The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2.

[Admiral Beez]

And also was the first carrier fighter with tricycle undercarraige I believe.

Were they're any ground attack aircraft with tricycle undercarriage in WW2?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That would be the P51-A Mustang.
It was lighter, more maneuverable, great range.
Could carry bombs and fight its way out of a battle.

Please stop...

 

[GrauGeist]

Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft...

Translated:
"From what I've cut and pasted from Wikipedia, Reddit and War Thunder forums..."

...the Ilyushin Il-2 was definitely the best-ever low-flying ground attack aircraft for a number of reasons:

1. It destroyed over 200 German tanks at the Battle of Kursk, helping to further turn the tide of war against the Germans on the Eastern Front.
2. Stalin called it as "vital to the Red Army as air and bread".

So which reason was more significant - the battle of Kursk or Uncle Joe's quote?

I know I won't get an answer, because it can't be CnP'd from Wiki or Reddit

 

[Kevin J]

LMAO

While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.

 

[fubar57]

While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.

My laugh wasn't about the Il2, it was his comment, "Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft". Find his other comments and you will understand

 

[Admiral Beez]

While we undoubtedly destroyed the Luftwaffe and industrial war machine, credit must go to the USSR destroying their armies, the Il-2 being essential for this task.

What made the IL-2 so deadly? Did it, like the Stuka in 1939-40 find success due to friendly air superiority?

 

[fubar57]

"What if" section is down the road

 

[rochie]

"What if" section is down the road

Proliferation of what if threads has become as annoying as the that other dickhead !

 

[fubar57]

Some people don't get it and Alder was kind enough to give them their own space

 

[Dimlee]

Judging from my experience reading about WW2 aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-2 was definitely the best-ever low-flying ground attack aircraft for a number of reasons:

1. It destroyed over 200 German tanks at the Battle of Kursk, helping to further turn the tide of war against the Germans on the Eastern Front.
2. Stalin called it as "vital to the Red Army as air and bread".

It was definitely one of the most numerous (in production) and it was (and is) one of the most glorified in war propaganda.
As for its combat effectiveness... there are other, more sober opinions.
1. No, Il-2 did not destroy 200+ tanks in that battle.
2. Yes, Stalin said that in one telegram sent to the director of one factory in 1941.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Had they addressed the underpowered engines and controllability, the Henschel Hs 129 had potential.

An armoured bathtub and heavy guns is a good place to start.

 

[rochie]

Some people don't get it and Alder was kind enough to give them their own space

dont have any issues with well thought out and thought provoking "what if" scenarios but most that have appeared lately are neither !

 

[WARSPITER]

As an exceptional ground attack pairing I have always liked the Thunderbolt and Typhoon. Both packed a good punch and could put up a decent fight
against enemy fighters.

The work done by the two aircraft types from D day on was an important contribution. Plus they both look cool which helps.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What was the point of the disc turret on Boulton Paul P.92? Defence of course, but no other dedicated ground attack fighter was thus armed. What were they thinking? Better to put that disc on the bottom and fire at the ground, as was the aircraft's role. Or skip it for greater payload and speed.

Boulton Paul P.92

 

[GrauGeist]

An aircraft that's engaged in ground attack will generally be in a shallow dive.

A good example of an upper turret being useful in that role, would be the B-25 or A-26 gunships that would have their upper turret aimed forward, often times bringing the total of .50 Mgs up to 14 or so on target.

The P-61 also used it's upper turret aimed forward when it was employed in ground attack missions.

 

[Admiral Beez]

An aircraft that's engaged in ground attack will generally be in a shallow dive.

A good example of an upper turret being useful in that role, would be the B-25 or A-26 gunships that would have their upper turret aimed forward, often times bringing the total of .50 Mgs up to 14 or so on target.

The P-61 also used it's upper turret aimed forward when it was employed in ground attack missions.

Good point. And very cool for the Black Widow.

I wonder if the P.92's gun was intended to fire right forward. It would appear the props may interfere.

 

[pgf_666]

Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.

I like it as well. But the Hs-129 seems to be flawed in both low speed handling and engine performance. Fix those two and you have winner. Why did they build this aircraft around underpowered pre-war French engines? Was there nothing made in Germany that could power this bird?

It's interesting to think of what the Germans might have come up with pre-Barbarossa had they understood or appreciated the scale and scope of the Soviet armour they were about to kick into action. But that's a topic for the What'If forum.

 

[michaelmaltby]

... the 4-cannon Hawker Hurricane, would, IMO, out-match the He-129 in effectiveness and surviveability ... even with inline engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hs-129B. Almost a Warthog with props. Period. End of sentence. Happily, the other guys didn't have a whole lot of them.

Care to elaborate (besides the 'Period. End of sentence.' part - here, one would've gotten an 'F' in English language for that)?