P-47 Thunderbolt or the Ilyushin Il-2

If one had to chooce from either one of the 2 planes based solely on their job performance which one would be the better pick??

Opinons would be greatly appreciated

 

The Jug!!!!

While a great ground attack aircraft it was still a cutting edge fighter and long range escort.

Plus if attacked it could drop its load and take on the attackers.

 

I'd agree. The P-47 was definitely more flexible. The Il-2m is, and was used as, more of a light bomber than a true ground attack aircraft. It certainly had only a limited ability to defend itself in aerial combat. As for load both are about equal.

 

Thanks guys....How about if one woud argue just based on a tank destroyer or a fear factor bases??

The Germans did nickname this bird the " black death" and the luftwaffe named it the concrete aircraft.

 

The Il-2 need not be ashamed compared to the P-47 but still I´ll go for the P-47.

 

Slava, those are two entirely different planes, the P-47 was a hell of a fighter that also did a fine job as a bomber, while the IL-2 was a specialist attack plane,

If you want, you can ask for a comparison between the Il-2 and the Hs-129 (anothe attack plane) but there I would say the Il-2 would came on top.

 

100% agree with Za.

My answer would be : if you want to survive you take the P47, if you want to destroy your target take the Il2.

BTW, the very few lend leased P47 were not considered effective in CAS / ground attack role, I believe IIRC they even were turned down to the navy, to take advantage of their range.

 

understood, thank you..

Chocapic,

I did not know that thanks.

 

The IL-2 was a very efficient attack plane, no other plane can compete, because of its weapons and vast array of payload.

No other allied country fielded such an efficient attack plane, they mostly used fighters, or planes designed on fighter concepts, just like the Germans replaced their stukas by FW-190 in the attack role.

The P-47 was very good in the attack role, because it was a fast plane (reducing the time of exposure), it was very sturdy for a fighter, could withstand a plenty of small caliber ground fire, and had enough power to carry a good payload. The F4 corsair and the Hellcat were also impressive in the same domain.

It's sad the P-38 is often overlooked, because it also proved itself a very efficient attack plane and was feared on the battlefield.

(Sidenote : And it's even more sad when American books or website generaly just forget what is owed to the P-38 on both European and Pacific theaters, in CAS role, in air superiority fighter role, in high alt escort role, in interception role, in recon role, it really makes me sad and I hope this plane will never be forgotten).

The RAF used mostly the Typhoon but also the Tempest in this role, and these two planes were very good at ground attack.

Along with dedicated attack planes, like the IL2 and the Pe-2 (in a dive bomber role), the USSR very often used fighters in this role. Almost all Soviet fighters could carry bombs, and very often they also could use rockets (especialy in the first years of the war).

All these planes were much faster than the IL-2, and on the western front, they operated into a much more friendly aerial environment than the IL-2.

This, along with their very good speed, explains why they suffered very limited losses, although they were very very far from being as sturdy and armored than the IL-2.

The Il-2 was very heavily armored, at the cost of speed, but in the other hand was almost immune to small caliber fire (with an exception for the rear gunner which was added after the plane was designed, and was not in the armored frame. IL-2 rear gunners sufered tremendous losses, they often got peppered.

It's really a debate whether the IL2 was such a good plane or not, because thourough the war, they were shot down by hundreds, but no other plane could compete with the strenght and versatility of the IL-2 weaponry and serviceability.

Service ability is very important for a close air support (CAS) / attack plane : they mostly operate very close to the frontline, and therefore have to use muddy / snowy airfields, they have to be fixed and maintain fast on the field etc etc...

With its very sturdy landing gear, with wiiiiiiiide legs and tires, the IL2 could be operated under conditions that would not be suited at all for such a plane as the P47. IL2 can be compared to the Stuka in this domain.

About weapons, well, the IL2 had 2x20mm guns, then 2x23mm, the 2x37mm as the design evolved (but contrary to some beliefs, the 37mm versions were not so common), I won't mention machine guns ranging from rifle caliber to 12.7mm depending on the variant.

Because they combined to some extent penetration and explosive power, these weapons were far more efficient against soft and medium targets than the numerous 12.7 mgs of the P-47 (but again, contrary to some beliefs, the Sturmovik guns were not designed to destroy heavily armored targets – on many occasions they had disabled a tank, but you don't tear a Tiger tank apart with a 23 mm short gun).

The Il-2 could use plenty of different rockets, air to ground rockets being the domain in which USSR was a world pioneer and kept its lead during the whole war.

The rockets used rails, and not an attached launcher, so the plane was clean after the rockets had been fired ( while the P-47 had launchers like the HVAR).

The rockets came in several variants (RS82, RS 132, BRS 132 etc) for different types of targets, of course, they could carry bombs, and also sub-munition cluster bombs.

Forget the drop the babies and turn back against the enemy fighters : don't forget your ride is a P-47 and you'll do no good with a 180° break at 200m altitude with your HVAR launchers under the wings : just hit the throttle and run

In this domain, the USSR was also much more advanced than other countries. While allied used mostly cluster bombs concept for their strategic bombings (the cluster incendiary bombs prooved the most efficient), they very seldom used them in a tactical role (U.S. used cluster frag bombs, attached under parachutes -> parafrag with some success, mostly in the Pacific).

Soviets had a very wide array of submunition bombs for tactical/close air support, like classical incendiary and high explosive, but also antitank, and these proven very very effective in both sheer destroying power against tank, but also in hit ratio (it's easier to hit the target with some of the submunition than with a single bomb), when other countries submunition were more rare (if they even existed) in other airforces, and were mostly useless against armored targets.

Germans were the first to develop the concept (SD bombs) but they were far less effective (especialy agaisnt armor) than the Soviet bomblets.

To sum it up, the IL-2 was far more efficient in the CAS role, but wasn't able to evade an interception and could only count on its very strong armor when facing fighters. The P-47 was less less armored, less powerfull in weapons, especialy against tanks, could not be used on improvised airfields, but they did not encountered as many flying threats at low level as the IL2 did, and, which is the most important thing, had the opportunity to escape interception.

As I posted above, the VVS, whose primary concern was not crew survivability, considered the P47 only strong points were its high altitude performance and very good range, they used their thunderbolts in the navy air force (to be checked) and also in air defense (high altitude interception, which was far from being crowded on the eastern front).

 

And then came the IL-10, almost as fast (10-20 kph) as the P47D up to 3000m (at military power, not war emergency power).

 

While we can debate the merits of the Il-2m versus various other aircraft, it is clear from the Soviet method of employment that its tactical and operation methodolgy was inferior to that of the various Western air forces, including the Luftwaffe.
Basically, the Soviets did not employ the Il-2m as a ground attack aircraft in the manner the West did. That is, they used it in formations of 12 to 24 or so aircraft flying in V of V's in an overall rectangular formation making attacks on preselected targets as a group. There was none of the British or US "cab rank" of aircraft on call over the battlefield either operating against targets of opportunity or under ground control. The Soviets did not employ it in small groups of say, 4 aircraft roving the battlefield for targets of opportunity either.
Rather, the Soviet employment was more like that of light or medium bombers in the West. This severely limits its usefullness as a ground attack aircraft. Note, the US did use a similar tactic with the P-38 where the formation was led using a "droop snoot" P-38 with a bomb aimer signalling when the formation was to release their bombloads.
You certainly would not see the Soviets using tactics like flying a few feet off the ground skipping 500 lb bombs into Panzers as the XIXth TAF did in 1944. The Red Air Force was just too unimaginative and rigid in their methods to allow for it.

 

The "Jug"
The IL-2 was just what the Russians needed, and probably the most valuable plane in their Air Force (as my game by ubisoft tells me).
However,
Virtually bullet-proof as the Sturmovik (flying "bath-tub") appeared to be...the best way to deal with incomming fire is not to have it bounce off, it's to make it miss.
Speed & range is the way to do this. If/when the battle begins to turn against you...Monty Python said it best...Run Away-Run Away!
Some aircraft were more accurate (bombing/rockets/gun-fire), but few could carry more/farther/faster.

 

Well I was discussing hardware, not doctrine, but on different doctrines, I'd say it's all about different planes and different conditions.

 

That I would agree with

 

A little enlightnment on doctrine once in a while does no harm, actually we don't speak enough of it here. You may have the best piece of equipoment in the world, and the Il-2 qualifies for that in it's class, but if your doctrine is lousy it won't be much practical use.

 

I'm not even sure I'd characterize the Il-2m as "best" in its class. A 250 knot top speed with a 25,000 ft ceiling and a 880 lb payload with a mere 450 miles range is certainly not impressive at all. The standard 2 x 20mm and 2 x 7.9 mm machineguns is not a particularly heavy armament.
By 1944 a P-47, Fw 190G, P-38G/J, or Typhoon was lugging more guns, double to triple that payload with a mix of much larger rockets and bombs on an airframe that was capable of defending itself in air-to-air combat.
I would contend that the main reason the Il-2m managed to remain useful was the ever drecreasing amount of aerial opposition faced from the Luftwaffe. The Germans certainly never had the kind of aerial superiority in the East right from 1941 on that the Western Allies enjoyed from late 1943. In that sort of environment the Il-2m would have been a sitting duck for fighters. Poorly armed for defense (a single 12.7mm rear gun), slow, and not particularly maneuverable. Its strong airframe and armor would do little to prevent it being shot to pieces by large caliber machineguns or cannon.
While it is better than the German Hs 129 that is not saying much. The Hs 129 was an underpowered dog that was really too small for the intended role. Looking more closely at the Il-2m, it does little to impress me.

 

Well I wanted to elaborate on what made the IL-2 such a good plane was its tactical air to ground armament, in which domain the USSR was ahead, not the plane in itself (which had some very good strong points like it's very tough armor and ease of handling, but still it suffered an amazing loss rate). The IL-10 was another story, because of its great performances.

About doctrine, the IL-2 was developed (upgraded) along with its method of employment, under the eastern front 1941-1942 conditions, which were slightly different from the western front 1944 conditions I've been told (weather, enemy air superiority, crew training, losses, scale of the front, radios etc etc ).

Of course the VVS was way less flexible and less coordinated (especialy with ground) than, say, the USAAF, this lack of flexibility being probably the main reason why the most part of the use of IL-2 did not change much to take advantage, for example, of increasing air superiority in the 2nd part of the war .

But if you want to debate about doctrine, you have to take in account the context (what I called planes and conditions) : I don't think the VVS was too dumb to understand that, the lower you drop the babies, the more accurate you are, maybe there are some other reasons why they used the IL-2 the way they did, I think I even figured out some of these reasons .

 

Yes T.A. this might be true, but one cannot compare the P-47 of 1944 to the IL2 as by this time the Soviets were using the IL10.

Am I mistaken??

 

@sloniksp :

Althought the IL-10 may have entered production before the end of 1944 (not sure - to be checked) I doubt it was used in significant numbers before 1945.

@ Gardner :

It's a close air support planes who cares about ceiling or even range ? what's the difference between the British "cab rank" tactic and the Soviet "death circle" tactic ? Didn't the IL2 often operated under heavy german local air superiority for months ?

About payload, the P47 payload was about 12% heavier, and I'm not sure the Typhoon could carry more bombload than the IL-2 (to be checked).

I neither am sure the P47 and Typhoon could carry bombs + rockets at the same time, and I'm pretty sure efficient antitank cluster bombs were very uncommon (if any at all) underwings of the P47 and Typhoon.

Strenght and versatility of weapons, that's what my above thread was all about


About the IL-2 being a sitting duck against fighters, that's exactly what I said when I talked about its crazy loss rate, it's the same reason why the Stuka was no more used during daytime in the allied controled skies of the western front.

[ 20. December 2006, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: chocapic ]

 

I've checked (at least for the D version) and the P47 could carry bombs and rockets at the same time.