F4U in Europe

[FLYBOYJ]

It was a flying tank though

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.

 

[glennasher]

It was a flying tank though

A shot-down tank is still shot-down, is it not?
If I were in an infantry shoot-out, I'd rather NOT get hit on my body armor at all, rather than rave about how great that body armor is.

 

[Shortround6]

attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?

Well, it is only a five star attribute if every other attribute was already a 5 star level attribute.

Or close to it.
Self sealing fuel tanks did contribute to absorb battle damage, they didn't really allow the shot up plane to continue to engage in combat for very long (seconds) as too many other things also also degraded.

 

[GrauGeist]

The armor on the IL-2, was to protect it from ground fire (like the Hs129).

Not really effective against enemy aircraft - unless the enemy aircraft was underneath and shooting upward...

 

[NevadaK]

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.

Greetings GrauGeist,

I was trying to find a citation, but IIRC the Corsair was highly regarded for its stability in ground attack. My guess is that it was a better platform than the P-47 for bomb delivery and rockets. The P-47 was ranked higher for strafing which makes sense given the greater number of guns. The Corsair, however, is able to carry a greater payload than than the P-47. According to a couple sources the Corsair was able to carry up to 4,000 lbs of ordinance versus 2,000 lbs for the Thunderbolt. This would certainly affect how it was rated for ground attack. I don't disagree that the P-47 and Typhoon/Tempest were important ground attack aircraft, but don't overlook the Corsair's contribution in the Pacific in the same role.

 

[pbehn]

Fitting a lot of extra armour to Typhoons was an admission that it was no longer a pure fighter and needed other fighters to do its job. It could get rid of its bombs or rockets and fight, but that means the opposition have achieved their first objective.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[Howard Gibson]

With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." ...

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.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The armoured shell didn't encompass the entire external fuselage, it protected the engine, fuel and pilot (not necessarily the rear gunner). It was still an airplane, and airplanes need to be relatively light weight to get off the ground, you cant build the whole thing out of steel plate. It was still vulnerable, just like every other airplane, and it was shot down in droves. It may have been able to defect rifle caliber hits from below, in certain areas, but an explosive 20mm cannon shell would still remove pieces, and you can only lose so many pieces before gravity, or a fire takes over

 

[Clayton Magnet]

In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend

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.

 

[VA5124]

define "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.

But armored with steel

 

[Clayton Magnet]

But armored with steel

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.

 

[VA5124]

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 when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra plating

 

[GregP]

With regards to post #328, actually the Il-2's most notable feature was the inclusion of armor in an airframe load-bearing scheme. Armor plates replaced the frame and paneling throughout the nacelle and middle part of the fuselage, and an armored hull made of riveted homogeneous armor steel AB-1 (AB-2) secured the aircraft's engine, cockpit, water and oil radiators, and fuel tanks.

It did have mixed wood and metal construction, but the armor was the thing that set it apart from the rest of the ground attack aircraft.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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.

Another note - during my years at the academy and at the Reno air races, I came across many A-10 drivers and it seems when they spoke about their mission, the goal was not to take any fire although they knew they had a very rugged jet underneath them. One of my favorite officers to deal with at the academy came up the enlisted ranks, made it to OCS and eventually got to fly the A-10 (the same aircraft he twisted wrenches on). He told me that aside from avoiding harm to himself and his aircraft, he always had his maintainers in mind because "he was once there."

Former Air Force pilot to receive Silver Star for Iraq combat mission

A pilot will receive a Silver Star — the third highest medal for valor in the military – in a private ceremony at the National Museum of the U.S. Air

www.daytondailynews.com

 

[drgondog]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

But when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra plating

They uprated the AM-38 in order to handle the addition of the rear gunner.

So you must decide:
Rear gunner or more armor for the pilot.

If the decision is more armor, keep in mind that the armor was to protect from ground fire, not attacking fighters.

The rear gunner was to defend the aircraft, which an armored bathtub cannot do.

 

[Ovod]

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.

Can't see how the Il-2 provided ground support to the troops any better than aircraft such as the Typhoon or P-47. I also can't see how the Il-2 could provide better "staying power" or endurance compared to the 2 western aircraft – always thought the Il-2 had less than average range and endurance.

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.

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?

 

[Howard Gibson]

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?

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.

Note that I have one only not entirely reliable source for IL-2 air gunners.