Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What's that supposed to mean??
There is even a theory (from Suvurov) that Il-2 rear-gunners were political prisonners, basically being sent on suicide missions.
Kris
Ok, this is starting to get stupid...all the ridiculous nitpicking...
Ok, who begun to go in that way?
The P-47 was not an open cockpit like a Fokker D.VII...it did in fact have armor plating that afforded the pilot good protection. Moreso than most Allied aircraft.
Yes it was much better protected by it's bubbletop plexiglass!!! The P-47 had armor plating, but it was not covering all the vital points of the plane and not only the pilot, unlike the Il2. Even the P-47 pilot was far from being protected by armour from all sides.
Stormovik pilot was fully covered either by glass armor, either by steel armor, from all sides. Yes, one stormovik pilot was killed one day by ukrainien indenpendantist near Lwow aera from a simple rifle, when he was flying with an opened canopy. In other cases...The amazing marksman that can keep his cool and squeeze off the shot that will hit the pilot in the head as the aircraft is diving and strafing them probably probably can't be stopped. I'll also figure that this same "ubermann" can take the top off a Sturmovik pilot, too. Seeing as how both aircraft didn't have armor plating all the way up the side of the pilot's head. If they did, it would be called a tank, and that's for a different thread entirely.
In the future if you don't know the material about you're talking about, better abstain or study it from reliable sources.
I think every aspect of the comparison between the IL-2 and the P-47 has been played out, and the conclusion would be that no, the Allies didn't really have a need for such an aircraft just as much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease.
Two different machines that filled two very important, but different roles.
That is okExcept on that soviets studied enough the P 47 before to see no need for it. For the allied, the question remains, since they never tested Il2, Il10, Su-6.
There is a lot of flying bullets during a ground attack, and without any kind of magc some of them may hit your plane, and were doing so. With the MG 42 rate of fire, no need for being the "absolute marksman" for hitting a plane from time to time. And if the Il-2 is protected angainst the small bullets, it's not the P-47 case.That was the spirit of the thread, and it would be nice to get back to the discussion instead of magic bullets and arguing every freaking aspect of a point until it becomes ridiculous.
The Il-2 had no P-47 performance, as the P-47 had no Il-2 protection.
Nothing more.
VG-33
VG-33 - what I want to know more about are the aerial mini-mines that could be deployed under the belly of the Il-2 via mini-parachutes - drop 150 feet and explode. Did those things actually work?
MM
Hi MM,"... much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease."
That has always puzzled me somewhat, GrauGeist. Why didn't the Soviets find the P-47 useful - especially given their desire to clone the B-29 - another high-tech complicated aircraft. I don't actually know how many L.L. P-47's the Soviets received. One reads that P-47's that broke down on shuttle missions through the USSR were retained, as well.
I have come to understand - rightly or wrongly - that P-47's were used later in the war for air patrol over Moscow. If that is true it suggeststhat (1) the Soviets recognized the P-47 would be a great defensive weapon if Germans tried a high altitude bomber run on the capital city, (2) that the leadership believed that the P-47's looked IMPRESSIVE to the street (who wouldn't know much about them, wouldn't likely have sons or daughters building/maintaining/flying them). The only thing the uninitiated would see is that they were BIG, FAST and POWERFUL.
Stationed in Moscow flying air patrols in P-47 D's with bubble canopies and air conditioning would have been a really plum assignmentcompared to flying Il-2's, Yaks etc from the fields close to the front.
Can anyone confirm that is how the Soviets used the handful of P-47's that they obtained?
MM
No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled.HOWEVER, the boiler of the locomotive is the key component of a steam locomotive. It contains water vapor (steam) that is under tremendous pressure, and is therefore constructed with a tempered steel for it's boiler. I'm not an expert on the various locomotives in use during that time period, but I do know that the steel used generally had to follow a certain PSI rating that exceeded the maximum amount of pressure (head of steam) that the locomotive could generate. Unless the round was AP or an HE round of a large caliber, there will be no penetration.
GG - thanks for those numbers. I never realized they received that many. And I have never heard of P-47's engaging ....
FlyboyJ - you may be familiar with this link already:
Ëåò÷èêè-øòóðìîâèêè. Õóõðèêîâ Þðèé Ìèõàéëîâè÷. Ïðîåêò ß Ïîìíþ. Ãåðîé ÂÎÂ
The interviewee gives the impression that "survival" was more like 7-8 missions. That seems very short to me but surviving 30 seems very lucky. I have no skin in this game but am amazed at how emotional feelings run on the subject of the Eastern Front - clearly there is a lack of understanding of the sheer scale of Eastern Front operations (closest match is the US Pacific war), but I also get the feeling that there's a kind of fantasy involved that doesn't serve historical understanding as much as political/idealogical beliefs. Sad - because generations do need to understand the scale and sacrifice - but also need to understand it was unwinnable without the sheer brutality of the Soviet system.
Thanks for the stats VG33.
MM
Sorry Joe, I must have missed your post, which was good info, by the way.No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled.
WWII era locomotive boilers typically operated at around 200-250psi (~14-17 bar) and it was quite practical, and therefore standard practice, to construct them of riveted mild steel. Thickness of a 200psi boiler was around 1/2" (12.5mm), higher pressure ones 9/16" (14mm). That's equivalent to around 9-10mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate (rule of thumb mild steel provides 75% as much protection), which .50 cal AP could penetrate at realistic ranges, assuming some rounds hit fairly close to perpendicular. And I've seen footage of locomotives strafed by USAAF a/c and apparently leaking steam copiously. Not trying to nitpick but just make clear the fact, that locomotive boilers could be and were penetrated by .50 cal strafing.
Joe
Some sources claim 12,000 Il-2 are listed as being in active service at one time late in 1944, the highest number of any single aircraft type in history. Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good.