy. He could not understand why Luftwaffe pressed ahead with cannon versions of Ju 87 and Hs 129 instead of using PTAB bombs. They had a similar model for airfield attacks (SD4) but nothing against tanks/vehicles.


The SD4 bomb had an V shaped charge for cumulative effect, and could penetrate 60 mm armour on 60 deg. hit angle. Introduced on front units in March 1944 were stored in several types of containers. For example AB 500 container could carry 74 SD4 or AB 250 with 40 SD4. All these containers could be suspended under any type of aircraft with bomb rack. The best advantages of containers were quick suspension (all PTAB-s were manually loaded in bomb bays - this takes a lot of time) and good concentration of ammunition around the aiming point (circle or ellipse path).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 5, 2015)

> I'm under the impression KV series heavy tank was a lemon with terrible reliability record and a relatively weak 76mm main gun.



Lightened version was designed to improve manoeuvrability as well. No German tank could cope with a 76mm hit in 1941/42. For me the main error was to give so much priority to production over new models. T-34-85 and KV-85. could have been produced in 1943.



> It was a CAS aircraft with liquied cooled engine,



Why do you assume that an air cooled engine could have been mounted with the same protection?



> The Il2 is terribly overestimated.



Did the RAF/USAAF had something totally superior in 1941?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2015)

> Did the RAF/USAAF had something totally superior in 1941



The Russians were bit ahead of the curve here but the measure of an aircraft as a weapon is in it's target effect, not in a line by line comparison of features/performance. 

In 1941 the IL-2 was _sort of_ in a field of it's own. By 1942 the RAF/USAAF had no need for such an aircraft as they were using fighter-bombers for much of the same role/s. 
The RAF/USAAF fighter-bombers carried more powerful armament than the Russian fighters and heavier bomb-loads. They had much less need for a single engine attack bomber/strafer. They had planned on single engine attack bombers, usually dive bombers but found them to be unnecessary (even if useful at times) in the long run.


----------



## net_sailor (Feb 5, 2015)

alejandro_ said:


> Why do you assume that an air cooled engine could have been mounted with the same protection?


Where did you found this statement? Air cooled engine no need such armour protection as liquid cooled engine cause there is no vulnerable wet coat on it. Soviets known that and tried to built-up an ASh-82 radial engine in Il-2, as reserve on case AM-38 shortages. Ił-2 M-82 flew quite well, and was equal in performances as standard plane, but AM-38 deliveries never stooped, so another type of engine would be an disturbance in mass production.




alejandro_ said:


> Did the RAF/USAAF had something totally superior in 1941?


Dedicated tank-destroyer type was unique for VVS. Western air forces used more versatile planes such dive bombers, fighter-bombers or light bombers on this role. For USAAF there was attack category: A-20, A-24, A-36. In RAF an Fairey Battle and Hurricane IID served. All mentioned aircraft are from 1941-42 period. Did they were superior? It depends...
Almost all (except Hurricane) could carry more bomb load (most of them far above 400 kg on Il-2) and flew with more speed (because speed is good protection against ground fire). Not all were strong protected or with heavy gun equiped as Il-2, but it depends on different tactic (Western "hit and run" against Russian "circle of death").


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

net_sailor said:


> ...
> Dedicated tank-destroyer type was unique for VVS. Western air forces used more versatile planes such dive bombers, fighter-bombers or light bombers on this role. For USAAF there was attack category: A-20, A-24, A-36. In RAF an Fairey Battle and Hurricane IID served. All mentioned aircraft are from 1941-42 period. Did they were superior? It depends...
> Almost all (except Hurricane) could carry more bomb load (most of them far above 400 kg on Il-2) and flew with more speed (because speed is good protection against ground fire). Not all were strong protected or with heavy gun equiped as Il-2, but it depends on different tactic (Western "hit and run" against Russian "circle of death").



The Il-2 was not a dedicated tank-destroyer, but an all-around ground attack aircraft. It could serve as a tank-destroyer, as it was case with Hs-129, Ju-87 and Hurricane II.
Fairey Battle was not designed as a ground attack aircraft, but as a long range light bomber. It's ground attack sorties (ie. direct support of ground troops) were few and far between.

I'd say that Hurricane IID was a better tank buster when introduced, it's cannons worked far better than the 37mm installed in the Il-2, and it sported improved protection vs. other Hurricanes. The 37mm outfitted Il-2 was limited to 200 kg of bombs max, a meager amount.
The A-20 and A-36 were IMO also better than Il-2.


----------



## net_sailor (Feb 5, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The Il-2 was not a dedicated tank-destroyer, but an all-around ground attack aircraft. It could serve as a tank-destroyer, as it was case with Hs-129, Ju-87 and Hurricane II.
> Fairey Battle was not designed as a ground attack aircraft, but as a long range light bomber. It's ground attack sorties (ie. direct support of ground troops) were few and far between.


I agree that Il-2 was capable to execute wide range of ground attack sorties, but construction was designed to take heaviest gun available with high muzzle velocity and strong recoil to penetrate tank armour. None other Soviet serial aircraft got VYa-23 cannon as a standard weapon (later used on Il-10, the Il-2 successor, only). But thickness of the tank armour increased during the war, so few types of light tanks were vulnerable for 23 mm projectiles. That's why Sturmovik got another anti-tank weapon: rockets and PTAB bombs. However only direct hit by PTAB or RS could destroy/damage a tank - this happens very rare (below 1% RS rockets hit directly on the target). Later Soviet mounted a 37 mm cannons to restore possibility of "precise tank-killing" with high aiming guns (more than 50% gun projectiles could reach their ground targets). As you know it wasn't satisfactory solution due to recoils of unsynchronized guns. 
That was amazing outputs to make from Il-2 a tankbuster.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

The VYa-23 was ill able to penetrate the armor of the Pz-III and Pz-IV in late 1941/early 1942, when introduced aboard the Il-2. Bar the lucky hit. German infantry was said to named the Il-2 as 'Plague' (Schwarzer Tod), not the tank crews.
The LaGG-3-37 or the Yak-9T were far better platforms for 37mm cannon, for tank busting, but also for bomber busting.


----------



## Timppa (Feb 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> At their peak of development, they were VERY hard to bring down. The armor tub is amazing. It looks like it's an inch thick!
> 
> Of course, the PILOT was armored. The rear gunner wasn't, so the gunners died in droves while the planes kept flying.
> 
> ...



Lots of myths in a single post:

1. It was quite difficult to shoot down with Bf109 with a single 20mm, but it was cannon fodder for any 109 with gondola cannons or for for 109 with MK108 engine cannon or for any Fw190. When Helmut Lipfert shot one with his MK108, the Il-2 disintegrated so fast, that the debris damaged his own plane. And you did not have to aim for a oil cooler.

2. Rear gunner was not in the "bathtub" but he was protected by 13mm armor plate. The "bathtub" was extended further back in the Il-10 version.

3. As for the "gunners died in droves" claim:



> They say that there were 7 killed gunners for each killed pilot, is that true?
> 
> No. Let me explain. We had 105 pilots and 50 gunners killed, why? Because the regiment fought from the beginning to the end of the war. The first half of the war in one-seater aircraft. And the second half -- in two-seaters. And most of the time, they died together. A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7-8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics



Yurii Khukhrikov - ? ?????. ????? ??????? ????????????? ?????. ????????? ???. ????? ??????


----------



## GregP (Feb 5, 2015)

Hi Timppa,

Well I'll just have to say I disagree. 

Most of what I said came from writings of former Soviet combat pilots and some combat reports from the Luftwaffe that were translated into English, not from Allied sources. There was a time about 10 - 15 years ago when I was reading a lot of that since I was building an RC version of the Il-2 at the time. Since it was made of balsa and not armor plate, it flew great! ... but the power to weight ratio was VERY far from scale ...


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 5, 2015)

> Where did you found this statement? Air cooled engine no need such armour protection as liquid cooled engine cause there is no vulnerable wet coat on it.



Not exactly. If the armour protection is the same then the air cooled engine has the advantage because the cooling is less vulnerable to impacts.

However, Il-2 armour uses an armoured tub which protected the engine and cockpit. See scheme below, numbers refer to thickness. An air cooled engine cannot have the same protection because cylinders need to receive air for cooling.







Il-2 attacked at low altitude and were fired with all sort of light guns, shrapnel and so on. It was not uncommon for Il-2 to make it back to base with all sorts of impacts. The one in the attached photo received 7 20mm hits (via rkka.es).



> A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7-8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics



I don't know where this datum came from, but is too simplistic. Statistics from Oleg Rastrenin book on Il-2 Guard units, losses per combat sorties:

- October 1941: 1 for every 8.1
- Summer 1942: 1 for every 24.
- Stalingrad: 1 for every 10-12.
- 1943: 1 for every 26.
- 1944-45: 1 for every 85-90.

Of course, there are a lot of data which varies depending on front, unit and so on.



> Western air forces used more versatile planes such dive bombers, fighter-bombers or light bombers on this role. For USAAF there was attack category: A-20, A-24, A-36



I think it is better to leave out twin engine bombers because those are more equivalent equivalent to Tu-2/Pe-2. A-24 has a better payload and range, but lacked an armoured capsule.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 5, 2015)

I caught this earlier...

_"The Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik ground attack aircraft attained nearly mythological status within the Soviet military during the Second World War. The Soviets built over 36,000 of the warplanes during what is still referred to as the Great Patriotic War in Russia. While the Il-2 certainly boosted the moral of the Red Army’s ground forces, how effective it actually was is questionable.

Soviet aircrew flying the Sturmovik suffered horrendous losses against the Luftwaffe over the Eastern Front. It was not particularly maneuverable and proved to be easy prey in many cases. It also didn’t carry a huge bomb load—especially when compared to the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Hawker Typhoon, which are its closest western equivalents. Moreover, it wasn’t particularly accurate when delivering its weapons."_
The 5 Most Overrated Weapons of War | The National Interest


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2015)

The US Army had _ordered_ several hundred A-24s and finally took delivery of 948, many used as trainers. At one point had 3000 A-25s (Curtiss Helldiver) on the order books but found before delivery of very many of the A-25s that they weren't needed. The fighter bombers, A-20s and medium bombers were doing the job. The A-24s had suffered high losses against the Japanese in New Guinea. 

This may be another case of change of theater or change in operating conditions affecting the combat results. Trying to dive bomb small targets in the jungle (or air fields surrounded by jungle) by pilots not well trained in dive bombing is not going to give results. Throw in long flights to and from targets (or going over the Owen Stanley mountains) and losses due to combat damage can be higher than shorter distances to friendly airfields. Throw in a lack of decent fighter escorts and the A-24s flying against the yet to be depleted Japanese forces (veteran) and things were NOT pretty. 

The US shifted to fighters and fast bombers with heavy forward firing armament (flak suppression). 

The US didn't start to worry about tank busting until much later and _may_ have figured they had it covered with the 75mm armed B-25s, the 75mm nose for the A-26 and the XA-38 Grizzly, I believe there was also a nose for the A-26 with TWO 37mm guns?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

Tank busters were maybe the sexiest aircraft, apart from fighter aircraft. Their influence on the outcome of a battle, let alone the war (ww2 and further) was minimal, though, even when they really managed to kill tanks. German war effort was better served by a handful of Fw-200 in marine patrol role, no matter how unsuitable they were as combat aircraft and how bad the LW co-operated with KM, than by all Hs 129 (including non-tank-busters) and Ju 87G combined.


----------



## wiking85 (Feb 5, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Tank busters were maybe the sexiest aircraft, apart from fighter aircraft. Their influence on the outcome of a battle, let alone the war (ww2 and further) was minimal, though, even when they really managed to kill tanks. German war effort was better served by a handful of Fw-200 in marine patrol role, no matter how unsuitable they were as combat aircraft and how bad the LW co-operated with KM, than by all Hs 129 (including non-tank-busters) and Ju 87G combined.



I have to respectfully disagree about that. The FW200 made less impact than then Hs129 and Ju87G and all were pretty negligible. Even without destroying thanks the aerial attacks by the tank busters certainly had a psychological impact and they were able to inflict significant damage in combat:
Hs 129 Panzerjager!: Martin Pegg, Eddie J. Creek, etc.: 9780952686712: Amazon.com: Books

The FW200 didn't sink nearly as many ships as is claimed, while it often gave incorrect information about convoys to uboat due to having different maps, meaning it actually if anything did more harm than good.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2015)

Very true.

However many/most CAS missions were _NOT_ flown against tanks but against infantry, artillery and supply points/routes only a few miles behind the lines. 

Ju-87 and Ju-88 also used these






for some targets.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

I have a feeling that tank busters also killed far less than their pilots claimed. 
Also - a tank that was pierced by one or two 30mm shots would hardly count as a destroyed one, unless the piercing also ignited the ammo, thus making the tank a total loss.

BTW - in case the book about the Hs 129 is not wrapped in solid gold, 310 USD is a rather steep price 

added: if the 30mm cannon (that I'm fan of) was the 'cure' for Soviet tanks, we would not see the 3.7cm and 7.5 cm being installed in subsequent tank busters, the new version of HS 129 included.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2015)

The heavy cannon wasnt a success on the IL2 but the P39 had a heavy cannon but wasnt really used against tanks, on the eastern front was it considered that tanks were taken out by tanks or artillery?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

The 37mm cannon on P-39 was not much of a tank buster. The muzzle velocity was too low, and P-39 was much more needed as a fighter anyway; it took until 1944 for the Soviets to produce their own fighter type to better or equal the P-39. Shooting the 37mm from on German bombers, from Ju-87 'upwards' to He 111, should probably be devastating for those, the HE shell being reasonably heavy powerful.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> Of course you are right, my memory got the Mikulin and Klimov backwards. I checked with Joe Yancey and he said that he thought Paul Allen HAD a Soviet prop, but there was too much corrosion and they went with an American prop (from a DC-3) instead so they could fly. They are still looking for a Soviet prop that can be restored to running order, so far without luck.
> 
> ...



Here is a link....

https://web.archive.org/web/20130928070316/http://lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Hey Njaco!

Thanks for the link!

I already downloaded the east and west files, combined them, and have a single file that can break out the main victim types. I added a column for "Generic Type" so that Mustang, Mustang I, Mustang II, Mustang III, P-51, P-51B, P-51D, P-51 *, P-51 **, etc. are all shown as P-51. Same for Spitfire I, Spitfire II, Spitfire V, Spitfire Vb, etc. are all shown as Spitfire. Of course, many others.

I am down to about 18 lines out of over 67,000 that I don't know what the victim type is, and a translator doesn't help.

Never got that far before and I really appreciate it. My own file was up to a little over 66,000 and Tony has about another 1,000+ claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 6, 2015)

Shturmovik losses (including Il-10 type), in 1941-1945, were of 10,762 aircraft (533 in 1941, 1,676 in 1942, 3,515 in 1943, 3,347 in 1944 and 1,691 in 1945).

That is slightly less (~200) than the USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses. In 1944, USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses were ~twice the Il-2 losses.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2015)

Tankbusting, whether by air or on the ground was not the dominant way of killing tanks for either side. Sexy as an 88mm or a 37mm might look on paper, they were always second fiddle to the simple expedient of going aroun the tank concentrations, penetrating as far as you could and thereby ensuring your opponent either ran out of fuel, or broke down. An immobilised tank was by far the best method of ensuring a tank would be destroyed. Something like 4 out of five tanks were destroyed that way. 

Doctrinally the germans avoided direct face offs between their tank formations and those of the enemy. They were best at manoeuvre over combat power. Russians for a time didn't get that, but when they finally did, after Kursk, there was no holding them back

Doctrinally, the Soviets and the Germans used their CAS quite differently. The Germans were much more about interdiction....taking steps to inhibit the mobility and freedom of manoeuvre for their opponents. things like knocking out bridges or CPs were what they used their air power most often. They did use their airpower for direct fire support on occasions, but to a lesser extent then the Russians.

The Russians used their air support as direct force multipliers (mostly), used to support ground assaults directly. Again there are many exceptions to this, but its the way they tended to use their airpower nevertheless. Hitting stuff is not all that important in either of those scenarios. Threatening to hit stuff is the important part of the mission. Without that threat, enemy formations did not have their capability downgraded, and usually posed an insurmountable problem.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Hi Milosh,

Where did you get those numbers? Not disagreeing, just curious.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2015)

Let's look at it from another angle:

IL-2 aircraft downed in aerial engagements:
1941: 47
1942: 169
1943: 1090
1944: 882
1945: 369
VVS total losses: 2,557
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 66
Total: 2,623

IL-2 aircraft downed by anti-aircraft defenses:
1941: 101
1942: 203
1943: 1468
1944: 1859
1945: 1048
VVS total losses: 4,679
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 128
Total: 4,807

IL-2 aircraft destroyed on the ground:
1941: 13
1942: 14
1943: 40
1944: 34
1945: 8
VVS total losses: 109
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 362
Total: 471

IL-2 losses due to operational error or unknown reasons:
1941: 372
1942: 1290
1943: 917
1944: 569
1945: 266
VVS total losses: 3,414 
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 251
Total: 3,665

This comes to a grand total of 11,566 IL-2 airframes lost/written off

There was also 7,837 crewmen lost. Gunners were lost at a far higher ratio than pilots.

Also, roughly 90% of damaged (not written off) IL-2 aircraft were repaired and put back into service.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2015)

Milosh said:


> That is slightly less (~200) than the USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses. In 1944, USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses were ~twice the Il-2 losses.



Big difference between the single-engines IL-2 and multi-engined bombers...

You would do better to compare the Pe-8, TB-3, Tu-2, Pe-2, Ant-40 and such to the Allied (USAAF, BC) bombing effort...


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Where are you guys finding Soviet losses?

I have yet to find a good source for them.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Milosh,
> 
> Where did you get those numbers? Not disagreeing, just curious.



Which numbers?

The USAAF numbers from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf

The Il-2 numbers from Wiki which from what I remember are close to the numbers from a now defunct board.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 6, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Big difference between the single-engines IL-2 and multi-engined bombers...



Loose an engine on a single engine a/c and it is going down.Loosing an engine on a multi engine a/c and it will still fly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2015)

Milosh said:


> Loose an engine on a single engine a/c and it is going down.Loosing an engine on a multi engine a/c and it will still fly.


None the less, the IL-2 was operating in a much different role...

You'd have to find numbers of types like the Typhoon, P-47D, A-36, etc. that were employed in the same GA role to make a fair comparison.

*edit* 
I missed your post, Greg, sorry.

I compiled these numbers from a few sources several years ago...I'll see if I can dig up the books for you.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks Milosh,

I was hoping you had discovered a new source of Soviet records ... and was really wanting to look at it. 

I've seen Wiki but have little faith in it ... but it beats the hell out of NO information at all, and their numbers may one day prove to be correct.


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 6, 2015)

> I was hoping you had discovered a new source of Soviet records ... and was really wanting to look at it.



Hi Greg, in this website there are tons of information about Soviet Air Force. Original data are Soviet archives. It is in Spanish and can be easily translated, and at the end of the day, there are almost as many Spanish speakers in the States than in Spain.

http://rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/06/06_21.htm
http://rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/06/06_22.htm



> It also didn’t carry a huge bomb load—especially when compared to the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Hawker Typhoon, which are its closest western equivalents. Moreover, it wasn’t particularly accurate when delivering its weapons."



These were not as heavily protected. In any case, I always thought that the US was the only country capable of affording a fighter like P-47. Even European countries like Germany could not afford to manufacture turbochargers.

In 1941 the Il-2 was way better than any other aircraft the Soviets could use for the role. Even the Germans only had Ju 87 and Hs 123 as single engine dive bomber/CAS. The problem were the tactics and circumstances of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Hi Alejandro,

Thanks for the links. I have not really found many sources of Soviet data before.

There are a considerable number of people who think the P-47 was the most effective fighter of the war. It was VERY good way up high and very good way donw low, but was not the best at medium altitude.

Expensive? YES. But it could do a lot. Expense is relative. Probably only a statistician could tell us which one served up the most destruction, but the data for all types would also have to be avialable, and I don't really believe it is, rendering this a personal opinion for the person making the P-47 claim.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of them in here in this forum but, when we fly our P-47 at the museum, they show up in droves and speak wonders about it.

I went to the first link and found a nice table, but I donlt know what it is supposed to be. There were WAY nmore than 10,762 Il-2/Il-19's built. Can you tel ehat the table is? Maybe the numnber shot down as losses?

Thanks!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2015)

Hello, alejandro - the like is for the tables


----------



## alejandro_ (Feb 6, 2015)

Hello Greg



> I went to the first link and found a nice table, but I donlt know what it is supposed to be. There were WAY nmore than 10,762 Il-2/Il-19's built. Can you tel ehat the table is? Maybe the numnber shot down as losses?



Those are combat losses. Naval Aviation lost another 807.

These data only tell a part of the story, as many aircraft were written off in accidents and due to wear/lack of spares. The link below shows the wastage in 1944 for all types. This includes accidents and wear/obsolence*. 2159 two seaters and 435 single seaters Il-2s were written off due to wear/obsolence. Another 1059 two seaters were written off because of accidents and breakdowns.

????? ???????? 1

* "Desgaste y obsolescencia"


> Expensive? YES. But it could do a lot. Expense is relative. Probably only a statistician could tell us which one served up the most destruction, but the data for all types would also have to be avialable, and I don't really believe it is, rendering this a personal opinion for the person making the P-47 claim.



Financial data from the time shows that P-47 was twice expensive than P-51. This is for a country that can afford critical materials used in turbochargers. For Germany it would be more costly. And yes, it is one of the most effective fighter bomber of the war I would say F6F Hellcat was more effective in terms of result vs investment (second to none IMO).



> Hello, alejandro - the like is for the tables



Yes, the merit is to the guys that translated all the data. Its a great resource.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2015)

When counting together the Pz-III, -IV, Tiger and Panther, they make about 60% of the Il-2 production. 
Maybe this might be the answer to the initial question: as an aircraft, or as a design, maybe the Il-2 was overrated, but as a mass produced weapon of war it was a success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2015)

> Financial data from the time shows that P-47 was twice expensive than P-51



This is true but it is not really a valid criticism. The P-47 and the P-38 are what should be compared as they had similar performance _specifications_ and were designed and ordered near the same time. 

The P-51 _became_ an alternative to the P-47 _only_ after the two stage Merlin was developed. By the time the _first_ production P-51 flies there have been over 1300 P-47s built, 3 factories are in production and they are building over 300 P-47s a month and another 3-4 months they will break the 400 a month mark. It takes a lot of time and money to reverse (or change the course) of such massive industrial programs. 
You don't build 10,500lb airplanes for the same cost as 7300lb airplanes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2015)

Before we talk about the price of aircraft, we should take a look what they were supposed to do in the time the design started. The Fw-190 was designed to propel 4 LMGs at about 420 mph, at 15000 ft, an all-around fighter*. The P-47B was designed to propel 8 HMGs at 420 mph at 25000 ft, the expected target being high-flying bombers. Both aircraft grew in capability, but there should be no wonder that P-47 was more expensive. 
The Fw 190 would be a bad choice for the next USAF request, namely the hi-alt hi-speed bomber escort, to what P-47 proved as reasonably adaptable.

*I don't buy K. Tanks speech about the Fw 190 not being a small airframe to have a big engine, and that Fw 190 was designed for heavy weaponry from day one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2015)

I would also note that the P-47 carried twice the gun armament of a P-51B/C. Carrying twice the war load has to be paid for somehow, like a bigger, heavier airframe and engine. The P-51D added guns but but cut rpg to help keep weight down. P-47s cut ammo when carrying under wing loads, However the plane _had_ to be _sized_ to carry the initial 425rpg. A P-47 carrying 425rpg was carrying about 1/2 short ton of ammo.

The P-47 was big and it was expensive. Blaming it _all_ on the turbo isn't right. 

I am not sure we will ever find out the cost of a Typhoon or Tempest with the cost of those Sabre engines


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2015)

We might also recall that countries tried to use two engines in day fighters when wanting heavy firepower, good performance and good endurance (or a combination). Bf 110/210/410, also using the Ju 88C as a day fighter, Fw 187, Whirlwind, Welkin, Beaufighter, Hornet, P-38, Potez 630/631, Ki 45. Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, all of these were also much more pricey than 'ordinary' fighters.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 6, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> None the less, the IL-2 was operating in a much different role...
> 
> You'd have to find numbers of types like the Typhoon, P-47D, A-36, etc. that were employed in the same GA role to make a fair comparison.



The Il-2 operated in a much more dangerous environment.

1. brought down during aerial combats: 2557 (47 + 169 + 1090 + 882 + 369 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
2. brought down by AA fire: 4679 (101 + 203 + 1468 + 1859 + 1048 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
3. destroyed at the airfields: 109 (13 + 14 + 40 + 34 + 8 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
4. unknown reasons, didn't come back from the combat flight: 3414 (372 + 1290 + 917 + 569 + 266)
So - 533 + 1676 + 3515 + 3344 + 1691 = 10759 total during WWII (28,9% from losses of all Soviet aircrafts).
Also add the losses of Il-2 from the navy aviation: 66 + 128 + 362 + 251 = 807 total during WWII.

7837 pilots and gunners of Il-2 were killed during the war (gunners were killed 7 times more than pilots)

1 loss of Il-2 corresponded to 53,5 combat flights of Il-2 (for example - 1 loss of Yak or La fighter corresponded to 104,5 combat flights, 1 loss of Il-4 or Pe-2 bomber - to ~ 80 combat flights).

90% of damaged Il-2 were repaired. For destruction of Il-2 ~2-3 hits of 37mm shells were needed.
34943 of Il-2s were produced during WWII + 1211 training Il-2U.

Also

1 loss of Il-2 corresponded to 53,5 combat flights (for example - 1 loss of Yak or La fighter corresponded to 104,5 combat flights, 1 loss of Il-4 or Pe-2 bomber - to ~ 80 combat flights).

Just to compare: 1 loss of Mosquito corresponded to 156,67 combat flights (the better result among all WWII airplanes).


----------



## Juha (Feb 7, 2015)

dedalos said:


> The Il2 is terribly overestimated.
> It had strong armor but that s all. A bf 109 with single MG151 need careful aiming but scored heavily against the IL2, Fw s with 4x20mm had not problem at all,the Mk 108 30mm equiped bf 109s could completely destroy the Il2 at will.
> In order to protect the IL2 s the soviets used their fighters like Human shields. They were placing their fighters just above the Il2s, sitting ducks for the higher flying german fighters. Also , since Human life was of no concern to them, the gunners were totaly unprotected.Can we discuss seriously about such choises?
> The surviving rate of il2 improved durin 44/45 only because of the very few german fighters present on the Eastern front, the massive presence of soviet fighters, and the American long range fighters
> ...



I'm a bit mystified with this message.
Close escort was a common system, e.g. RAF used it extensively, of course tight turning Yaks and Spits might well be suited better that work than 109s and 190s, even if 109 had good acceleration. When VVS got more fighters they put some fighters higher up like the RAF's escort cover, often heavier La-5s. VVS also used area sweeps syncroniced to Il-2 attacks, so when they got enough fighters their escort tactics didn't fundamentally differed from those used by the RAF.
The IL-2 proto had a gunner protected by armour but the plane was too heavy for the power available, so the plane went into production as a single seater. When the need for a rear gunner became apparent, the gunner was added but because of the CG reason the armoured bathtub could not be extended to protect the gunner, by giving a sweepback to the outer wings the CG restriction was easied and the gunner got reasonable armour protection. E.g. the dorsal gunner of the DB-3F/IL-4 medium bomber series had armour protection even if that made the plane tail heavy and the Soviet fighters got back armour already in late 30s earlier than in any other AF.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2015)

Milosh said:


> The Il-2 operated in a much more dangerous environment.


And it operated in a much different role than USAAF heavy bombers. They (B-17/B-24) were high altitude and late-war, they had heavy fighter protection.

If the VVS was able to provide comparable fighter escort, the IL-2's losses would have been different.

But again, comparing the IL-2 to B-17/B-24 operations is like comparing a bicycle to a canoe.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 7, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> And it operated in a much different role than USAAF heavy bombers. They (B-17/B-24) were high altitude and late-war, they had heavy fighter protection.
> 
> If the VVS was able to provide comparable fighter escort, the IL-2's losses would have been different.
> 
> But again, comparing the IL-2 to B-17/B-24 operations is like comparing a bicycle to a canoe.



And despite that higher altitude and greater own and fighter protection had more a/c losses than the Il-2.

Only the A2A losses would be effected, not the A2G losses.


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2015)

Comparing an Il-2 to a B-17 is ludicrous. The destruction potential is so widely apart as to be a useless comparion. They had NO similar missions. The B-17 was not a supporter of ground forces at all. It was a heavy bomber.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2015)

perhaps compare the IL-2 to the Hs129 or the Ju87 to be able to have a closer mission comparison

You can also compile a mission profile of Allied aircraft like the P-47D and Typhoon that engaged in dedicated ground attack and close air support missions...these aircraft delivered a brutal blow to Axis ground elements but also suffered from wicked defensive fire in circumstances similar to the Eastern front.

The P-47D ground attack elements had to deal with flak, small arms fire, ground strikes, power/telegraph wires, treetops and the occasional bounce from Luftwaffe units


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2015)

There are subtle but noteworthy differences between the way the Ju87 was used and the IL-2. though to be fair, the exigencies of the battle often called on both to do different things.

The Ju87 was an interdiction machine, used mostly to attack targets as they moved or manouvered. Under ideal conditions, the IL-2 was a direct support weapon, design to hit just when the lads were hitting the assault. Give the attack that much more oomph. Not the best way to minimise air losses, but gave the groiund assault the best chances of success. The German method was beter, because it meant the ground forces were often stuck and helpless whilst the Germans had their way with them. And encirclement, not firepower, wass the way to rack up big hauls of prisoners and casualties

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

