A Western 'Sturmovik': great asset or waste of resouces?

[GregP]

Pinsog,

Today I think we could fit about a 6,000 to 8,000 HP turboprop and use a single propeller coupled with automatic torque control (auto rudder), sort of like the Pilatus PC-21 has. Even with aggressive throttle use, the auto torque rudder cancels any torque feeling the pilot gets and the plane flies straight.

I think it would be a great aircraft and could be fitted with modern avionics to make a formidable weapon ... again.

Of course, I'm sure there are doubters out there, and they are entitled. Still, I'd take a turboprop Skyraider ANY day versus an Embraer ALX .... just my two cents worth and probably worth what you paid for it. The Skyraider is rugged, naval-capable, has great endurance, and hits as hard as any attack aircrtaft ever did. Think of it with the normal armament plus a chain gun like on an Apache helicopter with a second crewman for attack purposes to use teh chain gun! Or even a single seater with two chain guns instead of the 20 mm cannons!

 

[pinsog]

Pinsog,

Today I think we could fit about a 6,000 to 8,000 HP turboprop and use a single propeller coupled with automatic torque control (auto rudder), sort of like the Pilatus PC-21 has. Even with aggressive throttle use, the auto torque rudder cancels any torque feeling the pilot gets and the plane flies straight.

I think it would be a great aircraft and could be fitted with modern avionics to make a formidable weapon ... again.

Of course, I'm sure there are doubters out there, and they are entitled. Still, I'd take a turboprop Skyraider ANY day versus an Embraer ALX .... just my two cents worth and probably worth what you paid for it. The Skyraider is rugged, naval-capable, has great endurance, and hits as hard as any attack aircrtaft ever did. Think of it with the normal armament plus a chain gun like on an Apache helicopter with a second crewman for attack purposes to use teh chain gun! Or even a single seater with two chain guns instead of the 20 mm cannons!

6,000 to 8,000 hp???!!!!! Wow. Would the same go for either a Corsair or a P47 Thunderbolt?

I agree on the utility of a turboprop Skyraider. I think it would be an awesome piece of equipment. How would it stack up against a Warthog? Pro's and con's of each when compaired to each other.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I got this reply from Tony Williams (co-author of this excellent book: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/ )

This quote from Flying Guns WW2 was based on contemporary German data, covering the MK 101 as well as MK 103:

The initial AP loading for the cannon was of the traditional type; a heavy (500 g) medium-velocity (690 m/s) thick steel shell with 14-15 g of HE initiated by a base fuze, and capable of penetrating 25 mm / 300 m / 90º. This was replaced by a 455 g APHEI of different design, fired at 760 m/s and with the penetration improved to 32 mm, reducing to 27 mm at 600 m (at a more realistic 60 degree impact, the figures were 27 mm and 21 mm respectively). However, by the time the Hs 129 entered service, special tungsten-cored APCR shot had been developed for the anti-tank role and this Hartkernmunition (also called Wolframkern) was able to penetrate up to 75-95 mm of armour at 300 m (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60°.

I don't know of any absolute confirmation that the Germans actually used uranium-cored ammo, but I do recall a report some years ago that an ammo collector had found a radioactive 5cm projectile.

So, that's a no to the 140 mm penetration figure, and no confirmation on 3 cm uranium cored ammunition.

 

[Altea]

*It's not a personnal attack, just my english lessons when i was 11.

".... Everything is relative"

I agree, Altea, except for life itself, truth and maybe love.

I will read the links you kindly provided.

My "source" for the comment about Typhoons losses was (among other sources, such as Pierre Closterman) based on long conversations with the Senior Sargent of my RCAF Squadron back in the 1961-62 days as a reservist Airframe Tech. He was a crusty fellow who served in the RAF as a servicing "Commando" on Typhoons from just after Normandy till war's end. These guys supported the Typhoons operating from steel plank runways in forward areas. As the war moved closer to Germany and into increasingly industrial areas the Typhoons encountered flak (and flak towers) in an environment that was not quite what the Sturmoviks ran into in the east (the Baltics being a possible exception).

All ground support activity requires air superiority, regardless of AC type, I have never disputed that.

MM

J'v got nothing against Clo-Clo, Tphoon's and "roastbeefs". Nevertheless Typhoon's effectiveness was low, at about 2% hits with rockets. From RAF official, and even a little optimistic sources, from:
FANA - FANATIQUE DE L'AVIATION n° 437 -TYPHOON MORTAIN en vente sur eBay.fr (fin le 04-mai-12 02:36:39 Paris)

So when Air Marshall Conningham went to inspect "Das Reich" and "Leibstandarte" destruction, he has founded over Falaise and Mortain only 9 german tanks thant "could be" considered as destroyed by aviation for more than a hundred of 83th group claims.

Don't be sad, the Magic german riacarato's FW-190 had 100 times worse results.
The general effectiveness of the luftwaffe was for about 2.4% of the soviet tanks destroyed in 1941-45, from statistics published in 1947. Sometimes 8-10% with Stukas in 41-43 and 0-0.5% in 44-45 with FW's. (read Steven Zaloga).

Sturmovik attaks were more letal than Typhoon ones of course, but just because they were beginning attacks at less than 200 km/h from 900 m and endind it at about 6 m high less than 30-50m from the tank at about 400 km/h, often in the blow of their own rockets. Cause to inertia and speed of the Typhoon, it had no opportunity to stop attack it at such a short distance, and had less time and distance for alignement/fire/ adjust (900 to 400 m i believe).

On the other hand, unsurprisingly the Il 2 was had more chances to be damaged but also more chances to survive to its dammages, moreover it had to fulfill 3 to 6 passes, one for the rockets, one for bombs, 1 to 3 for canons.

What is concerning Flack density, you should provide valuable comparative data, not only pilot memors.
Even on a secundary ans calm front as Carpathian mountains, Romanenko remembers that his Stormovik was hitten each time for 4 sorties, and knocked-off each time for 4 hits (change of plane, definitly or not). It was much worse, of course on other major fronts.

Regards

 

[Altea]

140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.

I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.

Siegfied, if the mk-103 was such a magic weapon, can you explain why germans were desperatly trying to adapt the the VK-3.7 on the Henshel 129B/R3 ? Now considering the real capabilities of the MK-103 weapon it was estimated from LII-VVS polygon trials and ABBTU studies for the 1943-45 period that:
A single HS-129 could damage per combat sortie 0.02 medium tank, 0.05 light tank, 0,09 armored car, 0.14 car, 0.03 artillery in position, 0.002 floating bridge of TPM type.
All his here Henschel Hs.129
In fact you need a full half-geschwader to knock-off at best a single T-34 or sherman. And no JS-2 or KV-1 of course, that were out of run for a 30 mm weapon capabilities...
Polygon conditions were not real battelfield conditions . No stress, no smoke, no AAA, no low alt summer turbulencies, no winter snow curtain. So the fact that it could, does not mean that it did, in the real frontlife conditions.
Anyway, by russian winter, neither the MK-101, nor the MK-103 were working at all...

Regards

 

[Juha]

Hello Altea
have you info on Soviet assesments on the real effectiveness of Il-2 against tanks and other AFVs?

TIA
Juha

 

[riacrato]

140mm penetration at 90 degrees equals about 50mm penetration at 45 degrees allowing for a slope effect factor of 2.4.

I think this will be enough for anything but frontal armour on any allied or soviet tank, Pershing or IS2 ESP considering the high fire rate.

I'd like to see the source for that claimed penetration.

Real world evidence shows a completely different picture. MK103 defeating IS2 FRONT armor clearly belongs into the world of fantasy imo.

If MK103 was such a great AT weapon, it would not have been abandoned in favour of 3.7, 5 and even 7.5cm weapons starting 1943.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... *It's not a personnal attack, just my english lessons when i was 11."

I give up, Altea, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are trying to say ... let alone the point you are trying to advance.

Maybe you should have continued past the age of 11 , or, post in french.

"... Polygon conditions were not real battelfield conditions . No stress, no smoke, no AAA, no low alt summer turbulencies, no winter snow curtain."

"... you should provide valuable comparative data, not only pilot memors."

Make up your mind, man. Data vs Real World conditions. You seem to want it both ways.

MM

 

[Altea]

The IL-2 was a relatively fast and agile plane when was introduced as a single seat acft, and typical from Russian hardware: cheap, reliable and easy to use. The gunner add a considerable wheight and consequentely negative flight characteristics. This was only "fixed" with the advent of the IL-10.

I don't think the Russians went wrong with the IL-2 and the T-34 (which was a world beater at it's introduction). The problems of such machines were much about the circunstances in which they had to operate i.e without personal adequately trained, effective fighter cover, rustic contruction due to extreme necessities of the war, ideal construction materials, lack of radios, etc. Certainly those machines would have performed much better if they had followed what was expected to them.

To put numbers at Jenish's words, first serial Il-2 fully armed with 400 kg bombload achieved in clean configuration 433-435 km/h at SL and 451 at 2500 m. It should be noticed the "real" serial Hurricane mk II speed was only 427 km/h at SL, and about 400 when it had to be fitted with soviet ShVAK canons. It (Il-2) was also 100 km/h (60 mph) faster than latest Stukas or Dauntlesses of the time (end of 1940). The soviet tested 109E's reached 440 km/h at S.L. at "nominal" motor regime. Moreover du to it's TsAGI high-lift wing profile (rounded LE, high Curvature), and low wing loading (135-140 kg/m²) the Il 2 was able to acheve a full 360° sustainted turn in only 22-23 secunds, when it took full 26.3-29.1 secunds for the 109E!

Due to the many reasons: chaos, urgency and very low production standards, called circunstances by Jenish and that would be very long to enumarate, the mass produced Il-2 lost at about 30 km/h speed compared to the early ones, and some other performance. No reason for this event to occure in western industry, neither England, nor the USA were invaded by ennemy....

In 1944, this 1937's concept was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons and P-47's seems quite unfair. The updated shtormovik was the Il-10, but due to some circunstances was not ready yet.

Soviets had always some engine late, anyway obtain about 2000 hp from the 46 litres Mikulin at short delays, was probably not such a challenge for the western engeeners with high graded fuels.

BTW, the western Stormovik could have been someting like the Su-6 either with the Centaurus or the R-2800 adapted to low alts, from 43.

Regards

 

[Altea]

Part of the problem for the western allies was range. IL-2s could perform several missions a day on the Eastern front and didn't have to fly far from their bases to the front lines. Such missions, while not unknown to the western allies, were not as common.

I agree with that, the AM-38 was such a glutton, that the rear gunner had to be supressed in order to fulfill the state requests.
Anyway, some fuel could have been carried in the armored bomb bays. This was experienced in USSR, not adapted, Stalin wanted the pilots to carry the full bomload.

Otherway, the Il-2 was able to operate from unpreapared and short airfields, that was partly compensating it's short range.

Regards

 

[Altea]

The real effectiveness from what soviet source?

Army ?
Air force ?

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... In 1944, this 1937's concept was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons .."

What 1937 concept ... ? The Sturmovik? It first flew in 1939. The Typhoon just 1 year later. On the other hand, the Hurricane first flew in 1935.

I still don't know where you are going with this, Altea. No one (on this forum, at least) is under-estimating the importance of either the T-34 or the Il-2, or their contribution

However, if your goal is to successfully argue that the Eastern Front and the Western Front were essentially interchangeable and Russian and Western tactics and values were more or less the same .... .... well, good luck with that.

MM

 

[Altea]

".... In 1944, this 1937's concept was quite outdated and comparing it with more modern Typhoons .."

What 1937 concept ... ? The Sturmovik? It first flew in 1939. The Typhoon just 1 year later. On the other hand, the Hurricane first flew in 1935.

Yes a 1937 concept. Iliushin submitted his project in january of 1938th. It flew with some delay, i would say.

However, if your goal is to successfully argue that the Eastern Front and the Western Front were essentially interchangeable and Russian and Western tactics and values were more or less the same .... .... well, good luck with that.

In summer of 1941, nor the Typhoon, neither the P-47 were operationnal anyway.
Whatever, none of them could achieve the same hit probability withe the same rockets as the Il-2 for obvious reasons, no one could withstand the same punishement as the Il-2, no one was able to fly that slow and low improving strike accuracy, but at the cost to be heavily damaged themselves.

We are comparing apples ond oranges.

Whithout speaking about tactics and interchangeability, i don't see why Il-2, Pe-2 or even LaGG-3 with 37 canons should have been useless in North Affrica in 1941?

 

[Altea]

Make up your mind, man. Data vs Real World conditions. You seem to want it both ways.

MM

But you can read Polack and Shores on your own language, Rockets were not accurate weapons on trials, and even worse in the real world. The hit probability (2%, sometimes i red 4) was very low. Il-2 had certainly better results with them, cause it could fire at close range, and had much more time during it's shalow dive to do it, than fast P-47 or typhoons.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... In summer of 1941".

There were, what ..? .... 200 Sturmoviks ... in service? The crews weren't trained, they had no rear gunner, no tactics had been developed, and they certainly weren't armed with rockets. Speaking of tactics .... Sturmovik tactics were the same tactics as T-34 tactics ... massed assault.

In North Africa .....? no one is saying they would be useless ... but I don't think they would have been any improvement on the canon-armed Hurricane or the Beaufighter. By 1941 what the British needed in N. Africa was reliable tanks ... and lots of them [another thread, another topic, mon ami].

MM

RCAF Typhoons [and there were plenty in '44 -'45] carried 2x500 lb bombs, not rockets, IIRC. RAF Typhoons used rockets.

 

[GregP]

Hi Pinsog,

I think the gun the A-10 would still be a winner ... but VERY large and heavy. The A-10 might not be as effective against tanks with another gun, but it certainly would have been lighter! The proposed turboprop Skyraider would be an attack plane, not a tank killer. As for the Corsair, that was more of a fighter than an attack plane, and a turboprop Corsair would not come close to a modern jet fightger in capability. On the other hand, a turboprop attack plane could supplant an attack jet and be as survivable or more so depending on the construction. It would certainly be more maneuverable.

I personally doubt a turboprop Corsair would come close to a turboprop Skyraider as an attack plane. For just ONE thing, the visibility is awful in a Corsair and pretty good in a Skyraider. I'd rather SEE the target than guess where it will turn up in the sky or ground view.

All this is a big "what if," and I am not too fond of "what ifs" becasue there are no facts on which to base your conclusions. A detractor can think of as many ways to snuff an idea as the originator can of proceeding with it. I think a modernized Skyraider would be a top-notch weapon. It can be argued the other way as easily, and they could be more correct than I am. I don't think so, but it's my idea so I might have a bit of bias there?

Alas, I seriously doubt anything so simple and relatively inexpensive would ever come to pass today ...

 

[Shortround6]

Before we get too far afield I don't believe the Russians had the 37mm gun service in 1941 so how effective it was anywhere is kind of moot.

Many times the "concept" predates the official requirement or specification by a year or two ( or 3,4,5) let alone when the hardware actually shows up.
A lot of times a " concept" is proven to faulty becaue some of the basic conditions have changed in the intervening years. The concept may have been a good when first thought up but counter weapons or tatics or other conditions have changed the actual conditions of employment.

There is no question that the IL-2 performed tasks which no other Russian or lend lease aircraft could do. The IL-2 was suited to Russian manufacturing conditions and to Russian operating conditions.

The question is if the IL-2 or suitable copy/replacement would have made much difference to the Western Allies.

The Western Allies had a lager supply of twin engine bombers for tactical use.
The Western Allies had fighter planes that carried 2-3 times the gun load of soviet fighters and some that carried close to the gun load of a normal IL-2.
The Western Allies had fighter planes that could carry 2-5 times the bomb load of a normal Russian fighter and equal to or 1 1/2 times the load of th IL-2.
The Western Allies had more construction equipment for the rapid construction of front line airstrips and better transport capability to supply front line airstrips.

That pretty much leaves us to argue about the survivability and the accuracy of weapons deliver. The Western Allies also had, for the most part, better trained pilots before they went into combat.

Everybodies rockets were pretty bad when it came to accuracy. Wiki says 16 mils for the RS-82 which is about 4 1/2 feet at 100yds or 13 1/2 feet at 300yds. So it is possible to miss at 300 yes even with. A perfect aim, perfect ignition, perfect timing, no cross wind and a stationary target. The RS-82 carried about 1/3 the amount of HE as a British 3 in mortar bomb ( not rocket). it would need a very direct hit to take out a tank. The RS-132 would be much better But was still a much smaller/lighter rocket than the Western Allies used.
The smaller Russian bombs meant they had to land closer. While a 500lb bomb certainly does not have the kill or damage radius 5 times that of a 100lb bomb it is larger. Perhaps the IL-2s dropping of more than 2 bombs at a time can help.

An IL-2 type plane may have been useful to the Western Allies, but it's absence in the west would be no where near as critical as it's absence in the East. A single IL-2 having the attack capability of 2 or 3 Russian single engine fighters before you factor in the armor. It had no such attack superiority over Western Fighters.

 

[pinsog]

Hi Pinsog,

I think the gun the A-10 would still be a winner ... but VERY large and heavy. The A-10 might not be as effective against tanks with another gun, but it certainly would have been lighter! The proposed turboprop Skyraider would be an attack plane, not a tank killer. As for the Corsair, that was more of a fighter than an attack plane, and a turboprop Corsair would not come close to a modern jet fightger in capability. On the other hand, a turboprop attack plane could supplant an attack jet and be as survivable or more so depending on the construction. It would certainly be more maneuverable.

I personally doubt a turboprop Corsair would come close to a turboprop Skyraider as an attack plane. For just ONE thing, the visibility is awful in a Corsair and pretty good in a Skyraider. I'd rather SEE the target than guess where it will turn up in the sky or ground view.

All this is a big "what if," and I am not too fond of "what ifs" becasue there are no facts on which to base your conclusions. A detractor can think of as many ways to snuff an idea as the originator can of proceeding with it. I think a modernized Skyraider would be a top-notch weapon. It can be argued the other way as easily, and they could be more correct than I am. I don't think so, but it's my idea so I might have a bit of bias there?

Alas, I seriously doubt anything so simple and relatively inexpensive would ever come to pass today ...

I certainly didn't mean to imply a Corsair or P47 would be able to compete with a Skyraider in the ground attack scenario, or that a turbo prop Corsair has any kind of job in a modern airforce. Nor could the Skyraider carry that monster cannon they built the A10 around, although it could carry a LARGE number of Hellfire missles. I have just often wondered how big a turboprop would fit in either a Corsair or P47. I think that would make an awesome private airplane for an uber rich person.

 

[Juha]

Hello
if some one is interested in Il-2 combat history I can recommend two books, Osprey's Oleg Rastrenin's Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of WW 2 and the memoirs of Vasili B. Emelianenko.

Juha

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thanks, Juha.

MM