Author Topic: IL-2  (Read 4430 times)

Offline ML52

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 255

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
Re: IL-2
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2017, 06:24:28 AM »
Here's a restored one in flight:


Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: IL-2
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2017, 01:39:55 PM »
Boy imagine 12 of them circling your convoy always having one or two firing or dropping ords.

What did they call that type of attack again?
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: IL-2
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2017, 01:49:30 PM »
Because of the jerking on the aircraft when you release the bomb, in combination of them circling to attack, I believe it was called a "Circle Jerk".
Wag more, bark less.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: IL-2
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2017, 05:16:33 PM »
Boy imagine 12 of them circling your convoy always having one or two firing or dropping ords.

What did they call that type of attack again?

"Circle of Death".
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: IL-2
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2017, 05:22:14 PM »
Glad nobody listened to Patton when he said to invade the USSR.  Those planes would have ate Shermans for breakfast.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: IL-2
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2017, 07:14:54 PM »
"Circle of Death".

Right, I always wanted to try that in the game.

Quote
Glad nobody listened to Patton when he said to invade the USSR.  Those planes would have ate Shermans for breakfast.
Assuming we didnt nuke Moscow first. Buts its interesting to think how the western air forces would have done against the Low altitude Soviets.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline FBKampfer

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
Re: IL-2
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2017, 08:06:50 PM »
Glad nobody listened to Patton when he said to invade the USSR.  Those planes would have ate Shermans for breakfast.

Il-2's were actually relatively ineffective against armor unless using PTABs against concentrated columns. Allied ground attack aircraft with their larger number of rockets and larger bombs were much more effective against dispersed vehicles, and fortified positions.

Additionally, the Allies had very robust strategic and tactical bomber forces far outstripping anything the Soviets were fielding, which were put to great effect in crippling the Wehrmacht's ability to supply its armies.

Sovierts might have had more tanks, but the Allies would have ruled the skys.
AvA Development Group
Freebird SAC member

Great men are forged in fire; it is the privilege of lesser men to light the flames.

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: IL-2
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2017, 08:49:50 PM »
Il-2's were actually relatively ineffective against armor unless using PTABs against concentrated columns. Allied ground attack aircraft with their larger number of rockets and larger bombs were much more effective against dispersed vehicles, and fortified positions.

Additionally, the Allies had very robust strategic and tactical bomber forces far outstripping anything the Soviets were fielding, which were put to great effect in crippling the Wehrmacht's ability to supply its armies.

Sovierts might have had more tanks, but the Allies would have ruled the skys.

Bombs were most certainly effective againt AFVs.  But the myth of rockets have been debunked.  Mainly due to inaccuracy.

Cannons and machine guns were effective against AFVs also.  I'm not talking about the mythical bouncing 50 cal.  Tanks have tons of soft spots.  Even as late as the Iraq War M1s were losing their main guns due to the fiberglass bore evacuator being destroyed by small arms fire.

I'm not so sure the U.S. would just be able to march into the USSR.  Fighting would be low altitude and tactical. 
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: IL-2
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2017, 09:46:07 PM »
The Il-2s may have been marginally effective against tanks (like all but a few aircraft of the day), however for every tank you need a good number of trucks to keep it running...
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Online Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9485
Re: IL-2
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2017, 10:15:56 PM »
Sovierts might have had more tanks, but the Allies would have ruled the skys.


Probably true, but certainly not the end of the discussion.  German planes ruled the skies on the Eastern Front for most of the war.

This is, of course, one of those endlessly-debated what-ifs.  My own conclusion was that Dunkirk II would have occurred in late 1945 (assuming that we had just kept on going in May 1945).

- oldman

Offline FBKampfer

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
Re: IL-2
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2017, 10:54:45 PM »
Rockets weren't terribly effective at destroying vehicles, but ripple fired were effective at achieving mobility kills, which accounted for a great number of German Panzers put out of action, if not permanently destroyed.



Probably true, but certainly not the end of the discussion.  German planes ruled the skies on the Eastern Front for most of the war.

This is, of course, one of those endlessly-debated what-ifs.  My own conclusion was that Dunkirk II would have occurred in late 1945 (assuming that we had just kept on going in May 1945).

- oldman

Germany had lost air dominance by 1943, and had only managed air parity for 1944, and at great cost to fighter groups in the West. Up to 30% of their airforce was inoperable due to lack of spare parts alone.

While their ground attack planes were capable of operating right up until the Luftwaffe collapsed, they were certainly not capable of adequately protecting their ground forces.


In my opinion, the logistical issues would prevent any successful offensive for both sides. The Soviets would have to try and ship anything on the heavily damaged German infrastructure network, with the the Allies continually hammering any repair efforts, as well as bombing the hell out of transport columns and Soviet frontline troops, exactly as they did with the Germans.

Strategic airpower crippled the Wehrmacht, and would certainly be capable of doing the same to the Soviets, who would lack any high altitude interceptors to field for several years at least, and would possibly be even more helpless than the Germans.

The Allies wouldn't be able to cross the Oder and the Soviets wouldn't be able to cross the Rhine.
AvA Development Group
Freebird SAC member

Great men are forged in fire; it is the privilege of lesser men to light the flames.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: IL-2
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2017, 11:23:31 PM »
This is an annoying discussion that can only lead to no good.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Online Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9485
Re: IL-2
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2017, 11:49:09 PM »
This is an annoying discussion that can only lead to no good.

Sorry to offend you.  We will not continue the discussion.

- oldman

(wuss)

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: IL-2
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2017, 11:56:59 PM »
Why didn't the U.S. ever develop a single engine land based ground attack aircraft?  The Navy had plenty of them.  The Army Air Corp used fighters.  But I can't seem to think of a U.S land based plane that is the equivalent of the IL-2.

I think the Soviets would have pushed the U.S. back until they were within range of land based aircraft from England.  The USSR was far to big for strategic bombing, especially with the factories moved far from the front.  Only supply lines could be hoped to be severed.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.