IL-2

[FBKampfer]

They did. Plenty of them.

The P-47 and P-51 were heavily used as ground attack platforms, multiple times being upgraded specifically to carry greater ordnance. The P-51 even has a special dive bomber variant.

The P-40 was also used for ground attack, multiple variants being modified for greater ordnance capacity.

Then there was the purpose designed A-31 Vengeance.

The Army had interest in using the SB2C until fighter bombers proved more than capable.

And then there was the A1 skyraider


Close air support specifically just wasn't part of army airforce doctrine. And in my view, it was probably a wiser decision. The IL-2, while serviceable, was of questionable effectiveness relative to fighter bombers. They're just generally more capable aircraft overall.

[PR3D4TOR]

"Used as" and "developed for" are not synonymous. The A-31 Vengeance was not used operationally by the U.S. and the A-1 Skyraider is a post-war aircraft.

[PR3D4TOR]

Sorry to offend you.

I'm not offended.

[FBKampfer]

"Used as" and "developed for" are not synonymous. The A-31 Vengeance was not used operationally by the U.S. and the A-1 Skyraider is a post-war aircraft.

Fair enough, though the A-31 was still an army airforce project, they just decided they didn't want it.

And no time frame was specified.

[DaveBB]

Yeah, I thought about the A-36 Apache this morning while fixing coffee.  Guess that's the closest single engine plane to an IL-2.

The A-20 and strafer versions of the B-25 seem to have been used in the same way at the IL-2.  I guess the U.S. AAC wanted two engines for range/payload/defensive weapons.

The Il-2 did get blasted from the sky when it encountered German fighters.  One punishment in the Red Army was to be assigned as an IL-2 gunner.  But of course everything was punishable in the Red Army.

[Ack-Ack]

Yeah, I thought about the A-36 Apache this morning while fixing coffee.  Guess that's the closest single engine plane to an IL-2.

Not even close.  The only thing they had in common was both planes were ground attack planes, that's were the similarity ends.

The A-20 and strafer versions of the B-25 seem to have been used in the same way at the IL-2.  I guess the U.S. AAC wanted two engines for range/payload/defensive weapons.

While all three were attack planes, the A-20 and B-25 were not used in the same way as the IL-2.  Neither plane's primary duty was anti-tank/vehicle attack sorties, unlike the IL2's bread and butter sorties.

The Il-2 did get blasted from the sky when it encountered German fighters.  One punishment in the Red Army was to be assigned as an IL-2 gunner.  But of course everything was punishable in the Red Army.

Major weakness of all attack planes, without air superiority or supremacy in the target area, the attack planes were fodder for fighters. 

[DaveBB]

In the Pacific the B25 and A-20 were used to destroy any Japanese vehicles they came across.  Didn't matter whether it was a ship, a truck, or a parked plane. 

The geography of the Russian Steppes afforded massing of troops and vehicles like nowhere else.  So I will concede that the IL-2 had a specific role, but that was mainly due to the geography.

[save]

The 190F8 is the only plane that came even close to the IL2-IL10, armored to protect it from small-arms fire, used in large scale on all fronts.

The tactics differed of course, the F8 was derived from the 190 fighter, the F8 doubled as a heavy fighter on eastern front, some pilots had an impressive number of kill in them.

Did any western-allied produce any armored single-engine planes from factory, or did they add any armor on existing attack planes ?

[Ack-Ack]

In the Pacific the B25 and A-20 were used to destroy any Japanese vehicles they came across.  Didn't matter whether it was a ship, a truck, or a parked plane. 

The geography of the Russian Steppes afforded massing of troops and vehicles like nowhere else.  So I will concede that the IL-2 had a specific role, but that was mainly due to the geography.

The B-25H in the PTO was initially used for attacking hardened defenses and maritime (ships) targets.  However, it was determined that "strafer" versions of the B-25H were just as effective than the 75mm cannon, which is why the 5th AF got rid of most of the B-25Hs (a couple of squadrons still kept them) and gave them to the Chinese or to bomber groups in the CBI.

[DaveBB]

One of the best books I read was "Warpath Across the Pacific", which chronicled a B-25 wing in the Pacific.  AMAZING photos too.  Bombers crashing, Zeros attacking, etc etc.  Full of first hand accounts.

On one occasion, B-25s were called out for anti-tank duty as Japanese tanks overran a U.S. base.  But it took the B-25s so long to get there, the ground troops had knocked out the tanks with handheld weapons.

[Zimme83]

The 190F8 is the only plane that came even close to the IL2-IL10, armored to protect it from small-arms fire, used in large scale on all fronts.

The tactics differed of course, the F8 was derived from the 190 fighter, the F8 doubled as a heavy fighter on eastern front, some pilots had an impressive number of kill in them.

Did any western-allied produce any armored single-engine planes from factory, or did they add any armor on existing attack planes ?

The Typhoon had quite a lot of armour, mainly for the engine and cooling system. Wiki says that 354 kg of armor was added.

[PR3D4TOR]

The 190F8 is the only plane that came even close to the IL2-IL10...

Nah...

[save]

Was thinking of single engine armored planes...

Nah...

[PR3D4TOR]

Was thinking of single engine armored planes...

Why single engines only? Sounds like an arbitrary limitation. Those two radials on the Hs 129 produce less total power than the single V-12 in the Il-2.

[FBKampfer]

They're also about the same size.