Low maneuverability, but high "survivability": Il-2 attack aircraft

What is the most effective remedy against tank: anti-tank complex, artillery gun? One can argue when trying to answer this question, but one of the most effective anti-tank weapons has been and remains aviation... The bomb is capable of destroying not one, but several tanks at once - both in a convoy and on the battlefield.

The real thunderstorm of German armored vehicles during the Great Patriotic War was the Soviet assault aircraft. First of all, we are talking, of course, about the legendary combat vehicle - Il-2. Already at the initial stage of operation, these attack aircraft showed their best side. With their help, enemy vehicles that were moving east were destroyed. The Germans feared the appearance of Soviet attack aircraft in the sky for objective reasons.

But to destroy enemy targets, it was not enough just to drop an aerial bomb. The most important component of success was which bomb was used. The FAB-100 high-explosive bombs turned out to be quite suitable for destroying not only light tanks, but also heavy German armored vehicles with successful bombing. The fact that the pilot's skill was in the first place is quite obvious.

The unconditional problem that arose at the first stage of the war for the Il-2 attack aircraft was that they often became relatively easy prey for Hitler's fighters. To mitigate such risks, it was decided to use a variant with machine gun protection.

The pilots themselves noted its low maneuverability, but rather high "survivability".

Details about the Il-2 attack aircraft and why the Germans were afraid of them, says Klim Zhukov on Dmitry Puchkov's channel:

Comments

[Sling cutter]

It should be noted that the Il-2 did not have sights for bombing, and here only the skill of the pilot could lead to the destruction of the target.
As for maneuverability, the Il-2 was definitely not made for aerobatics, but this aircraft certainly made its huge contribution to the Victory.

[alex neym_2]

IL-2 is a workhorse: it has no time for aerobatics. The main task is to iron the front edge of the enemy (mostly) on a low level even small arms under heavy fire, and top masts are generally suicide bombers - up to 10 sorties.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: aleks neym_2

IL-2 is a workhorse

Plowman of the Second World War.

[Konnick]

The main task is to iron the front edge of the enemy (mainly) on a low level even small arms fire under heavy fire

It was an erroneous task, the enemy's front edge was saturated with small-caliber rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns, they lost a lot of Ilov, in 1944 they switched to another use - attacking enemy columns on the march, actions on enemy communications, attacking echelons, destroying artillery batteries behind enemy lines. This practice began during Operation Bagration.

[Edvid]

Yes, and the German aces have the largest number of shot down, namely ILs. As for the anti-tank effectiveness of the IL-2, after arming them with PTABs, it increased to 100%. If before 1943. Soviet pilots discovered German tanks on a smoke break, then they watched as German tankers were in a hurry to hide in their tanks ... With the advent of PTABs, German tankers, on the contrary, began to rapidly run away from their tanks ...

[dgonni]

At the beginning of 1942, the GSS was given for 10 sorties! And these are not mastheads! These are the usual front-line missions!
Since 1943, after providing more intelligible air cover, the number of sorties was increased to 30. By the end of 44, it was raised to 80!
P.S. In fact, the silt was perfectly armored. But he had one significant drawback according to the recollections of those who flew.
The weakness was the elevator cables.
Those who flew on the site, I remember, remembered that these cables were often interrupted. And if the height is small or there is no experience to level the plane with a trimer and a motor, then drain everything. The mouth of the earth is full.

[alex neym_2]

Armored box, and the rest? Plywood! Now, if everything were made of duralumin! (holes in duralumin / aluminum are much smaller than in plywood), but where could it be taken in the required quantity at that time. And the GSS for 10 effective sorties was given to the top managers, although there are few of them.

[dgonni]

No! GSS at the beginning of the 42nd year was given to everyone after 10 flights!
The survival rate was very low. That's why they did it!
It's in the public domain!
How did Pokryshkin write? Anyone who did not oetal in 42 has no idea about the war?
He was also chased! And this is a fact!
Those who pulled the 42nd year, in fact, everything is in the ground!
And even the Kuban, where the tire got as a reinforcement, ours were losing!
Here is Pokryshkin on a cobra with a regiment and got in! For strengthening and communication!
And yet they broke it!
And the same canoe was on the arc!
But no one will thank the Amers and Angles for the massive use of bombers?
Is it far away?
But the fact that green hearts and others like them on our front actually did not fight. This is precisely the merit of the second front!

[dgonni]

No! At the beginning of 42, they began to give exactly 10 sorties to ordinary attack aircraft!
For there was a massive skimping on flights!
On Sayye, I remember everything described by those who flew!
However, as well as about 3 shooters per pilot from returning aircraft in terms of death!
The technician who screwed up could easily get 3 shooters!
This is not a penal battalion. But the survival rate is similar!

[alex neym_2]

Do you have any idea what a TOP MASTOVIK is ???

[dgonni]

The stump is clear! And from the silt the masthead is like a bullet from omna!
The basis of the mastheads were the Amer B-20 Bostons. So they delayed in fact at the end of the war from 43 years. And all attempts on our hardware ended in zilch and losses!
But the same I remember everything described by those who fought!
There is no need to come up with an alternative war. The surviving grandfathers described everything!
And the need for the darkness of yaks, precisely to cover the darkness of the silts! For in battles at heights, they are not comme il faut, but accompanied by silts is the very thing.
And for the IL-4, which is not a long-range bomber, but there is simply no other, and as soon as the land lenses went quickly, everyone began to switch to normal equipment!
And for the fact that the supercobra is not a fighter in the understanding of our pilots, not one side. But they were not given back to the Amers after the war. For it is high-altitude and only they with thunder could intercept the high-altitude people!

[alex neym_2]

You need to smoke less! Bostons were NEVER top masters - not the constitution, then
I mean, the design is also a torpedo bomber, and the top mast was dropping a bomb with the expectation of ricochet from the water surface ... and that's why among them the greatest losses.

[dgonni]

I remember to the site! Everything is described there by those who flew!
And sho can this carry sil2 terrible for an ordinary dry cargo ship in the form of a bomb?
Sotku?

[paul3390]

As far as I understand, the Il-2 was not very much against the armored vehicles, to put it mildly. Before the appearance of PTAB-2,5-1,5. With them - nemchura also learned to deal with dispersal, but had to minimize the presence in the columns in the reach of attack aircraft. And this is also a decent result, preventing the enemy from acting comfortably ..

But besides tanks, the battlefield is full of other equally important targets. The same artel, transport. And here they are - Ily ironed quite efficiently .. And where is a tank without support?

[NDR-791]

So, for information. Of course, I am not confused in the car, but I could not cope here

1. 2 filling gauge. 3 recharge gauge. The steering wheel of the 4 water deflector. 5 stopcock. Pressure gauge onboard 6. Optional 7 crane. 8 faucet handle. Brake Crane 9. 10 chassis crane handle. 11 height adjustment knob. 12 Normal Gas Handle. 13 trimmer handle. Charge indicators 14. 15 water thermometer. 16 rev counter. Thermometer incoming oil 17. Steering wheel pitch control wheel 18. Steering wheel control aircraft 19. 20 cannon trigger. Sniper for stelby from machine guns 21. Three-pointer 22 indicator. Petrol 23. 24 speed indicator. Variometer 25. 26 altimeter. 27 direction indicator. Navigator 28. Magneto 29 switch. 30 dashboard light switch. Cab light switch 31. Radio 32. Pedal (right) control aircraft 33. 34 electrical control panel. 35 watch. 36 voltmeter. The socket for turning on the backlight PBP-1 37. Signal lights chassis 38. 39 fuse panel. Electrical switch panel 40. 41 fire cock handle. Pressure gauge cylinder launch 42. 43 Emergency Drop Handle. Reflector of a cabin bulb 44. Electric shells ESBR-ZP 45. Electric diverter of bombs ESBR-ZP 46. 47 chassis emergency release handle. Fuel unit (start-up valve, distribution valve, fuel pump plunger, 48 air valve. 49 oil cooler control knob. 50 pneumatic overload safety knob. 51 microtelephone protection knob. 52 crutch stopper.

[Sergey Valov]

It's not that scary. After some time, you remember which is which, then you realize that you must simultaneously monitor two or three scales and work with one or two levers, from time to time a glance is thrown at critical scales to make sure that everything is in order. Automatism is developed. If you can live to see him.

[Ros 56]

The first time is always scary, then you get used to it. Imagine the work of a test pilot, because he flies on more than one plane. Read their memories, very interesting.
For kraynyak buy yourself a game IL-2 attack aircraft, almost everything is the same, with a few exceptions.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Ros 56

For kraynyak buy yourself a game IL-2 attack aircraft

Grandpa is old, my grandson is cut for me

[sifgame]

PTABami covered the normal area

[sevtrash]

Everything is as always - there is almost nothing ideal or almost none. Here, a couple of years ago, Linnik had a good article on the effectiveness of the fight against Il2 tanks with numbers. The percentage of penetration of RS in the field conditions was 1-4%, and only a direct hit mattered, the efficiency of the guns was low, as well as of combustible mixtures and incendiary bombs, OFAB100 were more effective, but the accuracy of the bombing of the IL2 was very low. The effectiveness of aviation impact on tanks increased from 5% to 20% with the use of PTAB, then, however, decreased by 3 times with the adoption of various measures by the Germans.

[Al_lexx]

It should be noted that the Il-2 did not have sights for bombing ..

No, not like that. More likely, you are right, but you do not emphasize that in your statement.
Like the classic bomber, the IL-2, initially - no, of course. Yes, it was not designed as a bomber. There were other aiming methods and attack tactics.

..
Initially, the main weapons of the ILs were their cannons and NURSs. And bombs .., so sow, anyhow. And it was the bomb load there that was in the residual format.
In fact, no WWII attack aircraft, regardless of the country of production, originally had bombsights. Well, perhaps with a modified piece, with artillery suspensions, and then with the Henschels, at the end of the war, but then the silts had something to aim at, on a canopy.
When PTABs were introduced, again, in 43, there was no need to aim too much. They fired like flachelets, in squares, like in the First World War ...

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Al_lexx

More likely, you are right, but you do not emphasize that in your statement.

Thanks for the expanded comment, you wrote everything correctly. IL-2 is generally an inexhaustible topic.

[Zug]

As the IL2 pilot told, Vaughn, where the leader thumped, beat there. work, but it is also the most dangerous

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Zug

As the pilot of IL2 told-Vaughn, where the leader thumped, there and hit

The tactics of using the IL-2 were practiced already during the war, since childhood I love Ivan Arsentiev's book "Severe Air", almost documentary, I recommend it.
Drapkin has an audiobook "I fought in the Il-2" for almost 11 hours, very interesting memoirs of attack pilots.

[Zug]

Thank you. So I took the veteran's story from there.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Stroporez

The tactics of using the IL-2 were practiced already during the war, since childhood I love Ivan Arsentiev's book "Severe Air", almost documentary, I recommend it.

Yes, this seems to be the book that I read as a child. It's been a while. And, as far as I remember, I later came across a documentary book that repeated some of the fictional plots. Apparently the source of information for the fiction was the same, but the documentary came out later.

[Sling cutter]

Quote: sevtrash

Apparently the source of information for the fiction was the same, but the documentary came out later.

So it is, Colleague. Of course, a work of fiction is easier to read. But the audiobook has become a kind of revelation for me, you can imagine the amount of text in an 11 hour story format.

[Pavel73]

Lack of maneuverability, but simplicity and ease of piloting. Like all Ilyushin's planes. He forgives even gross mistakes both in flight and during takeoff and landing. And to dump him into a tailspin - in my opinion, is generally impossible. Or you have to try very hard

[sevtrash]

Quote: Pavel73

Lack of maneuverability, but simplicity and ease of piloting. Like all Ilyushin's planes. He forgives even gross mistakes both in flight and during takeoff and landing. And to dump him into a tailspin - in my opinion, is generally impossible. Or you have to try very hard

Not certainly in that way -
... There is no autopilot on the plane, but by its nature the IL-4 is unstable, every second it strives to roll into a roll, leave the course, lift or lower its nose. It is necessary to constantly turn the steering wheel so that the plane flies in a given mode ... IL-4, even without bombs during the day with good visibility, is not easy to lift into the air. Takeoff was considered one of the most difficult elements of flight.
- twice Hero of the Soviet Union A. Molodchiy
I liked IL-4 - it could fly well in simple and difficult conditions, and yet it was a very moody plane and it took many pilots to the next world. He was strict during take-off, and pilots with average training often could not withstand the direction of take-off. It was especially capricious when landing: if you select a trimmer too much, and then you need to tighten it a little, then with an increase in the engine speed the plane went for cabling. We have one pilot a little dead loop did not. The plane crashed and he died.
- Pshenko V. A ...

[Pavel73]

But the Il-4 is a completely different aircraft: another designation for the DB-3F twin-engined bomber.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Pavel73

But the Il-4 is a completely different aircraft: another designation for the DB-3F twin-engined bomber.

I'm talking about this "... but simplicity and ease of piloting. Like all Ilyushin's planes ...". I read once how the Americans tried to fly the Il4 / DB3 near Poltava and were surprised at the difficulty of piloting. Somewhere else I read the memoirs of a pilot who moved from Ila to Tu, some kind of bomber after the war, he was also impressed by the difference, but already by the convenience in the cockpit.

[Niko]

There was an excellent article with data from REAL tests of those years and the conclusions of specialists (and not journalists, bloggers, fans or opponents) .The conclusions, in particular, concerned the assessment of the effectiveness of one or another IL2 weapon as a percentage. disabling it) Fans of superlatives in relation to IL2, of course, had to cringe a lot when reading

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Niko

The conclusions, in particular, concerned the assessment of the effectiveness of one or another IL2 weapon as a percentage.

Indeed, I read a couple of similar articles and there is also a film by the RKKA Air Force Research Institute on the combat use of the IL-2.
And if we discard the enthusiastic lyrics, then we have to note that the destruction of the enemy was given to the pilots with hard work, heroism and the cost of many lives.
Specifically, I remember that when using PTAB 2,5-1,5, I simply had to fill up the area and hope that something would hit the target.

[svp67]

well, yes, well, yes ... Dropping the bomb is not a big problem, but getting somewhere .... That was the problem.

[Zug]

By the way, there is a lecture from Miroslav Morozov on the Baltic in 44. When Seeigel 4 the Germans mined. Magic order, in less than 3 months, 61 aircraft fell there. Of these, 54, in my opinion, is only IL2. And they sunk 3 small ships and damaged 6 more. Here is the price ... Then, for some reason, as we have, an IL2 regiment with specialists in the fight against ships was sent from the Black Sea, and they let the "Magic this order" go to the bottom in three days. Probably a lot also depended on professionalism

[svp67]

Quote: Zug

.That's how it is.

Well, yes ... only this was already in 1944, and in 1941 they did not even have time to issue INSTRUCTIONS on the combat use of weapons and tactics of using Il-2 attack aircraft. Only in the summer of 1942 they were able to release it.

[Zug]

When the Ilys came to the Baltic Sea, they were far from delighted with them. Moreover, some people flew on them on seagulls. And they just could work very well from a steep dive. Well ... our sat down. tried something similar to get up and stumbled from entogo occupation, unreal. The trick is that they were not put on Pawns! And there were no pilots in the dive at all. That's how our army used valuable personnel.

[vl903]

Already dismantled, I do not remember the author. You don't need to get into the tank. It is sufficient to lay a bomb or a rocket projectile within 20 meters. Fragments of a heavy bomb or RS will disable the tank. BUT!!! It was very difficult even for an experienced pilot to hit with bombs like this with Il2. The RS was easier to aim, but the RS132 had low accuracy - our RS did not rotate in flight. It was necessary to release all RSs in one tank in one gulp. The problem of fighting tanks was solved by amers by 1945: RS of large caliber, with weak rotation. Acceptable accuracy and "lethality". Strong rotation was not used, since it has a bad effect on the RS jet engine

[sevtrash]

Quote: vl903

It is enough to lay a bomb or a rocket projectile 20 meters away. Fragments of a heavy bomb or RS will disable the tank.

It had to be a very decent caliber, which the Il2 did not have.

Quote: vl903

The RS was easier to aim, but the RS132 had low accuracy - our RS did not rotate in flight.

I read from one of our military commanders that rocket artillery was not taken into account in the artillery barrage. For barreled artillery, there were norms for the number of shells necessary to suppress the target, the reactive one was so inaccurate that there were no norms for it.

[vl903]

It had to be a very decent caliber, which the Il2 did not have.

yes, the caliber should be just large. if not confused -FAB from 100kg. The Americans praised the RS precisely for its large caliber and weakly twisted rotation in flight. I don't remember the weight. Our PCs did not twist, hence the lower accuracy. well, the caliber of the PC132 probably did not reach the point that the same Thunderbolt could use. There is no such thing as a wunderwolf. And IL2 is not a wunderwaffe. But when used correctly, it provided additional opportunities for the Red Army. and saved the lives of the infantry.

[Pavel57]

Initially, the Il-2 was not planned to be the main aircraft of the battlefield. But it turned out that way in the end. I think it is not possible to assess the real effectiveness, as well as the options for possible alternatives. The effectiveness of strike aircraft is not only a function of the aircraft's capabilities. but also from the training of pilots and tactics of use, including the cover of fighter aircraft. The emphasis on the IL-2 during the war was justified, or not a controversial issue. But the fact that aviation officials were afraid to change it to the Su-6 during the war, focused on the fighter version - the Il-10 instead of the Il-8, I think, potentially reduced the effectiveness of our aviation, and as a result, it was worth additional efforts and losses to achieve victory.

[paul3390]

As with many other projects - the lack of a motor in mass production let down .. M-71F. But they really did not dare to rebuild the motor production. How justified - who can say now ..

[agond]

Quote: Pavel57

Initially, the Il-2 was not planned to be the main aircraft of the battlefield.

If it initially had a fuselage of hardened armor in places, then for what it was planned as a kind of flight over the front line. ... It's just that the very concept of the possibility of creating a well-armored attack aircraft turned out to be unattainable, if a weakly armored Ju87, according to various sources, was lost for 100-150 sorties, then our well-armored Il-2 was enough for less than 10 and even at the end of the war for 36 sorties. but if they had guessed to remove all 990 kg of armor from it, then the plane would have been more maneuverable, it would have been more difficult to get into it, the losses were several times less. ... and the most correct would be to build fighters instead of the Il-2.
None of the countries participating in World War II even thought about creating such a thing, but we have built over 2 thousand

[Sergey Valov]

“In some places it had a fuselage made of hardened armor, for which it was planned as a kind of flight over the front line” - the key word is “in some places”, because a machine-gun burst across the fuselage could cut the fuselage in half.

[WHAT IS]

The chief designer of the aircraft S.V. Ilyushin initially insisted on booking all the elements of the future aircraft. Before that, it was proposed to introduce only individual booking elements into the finished structure of a combat aircraft within the permissible limits, and make the fuselage itself of veneer.

"Today there is a need to create an armored attack aircraft, or, in other words, a flying tank, in which all vital parts are booked."

I wrote in a letter to S.V. Ilyushin to Stalin, the question remained: how to make such armor, with which the plane would be able to take off, and it would be able to withstand the use of various types of weapons?
The solution was found by the employees of VIAM (All-Union Research Institute of Aviation Materials) - they proposed the following multilayer armor system: the front layer is steel, which is close in strength to the core of an armor-piercing bullet, the rear layer is steel, which retains plastic properties. The aircraft has become one of the most protected aircraft. World War II: its crew was better protected than in any other aircraft, since it was placed in a kind of bathtub made of armored steel. And the developers of active armor - the deputy head of VIAM, future academician Sergei Kishkin and engineer Nikolai Sklyarov - at the height of the war, in 1942 year, were awarded the Stalin Prize.

[su25]

... until the wooden tail section was reinforced with steel channels coming from the armored hull

[Constanty]

I also remember the book of Solonin, "June 2, or When did the Great Patriotic War begin?" and a series of articles in "Equipment and armament" They showed that the effectiveness of the IL-2 against armored vehicles was extremely low. His great merit was, rather, the destruction of unarmored columns, trucks, ground positions, etc.

[agond]

Weight IL-2. - empty weight: 4360 kg -
Curb weight: 6160 kg -
Maximum takeoff weight: 6380 kg -
Armor mass: 990 kg.
The bomb load was up to 600 kg, but as a rule they took 400 kg, then without armor he could take as a front-line bomber 1.5 tons, by the way, the twin-engine Pe-2 had a bomb load of up to 1 ton

[Eug]

But most often the Pe-2 took no more than 600 kg.

[Serg4545]

Quote: agond

Armor mass: 990 kg.
The bomb load was up to 600 kg, but as a rule they took 400 kg, then without armor he could take as a front-line bomber 1.5 tons, by the way, the twin-engine Pe-2 had a bomb load of up to 1 ton

No, I could not.
The armor of the IL-2 was an integral part of the aircraft. And if you remove it, you would have to make exactly the same parts from thinner metal and / or wood instead of parts from armor. And these new parts would also have a decent weight. As a result, if the armor were completely removed, the weight would decrease not by 990 kg, but by a maximum of 500.
Moreover, it would be madness to completely remove the armor. It is impossible to do without it at all. For example, armored backs were installed on almost all FIGHTERS !, both we and the Germans from the second half of the war.
And if the armor of the IL-2 was left at the very minimum, at least at the level of fighters, then the weight saving would be a modest 200-300 kg.
It is clear that this would not have improved the performance characteristics of the aircraft, but the survivability would have sagged very much.

[Vovk]

I will give just one document about the "effectiveness" of the IL-2. The war died down long ago, but in Kharkiv, IL-2 crews who fell in battle are still found in the places of their death. To make it clear, we are talking about dozens of crews.

[Foul skeptic]

This is not evidence of "effectiveness / inefficiency". It just goes to show that airfields should not be the target of assault aircraft without the cover of their IA.

[Free wind]

Extremely ambiguous plane. Problems above the roof, or rather, this is one big problem. Why was it adopted? Well, at least the designer pushed him through Stalin. The fact that the Hans were afraid of him, they were afraid of everything, but damn it, they fought for 4 years, like that. The losses of the Germans at the Kursk Bulge, in armored vehicles from all types of aircraft, 3-4 percent. The special tactics of the tanks of the cowardly Germans, when parked close to the front line, try to put under the trees, not to get confused in heaps. When moving in a column, keep a distance.

[hagen]

Quote: Free Wind

Extremely ambiguous plane.

During the war years, 33 Il-083 aircraft of all types and Il-2 were delivered to the spacecraft aviation unit. Combat losses amounted to 10 11 vehicles. Written off for accidents, disasters and wear and tear of hardware - 448 11 units. Losses of flight personnel - 055 pilots, 7837 years, 221 air gunners.

[vl903]

on the one hand the problem. on the other hand, would these 30 thousand pilots, who were planted on fighters and bombers, have done more for victory? - not a fact. these 30 thousand people being in the infantry with rifles would do more for the victory? - I doubt it. That is, the question should be posed as follows: was it worth producing other types of aircraft instead of IL2? - I hardly think so. over the trenches under such heavy fire, only an attack aircraft could work. in addition to the practical benefits, it was also psychological support, as it is now mi24. did you need more or less? it depended on both the lobby and industry capabilities. as well as in other countries participating in the Second World War.

[Konnick]

Three years ago my classmate found my grandfather, there was an attack pilot, near Smolensk the search engines found an IL-3, and there both the pilot and the gunner. Torbenko V.Ya.

[Maks1995]

It came out a long time ago.
On the one hand, he praises how much in vain. In the thematic articles, everything is not so enthusiastic.
On the other hand, he would not be good, he would not fly.

Once I watched the performance characteristics of all these similar aircraft - IL, Junkers, someone else, similar dimensions, weight, speed. Everyone flew, everyone was not bad, and no one had the strength to release something and a dive - if there was an attack aircraft, release a similar dive bomber, and vice versa.
They tried to remake Il, but could not ...

[Konnick]

Quote: agond

Weight IL-2. - empty weight: 4360 kg -
Curb weight: 6160 kg -
Maximum takeoff weight: 6380 kg -
Armor mass: 990 kg.
The bomb load was up to 600 kg, but as a rule they took 400 kg, then without armor he could take as a front-line bomber 1.5 tons, by the way, the twin-engine Pe-2 had a bomb load of up to 1 ton

Not quite so, Ilyushin included the armor in the power frame, thereby making the plane lighter, and if you remove the armor, then you need to make the power frame with a certain weight.

[Couchexpert]

Very correct clarification.

In general, indeed, the IL-2 could have worked on many other design features, but it would still not have been possible to make it a dive bomber. The bomb load there was originally "in the appendage". Priority was given to offensive weapons: on the first single-seat modifications there were 8-10 (I don't remember any more) guides under the RS + guns (and he would normally fly with it if fighter cover was provided, but then dancing around the gunner began). It was clear to everyone about the inaccuracy of the bombing from the beginning. And the very nature of the targets (point-like, often moving) hints at this (and the bomber, in turn, will not chase individual tanks, although it will put its bombs more accurately).

If somehow, for example, even to release weight, then it would still not work to replace it with a weapon (there is not much space for missiles outside, for bombs - inside). One could try to remove the ShKAS machine guns (they are useless on the ground) and try, due to this, to increase the ammunition of the guns. A lot of problems were caused by an oiled radiator sticking out (outside the armor) (it was punctured / oil leak / engine jammed), it was possible to estimate to divide it and move it to the place of machine guns in the roots of the wings (for one and redundancy: right / left). Quite a "hi-tech": try to mechanize the PC guides (cleaning up after all missiles have left, something similar to flaps), possibly by reducing / eliminating the volume of bomb bays ... Reducing the frontal resistance would help on the way back from the target. faster to leave with a climb. In general, it was possible to work on the design, and not stamp. For such an important and specialized aircraft, the Il-a made quite a few changes during production.

[Konnick]

The saturation of the troops with rapid-fire small-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns nullified the almost vertical dive. The Germans began to use the Focke-Wulf 190, and the Ju-87 was discontinued in 1944. The tactics of using the IL-2 have also changed. They stopped ironing the leading edge, and began to act on communications and artillery batteries from a gentle dive. Topmast bombing was used against surface targets. One 46th assault aviation regiment of the Northern Fleet destroyed more ships than all the submariners of the Northern Fleet. During the war, the engine was boosted and weapons were changed.

[Al_lexx]

Text for neophytes.
Alas, not the main thing. In the context of the Il-2 vs Panrezfaff, the PTAB 2,5-1,5 bombs worked. But this was already in 1943. They tried it on the Kursk and further worked on tactics.
And the FAABs, and bombing the columns ... Well, yes, they bombed, with some success or another. But FAB was not developed against tanks, although it was used, for lack of better.

[vl903]

They write: for the whole war, they tried ampoules with phosphorus and RS and FAB and 20mm and 37mm guns, even 45mm on the YAK. acceptable efficiency was obtained for FAB and RS of large calibers. and PTAB 10kg. but it was still necessary to get there.

[vl903]

there was another thing with PTAB: there were PTAB in two or three cassettes. the cassette spilled out all at once. the Germans walked apart. that is, the silt could attack two or three tanks in a sortie. with ampoules it is even more fun: one hit of any bullet ammunition and instead of an airplane a burning phosphorus ball ... no chance for the pilot and the gunner

[agond]

Quote: Konnick

Not quite so, Ilyushin included the armor in the power frame, thereby making the plane lighter, and if you remove the armor, then you need to make the power frame with a certain weight.

The Il-2 in full could really be a ton lighter if the radio operator's arrow was removed in the place with the armor, and in general the Il-2 appeared en masse from Stalin's order of December 1941 to stop the production of the Mig-3 and, say, if Polikarpov had not out of favor with Stalin, and there could have been another order to stop the production of the Il-2 and continue. Migg-3, especially since they had the same engines. It would be interesting to evaluate its effectiveness as an attack aircraft in the initial period of the war, and he took only 200kg of bombs, but the losses were several times lower, therefore there would be more aircraft available (at the same rate of release), therefore, the enemy would have losses of aircraft higher, after all, after dropping bombs, Mig, unlike Ila, could take part in an air battle, and the fact that he only had machine guns on it was nothing, Polikarpov is no worse than Ilyushin or Yakovlev, and he would undoubtedly be able to quickly upgrade his plane. ...

[vl903]

it seems that in the memoirs there is about the fact that in the first year of the war, a moment was attracted for an attack. and if not confusing, they wrote that 1. it is difficult to control near the ground 2 large losses under heavy fire even of a light rifleman.

[vl903]

Polikarpov also modernized it - created I185 (analogue of LA5). but to use a high-altitude interceptor as an attack aircraft, Polikarpov would not advise, it seems to me. Moreover, the topic of attack aircraft, including armored ones in the USSR, was well studied in 1940. Ilyushin and Sukhoi did not create their planes blindly and at random, but taking into account the rich experience already at that time

[voyaka uh]

I do not know what to say?
EVERYTHING in the article is wrong.
IL-2 was not capable of hitting a single target.
No tank, no mortar position, no dugout.
He had no scopes. The pilot was throwing bombs or launching NURS
intuitively.
Its effectiveness was high when striking enemy columns
on roads, airfields, front-line warehouses.
In short: for areal targets.

[certero]

Destroy multiple tanks with one bomb? As far as I know, there were no such cases at all during the war. Well, the Il-2 really became a thunderstorm of tanks only after the appearance of cumulative anti-tank bombs in 43.

[vl903]

Well, a thunderstorm, not a thunderstorm, but to disrupt a tank attack and keep the Germans in the cracks for half an hour, despite the dense anti-aircraft fire, the assault oozes probably could have even before 1943, unlike fighters. for an intelligent commander, this is an OPPORTUNITY. for which they were apparently appreciated

[agond]

quote = vl903] Well, by a thunderstorm, not a thunderstorm, but to disrupt a tank attack and keep the Germans in the cracks for half an hour, despite the dense anti-aircraft fire, the assault oozes probably could even before 1943, unlike fighters. for an intelligent commander, this is an OPPORTUNITY. for which they were apparently appreciated [/ quote]
Why, unlike fighters, any of the fighters had an engine similar in power, had a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than that of an attack aircraft, (it did not carry a ton of armor on itself), therefore, with an increased take-off run, it could have guaranteed the same 600kg of bombs. but aimed bombing could not boast of either one or the other.

[vl903]

because the enthusiasm of the fighter to navigate the advancing infantry easily stopped MG34. 20mm anti-aircraft guns turned this venture not even into a kamikaze, but into suicide. As they wrote in the memoirs, the only effective way of attacking a covered target from a fighter is to come up suddenly from an unexpected direction, in one approach, drop all RS, bombs, cartridges and leave in 30 seconds. all other methods led to the destruction of a regiment of sorties in five with about zero results and a great psychological impact on the pilots and on their own and foreign infantry. that is, it was not possible to disrupt a tank attack covered by anti-aircraft guns and an infantry fighter.

[Pavel57]

We do not understand how the country's leadership determined the choice of the aircraft, but the following was precisely taken into account -
- the presence of an aircraft, an engine for it, production,
- assessment of the nature of the war at the time of the decision to release the aircraft,
- the opinion of experts who can be trusted, and then you cannot ignore the subjectivity of the opinion of these experts and the desire of experts to guess what the management needs and not to substitute.

As for the M-71, the inattention to it is determined by the personal interests of certain figures, for whom this engine immediately chopped off their chosen strategy for the development of aviation.

[Eug]

The Il-2 was not so much an "anti-tank" aircraft as an "anti-artillery" aircraft, that is, not a "point" aircraft, but an "area" one.

[agond]

Quote: vl903

because the enthusiasm of the fighter to navigate the advancing infantry easily stopped MG34. 20mm anti-aircraft guns turned this venture not even into kamikaze, but into suicide

This is not the case, for example, the P47 Thunderbolt fighter was very successfully used as an attack aircraft by the Americans after they opened a second front, and with losses ten times lower than that of our hero. it's just very difficult to get into an aircraft approaching at a speed of 200i / s from an anti-aircraft machine gun with manual aiming

[vl903]

in the conditions when the thunderbolt stormed, ours drove the Germans to U2))) (just kidding). il2 was not created from scratch. the USSR had a rich and well-studied experience of air support for troops on the front line. there were built samples of heavily armored attack aircraft. the experience of other countries was studied. throughout 1941 it was an attempt to stop the Germans by air assaults with everything that was at hand up to IL4 (DB3). fighters of all models stormed regularly. combat experience was constantly studied. The human factor in the choice of concepts and methods of battle, of course, was always, but for outright sabotage or mediocrity then very quickly it was possible not only to get to the front with a bottle of gasoline against German tanks to prove the uselessness of IL2, but also to quickly end life in the nearest basement at the hands of a "terrible NKVD ". Therefore, now from the position after knowledge, we can talk about +/- 10 percent, so to speak, is not correct. if you start to immerse yourself in the material, then you understand that with that information and opportunities in that place, you would have made absolutely the same decision, otherwise what seemed to you clearly done wrong, simply did not take into account a small but fatal nuance, which we just don’t know about now ...

[vl903]

what kind of thunderbolt, then, firstly, the plane is good: the star air vent motor (su6 the same motor was not even armored and itself was considered an excellent protection for the pilot), excellent armament that cannot be compared with the armament of the same MIG, it seems good maneuverability at the ground. the second is the overwhelming numerical superiority both in the air and on the ground. Thunderbolts almost simply finished off a rare enemy. The third is the quality and quantity of German resistance. the second front is a rare almost rear part with rare exceptions. with poor anti-aircraft cover and psychological state, multiplied by 1944. under these conditions, our pilots of the 1941 model and on the P5-CCC would have hit a German in the tail and mane. it was IL2 that, figuratively speaking, cleared the way for Thunderbolt. for example, England in 1943 supplied us with several dozen assault harricanes with a 40mm cannon. especially ours, he did not go. although the British praised him in North Africa.

[vl903]

in the memoirs of some of our famous pilot there is an episode when in the first days of the war greyhounds after France and Poland messers navigated their airfield from a shave. The airfield was confused, and he rushed to the homemade tripod with the ShKASS and in a short burst landed one German (like all his chest in crosses, but not exactly). He says the slave would have been knocked down too - the rag that covered the cartridge belt from dust (ShKASS was very afraid of dust) jammed the machine gun. in a fever, he forgot to pull it off, although it was he who forced the airfield to close the tape from dust with it. was very upset about this.

[vl903]

short burst landed one German

My memory !!!! - I read it a long time ago, now it already seems that the German just smoked a lot - the line was very short because of the rag

[kytx]

Il2 had a problem with the "pinpoint". the recoil made him chatter violently. therefore, they tried to use on the accumulation of enemy troops such as railway stations, for example

some write that IL2 is "unparalleled in the world." yes, not having, therefore, none of the allies / opponents tried to repeat his concept, although there was such a possibility and the needs were similar. they all had their own stormtroopers.

[Ros 56]

He's not as clumsy as many think. He even entered air battles and shot down Messers, and at Stalingrad was used as a pure fighter, against the Junkers-52, who carried various supplies for the encircled group of Paulus.

[vl903]

everything is relative. one on one against a fighter, he has no chance. if the enemy is exposed to frontal fire,))) well then, collect the bones)))) the version of the armored interceptor was also not praised. all the same, the plane was sharpened for another - overweight because of the armor not needed by the interceptor from below - low speed, did not have time to get to the desired point. low weight of the salvo with excess power of the shot. in general, it turned out not to be his, the hunt for U52 and "Rama"

[Avior]

I think that the degree of booking and in general the possibilities, especially against tanks, of the Il2 should not be exaggerated.

Actually, recently there was an article with a detailed discussion
https://topwar.ru/171052-mify-ob-il-2.html

[kytx]

"The problem that arose at the first stage of the war for Il-2 attack aircraft was that they often became relatively easy prey for Hitler's fighters. To reduce such risks, it was decided to use the variant with machine gun protection."

actually il2 originally wanted a double. only he didn't want to fly normally.
after fierce losses from fighters, they realized that the shooter was still needed.

with my respect to Ilyushin and IL2, the car is very controversial.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

The video did not look: very long. Yes, and what interesting and new can tell me two, as Denis Alekseev correctly put it, NOT a specialist and a HYIP specialist? After all, I myself have read many books about the IL-2: the memoirs of pilots, and Drabkin, and about the design of an attack aircraft. A lot and looked at the plane from all sides at the memorials. And once, in my distant childhood, I even managed to visit the cabins, look into many hatches. But then I didn't get much pleasure from it. The fact is that there was that plane in the pioneer camp "Aviator" (daddies, pilots, how did you raise your kids ?!) and the pioneer assholes probably thought it was a matter of valor to shit in an attack aircraft wherever possible! Not all, of course, were like that, but still ... Half-witted and scoundrels were, are and will be! I was only surprised why the administration of the pioneer camp did not pay attention and did not punish for these "feats".

I also laughed a lot while reading the comments of some "experts-experts".

Do people understand that nothing is there no ideal in the world? There are no perfect people, no perfect airplane designs! There are only people and planes most approaching to the ideal and most meeting the necessary requirements in terms of the totality of all (both negative and positive) qualities! Such is the legendary Il-2 attack aircraft:
- the best attack aircraft of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War;
- the best plane of the battlefield of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War;
- "reinforced concrete" and "black death" (according to the Germans);
- a soldier plane that took out the whole war (according to the Russians);
- the most massive military aircraft of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War;
- the most massive military aircraft in the history of aviation.
Can a bad plane have all of the above definitions and be mass-produced?

And the critics of the IL-2 remind me of the characters of Krylov ("Ay, Pug, she's strong to know ...") and Vizbor ("And yet slander and lies are endless ...").

[Aviator_]

The fact is that that plane was in the pioneer camp "Aviator" (daddies, pilots, how did you raise your kids ?!) and the pioneer assholes probably thought it was a matter of valor to shit in an attack aircraft wherever possible!

In the bunker at the Medynsky border it was the same until the entrance to it was welded. This is the beginning of the 80s, the future popes of "Kol s Urengoy" did their best.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Everything is relative.
RAF strike aircraft - Hawker Typhoon:

Since the beginning of 1942, Hawker began work on equipping the Typhoon with external hangers. We started with dropping tanks, which increased the range. Then they tested the suspension of two bombs of 227 kg each, then heavier ones - American bombs of 454 kg each. This was followed by cassettes for small bombs, two different types of smoke containers, aircraft mines.

The combat carrying capacity of the typhoon is almost 1,5 times higher.

An important step in increasing the Typhoon's firepower was equipping it with missile weapons. By the end of 1942, three-inch missiles were being fired in large numbers and suspended from Mosquito, Beaufighter, Hurricane and Swordfish. They were simple, very cheap, reliable enough, although they did not have a high hitting accuracy.

In the summer of 1944, 22 Typhoon squadrons were brought in to support the Allied landings in Normandy. A few days before the landing, the Typhoons shot down German radar stations on the coast, "blinding" the enemy. After the invasion, the Typhoon's functions were divided. Some of them, according to the "Cab Rank" system, provided direct support to the advancing troops. Usually, fighters patrolled near the battlefield at an altitude of about 3000 m. At the command of the aircraft controller on the front line, they attacked armored vehicles, artillery positions, pillboxes and bunkers. It was almost impossible to hit a tank or bunker with a rocket, but it had a strong moral and demoralizing effect.. "Typhoon" proved to be very tenacious, and withstood numerous combat damage, although it did not possess particularly powerful armor protection.

Another part of the squadrons, armed with Typhoons, was engaged in the habitual hunt for German vehicles, paralyzing traffic in the front-line zone. The planes chased each car, sparing no shells. Couples and single fighters patrolled the railways and highways, firing at anything that moved. Motorcyclists were especially important, albeit not an easy target: in conditions of radio jamming and the destruction of the wire communication system by aviation, saboteurs and partisans, messengers remained the only reliable way of transmitting orders.

From June 1944, Typhoons began to be replaced by newer fighters. "Typhoon", in fact, until the end of hostilities in Europe remained the main aircraft of direct support of British troops. These machines played an important role in the battles at the Falaise "sack".

During the four years of operation, the Hawker Typhoon lost 670 pilots of its 23 squadrons. By the end of the war, 3317 Hawker Typhoons had been built.

[agond]

At the beginning of the war, the title of Hero of the Soviet Union was given for 10 missions !!!! , this means that rarely did anyone manage to fulfill the norm otherwise, given the massiveness of the Il-2, the heroes would have been innumerable during the war, losses gradually decreased, in 1945 one per 38-45 sorties, but still this is a lot, I advise the miners to inquire about other types of aircraft and in other countries, not one of the belligerent strono did not have an aircraft with such a wild level of combat losses, and the reason is as simple as two or two, the IL-2 was overloaded with armor and therefore turned out to be too slow and clumsy target aircraft which is difficult it was impossible to hit, while 980 kg of armor did not save from 20mm shells, on the Internet there are pictures of holes with a diameter of 120mm in the frontal armor and in the propeller coque (hardened steel) left by a 20mm German automatic anti-aircraft gun, in fact, no one else is in the miter did not try to repeat such a miracle.
By the way, the unarmored MiG-21 was used as an attack aircraft in Afghanistan with practically no losses, and the very armored Su-25 attack aircraft had losses. and the armored Mi-26, the same attack aircraft, had losses somewhere.

[agond]

Quote: agond

agond (Ratsukhin)
April 7 2021 15: 35

-5
Quote: Pavel57
Initially, the Il-2 was not planned to be the main aircraft of the battlefield.

If it originally had a fuselage of hardened armor in places, then for what it was planned as a kind of flight over the front line. ... It's just that the very concept of the possibility of creating a well-armored attack aircraft turned out to be unattainable, if a weakly armored Ju87, according to various sources, was lost for 100-150 sorties, then our well-armored Il-2 was enough for less than 10 and even at the end of the war for 36 sorties. but if they had guessed to remove all 990 kg of armor from it, then the plane would have been more maneuverable, it would have been more difficult to get into it, the losses were several times less. ... and the most correct thing would be to build fighters instead of the Il-2 ...

For such criticism of the Il-2, they instructed me and continue to put downsides, these people do not recognize, or want to hush up its serious shortcomings, that is, they believe that I am trying to discredit a good aircraft, albeit with a very high level of losses, but if the shortcomings of the aircraft are not are recognized as the main cause of losses, then there is no "human factor"; therefore, the minuses who want to whitewash the aircraft cast a shadow on the pilots who did not return from the battle, in my opinion it is very ugly to suspect all IL-2 pilots of low training and for the entire period of the war. because people flew on what was

[su25]

The "human factor" is not only (and not so much) the mistakes of the pilots as the mistakes of their commanders of all ranks - from flight commander to army commander. Due to the fact that, unlike the "classic" bombers, the Il-2 could operate quite effectively at low altitudes, they literally tried to make it a "plug in every barrel." Especially when "working" in difficult weather conditions. It is clear that this did not contribute to a "long life" in combat conditions. As for the flaws and defects of the aircraft, then, as A.S. Yakovlev wittily remarked in his memoirs, "an aircraft becomes defect-free when it is time to remove it from service."

[Givi_49]

In the hands of such masters as T.Ya. Begeldinov, I.I. Pstygo, V.B. Emelianenko and many others are a formidable weapon.
The survivability of the structure was the highest possible, but had its limits - a wooden tail and a poorly protected oil cooler.
Efficiency, in my opinion, was achieved by a carefully thought-out tactic of use: surprise, coordinated collective actions, qualified fighter escort and the allocation of a detachment of forces to suppress enemy air defenses.
On tanks, PTABs were effectively used and onboard artillery was less effective.
I think that if (!) Wing NS37 fired synchronously and single shots, it would be possible to effectively work on tanks. But the guns worked asynchronously, with automatic fire, which is why the yawing along the course and pitch made the aimed hit accidental.