Author Topic: AH IL-2 armour weakness (Read 1485 times)

Batz · « **Reply #15 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:45:50 AM »

Heres July - December '44

http://www.luftboard.ndo.co.uk/ost44juldec.pdf

To check previous years go here

http://tonywood.cjb.net/

ramzey · « **Reply #16 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:22:41 AM »

lol Wotan that list proof nothing, except il2 was used in large numbers
if i start reading allies kills list, i can tell u 190 and 109 is a plane what i never would in;)

ramzey

Pongo · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:15:00 AM »

No the surevivablility of the IL2 was lower then its contemperary single seat Russian attack aircraft. Signifigantly so.
And effective or not. A tail gun adds to survivability.
BTW.
I think the damage model on the IL2 in the game is more right then wrong. It is very survivable to snap shots from fighters. And it can take a lot of 50 cal from an m16(sometimes, sometimes you lose the rad imediatly)

moot · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:19:40 AM »

quad hispano/M2/N1K guns is enough to disarm the panzer.
You land enough hits on engine and top of turret, they both brake. Not as easy on tiger, bit easier on ostwind. might as well be dead then.
detracking is hairy since the target is even smaller and you've to hit at not any angle.

50cals arent so easy as they used to, but I killed a panzer myself with a P38 or 47 coming at 375mph or so, about 70deg angle, hits landing at the neck of the turret, burst lasted from 1.2 to 500 maybe. it just exploded. this was just after the tiger release.

moot · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:23:03 AM »

against most players, you can just dive into flak panzer or m16 fire and pop their turret (or kill if m16, usually at 1K) from 1.3 with well aimed il2 cannon, taking one or two hits if you take too long. PT boats die about as quick as m16 if not faster since usually larger target.

three 37mm hits are usually enough to wreck your il2 although 2 hits often show no damage. usually time to retire that plane by then.

Batz · « **Reply #20 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:37:10 AM »

Ramzey read the list in the context of the thread. Look where guys killed 3 4 or 5 in a row. That hardly is example of a flying tank or that the large kill counts against il2s were when then didnt have a tail gunner.

The il2 was nothing special. As a matter fact it was shot down in large numbers through out the war.

That list certainly shows that the il2 was killed, killed often and in large numbers.

The il2 didnt survive any better with a tail gunner then it did with out.

That facts show the il2 to just another airplane that was shot down in large numbers.

Shiva · « **Reply #21 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:54:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
The il2 was nothing special. As a matter fact it was shot down in large numbers through out the war.

The radio call of the Il-2 pilot: "Am engaging enemy. Dosvidanya, Rodina!"

WldThing · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shiva
The radio call of the Il-2 pilot: "Am engaging enemy. Dosvidanya, Rodina!"

Dosvidanya, Rodina...Does it mean like-Bye homeland?

straffo · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2003, 04:25:17 PM »

yep WldThing

ramzey · « **Reply #24 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:31:22 PM »

yeap Wotan, but mostly that depends from situation and range of shooting. Hartman proof that year earlier. U know this story im sure. Laters planes have heavy arments too and bigger amno load. Il2 as clasic ground attack plane keep formation as log as he can, and mostly fly 1 expirenced pilot and 2 newbeies in VIC.

Tactics of use Il2 and discipline in russian units enforce so big numbers of losses. Thats secound point. Wingmans must blinde follow leader. /i read many "funny" stories about that. So somtimes it was like shooting to ducks.

I think most of us know that from AH too.

IL2 "bulletprof" was made against low barrel ground fire, not to resist airplane attack. Wichone noone can guarantie. Even large b17 was shot down by paper zekes. Thats mean short range of fire , and hitting vital parts of airplane.

Main role of il2 in RL was fight against life forces, light and medium vechicycles, strong holds. All that from suprise attack of with heavy fighter cover.
Single seatter version was abdon from production fast, or later used only to punish pilots flying on it. Not as main attack airplane

ramzey

Urchin · « **Reply #25 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:07:10 PM »

Hizookas will disable a Panzer IV in 1 pass, 2 passes at most. By disable I mean knock out the Turret and engine or tracks.

The angle doesn't seem to matter at all, I've been strafed at a relatively flat angle from the front and lost my turret in one pass. I guess Tony Williams got some bogus data on either the Hizookas armor penetration statistics or the ammo load that was used in the Hizooka in WW2, or both.

Kweassa · « **Reply #26 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:17:37 PM »

Anybody who has a good aim can kill an IL-2 with with the single .50s on the M3. Going strafing against AA vehicles are supposed to be hazardous, yes.. also, it makes sense return fire from tanks usually hit the oil coolers and cause it to leak..

but a single .50 sawing off the tails and wings??

vorticon · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:15:28 PM »

i have more success against tanks in a hurri2c than i do in a il2

Squire · « **Reply #28 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:39:26 PM »

I agree on your points Batz, as long as you are not falling into the trap of quoting the top 5 percent of the "aces" scores to prove your point. Aces scores are way too often used as "proof" that "plane X" was this or that. If you know what I mean.

As for the IL-2, it may be a victim of pilots who fly it for one way missions in the MA as opposed to being weak. IL-2s attacked all sorts of "softer" targets in WW2, troops, trucks, ships, depots, AFVs of all sorts, they didnt spend a lot of time attacking Osties directly in RL. Also, they were used en masse.

Imp · « **Reply #29 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:51:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Anybody who has a good aim can kill an IL-2 with with the single .50s on the M3. Going strafing against AA vehicles are supposed to be hazardous, yes.. also, it makes sense return fire from tanks usually hit the oil coolers and cause it to leak..

but a single .50 sawing off the tails and wings??

The Il2's armor protects the engine. The radiators were placed behind the engine (at least on the prototype, they might have changed it afterward).

The entire nose section is armored. The chance of hitting the radiators seems very small. The 50 has the power to penetrate the armor but not the engine as well. Hitting from under might work but its a hard shot.

Maybe they need to put armor on planes? Like they do for tanks.

It should be almost impossible to damage the Il2's engine, or crew (I dont know the effectiveness K-4 transparent armor) with a 30 caliber MG. The wings, tail and the rear fuselage werent armored and should be much more vulnerable.