Sturmovik: how good was it really?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Milosh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Big difference between the single-engines IL-2 and multi-engined bombers...

You would do better to compare the Pe-8, TB-3, Tu-2, Pe-2, Ant-40 and such to the Allied (USAAF, BC) bombing effort...
 
Milosh said:
Loose an engine on a single engine a/c and it is going down.Loosing an engine on a multi engine a/c and it will still fly.
Click to expand...
None the less, the IL-2 was operating in a much different role...

You'd have to find numbers of types like the Typhoon, P-47D, A-36, etc. that were employed in the same GA role to make a fair comparison.

*edit*
I missed your post, Greg, sorry.

I compiled these numbers from a few sources several years ago...I'll see if I can dig up the books for you.
 
Thanks Milosh,

I was hoping you had discovered a new source of Soviet records ... and was really wanting to look at it.

I've seen Wiki but have little faith in it ... but it beats the hell out of NO information at all, and their numbers may one day prove to be correct.
 
I was hoping you had discovered a new source of Soviet records ... and was really wanting to look at it.
Click to expand...

Hi Greg, in this website there are tons of information about Soviet Air Force. Original data are Soviet archives. It is in Spanish and can be easily translated, and at the end of the day, there are almost as many Spanish speakers in the States than in Spain.

http://rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/06/06_21.htm
http://rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/06/06_22.htm

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."
Click to expand...

These were not as heavily protected. In any case, I always thought that the US was the only country capable of affording a fighter like P-47. Even European countries like Germany could not afford to manufacture turbochargers.

In 1941 the Il-2 was way better than any other aircraft the Soviets could use for the role. Even the Germans only had Ju 87 and Hs 123 as single engine dive bomber/CAS. The problem were the tactics and circumstances of the war.
 
Last edited:
Hi Alejandro,

Thanks for the links. I have not really found many sources of Soviet data before.

There are a considerable number of people who think the P-47 was the most effective fighter of the war. It was VERY good way up high and very good way donw low, but was not the best at medium altitude.

Expensive? YES. But it could do a lot. Expense is relative. Probably only a statistician could tell us which one served up the most destruction, but the data for all types would also have to be avialable, and I don't really believe it is, rendering this a personal opinion for the person making the P-47 claim.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of them in here in this forum but, when we fly our P-47 at the museum, they show up in droves and speak wonders about it.

I went to the first link and found a nice table, but I donlt know what it is supposed to be. There were WAY nmore than 10,762 Il-2/Il-19's built. Can you tel ehat the table is? Maybe the numnber shot down as losses?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Hello Greg

I went to the first link and found a nice table, but I donlt know what it is supposed to be. There were WAY nmore than 10,762 Il-2/Il-19's built. Can you tel ehat the table is? Maybe the numnber shot down as losses?
Click to expand...

Those are combat losses. Naval Aviation lost another 807.

These data only tell a part of the story, as many aircraft were written off in accidents and due to wear/lack of spares. The link below shows the wastage in 1944 for all types. This includes accidents and wear/obsolence*. 2159 two seaters and 435 single seaters Il-2s were written off due to wear/obsolence. Another 1059 two seaters were written off because of accidents and breakdowns.

????? ???????? 1

* "Desgaste y obsolescencia"

Financial data from the time shows that P-47 was twice expensive than P-51. This is for a country that can afford critical materials used in turbochargers. For Germany it would be more costly. And yes, it is one of the most effective fighter bomber of the war I would say F6F Hellcat was more effective in terms of result vs investment (second to none IMO).

Hello, alejandro - the like is for the tables
Click to expand...

Yes, the merit is to the guys that translated all the data. Its a great resource.
 
When counting together the Pz-III, -IV, Tiger and Panther, they make about 60% of the Il-2 production.
Maybe this might be the answer to the initial question: as an aircraft, or as a design, maybe the Il-2 was overrated, but as a mass produced weapon of war it was a success.
 
Financial data from the time shows that P-47 was twice expensive than P-51
Click to expand...

This is true but it is not really a valid criticism. The P-47 and the P-38 are what should be compared as they had similar performance specifications and were designed and ordered near the same time.

The P-51 became an alternative to the P-47 only after the two stage Merlin was developed. By the time the first production P-51 flies there have been over 1300 P-47s built, 3 factories are in production and they are building over 300 P-47s a month and another 3-4 months they will break the 400 a month mark. It takes a lot of time and money to reverse (or change the course) of such massive industrial programs.
You don't build 10,500lb airplanes for the same cost as 7300lb airplanes.
 
Before we talk about the price of aircraft, we should take a look what they were supposed to do in the time the design started. The Fw-190 was designed to propel 4 LMGs at about 420 mph, at 15000 ft, an all-around fighter*. The P-47B was designed to propel 8 HMGs at 420 mph at 25000 ft, the expected target being high-flying bombers. Both aircraft grew in capability, but there should be no wonder that P-47 was more expensive.
The Fw 190 would be a bad choice for the next USAF request, namely the hi-alt hi-speed bomber escort, to what P-47 proved as reasonably adaptable.

*I don't buy K. Tanks speech about the Fw 190 not being a small airframe to have a big engine, and that Fw 190 was designed for heavy weaponry from day one.
 
Last edited:
I would also note that the P-47 carried twice the gun armament of a P-51B/C. Carrying twice the war load has to be paid for somehow, like a bigger, heavier airframe and engine. The P-51D added guns but but cut rpg to help keep weight down. P-47s cut ammo when carrying under wing loads, However the plane had to be sized to carry the initial 425rpg. A P-47 carrying 425rpg was carrying about 1/2 short ton of ammo.

The P-47 was big and it was expensive. Blaming it all on the turbo isn't right.

I am not sure we will ever find out the cost of a Typhoon or Tempest with the cost of those Sabre engines
 
We might also recall that countries tried to use two engines in day fighters when wanting heavy firepower, good performance and good endurance (or a combination). Bf 110/210/410, also using the Ju 88C as a day fighter, Fw 187, Whirlwind, Welkin, Beaufighter, Hornet, P-38, Potez 630/631, Ki 45. Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, all of these were also much more pricey than 'ordinary' fighters.
 
GrauGeist said:
None the less, the IL-2 was operating in a much different role...

You'd have to find numbers of types like the Typhoon, P-47D, A-36, etc. that were employed in the same GA role to make a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

The Il-2 operated in a much more dangerous environment.

1. brought down during aerial combats: 2557 (47 + 169 + 1090 + 882 + 369 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
2. brought down by AA fire: 4679 (101 + 203 + 1468 + 1859 + 1048 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
3. destroyed at the airfields: 109 (13 + 14 + 40 + 34 + 8 in 1941-1945, correspondingly)
4. unknown reasons, didn't come back from the combat flight: 3414 (372 + 1290 + 917 + 569 + 266)
So - 533 + 1676 + 3515 + 3344 + 1691 = 10759 total during WWII (28,9% from losses of all Soviet aircrafts).
Also add the losses of Il-2 from the navy aviation: 66 + 128 + 362 + 251 = 807 total during WWII.

7837 pilots and gunners of Il-2 were killed during the war (gunners were killed 7 times more than pilots)

1 loss of Il-2 corresponded to 53,5 combat flights of Il-2 (for example - 1 loss of Yak or La fighter corresponded to 104,5 combat flights, 1 loss of Il-4 or Pe-2 bomber - to ~ 80 combat flights).

90% of damaged Il-2 were repaired. For destruction of Il-2 ~2-3 hits of 37mm shells were needed.
34943 of Il-2s were produced during WWII + 1211 training Il-2U.

Also

1 loss of Il-2 corresponded to 53,5 combat flights (for example - 1 loss of Yak or La fighter corresponded to 104,5 combat flights, 1 loss of Il-4 or Pe-2 bomber - to ~ 80 combat flights).

Just to compare: 1 loss of Mosquito corresponded to 156,67 combat flights (the better result among all WWII airplanes).
 

I'm a bit mystified with this message.
Close escort was a common system, e.g. RAF used it extensively, of course tight turning Yaks and Spits might well be suited better that work than 109s and 190s, even if 109 had good acceleration. When VVS got more fighters they put some fighters higher up like the RAF's escort cover, often heavier La-5s. VVS also used area sweeps syncroniced to Il-2 attacks, so when they got enough fighters their escort tactics didn't fundamentally differed from those used by the RAF.
The IL-2 proto had a gunner protected by armour but the plane was too heavy for the power available, so the plane went into production as a single seater. When the need for a rear gunner became apparent, the gunner was added but because of the CG reason the armoured bathtub could not be extended to protect the gunner, by giving a sweepback to the outer wings the CG restriction was easied and the gunner got reasonable armour protection. E.g. the dorsal gunner of the DB-3F/IL-4 medium bomber series had armour protection even if that made the plane tail heavy and the Soviet fighters got back armour already in late 30s earlier than in any other AF.
 
Milosh said:
The Il-2 operated in a much more dangerous environment.
Click to expand...
And it operated in a much different role than USAAF heavy bombers. They (B-17/B-24) were high altitude and late-war, they had heavy fighter protection.

If the VVS was able to provide comparable fighter escort, the IL-2's losses would have been different.

But again, comparing the IL-2 to B-17/B-24 operations is like comparing a bicycle to a canoe.
 

And despite that higher altitude and greater own and fighter protection had more a/c losses than the Il-2.

Only the A2A losses would be effected, not the A2G losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
bf109xxl
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
S
Wing shapes of Russian fighters
Replies
15
Views
919
wrathofatlantis
W
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
71K
Think Tanker
Menu
Log in
Register