Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I

[dead parrot]

Plan_D, make up your mind...

"Those 37mm cannons were deadly, thing being the Sturmovik had the same calibre cannons. The Hurricane IIC, IID or IV had two 40mm cannon."

OR (after being told very few Il-2s had the 37mms)

"23mm cannons could rip open almost any kind of Panzer, so the ones without the 37mm cannons would have been alright in combat anyway."

Take a stand lad, and stick with it, 'kay?

 

[kiwimac]

Asking Plan and Lancto take a stand is like asking a willow to stand up straight!

Fact is the Stuka was by far the best anti-tank aircraft and also a damn fine ground-attack aircraft long after its usefulness as a divebomber had come to an end.

Kiwimac

 

[plan_D]

How is that not a stand? I was making the point that the Sturmoviks without 37mm were perfectly capable of taking out tanks anyway. Jesus Christ man!

 

[plan_D]

The original Il-2 had no rear gun position. However the plane was structally armoured (as opposed to armour added) which carried major parts of the structural functions. Armour was in pilot cockpit, engine, cooling system and internal bomb bays. The armour could withstand much ground fire allowing the pilots more time aiming while over target.
The plane could dogfight but lack of pilot training led to many losses as lessons had to be learnt on the battlefield. Experience is a hard teacher, it gives the test then teaches later.

In 1942 the Il-2 got its rear gun position in the IL-2M. Although before that some improvised adopting turrets from such planes as the old R-5. The gunner position was not armoured so life expectancy was 7 times less of that of the pilot, or plane.

The Il-2 Type 3 was further improved, making a more stable plane by reshaping the wings. As pilot skill improved and new tactics evolved the losses began to drop, and in 1943 only 2.8% IL-2s were lost during missions, with 50% coming home damaged. 90% were repaired at the front because of the simple design.

Some ground crews even complained because holes were sometimes 1 metre square, and that they could not repair it. 1 METRE SQUARE!!! No other plane was complained about like that.

36,163 were produced, maybe the biggest production run in history.

Il-2 Armament - 2*20mm ShVAK 500/gun
2*7.62mm ShKAS 700/gun
Bombs- 400 kg
Rockets - 8*RS-82mm or
8* RS-132mm

Il-2M - 2*20mm ShVAK 500/gun
or 2*23mm VYa 300/gun
2* 7.62mm ShKAS
Rear Defence - 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 400 kg
Rockets- 4* RS-82mm or
4* RS-132mm

Il-2 Type 3 - 2*23mm VYa
2* 7.62mm ShKAS
Rear Defence- 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 750kg
Rockets- 4* RS-82mm
or 4* RS-132mm

Il-2 Type 3M - 2*37mm NS-37
2* 7.62mm ShKAS
Rear Defence - 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 600kg
Rockets- 4*RS-82mm or
4* RS-132mm

Those being standard armaments, other variation of armament include the rear-ward firing grenade launcher DAG-10 and 4 containers of 192 PTAB each.

That ladies and gentlemen is why the IL-2 Sturmovik aka. Concrete Plane is the greatest tank destroyer of World War 2. So there. Needed that.

 

[Erich]

I will not even compare the Ju 87 with the Il-2 as they are different planes from different countries with different modes of supportive operations. they are both the classic a/c. the Il-2 in my opinion more of the ground attack that the Ju 87 although the B's earlier before the D models did drop anti-tank bombs. No one can deny the operational success the panzerstaffel Weiß started out by testing the G-1 model and then going to the 10th Panzerstaffels of each SG except the ones using the standard 30mm Mk 103 in the HS 129.

Martin Pegg from England wrote the Classic Hs 129 book still the standard on the ac/ covering the technical aspects as well as opertaions; 1 volume in coverage but worth every cent if you can find a copy. Most likely his Ju 87 when prodcued will follow the same lines........and with profiles.

didn't the Il-2 have a 37mm in the prop and then two outboard 23mm's ?

Remember the Soviet a/c would fly in low, hard and fast, drop it's cargo, shoot up anything and leave while the slower Ju 87 came down from above stalking it's prey and then banked up at an angle to get out of the way of Soviet light anti-aircraft weapons

E ~

 

[Lightning Guy]

I think the Il-2 mounted its cannons it the outer wings exclusively. Some variants of the Yak-9 carried heavy cannon (37mm or 45mm) through the engine vee.

 

[lesofprimus]

Here is some info on the IL-2 for all interested...

The VVS (Air Forces) had 249 Il-2s in service when the war started. As aircraft factories relocated east of the Urals in 1941 to escape German bombing, Stalin characterized the Il-2 as necessary to the Red Army "like air, like bread." Production became a national priority, and the Russians built 36,163 Il-2s by November 1944, at first under appalling winter conditions as laborers erected factory walls and roofs around open-air assembly lines. Later, production rates climbed as high as 1.5 aircraft an hour at some plants, and 41,129 were built by the war's end.

The first production Il-2s flew directly to frontline units before tests of the prototype were even completed. The plane's easy handling, powerful armament, and invulnerability to ground fire made it a devastating ground attack aircraft, especially with the tenacity of desperate pilots, and the Germans called it the "Black Death." But losses were extremely high from German fighters, even after a rear gun was added for self defense.

14,200 were claimed downed in 1943 and 1944 alone. The Luftwaffe even formed specially-trained fighter units to target Il-2s, and several of Germany's highest-ranking aces gained most of their kills against Il-2s.

Indicating how dangerous this ground attack work was, Il-2 pilots received the Hero of the Soviet Union award after only 10 missions. It normally required 100 missions to earn this highest Soviet award for valor. And pilots, surrounded by the Il-2's protective armor, expected to outlive six or more gunners. As the war progressed, the Il-2 received more powerful guns, including cannons of up to 37mm size, and more powerful engines. It was beloved by pilots and referred to affectionately as 'Ilyusha' because of its ruggedness: half of all shturmoviks returning safely from missions had combat damage, but most were repairable. Few lasted more than 100 hours-about 50 missions.

 

[toffi]

didn't the Il-2 have a 37mm in the prop

For sure, it didn't It had so much space in wings and they were so strong that nobody tried to mount such gun. It was the Russian fighters that had guns only in fuselage, cause their wings were mostly wooden and couldn't carry any heavier load than undercarriage (and sometimes few RS-82 rocktes on La-5/7).

 

[plan_D]

14,200 claimed in 1943 and 1944. Claimed and actually did are completely different things. The Americans over Korea claimed 792 MiG-15s when in reality they only got 370 air kills.

 

[dead parrot]

I guess the easy way to check the claims would be to see how many the Russians reported lost/destroyed--I wonder if that stat exists somewhere?
It's common knowledge that claims are always inflated, but even if the 14,000 number is halved, that's still more downed planes than there were total Stukas built, which makes it even more likely that the kill-to-loss ratio for the Stuka was better.

 

[plan_D]

The Il-2 was in a more difficult situation though. The Luftwaffe had a greater presence in the air than the VVS, plus better trained pilots.
Where are the numbers for tank kills of the Stuka, anyway? Since a lot of the killing was done by Fw-190s and Me-262s as well. On top of the He-111 and Hs-129s.

Also if only 2.8% were actually lost in one year, it's pretty impressive.

 

[dead parrot]

Definitely agree that a lot of the time the Stuka was flying friendlier skies, so to speak.

I'd love to see records for tank kills too. I did find this on the Web, from an account of the battle of Seelow Heights.

"...Manteuffel knew that he could not hold out much longer. He had no replacements and no additional armor. He placed heavy emphasis on his anti-tank gunners, armed with a few 88mm and several 75mm PAK 40 artillery pieces. He had even conscripted a local anti-aircraft battery. Luftwaffe air support would be crucial, but the fighter squadrons of Jagdgeschwader 54 and 52 were outnumbered 20-to-1. Their airfields had already been overrun. Stukageschwader 2, the so-called Immelman wing, was spread out over the entire area. Nevertheless, its planes accounted for 149 Russian tanks..."

So, in April 1945, when the Russian airforce was dominant and the situation at the air bases chaotic, this wing managed to take out 149 tanks.

 

[dead parrot]

This is interesting, too, a summary of the first day of the same battle:

"By the end of the first day of the assault, the Soviets were learning just how expensive the Seelow Heights were going to be. Soviet losses added up to 75 tanks, 2,250 killed, 3,400 wounded and 12 Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik fighter-bombers lost. German losses included two Tiger I heavy tanks, four Hanomag halftracks, three Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters, seven Junkers Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers and approximately 300 killed, with a like number wounded..."

So, even if the Il-2s were responsible for both those Tigers, they got a maximum of 2 tanks for 12 planes lost, whereas 7 Stukas were down for quite possibly a significant percentage of those 75 Soviet tanks.

Now, this is just one account of one battle, and is hardly statistically significant, but it does suggest that the Stuka was still at least as effective as the Il-2 even in 1945, when it is commonly considered to have been an obsolete liability.

 

[lesofprimus]

I think it may be a simple # of attrition...

The russians had alot more pilots and planes to throw into the fray than the germans did... Plus there was the whole "Invade my Mother Country???" attitude that made the use of men and machine more akin to pouring sand into a 6 inch hole cut in a piece of plywood... Put enough sand in it and u'll clog the hole up eventually...

I am of the mind that the germans and the Ju 87-G's were used not so much in an offensive capability, but rather as a target of oppourtunity situation... There werent that many of them, and the fact that the Stuka was used almost exclusivly in an fighterless enviornment (lessons learned? hehe) makes the #'s lost to enemy fighters alot lower than the Il-2, which was flown under all circumstances...

One thing to point out, is that the Sturmovik, from the rear cockpit area backwards was still made of wood...

I've noticed that alot of people comment on the whole "flying tank" , armored to the hilt thing... The armor was designed to protect from AA fire, not from enemy fighters...

Yes it did help the pilot and engine survive (rear gunner who??? piss on him) , but so very many Il-2's were shot down by enemy aircraft... An insane amount... It's the only reason that so many were made, to replace the ones lost...

And btw, just to clear this up, the Il-2 was 40 mph faster than the Stuka, level flight... Big freakin deal... 40 mph is nothin... A racehorse runs 40 mph... Big difference??? I think not... More speed is better, I agree, but not as big a deal as made out to be...

I have not given my opinion on which I think was a better tank buster yet, but I believe that given the circumstances, if Germany had the Il-2 instead of the Stuka, the war verses the Russians might have had a different outcome...

I still havent made up my mind, but I find the Ju 87-G models were SPECIFICALLY designed to destroy armoured vehicles... The Sturmovik was not, although it filled this niche quite successfully... Take Kursk for example...

 

[plan_D]

I don't think that can be taken into account for Stuka statisics, DP. The first one doesn't state how many tanks the actual Stukas accounted for. And weren't JG-54 equipped Me-262A-2a in 1945? If so, it's a perfectly capable tank destroyer.

And the second account doesn't show much either. At Zeelow Heights the German tank crews were accounting for many. The Soviet tanks were in a very difficult situation, and the Germans threw everything at them.

Les, we know the armour on the Il-2 was for defence against ground fire. I believe I already stated the rear gunners life expectancy was 7 times lower than the pilots, or planes.
The Il-2 Type 3M was a definate tank destroyer with two 37mm cannons, plus rockets and bombs.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and, as has been mentioned, there were more targets for the germans than there were for the russains..........................

 

[plan_D]

If I remember correctly the Western Allies had aircraft at Zeelow heights too. That is why IS-2s were painted with white around their turrets so the ground attack aircraft could identify them Russian.

 

[Lightning Guy]

40mph is huge in aircombat! 40mph is 20% greater than the Stuka and that is statistically significant. As for Il-2 losses and Ju-87 tank kills, it needs to be remembered that the Russians were not very careful with lives or equipment as the had more than enough of both. Consequently, Il-2s would be committed to dangerous areas (producing high losses) and the tanks would simply attack in mass allowing the Stukas ample targets.

 

[plan_D]

Which has already been stated, many times. So the amount of kills to losses of either aircraft have to be taken with the circumstances they achieved these kills.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Exactly. I think it should be remembered that the Il-2 had better armament (offensice and definisive), better armor, and better performance. It was the better tank buster. The success of the Ju-87G was due to the superior tactics of the Luftwaffe and the more advantageous conditions it flew under.