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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: DaveBB 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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR 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...
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Oldman731 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
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: FBKampfer 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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 03, 2017, 11:23:31 PM
This is an annoying discussion that can only lead to no good.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Oldman731 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)
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: DaveBB 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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: FBKampfer on March 04, 2017, 01:55:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 04, 2017, 02:05:35 AM
"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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 04, 2017, 02:07:29 AM
"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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: DaveBB on March 04, 2017, 07:02:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 04, 2017, 03:36:34 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: DaveBB on March 04, 2017, 07:57:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: save on March 06, 2017, 09:03:51 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 06, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: DaveBB on March 06, 2017, 03:53:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Zimme83 on March 06, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 06, 2017, 06:11:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: FBKampfer on March 07, 2017, 01:16:01 PM
They're also about the same size.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 07, 2017, 02:55:37 PM
The Henschel is actually a little smaller and lighter.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: save on March 09, 2017, 02:58:36 AM
The IL-10 would fit the bill, ~90mph faster than the IL-2.
Title: Re: IL-2
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 09, 2017, 03:21:08 AM
I'd like to see the early IL2 without the rear gunner added to the game eventually.