Ah thankyou I forgot the Il-2. Damnit. I would actually rate the Il-2 as the best tank killer overall anyhow. It was a tank and not very maneuverable or fast but she could pound out them tanks and relatively speaking was difficult to bring down.
Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Difficult to knock down, TILL the Germans found its weak spot.... Then they started falling like leaves....
They put a rear gunner in there for a reason....
They put a rear gunner in there for a reason....
That is true as well, Im just speaking in relative terms to an aircraft.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Then I agree 100%...
Yeap. My top four would be:
IL-2
Tiffy
JU-87G
P-47D
IL-2
Tiffy
JU-87G
P-47D
cheddar cheese
Major General
Or Il-10...
- Thread starter
- #567
Erich
the old Sage
ah but the P-47 and Tiffy were not so great German panzer killers, I posted some quite eluminating information quite lengthy actually on the Normandie campaign which clearly showed the US/RAF tanks kills were something to really seriously adresse............not good; it must be in some back pages or ?
the Il-2 proved to be a better MT killer than tanks. In fact it was a ground support weapon better suited to quick fast attacks by T-34's.
Still the Ju 87G's and the Fw 190F-8 did the work unparalled and sadly we still do not have much written about any German ground attack units nor their historical functions
hmmmmm, guess I am do to place some more German crew bios eh ?
E
the Il-2 proved to be a better MT killer than tanks. In fact it was a ground support weapon better suited to quick fast attacks by T-34's.
Still the Ju 87G's and the Fw 190F-8 did the work unparalled and sadly we still do not have much written about any German ground attack units nor their historical functions
hmmmmm, guess I am do to place some more German crew bios eh ?
E
Looking foward to it. That is another aircraft that I forgot too though the Fw-190F-8.
Gentlemen:
The problem with the IL-2 can be approached following two patterns:
(1) Problems with the design itself. A slow, clumsy flying armored pig, uncapable of surpassing the top speed of the Stuka which had, for instance, a non-retractable undercarriage.
Also manouvering was horrible in the soviet design. One can understand the kind of nightmare dozens of thousands of USAAF airmen endured -and the countless psychiatric cases such missions produced- when they had to fly in those real large metallic tubes with wings, carrying several tons of bombs inside, knowing that you were slow and that manouvering was simply impossible: "what you will do is simple: fly straight ahead and learn to handle those .50 cals".
But when one knows manouvering was about impossible for a single-engined plane, which unlike the Stuka could retract its undercarriage, then perhaps you might consider re-thinking your views on the IL-2.
To make the long story short, the IL-2s never did come nowhere near in destroying the number of panzers claimed by the soviet department of mythology. The tale, however, does not end there. These soviet guys also portray the IL-2 as an "extremely efficient" destroyer of German fighters as well. (!)
In fact, and as Mr. Primus pointed out, the IL-2 got fitted with a rear-gunner, which of course provided the model with a minimum level of self-defense abilities.
That particular characteristic has been totally, overwhelmingly overhyped and overinflated. You can read things -hogwash- like "the rear gunner in the IL-2 came in as a nasty surprise for German fighters". I´d respond to that piece of jewelry "no shit!".
That some German fighters were indeed shot down by IL-2 defensive fire? Sure! So were RAF fighter pilots by Stuka rear gunners. The issue will of course follow a pretty similar fashion as in the case of panzers allegedly destroyed by IL-2s in huge numbers: they never excelled in that department.
The problem will rise to the surface quite pretty soon here though: if the massive boxes of four engined heavy bombers, each machine fitted with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns were doomed against the swarms of Bf 109s and Fw 190s, one can only wonder what made those mythologists believe the IL-2 could tangle with German fighters homing in for the kill.
The answer is simple: with or without a rear-gunner, the IL-2s are losers against fighters.
Yes, it was heavily armored, but there were other -more important- problems for German fighter pilots intercepting formations of IL-2s. Sometimes the IL-2s flew at very low altitude. Intercepting at such low altitude is always a dangerous task, but the danger of flying so low also affects the intercepted part and not just the intercepting side.
I have guncamera footage when you can clearly see many German pilots had a thing for aiming directly at the cockpit. At certain distance, the MG 131 on top of the cowling of 109s and 190s, and of course their cannons, did not have trouble to kill the pilot, sending the IL-2 to bite the ground.
Some films are even disturbing: images of rear-gunners turned into human torches jumping from their positions.
(2) Problem number two gentlemen: the kind of crews which flew the IL-2. This is the ultimate issue.
Hastily trained crews virtually uncapable of achieving anything significant, unless they got launched to the battle in massive numbers, as it was in fact done during 1944.
The very well trained crews of both the RAF and USAAF had a very rough time in hitting any German panzers. The question: what made these soviet propaganda boys believe their ground-attack crews were that good, or even better than those of their western allies?
I have met veterans who survived flying the IL-2 in the furnace of 1944. Horrible mutilations and stories. Accidents when landing were the rule. Crashings when approaching the battle zone at very low altitude were very common as well. One of them told me that he saw this crashings in absolutely all the missions he flew -by the way, a not very high number of missions: no more than 15, until his plane got blown out of the air by a Bf 109.
The nearly 1 ton of armor in the model was in fact very helpful against light weapons, when they were greeted by enemy troops from the ground. Not against Flak, much less against German fighters.
They told me that the greatest successes of the swarms of IL-2s were against large concentration of enemy troops, supplies and vehicle lines. Those were the occassions when they indeed inflicted horrible damage to the Germans.
Whenever they saw German panzers manouvering on the battlefield and the IL-2s appeared, hitting anything could be some sort of a dream. I asked abouth the so-called "circle of death" portrayed as some sort of "brilliant" tactic to approach German panzers from the rear, where their armor was thinner. Hogwash.
Many guys even resorted to smash their planes against German motorized columns!
The IL-2 will certainly have the Gold Medal for the most shot down plane of the war.
It is most unlikely the soviets could produce the number of IL-2s they did without the vital aid of Lend Lease.
As conclusion dear gentlemen, the combination of these 2 problems: a mediocre design and hastily trained crews makes the IL-2 an unlikely candidate to get the award of the best tank-destroyer.
It made a contribution to the soviet war effort; it was not a good tank-destroyer though.
The problem with the IL-2 can be approached following two patterns:
(1) Problems with the design itself. A slow, clumsy flying armored pig, uncapable of surpassing the top speed of the Stuka which had, for instance, a non-retractable undercarriage.
Also manouvering was horrible in the soviet design. One can understand the kind of nightmare dozens of thousands of USAAF airmen endured -and the countless psychiatric cases such missions produced- when they had to fly in those real large metallic tubes with wings, carrying several tons of bombs inside, knowing that you were slow and that manouvering was simply impossible: "what you will do is simple: fly straight ahead and learn to handle those .50 cals".
But when one knows manouvering was about impossible for a single-engined plane, which unlike the Stuka could retract its undercarriage, then perhaps you might consider re-thinking your views on the IL-2.
To make the long story short, the IL-2s never did come nowhere near in destroying the number of panzers claimed by the soviet department of mythology. The tale, however, does not end there. These soviet guys also portray the IL-2 as an "extremely efficient" destroyer of German fighters as well. (!)
In fact, and as Mr. Primus pointed out, the IL-2 got fitted with a rear-gunner, which of course provided the model with a minimum level of self-defense abilities.
That particular characteristic has been totally, overwhelmingly overhyped and overinflated. You can read things -hogwash- like "the rear gunner in the IL-2 came in as a nasty surprise for German fighters". I´d respond to that piece of jewelry "no shit!".
That some German fighters were indeed shot down by IL-2 defensive fire? Sure! So were RAF fighter pilots by Stuka rear gunners. The issue will of course follow a pretty similar fashion as in the case of panzers allegedly destroyed by IL-2s in huge numbers: they never excelled in that department.
The problem will rise to the surface quite pretty soon here though: if the massive boxes of four engined heavy bombers, each machine fitted with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns were doomed against the swarms of Bf 109s and Fw 190s, one can only wonder what made those mythologists believe the IL-2 could tangle with German fighters homing in for the kill.
The answer is simple: with or without a rear-gunner, the IL-2s are losers against fighters.
Yes, it was heavily armored, but there were other -more important- problems for German fighter pilots intercepting formations of IL-2s. Sometimes the IL-2s flew at very low altitude. Intercepting at such low altitude is always a dangerous task, but the danger of flying so low also affects the intercepted part and not just the intercepting side.
I have guncamera footage when you can clearly see many German pilots had a thing for aiming directly at the cockpit. At certain distance, the MG 131 on top of the cowling of 109s and 190s, and of course their cannons, did not have trouble to kill the pilot, sending the IL-2 to bite the ground.
Some films are even disturbing: images of rear-gunners turned into human torches jumping from their positions.
(2) Problem number two gentlemen: the kind of crews which flew the IL-2. This is the ultimate issue.
Hastily trained crews virtually uncapable of achieving anything significant, unless they got launched to the battle in massive numbers, as it was in fact done during 1944.
The very well trained crews of both the RAF and USAAF had a very rough time in hitting any German panzers. The question: what made these soviet propaganda boys believe their ground-attack crews were that good, or even better than those of their western allies?
I have met veterans who survived flying the IL-2 in the furnace of 1944. Horrible mutilations and stories. Accidents when landing were the rule. Crashings when approaching the battle zone at very low altitude were very common as well. One of them told me that he saw this crashings in absolutely all the missions he flew -by the way, a not very high number of missions: no more than 15, until his plane got blown out of the air by a Bf 109.
The nearly 1 ton of armor in the model was in fact very helpful against light weapons, when they were greeted by enemy troops from the ground. Not against Flak, much less against German fighters.
They told me that the greatest successes of the swarms of IL-2s were against large concentration of enemy troops, supplies and vehicle lines. Those were the occassions when they indeed inflicted horrible damage to the Germans.
Whenever they saw German panzers manouvering on the battlefield and the IL-2s appeared, hitting anything could be some sort of a dream. I asked abouth the so-called "circle of death" portrayed as some sort of "brilliant" tactic to approach German panzers from the rear, where their armor was thinner. Hogwash.
Many guys even resorted to smash their planes against German motorized columns!
The IL-2 will certainly have the Gold Medal for the most shot down plane of the war.
It is most unlikely the soviets could produce the number of IL-2s they did without the vital aid of Lend Lease.
As conclusion dear gentlemen, the combination of these 2 problems: a mediocre design and hastily trained crews makes the IL-2 an unlikely candidate to get the award of the best tank-destroyer.
It made a contribution to the soviet war effort; it was not a good tank-destroyer though.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
From what I have studied, neither the Fw-190 nor the P-47 have a chance to defeat any tank´s armour if it is in closed condition by guns. Their guns simply lack the penetration capabilities to do so. The Tiffy is on the barely edge to do so. Under some circumstances it will defeat f.e. Pz-III/Pz-IV armour at very close distance (sides only) on most it will not. The Ns-37 equipped Il-2, some Yak-9T with NS 37 (not US 37mm guns), the Hs-129 with MK 101/103 or BK 5.0/BK 7.5, the Ju-87 with BK 3.7cm and hypothetically the Me-262 with BK 5.0 cm are so far the only planes to put main battle tanks reliably out of action with their guns only. So either you put emphasis on bomb ordenance for tank busting or we start to realize that such specialized tank busting planes are better suited than our beloved Tiffy. Focke Wulf and P-47. My vote goes to the Il-10.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Il-10 for me too...
Udet I agree with you that the Il-2 is overated as an aircraft. She was slow and clumsy, hell she was a tank with wings. Tanks dont fly well. However, as an aircraft she was bitch to shoot down because of her armoured protection and she was a great tank killer.
- Thread starter
- #573
Erich
the old Sage
there is some unreleased info on the Fw 190F-8 that is in the wings literally.........evidently during 1945 the units manned with these craft and the Panzerblitz rockets did much damage to Soviet armored columns. Still say had JG 7 not been so closed in with airfield movements and limited fuel reserves in the spring of 45 we would of had groud kills abounding against the Soviets.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Gotta agree with Udet here. A little research at the Smithsonian site generated the fact that the Russian's lost 14000 Il-2 in 43-44 (I think that is the right two years). 14000!! The lost rate to tank kill must be horrendous. This implies that it was not that difficult to shoot down. It must have been like the Sherman tank. It was no problem for a Sherman to defeat a Panther or Tiger, all you did was attack it with enough Shermans and you were going to get it! To heck with loss rate.
I think the best tank killer has two categories. Sky contested, or sky uncontested (or with sufficient fighter escort). For the first, I think you would want a fast flier with good punch and good protection. I like the big radial planes in this role, so I would select a FW-190 with heavy gun or added weapons, also the P-47, but you would have to add better weapons (the P-47 low loss rate was amazing). The Typhoon would probably be good but doesn't have that big recipicating armor plate up front and is liquid cooled (more vunerable). The P-38 would be good because it has two engines (where is our P-38 cadre?) and a pretty good punch and large weapons load but would need added weapons. I don't know much about the Il-10 but probably wouldn't fit this category. For the last category, you would want a heavily armored, manueverable plane with lost of punch. I am sure there were many here like the Ju 87, He 129 (with good engines), Il-2, and Il-10. Like the A-10, which is a great tank killer but you really want air superiority with it.
I always have a problem with the best of anything. Too many variables.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
I'll put my vote in for the entire Ilyushin "Bronirovanni Shturmovik" (armed attacker) family: the Il-2 and IL-10.
Despite the drawbacks of low speed and vulnerability to fighters, in my mind they remain, along with the Hs-129, the premiere dedicated ground attack aircraft of the period.
Destroying stuff on the ground was the Shturmoviks sole reason to exist, and it did it amazngly well. They were simple to fly and operate, reliable in extreems of weather, sturdy, heavily armed and able to absorb massive amounts of battle damage. While they may not be the 'panzer smashers' or "black death" of myth and propaganda they were fierce opponents and their effectiveness against ground targets in all forms should never be underestimated.
Operating from foward airstrips, often in snow, ice, mud and dust, in a situation of clear air inferiority until 1944, they could bring an amazing array of weaponry against German targets: 7.62mm machine guns, 20mm, 23mm and 37mm cannon, 82mm and 132mm rockets, 50kg, 100kg and 250 kg bombs, anti-tank bomblets, anti-personel bomblets and even fuel air explosives and napalm in the final stages of the war.
The Il-2s ability to sustain damage was/is legendary. No-one has denied its vulnerability to fighters. Yet the fact remains that around 1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage. I have a picture of an Il-2 with its pilot and gunner standing shoulder to shoulder in crescent section blown out of the wing by a large calibre AAA hit (88 or 122mm I would guess). At oblique angles, HMG and even cannon fire would often ricochette off. Even if the oil cooler and radiator were vulnerable on the Ilushins, its a little difficult to hit them if its fleeing the target area at 400 kph and 50m.
Shturmoviks proved their worth time and time again. It is unfair to count the training level of their crews against them when discussing the design. That would be like saying the He-162 was a hopeless fighter because it was meant to be flown by hastily trained glider pilots with no jet experiance, or that the tempest was a great fighter purely because it was flown by pilots whop usually had lots of stick time. If the Shturmoviks had been operated be German, British, American crews, would the design suddenly bloom into its full potential? While Russian training wasn't always as good as it's western counterparts, it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war. It may not be representative, but I recently read an interview with an IL-2 pilot who had more than 250 hours of flight training in 1943 before transitioning to an operational pilot training unit where he recieved additional 'on the job' training, as it were.
Compare the Shturmoviks to other dedicated ground attack aircraft and as a balanced package they come out well ahead:
On the positive side they carried a better warload than either the Ju-87G or the Hs-128, bombs rockets and cannon all at the same time. They were also significantly quicker than either the Ju-87G or Hs-129 at low altitudes. The slowest Il-2s were the Il-2M3, armed with 37mm cannon. Even loaded as such they still pushed past 385 kph/240 mph at sea level. The fastest Il-2s were the single seaters, capable of around 435 kph/270 mph on the deck. The later Il-10 could do 500mph/ 310 mph at sea level. The Ilushins had far better armour than the Ju-87G, and although the HS-129 probably has better pilot protection, it lacks a rear gunner. Armour weight for the IL-2 went from 700kg in intial version to 990kg in the IL-2M.
On the negative side, it was slow and clusmy and unable to defend itself against fighters. But that is something it shares with all dedicated ground attack aircraft of the time. Neither the Ju-87G or Hs-129 could hope to out run or out manouver fighter opposition. All of them needed escorts or conditions of air superiority. The rear gunner position was hideously vulnerable initially although it was improved later on. One statistic is that for every one Il-2 pilot killed, they lost 6 gunners, which says something about the hard to down nature of the aircraft.
Despite the drawbacks of low speed and vulnerability to fighters, in my mind they remain, along with the Hs-129, the premiere dedicated ground attack aircraft of the period.
Destroying stuff on the ground was the Shturmoviks sole reason to exist, and it did it amazngly well. They were simple to fly and operate, reliable in extreems of weather, sturdy, heavily armed and able to absorb massive amounts of battle damage. While they may not be the 'panzer smashers' or "black death" of myth and propaganda they were fierce opponents and their effectiveness against ground targets in all forms should never be underestimated.
Operating from foward airstrips, often in snow, ice, mud and dust, in a situation of clear air inferiority until 1944, they could bring an amazing array of weaponry against German targets: 7.62mm machine guns, 20mm, 23mm and 37mm cannon, 82mm and 132mm rockets, 50kg, 100kg and 250 kg bombs, anti-tank bomblets, anti-personel bomblets and even fuel air explosives and napalm in the final stages of the war.
The Il-2s ability to sustain damage was/is legendary. No-one has denied its vulnerability to fighters. Yet the fact remains that around 1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage. I have a picture of an Il-2 with its pilot and gunner standing shoulder to shoulder in crescent section blown out of the wing by a large calibre AAA hit (88 or 122mm I would guess). At oblique angles, HMG and even cannon fire would often ricochette off. Even if the oil cooler and radiator were vulnerable on the Ilushins, its a little difficult to hit them if its fleeing the target area at 400 kph and 50m.
Shturmoviks proved their worth time and time again. It is unfair to count the training level of their crews against them when discussing the design. That would be like saying the He-162 was a hopeless fighter because it was meant to be flown by hastily trained glider pilots with no jet experiance, or that the tempest was a great fighter purely because it was flown by pilots whop usually had lots of stick time. If the Shturmoviks had been operated be German, British, American crews, would the design suddenly bloom into its full potential? While Russian training wasn't always as good as it's western counterparts, it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war. It may not be representative, but I recently read an interview with an IL-2 pilot who had more than 250 hours of flight training in 1943 before transitioning to an operational pilot training unit where he recieved additional 'on the job' training, as it were.
Compare the Shturmoviks to other dedicated ground attack aircraft and as a balanced package they come out well ahead:
On the positive side they carried a better warload than either the Ju-87G or the Hs-128, bombs rockets and cannon all at the same time. They were also significantly quicker than either the Ju-87G or Hs-129 at low altitudes. The slowest Il-2s were the Il-2M3, armed with 37mm cannon. Even loaded as such they still pushed past 385 kph/240 mph at sea level. The fastest Il-2s were the single seaters, capable of around 435 kph/270 mph on the deck. The later Il-10 could do 500mph/ 310 mph at sea level. The Ilushins had far better armour than the Ju-87G, and although the HS-129 probably has better pilot protection, it lacks a rear gunner. Armour weight for the IL-2 went from 700kg in intial version to 990kg in the IL-2M.
On the negative side, it was slow and clusmy and unable to defend itself against fighters. But that is something it shares with all dedicated ground attack aircraft of the time. Neither the Ju-87G or Hs-129 could hope to out run or out manouver fighter opposition. All of them needed escorts or conditions of air superiority. The rear gunner position was hideously vulnerable initially although it was improved later on. One statistic is that for every one Il-2 pilot killed, they lost 6 gunners, which says something about the hard to down nature of the aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #576
Erich
the old Sage
frankly the Il familie does not come out ahead, I've staed before it could zap German MT and horse drawn units but tanks were another story.
another German panzer killer
Ruffler:
Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer
Received the Ritterkreuz on 9th june 1944 as Hauptmann and Staffelkapitän of the 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 for 72 tanks destroyed.
Born on 7th January 1920 in Eisenhammer Silesia and joined the Luftwaffe on 1st October 1939. He went through the pilot training with the Air Warfare School 4 (LKS 4). On 1st March 1941 he was promoted to Leutnant and subsequently trained as fighter pilot. In June 1942 he was serving with 1. Erg.Jagdgruppe Ost, later on he was retrained as ground attack pilot posted with the newly formed 8.(Pz.)/SchG 1, put to combat tanks at the important section of the Eastern Front since the end of 1942.
>From 8th April 1943 he led the 8. Staffel as Staffelführer. The most uccessful German Groundattack pilot, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, remembered an experience with Ruffer:
" Oberleutnant Ruffer, excellent shot of one of the hs 129 equipped Panzer staffel, was shot down during a sortie over the Kuban bridgehead and miraculously, like Robinson Crusoe, landed on one of the smallest islands between the lagoons. He was lucky as a German shock troop soon returned him back to own lines"
>From autumn of 1943 until his death Ruffer served as the Staffelkapitän of the 10. (Pz.)/SG 9. During March and April 1944, in the heavy defense fighting, he and his unit achieved extraordinary feats. For these he was cited twice in the OKW reports.
Around 10. March 1944 he gets his 50th tank destroyed. He was awarded the RK for a sortie in which he singlehandedly destroyed 10 Soviet tanks of the KV type, that broke through the German lines and tried to surround and annihilate an infantery unit in that section of the front. After his landing from this mission the armorers found 6 unspent 30mm rounds in the magazine of his anti-tank gun. He was the first tank hunter flying the Henschel 129 who was awarded the Ritterkreuz.
On the 16th July 1944 around 19:30 hrs, on a sortie to stem the Soviet tank breakthrough between Kovel and Lemberg Ruffer was killed. During a low level pass over the Radziechow-Stojanow railway his Hs 129 was hit heavily by Soviet flak and burned after hitting ground.
Ruffer had flown about 300 sorties during the war and destroyed around 80 tanks
E ~
another German panzer killer
Ruffler:
Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer
Received the Ritterkreuz on 9th june 1944 as Hauptmann and Staffelkapitän of the 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 for 72 tanks destroyed.
Born on 7th January 1920 in Eisenhammer Silesia and joined the Luftwaffe on 1st October 1939. He went through the pilot training with the Air Warfare School 4 (LKS 4). On 1st March 1941 he was promoted to Leutnant and subsequently trained as fighter pilot. In June 1942 he was serving with 1. Erg.Jagdgruppe Ost, later on he was retrained as ground attack pilot posted with the newly formed 8.(Pz.)/SchG 1, put to combat tanks at the important section of the Eastern Front since the end of 1942.
>From 8th April 1943 he led the 8. Staffel as Staffelführer. The most uccessful German Groundattack pilot, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, remembered an experience with Ruffer:
" Oberleutnant Ruffer, excellent shot of one of the hs 129 equipped Panzer staffel, was shot down during a sortie over the Kuban bridgehead and miraculously, like Robinson Crusoe, landed on one of the smallest islands between the lagoons. He was lucky as a German shock troop soon returned him back to own lines"
>From autumn of 1943 until his death Ruffer served as the Staffelkapitän of the 10. (Pz.)/SG 9. During March and April 1944, in the heavy defense fighting, he and his unit achieved extraordinary feats. For these he was cited twice in the OKW reports.
Around 10. March 1944 he gets his 50th tank destroyed. He was awarded the RK for a sortie in which he singlehandedly destroyed 10 Soviet tanks of the KV type, that broke through the German lines and tried to surround and annihilate an infantery unit in that section of the front. After his landing from this mission the armorers found 6 unspent 30mm rounds in the magazine of his anti-tank gun. He was the first tank hunter flying the Henschel 129 who was awarded the Ritterkreuz.
On the 16th July 1944 around 19:30 hrs, on a sortie to stem the Soviet tank breakthrough between Kovel and Lemberg Ruffer was killed. During a low level pass over the Radziechow-Stojanow railway his Hs 129 was hit heavily by Soviet flak and burned after hitting ground.
Ruffer had flown about 300 sorties during the war and destroyed around 80 tanks
E ~
Jabberwocky:
You have had the chance of meeting and speaking with how many men who flew the Shturmovik in combat..?
I say dark, you pop out and say light...I say good, you say bad...I say morning, you say night...I say pretty, you say ugly...
I´ll get back to you here and make a response to your last posting.
You have had the chance of meeting and speaking with how many men who flew the Shturmovik in combat..?
I say dark, you pop out and say light...I say good, you say bad...I say morning, you say night...I say pretty, you say ugly...
I´ll get back to you here and make a response to your last posting.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Yes Udet, but there is usually far more than one 'correct' opinion on any discussion, particularly one with as many variables as the combat performance of the Il-2. Such is the joy of the subjective nature of history, memory and truth.
For those who are interested, there was a figure taken from the Smithsonian website that more than 14,000 IL-2s were claimed shot down in 1943 and 1944.
Here is a link to the VVS losses for 1944. It's interesting reading. The sheer number of losses of all types is staggering. Every time I look at the Russian sacrifice to repel Germany in 1941-1945, it absolutely staggers me.
http://my.tele2.ee/airacesww2/airaces/articles/losses1944.htm
I wish the site had loss figures for the other years of the Great Patriotic War.
Interestingly, the Yak-9 makes up the highest proportion of fighter losses.
For those who are interested, there was a figure taken from the Smithsonian website that more than 14,000 IL-2s were claimed shot down in 1943 and 1944.
Here is a link to the VVS losses for 1944. It's interesting reading. The sheer number of losses of all types is staggering. Every time I look at the Russian sacrifice to repel Germany in 1941-1945, it absolutely staggers me.
http://my.tele2.ee/airacesww2/airaces/articles/losses1944.htm
I wish the site had loss figures for the other years of the Great Patriotic War.
Interestingly, the Yak-9 makes up the highest proportion of fighter losses.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Absolutely. It should also be taken into consideration if we talk about losses that the Il-2 flew much more missions than their contemporary western great planes. And those missions ALWAYS are dangerous unlike the fighter sweeps, patrols or escort dutys, which from time to time led to intensive dogfights but not per se. Beside of this, the 23 mm VY guns of IL-2 as well as the 37mm NS 37 of the IL2m3 are capable to knock out Pz-IV reliably, and this was the most common german main battle tank type...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
You must remember that quantity has an advantage over quality. If you put enough capable units against a known superior unit, quantity wins. See my statement on the Sherman tank. If the russians put up enough P-40s (just picking any old plane) with a cannon on it, they would have been effective against the German tanks. As effective as the same number of Il-2s, maybe, maybe not. Would its losses been greater than the Il-2, maybe maybe not. With the total number of Il-2 lost, this implies the Il-2 was thrown against the Germans in vast quantities which makes it difficult to judge its stand alone quality.
As for reputation, I suspect it was greater among the Russian press writers than it was among the operators and attackers.
As for reputation, I suspect it was greater among the Russian press writers than it was among the operators and attackers.
