Wondering how these 4 compare and who was best in the attack role I'd list them as P-47 frist decnt range decent power decent bomb load and it can be used as a fighter 2 is the IL-2 good bomb load and good armor 3 is the SU-2 just an older IL-2 style aircraft 4 is the the typhoon not armored as well as everyone else and the bomb load isnt as good
P-47 vs IL-2 vs SU-2 vs Typhoon
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
How about listing the Fw190G and F in there as well, they seemed to be very capable ground attack aircraft
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The Su-2 seems to have been a bit of a problem child?
- Thread starter
- #4
But when she ran right it did the job
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Forgive the use of Wiki:
Sukhoi Su-2 - Wikipedia
Me, I'd rate the -47 and the Tiffie atop the grouping you present primarily for survivability over the Soviet designs, and the two Soviet planes as less-capable -- with the Il-2 obviously being highly-valued but also suffering high loss-rates. I've never read any German complaints about Su-2s foiling their plans, while the other three certainly made a deep impression on the Luftwaffe in the CAS role.
I also agree with
Clayton Magnet
that the G/A variants of the FW-190 belong on the list.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
I would also put the P-47 and Typhoon at the top, but would rather have a Tempest than a Typhoon.
I will probably earn some backlash by saying so, but I wonder if the P-47 couldn't have been improved for the CAS role. Its niche was a high altitude fighter, a role at which it was probably unequalled, at least until the Ta-152H made an appearance, years late(er). It was relatively sluggish at low altitude, and carried around a substantial turbo system that wasn't helping much down there. Would it have been possible to remove the turbo equipment, and just run off the engine driven supercharger? That would probably throw the CofG off, and wouldn't be worth it.
I will probably earn some backlash by saying so, but I wonder if the P-47 couldn't have been improved for the CAS role. Its niche was a high altitude fighter, a role at which it was probably unequalled, at least until the Ta-152H made an appearance, years late(er). It was relatively sluggish at low altitude, and carried around a substantial turbo system that wasn't helping much down there. Would it have been possible to remove the turbo equipment, and just run off the engine driven supercharger? That would probably throw the CofG off, and wouldn't be worth it.
Hi
Il-2 production is reported to have been 36,163 'OKB Ilyshin' by Gordon, D Komissarov & S Komissarov, page 41 gives losses of the type as 10,759 by the Red Army and 807 by the Naval Air Arm. It mentions that causes were 24% from enemy fighters, 43% shot down by ground fire, 32% unknown plus 1% destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe strikes. Gordon & Khazanov in 'Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Volume Two' page 50 gives losses during 1943 as one Il-2 for about every 26 sorties. The Il-2 undertook many of the same type of missions as 2nd TAF and 9th AF fighter-bombers did, CAS, 'interdiction and attacks on enemy airfields.
'Air Power at the Battlefront' by Gooderson on page 252 gives information on losses per sortie for 83 & 84 Group 2nd TAF between January and April 1945, when they were undertaking missions over Germany, a time that Pierre Clostermann recalled that Germany was "lousy with flak":
It appears that 2nd TAF fighter bombers were achieving better sortie/loss ratios than the Red Army Il-2s had in the previous information. If I find some more detailed info I will add it.
Mike
TheAircraftBuilder
Airman
2x are fighter-bombers (P-47 and Typhoon) and 2x are dedicated ground attack (Il-2 and Sukhoi). Can you really compare them like for like?
The former were probably better in terms of being multi-role and having a much better chance if plying their strafing/rocketing/bombing trade in areas where opposing fighters might make an appearance. All four of them would be equally capable of making a mess of unprotected ground troops and soft-skinned targets.
(Personal vote goes to Typhoon - favourite WW2 single-seater.)
The former were probably better in terms of being multi-role and having a much better chance if plying their strafing/rocketing/bombing trade in areas where opposing fighters might make an appearance. All four of them would be equally capable of making a mess of unprotected ground troops and soft-skinned targets.
(Personal vote goes to Typhoon - favourite WW2 single-seater.)
I would not add Il-2 and Su-2 into the comparison with P-47 and Typhoon. The first two were products of the pre WW2 thinking and of Soviet technology.
Il-2 and Su-2 represent different categories: the former was a dedicated CAS aircraft (shturmovik) while the latter was a so-called "close range(short-range) bomber". Su-2 was more versatile by design.
I risk attracting a lot of critiques, especially among my fellow Russians, but I consider Il-2 as a waste of resources and a perfect candidate to the "the most overrated aircraft of WWII". While Su-2, in my opinion, belongs to the most "underrated" league. The decision to shut down the production of Su-2 in 1941 was a big mistake. Again, IMO.
Il-2 and Su-2 represent different categories: the former was a dedicated CAS aircraft (shturmovik) while the latter was a so-called "close range(short-range) bomber". Su-2 was more versatile by design.
I risk attracting a lot of critiques, especially among my fellow Russians, but I consider Il-2 as a waste of resources and a perfect candidate to the "the most overrated aircraft of WWII". While Su-2, in my opinion, belongs to the most "underrated" league. The decision to shut down the production of Su-2 in 1941 was a big mistake. Again, IMO.
Only 893 Su-2 were built. Probably about 800 were used in operations, most of them in 1941-1942. At least 100 - as recon and artillery spotter. It is no surprise, that they were less known to Germans than Il-2 and Pe-2 that operated in thousands.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm surprised. I am in no way debating you. The Il-2 has some pretty good press. I hadn't been aware of the Su-2 until your post. My 2 to 3 minutes of research doesn't seem to show the Su-2 in that good a light.
wuzak
Captain
Didn't the Typhoon gain a lot of armour around the engine and cooling system when it was moved into the ground support role? Did the P-47 get any additional armour for the ground support role?
And the Typhoon was cleared to use 2 x 1,000lb bombs, not unlike the P-47. Somewhat more than the Il-2 or Su-2 cold carry.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
... and over 200 of the Sukhois were lost. Not a sterling record.
Those huge wings are crying out for 3 Hispano's each side.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Su-2 was also pressed into an interim fighter role at times, too.
In regards to the P-47 packing 20mm cannon - weight and dimensions would have to be a factor. So stop production and redesign the wing to accept it, or be satisfied with eight .50MGs with 3,400 rounds?
According to wiki 350Kg
Because of the vulnerability of the Typhoon's liquid-cooled engine cooling system to ground fire, some 780 pounds (350 kg) of armour was added, lining the sides and bottom of the cockpit and engine compartments, as well as the radiator bath.
Loss figures are still debatable. I can't find the totals for all war periods.
1941: 222 for all reasons. Sortie/loss ratio: 22 vs 14 average of all VVS bombers.
Source: Dmitriy Khazanov, some articles from 2008.
Further figures are from this book of the same author:
СÑ-2 пÑÐ¸Ð½Ð¸Ð¼Ð°ÐµÑ Ð±Ð¾Ð¹. ЧÑдо-оÑÑжие или «ÑамолеÑ-Ñакал»? by ÐмиÑÑий Хазанов - Books on Google Play
СÑ-2 пÑÐ¸Ð½Ð¸Ð¼Ð°ÐµÑ Ð±Ð¾Ð¹. ЧÑдо-оÑÑжие или «ÑамолеÑ-Ñакал»? - Ebook written by ÐмиÑÑий Хазанов. Read this book using Google Play Books app on your PC, android, iOS devices. Download for offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read СÑ-2...
June-July 1941: 120 for all reasons including non-combat losses and aircraft left on the captured airfields. Including 15 a/c found after the forced landings and returned to the service.
1941, Su-2 of 66th AD sortie/loss ratio: 71. In the same division, Pe-2: 32, SB: 8.
1942, Su-2 bombers (not recon/spotter) of 270th BAD had 4 times higher sortie/loss ratio than Pe-2 of the same BAD(division) and Bostons of 221st BAD that operated in the same area.
In my opinion, not bad. Especially, if compared with Il-2.
Shortround6
Major General
to further Dimlee's post the Su-2 was pretty much a 1940-42 aircraft.
It's production facilities were phased out near at the end of 1941 (correction welcome) and the large majority of the production aircraft were equipped with the M-88 engine of about 1100hp (?). There were prototypes or production batches of versions with the M-82 engine that had a lot more power. But that turns the Su-2 with the M-82 into a pretty much a what if aircraft.
While 900 aircraft is not a small number of aircraft it is a very small compared to most soviet aircraft. Trying to figure out actual combat records or rather variations in service use it might have had (not all missions or mission profiles will result in the same losses per 1000 sorties) gets very hard for western writers or board members to get good information. It's not easy even for Russian writers.
Like the quoted section.
I believe the 270th BAD was just one of 15 VVS regiments and two separate squadrons that used Su-2 during 1941 and 1942.
It is possible to pick and chose regiments to get rather different results. Just like some BoB squadrons/groups had different results with Hurricanes and Spitfires.
One the whole Spitfires did have better results than Hurricanes but you can single out squadrons (or even groups) that could have had different results than the "average".
The Su-2 might have done much better it allowed in stay in production and used M-82 engines (assuming you could get enough M-82 engines).
Four Hispano's weigh 170kg where's eight .50's are 360kg so switching to Hispano's gives you the on target effect of 12 BMG's with the added bonus of a 200kg weight saving, if the Spit MkV could carry four cannons I don't think the Jug is going to have problems
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
