Sturmovik: how good was it really?

[tomo pauk]

...
Dedicated tank-destroyer type was unique for VVS. Western air forces used more versatile planes such dive bombers, fighter-bombers or light bombers on this role. For USAAF there was attack category: A-20, A-24, A-36. In RAF an Fairey Battle and Hurricane IID served. All mentioned aircraft are from 1941-42 period. Did they were superior? It depends...
Almost all (except Hurricane) could carry more bomb load (most of them far above 400 kg on Il-2) and flew with more speed (because speed is good protection against ground fire). Not all were strong protected or with heavy gun equiped as Il-2, but it depends on different tactic (Western "hit and run" against Russian "circle of death").

The Il-2 was not a dedicated tank-destroyer, but an all-around ground attack aircraft. It could serve as a tank-destroyer, as it was case with Hs-129, Ju-87 and Hurricane II.
Fairey Battle was not designed as a ground attack aircraft, but as a long range light bomber. It's ground attack sorties (ie. direct support of ground troops) were few and far between.

I'd say that Hurricane IID was a better tank buster when introduced, it's cannons worked far better than the 37mm installed in the Il-2, and it sported improved protection vs. other Hurricanes. The 37mm outfitted Il-2 was limited to 200 kg of bombs max, a meager amount.
The A-20 and A-36 were IMO also better than Il-2.

 

[net_sailor]

The Il-2 was not a dedicated tank-destroyer, but an all-around ground attack aircraft. It could serve as a tank-destroyer, as it was case with Hs-129, Ju-87 and Hurricane II.
Fairey Battle was not designed as a ground attack aircraft, but as a long range light bomber. It's ground attack sorties (ie. direct support of ground troops) were few and far between.

I agree that Il-2 was capable to execute wide range of ground attack sorties, but construction was designed to take heaviest gun available with high muzzle velocity and strong recoil to penetrate tank armour. None other Soviet serial aircraft got VYa-23 cannon as a standard weapon (later used on Il-10, the Il-2 successor, only). But thickness of the tank armour increased during the war, so few types of light tanks were vulnerable for 23 mm projectiles. That's why Sturmovik got another anti-tank weapon: rockets and PTAB bombs. However only direct hit by PTAB or RS could destroy/damage a tank - this happens very rare (below 1% RS rockets hit directly on the target). Later Soviet mounted a 37 mm cannons to restore possibility of "precise tank-killing" with high aiming guns (more than 50% gun projectiles could reach their ground targets). As you know it wasn't satisfactory solution due to recoils of unsynchronized guns.
That was amazing outputs to make from Il-2 a tankbuster.

 

[tomo pauk]

The VYa-23 was ill able to penetrate the armor of the Pz-III and Pz-IV in late 1941/early 1942, when introduced aboard the Il-2. Bar the lucky hit. German infantry was said to named the Il-2 as 'Plague' (Schwarzer Tod), not the tank crews.
The LaGG-3-37 or the Yak-9T were far better platforms for 37mm cannon, for tank busting, but also for bomber busting.

 

[Timppa]

At their peak of development, they were VERY hard to bring down. The armor tub is amazing. It looks like it's an inch thick!

Of course, the PILOT was armored. The rear gunner wasn't, so the gunners died in droves while the planes kept flying.

To effectively shoot them down you had to get LOWER than the Sturmovik ... which typically flew at 50 - 150 feet high, and take careful aim at the oil cooler.

The Germans found it VERY hard to kill them with Bf 109s and Fw 190s.

Lots of myths in a single post:

1. It was quite difficult to shoot down with Bf109 with a single 20mm, but it was cannon fodder for any 109 with gondola cannons or for for 109 with MK108 engine cannon or for any Fw190. When Helmut Lipfert shot one with his MK108, the Il-2 disintegrated so fast, that the debris damaged his own plane. And you did not have to aim for a oil cooler.

2. Rear gunner was not in the "bathtub" but he was protected by 13mm armor plate. The "bathtub" was extended further back in the Il-10 version.

3. As for the "gunners died in droves" claim:

They say that there were 7 killed gunners for each killed pilot, is that true?

No. Let me explain. We had 105 pilots and 50 gunners killed, why? Because the regiment fought from the beginning to the end of the war. The first half of the war in one-seater aircraft. And the second half -- in two-seaters. And most of the time, they died together. A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7-8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics

Yurii Khukhrikov - ? ?????. ????? ??????? ????????????? ?????. ????????? ???. ????? ??????

 

[GregP]

Hi Timppa,

Well I'll just have to say I disagree.

Most of what I said came from writings of former Soviet combat pilots and some combat reports from the Luftwaffe that were translated into English, not from Allied sources. There was a time about 10 - 15 years ago when I was reading a lot of that since I was building an RC version of the Il-2 at the time. Since it was made of balsa and not armor plate, it flew great! ... but the power to weight ratio was VERY far from scale ...

 

[alejandro_]

Where did you found this statement? Air cooled engine no need such armour protection as liquid cooled engine cause there is no vulnerable wet coat on it.

Not exactly. If the armour protection is the same then the air cooled engine has the advantage because the cooling is less vulnerable to impacts.

However, Il-2 armour uses an armoured tub which protected the engine and cockpit. See scheme below, numbers refer to thickness. An air cooled engine cannot have the same protection because cylinders need to receive air for cooling.

Il-2 attacked at low altitude and were fired with all sort of light guns, shrapnel and so on. It was not uncommon for Il-2 to make it back to base with all sorts of impacts. The one in the attached photo received 7 20mm hits (via rkka.es).

A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7-8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics

I don't know where this datum came from, but is too simplistic. Statistics from Oleg Rastrenin book on Il-2 Guard units, losses per combat sorties:

- October 1941: 1 for every 8.1
- Summer 1942: 1 for every 24.
- Stalingrad: 1 for every 10-12.
- 1943: 1 for every 26.
- 1944-45: 1 for every 85-90.

Of course, there are a lot of data which varies depending on front, unit and so on.

Western air forces used more versatile planes such dive bombers, fighter-bombers or light bombers on this role. For USAAF there was attack category: A-20, A-24, A-36

I think it is better to leave out twin engine bombers because those are more equivalent equivalent to Tu-2/Pe-2. A-24 has a better payload and range, but lacked an armoured capsule.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I caught this earlier...

"The Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik ground attack aircraft attained nearly mythological status within the Soviet military during the Second World War. The Soviets built over 36,000 of the warplanes during what is still referred to as the Great Patriotic War in Russia. While the Il-2 certainly boosted the moral of the Red Army's ground forces, how effective it actually was is questionable.

Soviet aircrew flying the Sturmovik suffered horrendous losses against the Luftwaffe over the Eastern Front. It was not particularly maneuverable and proved to be easy prey in many cases. It also didn't carry a huge bomb load—especially when compared to the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Hawker Typhoon, which are its closest western equivalents. Moreover, it wasn't particularly accurate when delivering its weapons."
The 5 Most Overrated Weapons of War | The National Interest

 

[Shortround6]

The US Army had ordered several hundred A-24s and finally took delivery of 948, many used as trainers. At one point had 3000 A-25s (Curtiss Helldiver) on the order books but found before delivery of very many of the A-25s that they weren't needed. The fighter bombers, A-20s and medium bombers were doing the job. The A-24s had suffered high losses against the Japanese in New Guinea.

This may be another case of change of theater or change in operating conditions affecting the combat results. Trying to dive bomb small targets in the jungle (or air fields surrounded by jungle) by pilots not well trained in dive bombing is not going to give results. Throw in long flights to and from targets (or going over the Owen Stanley mountains) and losses due to combat damage can be higher than shorter distances to friendly airfields. Throw in a lack of decent fighter escorts and the A-24s flying against the yet to be depleted Japanese forces (veteran) and things were NOT pretty.

The US shifted to fighters and fast bombers with heavy forward firing armament (flak suppression).

The US didn't start to worry about tank busting until much later and may have figured they had it covered with the 75mm armed B-25s, the 75mm nose for the A-26 and the XA-38 Grizzly, I believe there was also a nose for the A-26 with TWO 37mm guns?

 

[tomo pauk]

Tank busters were maybe the sexiest aircraft, apart from fighter aircraft. Their influence on the outcome of a battle, let alone the war (ww2 and further) was minimal, though, even when they really managed to kill tanks. German war effort was better served by a handful of Fw-200 in marine patrol role, no matter how unsuitable they were as combat aircraft and how bad the LW co-operated with KM, than by all Hs 129 (including non-tank-busters) and Ju 87G combined.

 

[wiking85]

Tank busters were maybe the sexiest aircraft, apart from fighter aircraft. Their influence on the outcome of a battle, let alone the war (ww2 and further) was minimal, though, even when they really managed to kill tanks. German war effort was better served by a handful of Fw-200 in marine patrol role, no matter how unsuitable they were as combat aircraft and how bad the LW co-operated with KM, than by all Hs 129 (including non-tank-busters) and Ju 87G combined.

I have to respectfully disagree about that. The FW200 made less impact than then Hs129 and Ju87G and all were pretty negligible. Even without destroying thanks the aerial attacks by the tank busters certainly had a psychological impact and they were able to inflict significant damage in combat:
Hs 129 Panzerjager!: Martin Pegg, Eddie J. Creek, etc.: 9780952686712: Amazon.com: Books

The FW200 didn't sink nearly as many ships as is claimed, while it often gave incorrect information about convoys to uboat due to having different maps, meaning it actually if anything did more harm than good.

 

[Shortround6]

Very true.

However many/most CAS missions were NOT flown against tanks but against infantry, artillery and supply points/routes only a few miles behind the lines.

Ju-87 and Ju-88 also used these

for some targets.

 

[tomo pauk]

I have a feeling that tank busters also killed far less than their pilots claimed.
Also - a tank that was pierced by one or two 30mm shots would hardly count as a destroyed one, unless the piercing also ignited the ammo, thus making the tank a total loss.

BTW - in case the book about the Hs 129 is not wrapped in solid gold, 310 USD is a rather steep price

added: if the 30mm cannon (that I'm fan of) was the 'cure' for Soviet tanks, we would not see the 3.7cm and 7.5 cm being installed in subsequent tank busters, the new version of HS 129 included.

 

[pbehn]

The heavy cannon wasnt a success on the IL2 but the P39 had a heavy cannon but wasnt really used against tanks, on the eastern front was it considered that tanks were taken out by tanks or artillery?

 

[tomo pauk]

The 37mm cannon on P-39 was not much of a tank buster. The muzzle velocity was too low, and P-39 was much more needed as a fighter anyway; it took until 1944 for the Soviets to produce their own fighter type to better or equal the P-39. Shooting the 37mm from on German bombers, from Ju-87 'upwards' to He 111, should probably be devastating for those, the HE shell being reasonably heavy powerful.

 

[Njaco]

Hi Tomo,

Of course you are right, my memory got the Mikulin and Klimov backwards. I checked with Joe Yancey and he said that he thought Paul Allen HAD a Soviet prop, but there was too much corrosion and they went with an American prop (from a DC-3) instead so they could fly. They are still looking for a Soviet prop that can be restored to running order, so far without luck.

Njaco, thanks for the possible source! I really appreciate that!

I have offered my claims list on here before and I think I posted it once, but any updates would be very good to get when I'm not preparing to teach a new course. That usually takes all the spare time, at LEAST for the first semester you teach it. After that, things settle down. So I'll be visiting that page when I get the chance. Again, much thanks ...

Here is a link....

https://web.archive.org/web/20130928070316/http://lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm

 

[GregP]

Hey Njaco!

Thanks for the link!

I already downloaded the east and west files, combined them, and have a single file that can break out the main victim types. I added a column for "Generic Type" so that Mustang, Mustang I, Mustang II, Mustang III, P-51, P-51B, P-51D, P-51 *, P-51 **, etc. are all shown as P-51. Same for Spitfire I, Spitfire II, Spitfire V, Spitfire Vb, etc. are all shown as Spitfire. Of course, many others.

I am down to about 18 lines out of over 67,000 that I don't know what the victim type is, and a translator doesn't help.

Never got that far before and I really appreciate it. My own file was up to a little over 66,000 and Tony has about another 1,000+ claims.

 

[Milosh]

Shturmovik losses (including Il-10 type), in 1941-1945, were of 10,762 aircraft (533 in 1941, 1,676 in 1942, 3,515 in 1943, 3,347 in 1944 and 1,691 in 1945).

That is slightly less (~200) than the USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses. In 1944, USAAF heavy bomber 1st line combat and accident losses were ~twice the Il-2 losses.

 

[parsifal]

Tankbusting, whether by air or on the ground was not the dominant way of killing tanks for either side. Sexy as an 88mm or a 37mm might look on paper, they were always second fiddle to the simple expedient of going aroun the tank concentrations, penetrating as far as you could and thereby ensuring your opponent either ran out of fuel, or broke down. An immobilised tank was by far the best method of ensuring a tank would be destroyed. Something like 4 out of five tanks were destroyed that way.

Doctrinally the germans avoided direct face offs between their tank formations and those of the enemy. They were best at manoeuvre over combat power. Russians for a time didn't get that, but when they finally did, after Kursk, there was no holding them back

Doctrinally, the Soviets and the Germans used their CAS quite differently. The Germans were much more about interdiction....taking steps to inhibit the mobility and freedom of manoeuvre for their opponents. things like knocking out bridges or CPs were what they used their air power most often. They did use their airpower for direct fire support on occasions, but to a lesser extent then the Russians.

The Russians used their air support as direct force multipliers (mostly), used to support ground assaults directly. Again there are many exceptions to this, but its the way they tended to use their airpower nevertheless. Hitting stuff is not all that important in either of those scenarios. Threatening to hit stuff is the important part of the mission. Without that threat, enemy formations did not have their capability downgraded, and usually posed an insurmountable problem.

 

[GregP]

Hi Milosh,

Where did you get those numbers? Not disagreeing, just curious.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let's look at it from another angle:

IL-2 aircraft downed in aerial engagements:
1941: 47
1942: 169
1943: 1090
1944: 882
1945: 369
VVS total losses: 2,557
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 66
Total: 2,623

IL-2 aircraft downed by anti-aircraft defenses:
1941: 101
1942: 203
1943: 1468
1944: 1859
1945: 1048
VVS total losses: 4,679
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 128
Total: 4,807

IL-2 aircraft destroyed on the ground:
1941: 13
1942: 14
1943: 40
1944: 34
1945: 8
VVS total losses: 109
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 362
Total: 471

IL-2 losses due to operational error or unknown reasons:
1941: 372
1942: 1290
1943: 917
1944: 569
1945: 266
VVS total losses: 3,414
Naval Aviation losses (all years): 251
Total: 3,665

This comes to a grand total of 11,566 IL-2 airframes lost/written off

There was also 7,837 crewmen lost. Gunners were lost at a far higher ratio than pilots.

Also, roughly 90% of damaged (not written off) IL-2 aircraft were repaired and put back into service.