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.
