Il-2 Sturmovik

[MiloMorai]

The Plane that Saved the World (dailykos.com)

Thoughts and comments.

[Stuart Galbraith]

As the author says, its a bit simplified. 😃

The thing about the Battle of Britain everyone misses, it mightnot have been lost militarily, that is true. The RAF had too large a lead in technology, the Germans were outclassed at sea. But it could have been lost politically.There is some evidence on one day before the battle started that Halifax and Chamberlain had boxed Churchill into a corner to make him sue for terms. That was horrifically simplified in the Churchill film, but it has a basis of truth. We dont quite know what transpired between Halifax and Churchill, but it seems likely that Churchill point out that the RAF, and the Admiralty which he knew most about, were up to keeping the Germans out. And if they failed, then he would ask for terms.

So yes, the Hurricane won WW2, or more accurately, made it winnable. It formed the bedrock to a Nazi alternative, and there was a possiblity of that not occurring, of the battle not even being fought at all.

I think that as far as airpower, it was the Allies that killed the Luftwaffe. Tactically, Strategically, even technologically. We beat them on every level.

That isnt to say the IL2 is insignificant, far from it. It capably shredded the German Army. But its capablities were not unique, and were arguably bettered, even by the Germans. There was a 40mm equipped Hurricane operating in North Africa that was pretty adepted at shredding German Armour too. The Soviets asked for them after Churchill boasted of them to Stalin,  received them, but never used them, for reasons that have never been entirely clear. 

Also, he IL2 was relatively helpless in the face of German aircraft. At least the Typhoon and the P47 had a good chance against them at low level.

 

Ive always thought the Soviets most capable aircraft was the Pe2. Now that one never gets enough plaudits.

[JasonJ]

Probably should be thought of as in two separate stages. The first for stopping German offensive and bringing it to a stalemate to where the Spitfire and Hurrican had the critical role. The next stage would be for brininging it out of stalemate with a counter offensive towards total victory for the allies. For the second stage, the P-51 was really important. If expanding to the Pacific theater, the Hellcat added a lot of weight to the sum advantage to the US. But the US could still make do towards a total victory push with P-38, Wildcats, and Cousairs even if no Hellcats in '44 and '45 due to a package of other growing advantages. Over Germany for strategic bomber escort, there was no alternative available to P-51. But of course as the article said, to identify an aircraft that "saved the world" is hyperbole as it belittles lots of other contributing factors.

[R011]

Just about any modern monoplane fighter would have done the job as well as the Hurricane.  So long as the RAF wasn't trying to stop He-111 and Bf-109 with Gladiators, they'd have got much the same results.

[17thfabn]

I was pleasantly surprised that the author didn't give some highly elevated armor kill claim.

[17thfabn]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That isnt to say the IL2 is insignificant, far from it. It capably shredded the German Army. But its capablities were not unique, and were arguably bettered, even by the Germans. There was a 40mm equipped Hurricane operating in North Africa that was pretty adepted at shredding German Armour too. The Soviets asked for them after Churchill boasted of them to Stalin,  received them, but never used them, for reasons that have never been entirely clear. 

 

The Brits thought so much of 40 mm armed Hurricane........ that they didn't use it much after North Africa.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

Just about any modern monoplane fighter would have done the job as well as the Hurricane.  So long as the RAF wasn't trying to stop He-111 and Bf-109 with Gladiators, they'd have got much the same results.

Yes, I agree. The point was they had something that could fly and form part of the integrated defence network.

Although that said, I think for something that was basically half a biplane, it did far better than might be expected.

 

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The Brits thought so much of 40 mm armed Hurricane........ that they didn't use it much after North Africa.

North Africa was largely flat, which Italy and sicily was not. Besides, later on we had aircraft mounted rockets, which similarly displaced the remarkable 6pr equipped Mosquito, presumably for similar reasons. It left the airframe far more flexible.

[DougRichards]

38 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, I agree. The point was they had something that could fly and form part of the integrated defence network.

Although that said, I think for something that was basically half a biplane, it did far better than might be expected.

 

North Africa was largely flat, which Italy and sicily was not. Besides, later on we had aircraft mounted rockets, which similarly displaced the remarkable 6pr equipped Mosquito, presumably for similar reasons. It left the airframe far more flexible.

And once the rockets were fired more survivable in the air to air combat role, even though they still carried the racks.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, exactly.

When you bult a large cannon on an aircraft, you are largely stuck with it. There is even a case for saying that the development of the A10 as a strike aircraft has been held back by the 30mm thats its built around.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[DougRichards]

And the Hurricane was going out of production anyway.  End of production July 1944

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ive seen a photo of a 20mm hull in the upper hull of a Tiger. So there is a good case for saying, if a 20mm can open a Heavy tank from above, a 40mm is a bit of a luxury. And you can quickly convert the Typhoon into a tactical bomber or rocket carrier, or even a low level fighter. You dont have those kind of swing roles with an Il2, in fact I get the impression that was just what the IL10 was supposed to try and address.

Im not mocking it I should add, it was a brilliant combat aircraft and deserves to be remembered more than just a flight sim franchise.

[bojan]

- To penetrate that 20mm 40mm armed plane would have to be in the vertical or near vertical dive.

 

I don't get what a discussion here is actually. "Best WW2 plane"? Bullshit category.

 

- Hurricane had no armor, and suffered very badly vs rifle caliber opponents. 

- For a ground attack role Il-2 had much wider range of ordnance available:

82mm and 132mm rockets

25, 50, 70, 100 and 250kg bombs

cluster bombs (HE, HEAT and incendiary with self-igniting liquid)

incendiary bombs

self-igniting incendiary tanks

gunpods

It was also very, very stable gunnery platform, unlike most fighter-bombers (only P-47 came close).

Edited July 16, 2021 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think it must have been. I forget where I saw it now, It might have been in the Jentz book on the Tiger 1. I dont know if it was the reason the last batch had an extra 20mm of armour on the turret roof, but it might be one of the reasons.

The interesting thing is, the Typhoon pilots when questioned after the war said they did not believe they killed a lot of armour. But when they were knacking all the support vehicles and trucks bringing fuel and ammunition forward, they probably didnt need to.

[bojan]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...I dont know if it was the reason the last batch had an extra 20mm of armour on the turret roof, but it might be one of the reasons....

Reason was that 20mm was highly vulnerable to 120mm mortar hits, and even to 82mm. And all "airpower" myths aside, Tigers had problems with those weapons way, way more often than with air attacks.

Edited July 16, 2021 by bojan

[Yama]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, exactly.

When you bult a large cannon on an aircraft, you are largely stuck with it. There is even a case for saying that the development of the A10 as a strike aircraft has been held back by the 30mm thats its built around.

Yes, the gun choice was probably a mistake in hindsight. Twin 30mm revolver cannons would have provided almost same firepower for less bulk & weight. Or design a Gast gun like in Su-25.

Soviets made similar error by installing nearly as powerful GSh-30-6 in MiG-27. For aircraft whichs' main armament are clearly missiles and bombs, having such a powerful bulky weapon is pointless.

[alejandro_]

Quote

It was also very, very stable gunnery platform, unlike most fighter-bombers (only P-47 came close).

Another factor was that the P-47 was an expensive fighter, costing 70% more than a P-51. Turbocharger was pretty bulky and expensive, and not useful in typical fighter bomber missions. Yes, US could afford it but other countries did not have the materials and (mature) technology.

Another advantage of Il-2 was the armoured cowl protecting engine, which was unique in those days. When a British pilot inspected an Il-2 he described the protection as the best he had ever seen. 

[Doug]

Its innovative PTAB bomb looks highly effective. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB_(bomb)

 

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 22, 2024 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 22, 2024 by Junior FO

[lucklucky]

On 9/27/2021 at 10:32 AM, Doug said:

Its innovative PTAB bomb looks highly effective. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB_(bomb)

 

Everyone had bomblets before WW2.