Redpill me on the Il-2, /k/. I've heard conflicting reports that it was either a valuable ground attack plane or a total piece of shit. Which is it?
>>30217491
It was alright.
Doctrine for it was awful. Erich Hartmann even wrote about how it was boring and he felt that shooting them down was a chore because they never broke formation when engaged and the rear gunners were always awful.
>>30217491
Good plane, worthless Russian pilots, doctrine and training.
>>30217491
the ju-87 was better. The Il-2, while more heavily armored, was under powered and less modular then the junkers. Also their pilots were shit and their 23mm cannons were low velocity meaning that it could only use bombs and rockets to kill the heavy German armor. Also if you just look at the picture you can see that the visibility for the pilot is shit; not good for a ground attacker at all. also you can literally see the fuel tank exposed right behind the pilot. Although its durability, versatility, and strength in numbers is what led it to eventually beat the junkers late war.
>>30217491
It wasn't nearly as good as it's hyped up to be, but it was better than any other light bomber the VVS had ready for production at the outbreak of war.
It was effectively a light bomber, and like all light bombers, be it a Stuka, Fairey Battle, or whatever the hell the French were using, they're going to be incredibly vulnerable without adequate fighter escort. The Il-2 had numerous failings - the original production aircraft lacked a rear gunner, and early attempts to add one didn't account for the shifting center of gravity, leading to stability issues (even without armoring the rear compartment). The Il-2 wouldn't really mature until 1943 when the Il-2M, which introduced the slight sweep in the wings to improve handling among other refinements, entered service.
As far as early doctrine went, the Il-2 really had a shit ton of problems. The armor was fairly effective around the pilot and engine, with it taking as much as a direct cannon hit to penetrate, but the wings and tail were completely unarmored, meaning that it was far easier to down than one would expect. Though payload capacity on paper was fairly high, the standard loadout for the Il-2 consisted of four FAB-100s and four to eight RS rockets. The FAB-100s were small enough that they weren't going to do much damage without a direct hit, and with no real bombsight and poor training of crews, the bombs rarely hit their mark. The RS rockets also had their problems, being hilariously inaccurate and carrying a tiny warhead (0.36kg for the RS-82, 0.9kg for the RS-132). The heavy cannon armament of the Il-2 was effective against soft targets, but it too had its issues, mostly thanks to poor training and inadequate gunsights.
>cont
>>30217668
The Il-2 also had major doctrinal issues that limited its effectiveness early in the war. Early-war doctrine called for the Il-2 to sortie in groups of three or four, flying at low level without escort. This meant that they were often easy targets for enemy fighters, and, when they arrived over the target, local air defenses could concentrate on the small number of aircraft.
At Kursk, however, things improved for the Il-2. The PTAB anti-tank bomblet had finally entered service, and the Il-2 could carry 220 of them internally (or 192 in external dispensers). Plus, they started the practice of massing their attacks for maximum effect. You'd have incidents like six groups of Shturmoviks thrown at a single target, saturating it with PTABs and gunfire. While hardened targets would probably still come out alive, the attacks were incredibly demoralizing. And thanks to those PTABs, the Il-2 was finally able to reliably kill tanks. Losses at Kursk were still high, thanks to the Luftwaffe concentrating two Luftflotten there, but fighter sweeps were generally successful at clearing the way for the Shturmoviks, so losses (usually) were acceptable. That's not to say that things were all good - the VVS launched a preemptive strike on the first day of the battle with 100 Shturmoviks and 200 fighters, losing as many as 120 aircraft.
The general consensus seems to be that the Il-2 was fine against soft targets but poorly equipped for engaging hardened targets (with the exception of armored vehicles once PTABs became available). They proved decisive in Operation Bagration, hitting retreating columns at river crossings to slow them down, but, just like every light bomber, they suffered heavy losses when operating against air defenses or enemy fighters.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the resources would have been better spent on more Pe-2s instead, but the Il-2 was enough to get the job done.
>>30217491
good plane, stupid russians, as is the case with russians, good hardware spoiled by retarded apes
>>30217616
>bullshit: the post
The Il-2 and Stuka had nearly identical power-to-weight ratios.
The 23mm cannon they mounted had a muzzle velocity of ~900m/s, more than the M2 Browning (890 m/s), and almost double that of actual "low velocity" cannons like the 30mm Mk 108.
>Although its durability, versatility, and strength in numbers is what led it to eventually beat the junkers late war.
No, that's not at all the case. The Stuka stopped being relevant once the Luftwaffe lost air supremacy and it was replaced by the Fw 190. The Il-2 started being effective for the opposite reasons - the VVS was finally able to secure the skies around the Shturmoviks.
>>30217870
>The Il-2 and Stuka had nearly identical power-to-weight ratios.
The Stuka was also better aerodynamically. By simplifying it to just ptw you're really, REALLY missing the big picture.
>>30217926
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Because it's sounding like you're pulling it out of your ass, especially considering the Il-2 generally has slightly better performance than the Stuka.
>>30217513
>rear gunners
Heh, at least at that point these had some reargunners. First production runs were singleseaters.
The true capabilities of the Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions an engagement during the Battle of Kursk on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were claimed to be destroyed by Ilyushin Il-2s in just 20 minutes.[21] In another report of the action on the same day, a Soviet staff publication states that:
Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20-30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara.
>>30219054
>>30217513
They wernt awful, but they were very exposed to enemy fire. At best they had 7.62mm protection. The 12.7 machine gun was very adequet for the role. Good thing for the germans that they didnt have a 20mm like some il10s got but im not even sure if the ww2 il10s had them
>>30219090
During the Battle of Kursk, the VVS IL-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2,000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.[25]
Over a period of four hours, they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division.
I remember from Pokryshkin's memoirs that some of the soviet pilots preferred them for air to air combat because armor.
He thought those pilots were idiots.
>redpill
Didnt they use convicts as rear gunners in IL2s? Also, didnt some Slav add a spring under the rear gun to trick Germans into thinking the rear gunner was still alive? If I recall, he got an Order of Lenin or Hero of the Soviet Union.
>>30217956
Vatnik historian, the post.
>>30217491
It was trash with wings, but not much else could be expected of the Soviets.
But seriously, most ground attack planes and fighter bombers prior to the era of guided munitions failed miserably at their intended purposes. I guess it could take out trains alright?
>>30219453
Wehraboo detected
>>30219054
>>30217513
They wernt awful, but they were very exposed to enemy fire. At best they had 7.62mm protection. The 12.7 machine gun was very adequet for the role. Good thing for the germans that they didnt have a 20mm like some il10s got but im not even sure if the ww2 il10s had them
The stuka was a good gun platform and was a more accurate bomber and could carry more ordanance but the il2 had numbers, durability, and later in the war things like the ptab gave them parity in offensive capabilities.
>>30219145
>>30219132
>aeroplane
>armor
It is a sad thing that we must pick one. 6mm of armor plating all around the cockpit and engine might stop a 20mm high explosive round from expediting the evaporation of all your engine fluids (or your skull), but it never a stopped shell from doing the same things to your lifting and control surfaces.
>inb4 Muh Warthog
Yes, I know, America is good at things.
>>30219487
Okay, I'll do the damage control.
The Junkers 87 was nearly as bad if not worse, the only reason putting fuckhueg cannons on it worked at all is because it's aerodynamic profile was so horrendous it hardly needed air-brakes for a safe 60 degree dive. Without air dominance in the area, the Stuka was equally as pointless as the Sturmovic in any theatre it flew in.
>>30219380
No seriously - I'll believe you if you can show some kind of proof that the Stuka was better aerodynamically.
But until then, I'm going to have a hard time believing a plane with fixed landing gear, those retarded Junkers flaps, and a giant frontal radiator has better aerodynamics than the Il-2. Especially considering the Il-2 had a top speed slightly faster than the Stuka.
>>30219550
But how do you explain the successes of the IL-2 as posted in >>30219090
>>30219111
>>30219587
See
>>30217668
>>30217781
It was so successful there because they had PTABs and they were throwing huge numbers of aircraft at fairly dense concentrations of troops.
Also, remember that kill claims, especially from aircraft on tanks, are almost always exaggerated.
>>30219587
Pilots over claim like motherfuckers, it's the same reason the Typhoon and the P 47 are remembered as fantastic tank busters when rockets had sub 1% hit rates and aircraft mounted guns had no hope of penetrating tank armor from almost any safe angle.
>>30219587
because air men claim anything they hit once.
They's hit a bridge with a single MG bullet and claim to have crippeled the enemy logistics
>>30219640
Typhoon was a shit
Its cool, but it was trash like every birt prop that wasnt the tempest, shitfire, and mosquito
>>30217513
>Russian doctrine was bad, a nazi told me about it.
>>30219714
>most shot down aircraft
>ever
>not hampered by bad doctrine
Most people who've studied it at all would call the IL 2 a sub-mediocre aircraft, but even then a competent commander could figure out what to do with a few hundred of these armed with PTABs and adequate air cover.
>>30217491
Was there any sort of mechanism to prevent then from shooting their own tail, or did they simply rely on the gunner to keep his shit together?
>>30219775
Some planes did but im not sure bout the il2
For ground attack, the IL-2M worked well enough for the Russians I guess. Mostly because its just what they had and could afford to mass produce at the moment.
Jug is still better though, and it can just drop its ordinance and immediately move to defend itself if its intercepted by enemy fighters. Has a larger bomb load and superior pilot protection as well.
How is it that a long range, high altitude fighter escort managed to be so good at CAS.
>>30219775
The best you could hope for until late 1944 was that your gunner took a 20mm shell before the enemy plane started sitting directly behind you.
>>30219111
>>30219587
>claimed
>claimed
>claimed
>claimed
>>30219701
>>30219640
>>30219620
>>30219587
other than the stukas tactical aviation in ww2 was really good at limiting enemy movement and crippling their morale not directly destroying the enemy but definitely helping with their destruction
>>30219773
>Most ever shot down
>According to him
>Germans only sometimes claim to kill more targets than even exists in a region but not this guy.
>Most people think ____ fallacy
>Some Argue
>Some people say
>No true scotsman
>>30219821
Yeah, yeah. Of course claims are only true when a noble nazi makes them.
>>30219796
Think about it a little, these long range escorts need to be capable of both great carrying capacity (3 500 Gal Drop Tanks) and efficiency in using that fuel (Big flappy wings and surfaces that produce a lot of lift for relatively little engine power). All that together gives the jug a great capacity for externally mounted munitions and passable maneuverability. Once it's ready it can exploit the full capacity of it's 2,000 horsepower engine to haul it's absurd eight ton mass back to a forward airstrip and get set to do it all again. You're wrong about the pilot protection thing though, only armored seat and glass directly in front of the pilot. It didn't need as much protection as the IL 2 because it was faster and and somewhat capable of evading incoming attacks.
Well you ask Nazi - it is piece of shit wich shot down in gorillions by single german ubermensh
if you ask westernies - it is shit because they read it in nazi memoirs
I cannot pass soviet sourses because no one can read in russian here
>>30219827
I don't care about the two hundred some-odd IL 2s Erich Hartmann shot down, the soviet production numbers, even the censored ones speak for themselves.
>>30219884
Jug is love, Jug is life.
[spoiler]shes so fat[/spoiler]
>>30219920
>Claimed to have shot down.
>>30219859
nah all aviators
>claim
>claim
>claim
>>30219920
only 12.4k was lost in battle ,rest was lost in accidents
And besides it is ground-attack aircraft,it i was first and foremost target for Anti-air guns and fighters
>>30219921
L-lewd!
Jug is best planfu
>>30219998
>rest was lost in accidents
Not really all that surprising given the horrendous state of Soviet training. Most pilots flying "modern" types at the outbreak of war had <10 hours in their machines and had never even fired their guns. Training remained horrendous up until they finally decided to overhaul it after Kursk.
>>30219585
As a pilot I agree with you, I was just shitposting with the last post. Not the same anon you were arguing with btw. Although I think the difference in overall design, particularly the control surfaces and wings, would give the Junkers an edge in the maneuverability department. Admittedly, I have done very little research on this, just speculation from experience.
>>30219921
>P 51D Shitstang
>War Winner
>Worse Air to Air kill record than 8 ton aerodynamic mess
>What ground attack capacity?
Feels pretty good to love the Jug.
>>30219585
Stuka was a piece of crap that far outstayed it's time.
It should have been replaced by 1942, but the Germans didn't have the resources to do it.
Also anyone taking Rudel or Hartmann kill claims seriously need to educate themselves.
>>30222949
>It should have been replaced by 1942, but the Germans didn't have the resources to do it.
They actually ended up replacing them with Fw 190s because those were the only thing readily available that could carry bombs and operate (mostly) without air superiority.
>Also anyone taking Rudel or Hartmann kill claims seriously need to educate themselves.
Oh god yes. The claims of the Luftwaffe, especially late in the war, are absolutely ridiculous. III./JG 52 in the Crimea in 1944, for example, claimed around 1,000 aircraft with just 16 fighters on hand in the last month they were deployed to the theater. That's more than the total number of aircraft committed to the theater by the Soviets, and almost an order of magnitude more than the losses reported by the Soviets (a little under 200) over the course of the whole 5-month campaign.
And what makes it better is that all three of the Luftwaffe's top aces flew there. Barkhorn, for example, was credited with 50 kills in one of the early months of the campaign.
