Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Flying tank or not - the worse feeling in the world you can have as a pilot is heating the sounds of metal peppering your aircraft (I've experienced that once and one time was good enough for me) and I don't care if you're in a bank vault with wings. The preferred situation is NOT to take on any fire and I would rather be in an aircraft that was fast or stealthy enough to ensure that.It was a flying tank though
A shot-down tank is still shot-down, is it not?It was a flying tank though
attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?
Greetings GrauGeist,I find that chart interesting, especially in the ground attack categories.
The F4U had six .50MGs, the P-47 had eight.
The F4U could carry eight 5" HVAR, the P-47 could carry ten.
For ground attack, the P-47 proved to a ferocious machine. Both it and the Typhoon were the scourge of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.
Actually, most of it was made of wood. The pilot's station is heavily armoured. "Victor Suvorov" claims that the gunner was a penal assignment. If they somehow survived ten missions, they were sent off to clear mines. I cannot find any aircraft literature that confirms this story.With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." ...
I don't doubt that at all. However, between the USAF, USN and South Vietnamese air force, something like 400 Skyraiders were lost in combat. Because they are flying low and slow, they are extremely vulnerable. They provide valuable service, no doubt, but at a great cost. The US lost more A-10's over Iraq than any other type, because flying low and slow over a battlefield means you will probably absorb more than your fair share of hits. An A-10 can take punishment as well, and has a similar sort of armored shell as an IL2, but it is still vulnerable.In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend
But armored with steeldefine "flying tank". That is also a term that gets flippantly tossed around. The IL-2 was an airplane, made out of flimsy sheet aluminum just like all the others. It was perhaps more resilient to some types of battle damage, but its ponderous performance also guaranteed that it was going to be shot up a lot.
Just because it could take a few hits, like a P-47, doesn't mean it was going to be very useful for the squadron commander while it was sitting on jacks in the hanger for 6 months getting patched up, or scrapped.
Sure, but you can only put so much steel armour on a plane before it won't get off the ground. Something like 15% of the IL-2's gross weight was armour plate. If they had made it 25%, then it truly would have been a tank, just not a flying one.But armored with steel
But when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra platingSure, but you can only put so much steel armour on a plane before it won't get off the ground. Something like 15% of the IL-2's gross weight was armour plate. If they had made it 25%, then it truly would have been a tank, just not a flying one.
Great post, I'm sure my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders. He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." It had a very substantial armor shell made of steel that was 1/2 inch thick in places. It was almost immune to MG fire from below. Perhaps the propeller wasn't, but a propeller is very hard to hit anytime. While it certainly wasn't a fighter, and the performance wasn't especially brisk, the Il-2 was your best friend if you were a ground soldier and desperately needed air support. Against ground troops, it was likely the best of the war if the ability to stay there and attack the enemy troops was important.
In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend. The jets would make one pass, maybe two, and fly away. If four fully-armed Skyraiders showed up, they were a game-changer. They could orbit for 2 hours and drop something or shoot something on every pass. If you were a squad being attacked by a larger force, you could stand up and walk away with 4 Skyraiders flying around. The LAST thing the enemy wanted to do was to attract the attention of the Skyraiders. That could very easily prove fatal. And they didn't really need to run from MiGs, either.
Yours and mine both. My brother was in the A Shau valley during the Tet offensive. He had many stories of the Skyraider saving the day.Great post, I'm sure my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders. He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.
I have a close friend that was an AD driver (Navy Cross) that flew two tours and never brought home an AD that didn't require at least a patch every time he went in hot. He also has a hilarious story about a bar bet with an A-4 squadron relative to their (A-4) pilots easily mastering take off in ADs.Great post, I'm sure my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders. He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.
They uprated the AM-38 in order to handle the addition of the rear gunner.But when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra plating
While it certainly wasn't a fighter, and the performance wasn't especially brisk, the Il-2 was your best friend if you were a ground soldier and desperately needed air support. Against ground troops, it was likely the best of the war if the ability to stay there and attack the enemy troops was important.
Actually, most of it was made of wood. The pilot's station is heavily armoured. "Victor Suvorov" claims that the gunner was a penal assignment. If they somehow survived ten missions, they were sent off to clear mines. I cannot find any aircraft literature that confirms this story.
The Russians definitely deployed penal battalions. These were made up of troops the Soviets wanted dead. The British and Americans wanted their air gunners to survive the mission.Why would being a gunner on a combat aircraft be considered a penal assignment? Was the role of defensive gunner on a British or American bomber or attack aircraft also considered a penal assignment?