Jabberwocky:
I will commence this posting by borrowing a phrase commonly used by my mexican mates here; whenever someone comes along with comments which are completely out of line they´ll say the comment "does not have feet nor head".
Well Jaberwocky, your comment affirming "1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage" more than qualifies to have the phrase applied. It lacks feet, and also lacks head.
May I know from where did you get such a piece of jewelry? Whatever the source might be I can tell you it is horribly wrong.
I have had the chance of speaking with some 15 men who flew the IL-2. Noteworthy to mention is the fact I did not just met once with each of them; many were my neighbors so I had the opportunity to see and to speak with them throughout many years.
Not that they are not proud of their victory; also, not that they have modified their speech for they still referr to the Germans as "fascist snakes". The fact remains they enlightened me further as to how horrific their losses were during the last months of the war, and also of the capabilities of soviet pilots throughout the entire "great patriotic war".
The IL-2s were the aerial version of soviet infantry, launching massive attacks in the largest numbers possible and to endure likewise horrible losses.
It is perhaps the most overhyped plane of the entire conflict. Read the soviet propaganda mythology and get shocked to read such a "perfection" of combat. A perfection western propagandists perhaps did not dream of. They put it that by 1944, every single IL-2 would reach the target right on time, wonderfully guided by ground control, every single bomb, rocket and piece of ammunition fired by each IL-2 hit the target: "fascist soldiers, tanks, artillery, all destroyed" (ah! and also Bf 109s and Fw 190s "shot down in huge numbers" by that wonder the Ilyushin was, hold your guts!).
After reading it, you fall under the impression the red army of 1944-45 is the perfect fighting force. From ancient times to present day, no army has ever come close to scratch the perfection achieved by the red army of the last year of the war. You can´t avoid laughing. When it came to filing totally wild and exaggerated claims the soviets did not do half jobs.
I will not contest the fact there were times when badly damaged shturmoviks made it back to base and that damage was so bad they were simply written off.
To affirm "1/2 of the total losses of IL-2s" were the product of such situation is a flat joke though. You perhaps were referring to crashings when attempting to land when returning from mission due to bad training.
Another part of your posting, that by the way lacks head and feet as well:
"it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war" (!!!!).
This is exactly what most experts, scholars, historians and buffs do not understand: the armed forces of the soviet union during world war two NEVER QUITE HAD THE CHANCE TO CREATE the alleged "superb, professional, out-of-this-planet-skilled" armed force that "emerged from the depths of the soviet territory to swallow the Germans" as the soviet propaganda has been depicting since 1945.
Total, complete, absolute, utter crap. A Pokryshkyn was a rare comodity in the military air force of the soviet union during the war, did you know this fact? His unit too had to absorb significant losses during the fight.
Losses of men for the soviet union were so horrible during the entire duration of the war they got effectively deprived of the necessary core of battle seasoned personnel to train the rookies getting drafted.
I recall when I asked the veterans of the functioning of the ground forward air controllers widely described by the soviet accounts. The response might get your attention: many of the shturmoviks had no radios by 1945.
)
They had to follow the leaders to reach battle zones.
Have you ever read the accounts, say, of JG 54? German pilots in the Leningrad front noted how persistent the VVS was -it is important to say German pilots were very persistent as well, perhaps more than the soviet pilots-. Whether in small or larger formations, the IL-2s would appear day after day, even during weeks when that particular front was not having intense activity. The Germans would bring down so many of them, and still there would not be one single day when the IL-2s wouldn´t show up, to again, take very high losses.
How come all these experts refuse to understand and acknowledge this essential principle that contributes creating an effective military force?
Everything was urgent for the soviets, men and war materiel. Very urgent, from the very first day, June 22, 1941 all the very long way until the final drive on Berlin in 1945.
Again, hoping this can be of help:
The MASSIVE boxes of four engined heavy bombers of the 8th and 15th USAAFs working on the "strategic bombing" capaign over the Reich were far more tougher cookies to bring down than the IL-2s ever came close to be.
The B-17, a large, sound item, had 4 radial engines, which unlike liquid-cooled engines, could take a far greater deal of damage and perhaps make it back home. Oh -again- add the scandalous number of .50 cals each bomber had....what came of them? They were DOOMED. Losers. Against fighters they lose. Simple.
(Right, the IL-2s had their liquid-cooled engines protected by armour but as Mr. Primus commented, when the German pilots learned of the weak points of the enemy plane, the shturmoviks commenced falling like leaves.)
You are not going to contest the fact a B-17 was by FAR a more difficult target to bring down are you?
Well, it was precisely those large sound planes, flying in those massive formations, carrying an insane number of .50s that found themselves doomed against fighters. Again, what made the soviets believe the shturmovik could "hold its own against fighters"?
I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.
It is an amusing activity to read on some other forums, and realize that in fact, there are people who are 100% convinced the IL-2 was not only the "greatest tank killer" of the war, no, they do not stop there. They move a little step further and claim the shturmovik could "accept a dogfight" against Bf 109s or Fw 190s -quoting the exact words used by posters-.
They too swallowed the argument of the vaunted 12.77 mm UB defensive machine gun manned by a rear gunner. As someone said on some other thread here, the point of that machine gun has been effectively turned into a bloody urban legend.
I have films of stuka rear gunners setting Spitfires and Hurricanes ablaze. We know the rear gun in the stuka was of lighter caliber (MG 15 and MG 81 Z-7.92mm). During 1939 and 1940 all British fighters were fitted with guns about identical caliber of those of the defensive rear gunner. The Germans unlike the russians never made a scandal out of their rear gun in the fearsome dive bomber. It provided the plane with a minimum level of self defense capabilities, and there were times when the rear gunners succeded in shooting down RAF fighters. Yet, without proper fighter cover and presence of enemy fighters they go nowhere, just as whenever there were no enemy fighters around they could carry out their work.
All these conditions fit perfectly in the situation of the IL-2, exception taken for IL-2 pilots never had the skill Stuka pilots had in the business.
Pulling them out of their ignorance is not my task, so I will just have the required fun whenever I read the IL-2s "could accept dogfights" also that the rear gunner was one of the world´s wonders.
With or without that rear gunner, manning whatever bloody gun, the shturmoviks are losers to fighters.
Linear Mode
