Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up.

Don't be fooled by that. The size of an aircraft has nothing to do with the amount of the damage an aircraft can take. An aircraft does not have to take a lot of "rounds" to lose structural integrity and "break up".

Robert S Johnson may disagree with you on that point

It's not about armour at least, not to the exclusion of all else. Turning an aircraft into a barge full of pig iron does not make it more survivable. How do you armour control surfaces and tail units? Rear gunners were horribly exposed. The oil cooler wasn't protected. All you do is slow the aircraft down and make life easier for a cannon-armed Luftwaffe bird and the Wehrmacht flak emplacements once they were over the target. The Il-2's real ace card was numbers.

I agree with you there. It does not matter how armored an aircraft like the Il-2 is. Without sufficient fighter support, it is cannon fodder. You can not armor an aircraft enough to make it "invincible".

 

[vanir]

Uh-oh I hope I don't get in the middle of an argument, but I have to say I myself find the comparison of a P-47 to the Il-2 completely out of accordance with design features and intended role (speaking in terms of pilot doctrine).

You fly them differently, obviously, hence you use them differently. This is similar to an argument I had once about comparing dive bombers like the Ju-87 to fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and P-47. Totally different kettle of fish on this basis. Consider:

The Il-2 is flown in defence penetration slowly at very low altitude and relies on its heavy armoured bathtub (which fully protected the rear gunner when this feature entered serial production, field modified single-seaters were the only ones without rear gunner protection, who also had 7.62mm instead of 12.7mm armament and the weaker engine), armour good enough to withstand light FlaK with high survivability (historical accounts clearly demonstrate the almost impenetrable nature of the armoured bathtub to all but the very heaviest armament).
The VYa-23 was also very hard hitting (twice the explosive fill of the 20mm ShVAK round), shaped charge ROFS-132 rockets could cut a King Tiger in half, wing mounted ShKas provided light ground suppression and a set of 100kg bombs internally was all carried in addition. But I mean also crucial to consider is the sheer variety of weapon and warhead types available to the Il-2, generally interchangeable (aside from the NS-37 armament specific to the M3 version, though it retained rocket/bomb capability but deleted all other wing guns). There are no less than eight distinct types of rocket/warhead combinations available for various targets, bomb types ranging to hollow charge/light-anti-tank PTAB bomblets, deadly anti-personnel canisters and even a sort of Soviet version of napalm.
This is clearly a very specialised type of aircraft, a light-bomber and heavy attack model with armour over performance, and production ease/conservatism over reliability. The motor might blow from being overworked halfway back to base, but little on Earth is going to stop it either getting to its target or destroying it. Escorts were also standing doctrine and part of the Il-2 squadron formations, typically LaGG-3 fitted with 250kg bombs and VYa-23 to provide additional fighter-bomber/attack support, though bombs would be jettisoned if attacked by fighters for engagement purposes (primary role of course Il-2 escort, ground attack was secondary). P-39 and La-5 were also commonly used for this.

No need to go over the P-47 as it is widely known. But clearly flown differently (attack penetration at medium altitude and high speed for one, like a schnellkampf doctrine for fighter-bombers rather than a slow circling approach typical of heavy attack models). And clearly used differently but that's just another way of defining to fly an aircraft differently when applying it to the target.

So IMHO whilst two different aircraft might attack the same kind of target, they can still be performing entirely different roles to do it. Which is a reflection of how you fly them differently, and the associated aerial doctrines imposed.

P-47 and Il-2 are like comparing boats with cars by saying they're both transports. In my opinion.

I should add, this also means of course the Il-2 can do some things the P-47 can't and vice versa, because they are so very different. I should think this obvious.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Don't be fooled by that. The size of an aircraft has nothing to do with the amount of the damage an aircraft can take. An aircraft does not have to take a lot of "rounds" to lose structural integrity and "break up".



I agree with you there. It does not matter how armored an aircraft like the Il-2 is. Without sufficient fighter support, it is cannon fodder. You can not armor an aircraft enough to make it "invincible".

The P-47 is pretty famous for coming home looking like it shouldn't still be flying. I recall hearing a story about an Fw-190 running out of ammo trying to shoot one down (I assume he either was a bad shot or was already low on ammo).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-47 is pretty famous for coming home looking like it shouldn't still be flying. I recall hearing a story about an Fw-190 running out of ammo trying to shoot one down (I assume he either was a bad shot or was already low on ammo).

I do not doubt that. Fact however is that it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. Size does not make an aircraft able to sustain more damage. You quote stated:

The P-47 was also twice as big as some of the fighters you mentioned. That's a whole lot more shells you can take before the plane breaks up.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I do not doubt that. Fact however is that it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. Size does not make an aircraft able to sustain more damage. You quote stated:

Just stands to reason that you have to bring a bigger gun to shoot down a big thing with a very strong structure than a small thing with decent sturdiness.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Colin1 "...The Il-2's real ace card was numbers...." Bang on.

Il-2's - bathtub or no bathtub - were toast without top cover support from P-39 Airacobras (and the like). Without local air superiority IL-2 attacks were too-often one way trips.

Waves and waves and waves of Il-2's attacking must have been a frightening experience for any troops on the ground. No doubt they were effective in the unique circumstances of the Eastern Front. But in Western Europe .... can't see it ... lack speed, range and manoeveribility IMHO.

Typhoons and Thunderbolts may have lacked armor and payload but they could cruise-hunt well above random flak, locate a target opportunity and pounce. The moment they were on-the-deck there could be surprises anywhere.

I can't see low and slow moving Il-2 prowling around France and Germany just behind the lines making trouble - whereas in Russia - when the Germans attack with armour - launching waves of IL-2's to counter attck - or using waves of Il-2's to follow an artillery bombardment - those are different scenarios.

Typhoons and P-47's didn't regularly have Spits and Mustangs flying top cover for them, did they?

MM

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just stands to reason that you have to bring a bigger gun to shoot down a big thing with a very strong structure than a small thing with decent sturdiness.

No it has nothing to do with the size! I would rather have something that is small with a strong structure. It makes for a smaller target to shoot at.

 

[Clay_Allison]

No it has nothing to do with the size! I would rather have something that is small with a strong structure. It makes for a smaller target to shoot at.

I believe that the loss rate to AA was worse for the Mustang than for the P-47. I know that doesn't tell the whole story, but if I was going to definitely take a 20mm hit, I'd rather it be in a P-47.

 

[Altea]

Not by the thousands.

Why not by tens of thousands like in USSR (36 000 planes built). ? The fact that the Yak is easy to build in small workshops with poor means, induces automatically that it's very easy to buid in big industrial structures. In reality, the output depends a lot on welders and joiners drill. But, with experience, everything comes on…

Again that was hand built over a period of time with no wartime stress or schedule placed on those working on the aircraft. Remanufacturing a warbird for exibition purposes is a lot different than mass producing a warbird during a wartime pace.

It's even more true and stressful with complicated airplanes with elliptical or laminar wings.

During WW2 you had lathes, milling machines and even measuring tools by the thousands all in inches that would have to be either converted or discarded. Additionally you had a training factor of a population that already worked with imperial measurement that would have had to be re-trained. All do-able but hardly worth the effort.

Lathes ? What is the difference for the worker to turn a 12 mm shaft with + - 0.25 mm accuracy or 0.5 inch onewith + - 0.01 inch accuracy. It's like driving a car (or landing a lightplane) at 90 km/h in Europe or 50 mph (US, Canada ). All you have (he has) to do it's to respect indicated values, no matter it's in mm or inches, km/h or miles/h…

I don't see the special re-training you're talking about. Moreover all Yak planes are conceived from the crush to be built, maintained and handled by poorly qualified personnel. So the be tooling package for a Yak plane should have been very light, exactly at the opposite of Tu-2's or Pe-2's one.

Oh we could have made our own tooling, but by the time you consider that in ...Tooling needs to be supplied with drawings when having someone else build your aircraft.

No doubt with that at the beginning, but even a Hellcat aileron wouldn't go the Wildcat and the opposite.

Best regards

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe that the loss rate to AA was worse for the Mustang than for the P-47. I know that doesn't tell the whole story, but if I was going to definitely take a 20mm hit, I'd rather it be in a P-47.

I agree, in your situation here I would rather be in a P-47, because it was stronger than the P-51. I will say it again though, it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. The size of an aircraft will not determine how many round it will take before the "structure breaks up".

I have seen small aircraft taken down by hundreds of rounds and I have seen very large aircraft taken down by 1 single round.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree, in your situation here I would rather be in a P-47, because it was stronger than the P-51. I will say it again though, it has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft. The size of an aircraft will not determine how many round it will take before the "structure breaks up".

I have seen small aircraft taken down by hundreds of rounds and I have seen very large aircraft taken down by 1 single round.

I agree with you, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL the bigger plane has more room to re-enforce structure. Could you design a Spitfire that could take as many hits as a B-17? Of course not. The bigger plane has more potential to absorb more energy. Whether it takes advantage of that potential, that's totally a different story and can only be judged individually.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL the bigger plane has more room to re-enforce structure. Could you design a Spitfire that could take as many hits as a B-17? Of course not. The bigger plane has more potential to absorb more energy. Whether it takes advantage of that potential, that's totally a different story and can only be judged individually.

I disagree. It all depends on the material and the design of the aircraft.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I disagree. It all depends on the material and the design of the aircraft.

So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?

 

[Colin1]

So you could design a spitfire sized plane that could take multiple 30mm hits and survive just as well as a B-17?

Clay
when you say 'survive just as well as a B-17', nothing of the period could really stand up to 30mm cannon; 2-3 rounds were usually sufficient to bring down a heavy. A Spitfire-sized aeroplane being hit somewhere 'hard' like the engine would practically disintegrate.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Clay
when you say 'survive just as well as a B-17', nothing of the period could really stand up to 30mm cannon; 2-3 rounds were usually sufficient to bring down a heavy. A Spitfire-sized aeroplane being hit somewhere 'hard' like the engine would practically disintegrate.

that's my point. I understand what Alder is saying, but he's being too extreme about it.

 

[Civettone]

Uh-oh I hope I don't get in the middle of an argument, but I have to say I myself find the comparison of a P-47 to the Il-2 completely out of accordance with design features and intended role (speaking in terms of pilot doctrine).

You fly them differently, obviously, hence you use them differently. This is similar to an argument I had once about comparing dive bombers like the Ju-87 to fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and P-47. Totally different kettle of fish on this basis. Consider:

The Il-2 is flown in defence penetration slowly at very low altitude and relies on its heavy armoured bathtub (which fully protected the rear gunner when this feature entered serial production, field modified single-seaters were the only ones without rear gunner protection, who also had 7.62mm instead of 12.7mm armament and the weaker engine), armour good enough to withstand light FlaK with high survivability (historical accounts clearly demonstrate the almost impenetrable nature of the armoured bathtub to all but the very heaviest armament).
The VYa-23 was also very hard hitting (twice the explosive fill of the 20mm ShVAK round), shaped charge ROFS-132 rockets could cut a King Tiger in half, wing mounted ShKas provided light ground suppression and a set of 100kg bombs internally was all carried in addition. But I mean also crucial to consider is the sheer variety of weapon and warhead types available to the Il-2, generally interchangeable (aside from the NS-37 armament specific to the M3 version, though it retained rocket/bomb capability but deleted all other wing guns). There are no less than eight distinct types of rocket/warhead combinations available for various targets, bomb types ranging to hollow charge/light-anti-tank PTAB bomblets, deadly anti-personnel canisters and even a sort of Soviet version of napalm.
This is clearly a very specialised type of aircraft, a light-bomber and heavy attack model with armour over performance, and production ease/conservatism over reliability. The motor might blow from being overworked halfway back to base, but little on Earth is going to stop it either getting to its target or destroying it. Escorts were also standing doctrine and part of the Il-2 squadron formations, typically LaGG-3 fitted with 250kg bombs and VYa-23 to provide additional fighter-bomber/attack support, though bombs would be jettisoned if attacked by fighters for engagement purposes (primary role of course Il-2 escort, ground attack was secondary). P-39 and La-5 were also commonly used for this.

No need to go over the P-47 as it is widely known. But clearly flown differently (attack penetration at medium altitude and high speed for one, like a schnellkampf doctrine for fighter-bombers rather than a slow circling approach typical of heavy attack models). And clearly used differently but that's just another way of defining to fly an aircraft differently when applying it to the target.

So IMHO whilst two different aircraft might attack the same kind of target, they can still be performing entirely different roles to do it. Which is a reflection of how you fly them differently, and the associated aerial doctrines imposed.

P-47 and Il-2 are like comparing boats with cars by saying they're both transports. In my opinion.

I should add, this also means of course the Il-2 can do some things the P-47 can't and vice versa, because they are so very different. I should think this obvious.

Good post!
I would also like to reiterate how we got on this subject. I suggested the Il-2 as something the allies didn't have and would have been a great weapon for the western allies once air superiority was achieved. Then someone replied that the West had the P-47.

The P-47 is awesome, no doubt about it. But it's not an Il-2. Il-2 was - like the Ju 87D and Hs 129 - a fantastic ground attack aircraft. It's difficult to compare the P-47 and Il-2.

Discussions about speed vs armour have been going on since WW1. Even the A-10 vs F-16 discussion back in the 90s was to a certain extent about that.

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Why not by tens of thousands like in USSR (36 000 planes built). ? The fact that the Yak is easy to build in small workshops with poor means, induces automatically that it's very easy to buid in big industrial structures. In reality, the output depends a lot on welders and joiners drill. But, with experience, everything comes on.

THe Russians, according to some accounts, had trouble with parts fitting in planes built in the same factory.
Some Western and even Japanese plans to use dispersed manufacture but central assembly points had troubles with sub assemblies not fitting together.
Some accounts speak of troubles with certain Russian planes were parts from one factory don't fit planes from another factory even though they were supposed to be built from the same drawings. ths mass manufacturing is not as easy as some peaple think.

Lathes ? What is the difference for the worker to turn a 12 mm shaft with + - 0.25 mm accuracy or 0.5 inch onewith + - 0.01 inch accuracy. It's like driving a car (or landing a lightplane) at 90 km/h in Europe or 50 mph (US, Canada ). All you have (he has) to do it's to respect indicated values, no matter it's in mm or inches, km/h or miles/.

Except all the dials on the lathe that control movement are already calibrated in thousands. The micrometers and calipers the the machinest is using to measure the "indicated values" are in thousands and not miillimeters. SO the machinist has to perform calculations a lot more often than he would if the drawings were in imperial units.
And a lot more chances of making mistakes and scraping part. Many lathes at the time had screw cutting gears. by engaging the correct gear the power feed would automaticaly advance the cutting tool the right number of threads per inch. Without making new gear sets you can't cut metric threads very quickly. And that goes to the the bought in parts.
Western factories did not make their own nuts, bolts, screws, rivits, pipe fittings, tubing, etc. it was all bought in from outside suppliers who would not be happy trying to make "batches' of metric parts and then switching back to Imperial measure parts. the time it takes to set up these more automatic machines is time they ae not producing product.

Strangly enough, The British thought they had to replace metric instraments with Imperial measurment ones when ever possible with the aircraft they took over from the French contracts.

I don't see the special re-training you're talking about. Moreover all Yak planes are conceived from the crush to be built, maintained and handled by poorly qualified personnel. So the be tooling package for a Yak plane should have been very light, exactly at the opposite of Tu-2's or Pe-2's one..

Poorly made parts can be "made" to fit at the factory by poorly trained personel to keep up production numbers. However that policy can turn around a bite you in the rear end when your " poorly qualified personnel" try maintain the aircraft in the feild. Instead of replacement parts ( or ones canabalized from another aircraft on scene) dropping into place these "poorly qualified personnel" are going to have hand fit the parts, hopefully they are oversized and so can be cut, filed or sanded to fit and not have to be built up. Having high production but low servicability doesn't really do much for numbers of aircraft in the air.
And the repaired aircaraft might have a rather lumpy, bumpy surface finish when they are done which will affect performance.

 

[vanir]

Colin1 "...The Il-2's real ace card was numbers...." Bang on.

Il-2's - bathtub or no bathtub - were toast without top cover support from P-39 Airacobras (and the like). Without local air superiority IL-2 attacks were too-often one way trips.

Waves and waves and waves of Il-2's attacking must have been a frightening experience for any troops on the ground. No doubt they were effective in the unique circumstances of the Eastern Front. But in Western Europe .... can't see it ... lack speed, range and manoeveribility IMHO.

Typhoons and Thunderbolts may have lacked armor and payload but they could cruise-hunt well above random flak, locate a target opportunity and pounce. The moment they were on-the-deck there could be surprises anywhere.

I can't see low and slow moving Il-2 prowling around France and Germany just behind the lines making trouble - whereas in Russia - when the Germans attack with armour - launching waves of IL-2's to counter attck - or using waves of Il-2's to follow an artillery bombardment - those are different scenarios.

Typhoons and P-47's didn't regularly have Spits and Mustangs flying top cover for them, did they?

MM

Okay firstlly that's part of the very different roles of light-bombers and fighter-bombers, or in german schlacht(pz) and schnellkampf flugzeug. Comparative performance simply isn't relevant unless you're trying to make an argument that a fast bomber is better than an attack aircraft, in which case you're talking about doctrine and not individual aircraft design.

Secondly Rall clearly described how to shoot down a lone Il-2, which he described as extremely difficult and extremely dangerous. There were no quick kills, the engine and pilot compartment was too heavily armoured even for the MG151. He said you had to sit very close on its tail and gradually shoot away the control surfaces to bring one down. He said this became extremely dangerous when rear gunners were incorporated, and this position was included in a larger armoured section in production during 1942, with a more powerful engine to compensate the weight increase, and very good 12.7mm Berezin defensive guns (upsized to 20mm it became easily the best performer in its class of the war).

Thirdly these "waves and waves" of attacking Il-2's were typically three flights of one squadron, which used "circle of death tactics" since they were virtually impossible to bring down even by ground fire. At Kursk within 20 minutes one formation of M3 models decimated the 9th Pz Division (70 tanks destroyed) with its 37mm high velocity guns and rockets, circling until all their ammunition was used.
It was the same a/c coming back around and being seen again and again, not waves of new ones as would be typical doctrine for anything less armoured and well equipped. Pilot doctrine in the Il-2 was to circle, attack, rinse and repeat until all the ordnance, 4x bombs or special weapons internally, 4x rockets and hefty ammunition stores for NS-37 or ShVAK/VYa/ShKas guns were completely exhausted.

The tactical outlay employed for the Il-2 following the dramatic reorganisation of the Soviet air forces in 1942 was a combination of fighter and attack divisions flying two separate missions. The fighter division would be roughly a thousand metres above the Il2 force and sweep ahead to engage enemy interceptors. The attack division had its own escorts no more than 300 metres higher who would give close escort to the combat zone and then circle at the peripherary and wait. The Il-2s themselves would fly at around 30 metres altitude in defense penetration and then climb and attack the target, circling and repeating until ammunition stores were empty.
Following this, if the fighter division was successful in engaging the majority of enemy interceptors the escort fighters of the attack division would then perform their ground attack run with bombs and strafing as fighter-bombers.
If it all went south and the fighter division lost the day, the escorts would jettison their bombs and form fighter reinforcements to protect the Il-2s. But even without escorts, once equipped with armoured rear gunners and Berezins, the Il-2 was not indefensible. Early versions in 1941 were found to stand up well to ground fire but interceptors could afford to sit on the tails of the single-seaters for extended periods to shoot out their control surfaces. This wasn't the case by mid-42 and the Il-2 became a very difficult aircraft to bring down by anything short of a gunboat (ie. armament of three or more MG151 or heavier).

edit to add, anecdotally many publications cite the Il-2 as a uniquely Soviet revolution in ground attack doctrine which was not replicated in the west until the A-10 Fairchild. Perhaps when people compare the Thunderbolt to the Il-2 they mean the Thunderbolt II ??
Although admitedly the idea was also used by Germany in the form of the Hs-129 although I'm not sure it's quite so good a parallel as the design specifications for that a/c were as much production simplicity (non-strategic engines, etc.) as it was defense penetration and dedicated close support, not really the same requirements or features as the Il-2.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Okay firstlly that's part of the very different roles of light-bombers and fighter-bombers, or in german schlacht(pz) and schnellkampf flugzeug. Comparative performance simply isn't relevant unless you're trying to make an argument that a fast bomber is better than an attack aircraft, in which case you're talking about doctrine and not individual aircraft design.

Secondly Rall clearly described how to shoot down a lone Il-2, which he described as extremely difficult and extremely dangerous. There were no quick kills, the engine and pilot compartment was too heavily armoured even for the MG151. He said you had to sit very close on its tail and gradually shoot away the control surfaces to bring one down. He said this became extremely dangerous when rear gunners were incorporated, and this position was included in a larger armoured section in production during 1942, with a more powerful engine to compensate the weight increase, and very good 12.7mm Berezin defensive guns (upsized to 20mm it became easily the best performer in its class of the war).

Thirdly these "waves and waves" of attacking Il-2's were typically three flights of one squadron, which used "circle of death tactics" since they were virtually impossible to bring down even by ground fire. At Kursk within 20 minutes one formation of M3 models decimated the 9th Pz Division (70 tanks destroyed) with its 37mm high velocity guns and rockets, circling until all their ammunition was used.
It was the same a/c coming back around and being seen again and again, not waves of new ones as would be typical doctrine for anything less armoured and well equipped. Pilot doctrine in the Il-2 was to circle, attack, rinse and repeat until all the ordnance, 4x bombs or special weapons internally, 4x rockets and hefty ammunition stores for NS-37 or ShVAK/ShKas guns were completely exhausted.

The tactical outlay employed for the Il-2 following the dramatic reorganisation of the Soviet air forces in 1942 was a combination of fighter and attack divisions flying two separate missions. The fighter division would be roughly a thousand metres above the Il2 force and sweep ahead to engage enemy interceptors. The attack division had its own escorts no more than 300 metres higher who would give close escort to the combat zone and then circle at the peripherary and wait. The Il-2s themselves would fly at around 30 metres altitude in defense penetration and then climb and attack the target, circling and repeating until ammunition stores were empty.
Following this, if the fighter division was successful in engaging the majority of enemy interceptors the escort fighters of the attack division would then perform their ground attack run with bombs and strafing as fighter-bombers.
If it all went south and the fighter division lost the day, the escorts would jettison their bombs and form fighter reinforcements to protect the Il-2s. But even without escorts, once equipped with armoured rear gunners and Berezins, the Il-2 was not indefensible. Early versions in 1941 were found to stand up well to ground fire but interceptors could afford to sit on the tails of the single-seaters for extended periods to shoot out their control surfaces. This wasn't the case by mid-42 and the Il-2 became a very difficult aircraft to bring down by anything short of a gunboat (ie. armament of three or more MG151 or heavier).

So, how did the Il-2 stand up to the MK-108? I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.

 

[vanir]

So, how did the Il-2 stand up to the MK-108? I think without escort a single 30mm from the nose of a 109G would likely blow it out of the sky.

Tony Williams is the best, and readily available reference for this question I should think. Penetration is required for that armoured section, which the Mk108 doesn't have (a Mk101/103 would be far better) but certainly a shot or two in the wings or rear fuselage is bound to do quite a bit of damage. The Mk108 has been described as more like a grenade launcher than a gun, it has a hell of a charge said capable of bringing down a B-17 with only a few shots.

That said I've seen photos of an Il-2 with roughly half its tail section completely blown away by sustained FlaK and MG151 fire and a smiling aircrew standing beside it.

edit, also the Mk108 wasn't in production until late 43 and from what I can gather was only very rarely fitted until 1944, only a standardised armament in late 44 and even then by no means universal for the 109.