P-47 vs IL-2 vs SU-2 vs Typhoon

[GrauGeist]

After reading through this thread and going through what I can find on the internet, I'm curious if the IL-2 really shouldn't be compared to something like the SBD Dauntless or the Fairly Battle as the performance seems more comparable. I'm also really unclear about how the IL-2 was used in combat. From what I can find, it seems like it was expected to be in very close support and exposed to ground fire for extended periods of time. That might help explain some of the very high loss rates due to ground fire. I also looked for annual loss rates with the theory that maybe the loss rates were exceptionally high early in the war and began to taper off as the Soviets gained control of the air, but that doesn't quite seem to be the case. Here is how I calculated loss rates for the IL-2/IL-10. Not a perfect approach but hopefully reasonably close. I have attached some screen shots at the bottom from my sources:

Total # of IL-2/IL-10 produced 1941-1945 (Wiki) 42,330
Total # aircraft produced by USSR 1941 - 1945 (Harrison) 134,365
IL-2/10 as percentage of total production - 31.5%

Estimated Annual IL-2/10 Production based on % of Annual Overall Production (Harrison)
1941 = 12,377(.315) = 3900
1942 = 21,681(.315) = 6829
1943 = 29,877(.315) = 9392
1944 = 33,205(.315) = 10,460
1945 = 37,285(.315) = 11,744

Annual Loss Rate (%) based on loss numbers from Wiki
1941 = 533/3900 = 14%
1942 = 1676/6829 = 26%
1943 = 3515/9392 = 38%
1944 = 3347/10460 = 32%
1945 = 1691/11744 = 14%

Using the numbers provided by Vincenzo in a following thread

1941 = 533/1542 = 34.5%
1942 = 1676/8229 = 20.3%
1943 = 3515/11193 = 31.4%
1944 = 3347/11110 = 30%
1945 = 169/4089 = 4%

I'm sure there's a bit of error built in to my approach, but the thing that stands out to me is how the loss rate in 1944 stayed relatively flat with 1943. This leads me to think that Soviet CAS tactics had a lot more to do with IL-2 loss rates than whether or not the Soviets had achieved local air superiority. Perhaps someone who has an understanding of this would care to expand on this. Lastly, I'm also interested in the effectiveness of the PTAB bomblet that seems to have been extensively used by the IL-2 later in the war.

Apologies that this is more a series of questions rather than knowledge sharing.

Regards,

Kk

View attachment 653315View attachment 653316View attachment 653317

It might be difficult to find numbers for the seperate variants, but the early IL-2 single seat was highly vulnerable to interception and the two seater modified from the first version (with the AM-38 engine) was still vulnerable despite the rear gunner due to it's performance.

As the IL-2 was upgraded (engine, metals and armament), it seemed to reach a point of parity as the Luftwaffe's dominance started to wane.

 

[Frog]

It might be difficult to find numbers for the seperate variants, but the early IL-2 single seat was highly vulnerable to interception and the two seater modified from the first version (with the AM-38 engine) was still vulnerable despite the rear gunner due to it's performance.

As the IL-2 was upgraded (engine, metals and armament), it seemed to reach a point of parity as the Luftwaffe's dominance started to wane.

Just my 2c, but the Luftwaffe was just part of the equation, even with local air superiority , as the IL-2 had also to cope with a very effective Flak (as on the Western Front by the way) and it ruggedness was not a luxury.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just my 2c, but the Luftwaffe was just part of the equation, even with local air superiority , as the IL-2 had also to cope with a very effective Flak (as on the Western Front by the way) and it ruggedness was not a luxury.

Agreed - the IL-2 was well armored, but only in certain areas.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Well, now we know for sure, an IL-2 can blow a Tiger's turret right off. Here is a clip from a recent Russian movie, that actually has decent CGI. And DShK instead of UB machine guns, apparently.

 

[Snautzer01]

Well, now we know for sure, an IL-2 can blow a Tiger's turret right off. Here is a clip from a recent Russian movie, that actually has decent CGI. And DShK instead of UB machine guns, apparently.

Well these are only panzer 4 i think.

 

[Shortround6]

Well these are only panzer 4 i think.

Well, I do like the main tank guns being used as AA guns

Apparently the artistic license extends to time and space.
Guns that fire at 10-12rpm (at best) fire more than one round against aircraft that can cover well over 600yds in 6 seconds.

 

[SaparotRob]

Well, I do like the main tank guns being used as AA guns

Apparently the artistic license extends to time and space.
Guns that fire at 10-12rpm (at best) fire more than one round against aircraft that can cover well over 600yds in 6 seconds.

I very recently saw a YouTube video about a Tiger shooting down a Soviet plane. I think it was on Mark Felton's channel.

 

[GrauGeist]

I very recently saw a YouTube video about a Tiger shooting down a Soviet plane. I think it was on Mark Felton's channel.

Happened in '43, Otto Carius' gunner (Uffz. Kraemer) was getting irritated at the constant hail of bullets striking their Tiger and elevated the cannon to intercept the oncoming Soviet aircraft.
First shot missed one attacking aircraft, second shot took the wing off the next aircraft in line.

That wasn't the only time, however. In 1942, a Soviet advance broke through German lines at Stalingrad and their tanks over-ran the Luftwaffe field at Tatsinskaya, which was packed with transport aircraft. The tanks commenced to shell the transports as they were trying to escape, catching most on the ground, but the T-34s also managed to shoot down several that were taking off.

 

[SaparotRob]

The comic books were right after all.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Happened in '43, Otto Carius' gunner (Uffz. Kraemer) was getting irritated at the constant hail of bullets striking their Tiger and elevated the cannon to intercept the oncoming Soviet aircraft.
First shot missed one attacking aircraft, second shot took the wing off the next aircraft in line.

That wasn't the only time, however. In 1942, a Soviet advance broke through German lines at Stalingrad and their tanks over-ran the Luftwaffe field at Tatsinskaya, which was packed with transport aircraft. The tanks commenced to shell the transports as they were trying to escape, catching most on the ground, but the T-34s also managed to shoot down several that were taking off.

The German 88 originally was an anti-aircraft gun. Couldn't they shoot flak through it?

 

[Shortround6]

The German 88 originally was an anti-aircraft gun. Couldn't they shoot flak through it?

Calls for a direct hit.
The AA shells used a different projectile and they used different fuses. And yes that is leaving out the AP rounds. The HE shells used for ground fire used different fuses (percussion) than the AA shells (time fuses).
So yes, you could fire an HE shell with a percussion fuse out of a tank gun and if you scored a direct hit on a plane you may shoot it down. Even if the shell might not go off. Depends on what the shell hits and how sensitive the fuse is.

 

[GrauGeist]

The German 88 originally was an anti-aircraft gun. Couldn't they shoot flak through it?

They could, but it wouldn't be practical, since the tank's primary role is to engage enemy heavy assets.
The Panzers were deployed in "layers", meaning the armor was supported by amored infantry, mobile artillery and anti-aircraft units, so the tank didn't have the need or the interior space for AA shells.

Also, in the case of Carius' tank versus aircraft, the shell ripped the wing off due to it's mass overwhelming the wing's structure. It didn't detonate.

 

[PAT303]

Happened in '43, Otto Carius' gunner (Uffz. Kraemer) was getting irritated at the constant hail of bullets striking their Tiger and elevated the cannon to intercept the oncoming Soviet aircraft.
First shot missed one attacking aircraft, second shot took the wing off the next aircraft in line.

That wasn't the only time, however. In 1942, a Soviet advance broke through German lines at Stalingrad and their tanks over-ran the Luftwaffe field at Tatsinskaya, which was packed with transport aircraft. The tanks commenced to shell the transports as they were trying to escape, catching most on the ground, but the T-34s also managed to shoot down several that were taking off.

Didn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.

 

[SaparotRob]

I imagine the 88 Flak mounts are also a bit more limber. Wouldn't Flak 88s also be operating in coordinated batteries?

 

[GrauGeist]

I imagine the 88 Flak mounts are also a bit more limber. Wouldn't Flak 88s also be operating in coordinated batteries?

The heavy AA artillery were limbered (towed) and set up at battle lines or emplaced at key points, like an airfield, although they did have an 88 mounted on a SdKfz.9 in very limited numbers.

Self propelled AA, either in the form of "flakpanzers" or vehicle mounted, like on the SdKfz.7, was in the 20mm to 37mm range.

 

[PAT303]

Didn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.

Centurion, stupid auto correct

 

[GrauGeist]

Didn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.

Oops, sorry I missed that!

I have not heard of such an event, though it is entirely possible. Maybe onenof the other guys might have info on that.

I do know that during the gulf war, an M1 tank's gunner locked the maingun onto a helicopter and was prepared to shoot, but the tank commander terminated the lock, as he identified it as an Allied helo at the last moment.

Close call.

 

[Dimlee]

After reading through this thread and going through what I can find on the internet, I'm curious if the IL-2 really shouldn't be compared to something like the SBD Dauntless or the Fairly Battle as the performance seems more comparable. I'm also really unclear about how the IL-2 was used in combat. From what I can find, it seems like it was expected to be in very close support and exposed to ground fire for extended periods of time. That might help explain some of the very high loss rates due to ground fire. I also looked for annual loss rates with the theory that maybe the loss rates were exceptionally high early in the war and began to taper off as the Soviets gained control of the air, but that doesn't quite seem to be the case. Here is how I calculated loss rates for the IL-2/IL-10. Not a perfect approach but hopefully reasonably close. I have attached some screen shots at the bottom from my sources:

Total # of IL-2/IL-10 produced 1941-1945 (Wiki) 42,330
Total # aircraft produced by USSR 1941 - 1945 (Harrison) 134,365
IL-2/10 as percentage of total production - 31.5%

Estimated Annual IL-2/10 Production based on % of Annual Overall Production (Harrison)
1941 = 12,377(.315) = 3900
1942 = 21,681(.315) = 6829
1943 = 29,877(.315) = 9392
1944 = 33,205(.315) = 10,460
1945 = 37,285(.315) = 11,744

Annual Loss Rate (%) based on loss numbers from Wiki
1941 = 533/3900 = 14%
1942 = 1676/6829 = 26%
1943 = 3515/9392 = 38%
1944 = 3347/10460 = 32%
1945 = 1691/11744 = 14%

Using the numbers provided by Vincenzo in a following thread

1941 = 533/1542 = 34.5%
1942 = 1676/8229 = 20.3%
1943 = 3515/11193 = 31.4%
1944 = 3347/11110 = 30%
1945 = 169/4089 = 4%

I'm sure there's a bit of error built in to my approach, but the thing that stands out to me is how the loss rate in 1944 stayed relatively flat with 1943. This leads me to think that Soviet CAS tactics had a lot more to do with IL-2 loss rates than whether or not the Soviets had achieved local air superiority. Perhaps someone who has an understanding of this would care to expand on this. Lastly, I'm also interested in the effectiveness of the PTAB bomblet that seems to have been extensively used by the IL-2 later in the war.

Apologies that this is more a series of questions rather than knowledge sharing.

Regards,

Kk

View attachment 653315View attachment 653316View attachment 653317

Il-2 statistics can be tricky as large share of aircraft produced was held in reserve, probably up to fifty percent in 1944-1945. I should have something among the Russian sources, will check them soon.

 

[NevadaK]

Il-2 statistics can be tricky as large share of aircraft produced was held in reserve, probably uo to fifty percent in 1944-1945. I should have something among the Russian sources, will check them soon.

Thank you in advance, Dimlee.

I have to admit that I didn't know very much about the IL-2 other than that it was produced in huge numbers and was considered essential to the Soviet war effort. After following this thread and reading through what is available online, I have a newfound appreciation for it and a slightly better understanding of how it was used vs ETO ground attack practices. Earlier in this thread there is a discussion about the IL-2's lack of bomb or rocket carrying capacity, however, unless I'm mistaken the IL-2's primary weapon was a cluster bomb that was developed for the IL-2 in 1942/43. Here is a wiki link:

PTAB (bomb) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

and then this link from Feldgrau.net with a translation regarding the use of the cluster bomb. There are some numbers regarding efficacy that are debatable and are challenged later in the thread, but I'm adding this link more for a description of the use of the PTAB:

IL-2 against panzers - Feldgrau.net

Looking at the evolution of IL-2 tactics, it seems that early in the war the standard practice was to make low level "charges" of 4-6 aircraft in an abreast formation first with machine guns or rockets and then a second pass with bombs. (These are popular images from Soviet wartime footage) There were very high loss rates associated with these attacks. Later, when the PTAB was developed, IL-2 tactics evolved to where formations of IL-2's would loiter over the combat zone for up to 30 minutes in a defensive circle and then in small batches make attack runs and then rejoin the circle. The first run would be a level bombing pass with cluster bombs and then later runs would be with guns or bombs/rockets.

One of the articles that I read stated that the cluster munition was developed following analysis of IL-2 effectiveness and the realization that IL-2 pilots often lacked the skill to be accurate with single bombs/rockets or strafing. I'm not familiar with a comparable weapon system in the ETO.

I'm curious if you can add any insights as to the effectiveness of Soviet cluster munitions and whether I have interpreted the development of the IL-2 tactics correctly.

Kk

 

[PAT303]

I have not heard of such an event, though it is entirely possible. Maybe onenof the other guys might have info on that.

Apparently it was an Mi 8 helicopter hammered by a 105mm from an Israeli Centurion