Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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
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.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.
Agreed - the IL-2 was well armored, but only in certain areas.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.
Well these are only panzer 4 i think.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, I do like the main tank guns being used as AA gunsWell these are only panzer 4 i think.
I very recently saw a YouTube video about a Tiger shooting down a Soviet plane. I think it was on Mark Felton's channel.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.
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.I very recently saw a YouTube video about a Tiger shooting down a Soviet plane. I think it was on Mark Felton's channel.
The German 88 originally was an anti-aircraft gun. Couldn't they shoot flak through it?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.
Calls for a direct hit.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 German 88 originally was an anti-aircraft gun. Couldn't they shoot flak through it?
Didn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.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 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.I imagine the 88 Flak mounts are also a bit more limber. Wouldn't Flak 88s also be operating in coordinated batteries?
Centurion, stupid auto correctDidn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.
Oops, sorry I missed that!Didn't a Centurial also shoot down a MIG?.
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.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
Thank you in advance, Dimlee.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.
Apparently it was an Mi 8 helicopter hammered by a 105mm from an Israeli CenturionI have not heard of such an event, though it is entirely possible. Maybe onenof the other guys might have info on that.