Mustang vs. FW 190

Ricky, I never did try to imply that I thought that you were implying that the P-47 was a bad plane

My intention was only to make Commando et al to make think why they think Mustang/Jug was a better plane at air combat or ground attack. It's my firm belief, that people learn the best by finding the answers themselves, hence my posts.

Siberian Black, yep, that's it!

 

Are you sure? I wasn't aware that the Ju87 was supposed to be particularly difficult to shoot down...

 

Oh <curse word>, I of course meant that _you_ were correct, Simon!

No idea why I wrote Siberian Black. Sturmovik was the plane that was notoriously difficult to shoot down.

My mistake!

 

was it?
I wonder how the Il-10 survived the UN in Korea?

 

According to Hartmann, Nowotny, Juutilainen, Wind, Barkhorn, Rall, Batz, Rudorffer, Graf and pretty much everyone else who were there: Yes, it was.

What goes to Il-10 and Korea, we really can't say anything. We don't have the official losses from the other side and since the US aerial victories include both damaged and destroyed planes, the 11 IL-10 victory claims made by UN forces in the Korea might mean that all 11 were losses, or all 11 flew happily back home saving the plane and the pilot. Knowing the tough nature of the plane and the small experience of the US pilots with the Iljushins, I'd say the latter is closer to the truth.

 

I read a common way was for fighters pilots to circle where the stukas would come up and sit right on thier tails when they surfaced from the dive....guess they more or less ignored the gunner or something.

 

I read somewhere that the Stuka was a relatively slow aircraft in level flight, and although it was a fast diver, it was vulnerable to attack, when coming out of a dive.

 

I really think the claim that the Sturmovik was the plane that was notoriously difficult to shoot down is greatly exaggerated!
I wouldn't say it was easy or something like that but saying that is was notoriuosly difficult to shoot down would almost suggest that it's nearly impossible and this list with luftwaffe aces surely contradict that claim of fame (several have shot down 2 or more Il-2 within a couple of minutes)!

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/stormovik.html

 

It wasn't a fast diver.
In fact. it was fitted with dive brakes which ensured that it dived slowly (a good thing in a dive bomber)
The reason fighters couldn't attack it in the dive was due to the fact that they would overtake it too quickly, not being fitted with dive brakes themselves.

 

I didn't know that . Thanks.

 

What is fast...dive speed was about 350-400 mph

 

The Il-10, despite looking very similar to the Il-2, was a completely different and much better plane and can't be compared to the Il-2 just like that. With the Il-10, all the flaws of the Il-2 were corrected and it's shortcomings eliminated. Just two of many examples of how different the two aircraft were, the wooden tail section of the Il-2 which allways was a weak spot was finally replaced by an all metal tail section on the Il-10 and the notoriously short range of the Il-2 was not a problem for the Il-10. Despite the importance of the Il-2 for the Soviet war effort, it was only with the introduction of the Il-10 that they got a real Shturmovik.

 

Of course "difficult to shoot down" doesn't mean "impossible to shoot down"

There are many eastern front pilots with dozens of Il-2 kills, since afterall, the plane was their primary target in the air. Iirc, the most Il-2 victories for a single person is somewhere over 80 victories, but the name escapes me. He wasn't any of the big aces.

Gunther Rall's own words:"An IL-2 is very hard to shoot down."
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... glish.html

edit: Oh, just noticed the link you posted. Seems like I was trying to remember the name Joachim Brendel as the Il-2 killer. Thanks for reminding me

 

The Russians were pumping out 1,000 Sturmoviks a month in 1942 and even then production barely overtook attrition rates...

If it was indeed hard to down, as the armored bathtub protecting the pilot would suggest, then the Germans did a damn lot of hard work...

 

That is probable the reason why it was thought it was impossible to shoot down! Always plentiful replacements ready

 

Not realy. First series of single seat Il-2 ( obr.1941 up to mid 42) were all metal planes. Later due to shortage of Al alloys tail (behind the cocpit) and outer wing panels were replaced with wood ( delta drevesina) and was nicknamed "deska" = plank. It now seems that zavod 18 was producing all metal wings trough entire production run. When shortage of Al alloys was overcome in 1944 all new series produced IL-2 (so strelkoi = two spar = Il-2M3 at the time) got metal wings and in late 1944 also metal tail section some were retrofitted with them when on general inspection of the airframe. Il-2 is second most mass produced plane in history ( first being venerable Polikarpov U-2/Po-2)

Il was notoriously difficout to shoot down as normaly figter pilot shoots at the most voulnerable spot i.e. the pilot and the engine. Pilot in Il-2 was protected by armoured cockpit section that was produced entirely out of rolled steel and protected by armour plate in the rear.

Water cooler was between the engine and the cockpit (that's why Il has cooler intake on upper side of the engine). and to hit it one would have to hit the plane directly from above or directly from below. On the lower side was oil cooler that was armoured on Il-2 ( that box under the fuselage).

One of weak spots was the fuel tank behind the pilot. It was protected by armour plates from front and back but a part of it sticked out of armored sides of cockpit section. Ideal angle of attack was deflection shot from the side into the tank trough rear cocpit glasing. Another weak point was tail section (same for wood or metal) which was not armoured and hit there could damage and/or severe control lines (wires).

Biggest problem of Il was it's weight. Especcialy on wooden two seater. Comparing to all metall planes, "deska" was much more sluggish and slower. Mid production model ( two seat and wooden wings in west named Il-2M) also had huge problems with C.G. ( center of gravity) which was dangerously to back ( additional gunner+12,7MG+ammo+armour plate for the gunner). Losses becouse of this were the couse of reworking on the wing which got distinct "arrow".

Losses were mostly from light flak and in the first half of the war from fighters. When two seaters had addequate fighter cover losses from fighters droped dramaticaly. Acctualy at the beggining of the war single seaters had horrendus losses as no fighter cover was given to them as there was no fighters to spare. IIRC golden star (HSU) was promised for pilots who survived 10 combat missions. Quite a few managed to survive that far but only one was given specificaly with that citation.

German figter pilots reffered to Il-2 as "cement bomber" as shooting at it was same as shooting at block of concrete i.e. not much happened if you did not hit the weak spot.

 

Nice and very informative post, TISO. The Finnish fighter tactics for ww2 seems to agree with on where to shoot the plane in order to get it down.

From "Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics" http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... cture.html

"The well-armoured Il-2 requires especially good shooting. The only vulnerable areas of the plane are the top of the canopy and the wing roots, where the armour is thinner. The shooting must be very accurate and thorough, because the effective target area is only about 2 m2."

 

During WW2 the P-51 is credited with shooting down 5944 Axis aircraft, the P-47 is credited with 3661 air victories.

 

Sure....but there were only 6,290 P-47's built vs 15,875 P-51's.
My point is such numbers don't say that much about aircraft performance

 

Hmmm.