>>62127920
Trash, just like all Russian WW2 aircraft

>>62127920
>not easy for Soviet factories to produce until much later in the war
>gunners suffered horrific attrition rates
>IL-2s generally suffered horrific attrition due to not having any fighter cover most of the war
>poor bomb load for a tactical bomber of its weight and size
>pros really revolve around its armor and ability to provide interdiction when most other planes would have to pull away due to AA fire
meh

>>62127920
it was dogshit

>>62127920
turdmobik

flying cope cage

>>62127920
Steel tub with wooden everything else, gets shot down like anything Soviet but at least the air crew is alive when they're flat spinning out of the sky sans wing.

>>62127920
It wasn't

>>62127920
in my vidya (il2 game) its fine as a gun platform against weak targets without air cover like convoys, lots of ammo and a stable plane for strafing.

i dont really know about reality but it was the most produced plane in history so it shouldnt be that terrible like earli
er anons said.

>no jet engines
>no BVR missiles
>no stealth aspects
its shit.

>>62127920
Incredibly underwhelming, and only really saw widespread use because Stalin had a hard-on for them.

It was probably better for ground troop morale to have IL-2 support than nothing at all, but there's probably no pilot in the world who would willingly fly it over a Thunderbolt

>>62127920
You're not allowed to say anything good about soviet weapons on nu-/k/

>>62129077
don't you have a shitty pro-russian bait thread to be propping up?

>>62127920
it's a ground attack aircraft that sacrifices payload, flight characteristics, and range in favor of an armored bathtub that can only stop .30 cal fire most of the time. it was produced in hilarious quantities only because stalin threatened to literally murder anyone who tried to delay production (including delays incurred by trying to improve the design or manufacture process). the average pilots flying the things were expected to not know even the basics of aviation. it is the primary reason why all of germany's aircraft kill records were set on the eastern front.

>>62129145
where can I read about stalin and this thing?

>>62129145
it also got touted after the war as one of the wunderwaffe that saved the USSR so they had something in the air like the T-34 on the ground.

the il-2's armored tub made it basically immune to stray fragments and 7.92mm and resistant to 13mm. this wasn't particularly helpful against 20mm-armed fighers but it probably helped against infantry who might use their mg42 as AA. apparently it also helped hunt stukas, which only had a 7.92mm rear gun.

the guns were pretty good. The Il-2 mostly had Ya-23s (early models had ShVAK) while most comparable aircraft were generally armed with machineguns most of the time. American planes might at least have several .50 cals but the stuka would only have 2 machineguns most of the time.

early models didn't have a tail gunner, but when they did finally get one, it was a .50 cal.

the rockets sucked: they had a fairly small payload and were inaccurate.

the bomb load was smaller than on other ground attack aircraft. An il-2 with rear gunner would have 300 to 400kg of bombs while a stuka could carry 500 to 1400 kg of bombs, depending on variant (but usually carried 250 to 1000 kg). A thunderbolt could carry 1100 kg of bombs and had rockets that didn't suck.

The USSR also had PTABs (anti-tank air bombs). These were apparently more effective in the anti-tank role than 37mm cannons and let the Il-2 make much better use of its limited bomb bay space for killing tanks. However the USSR used them with other aircraft and could probably have used them with lend-lease aircraft or hypothetical red army stukas.

>>62129316
it'd make more sense to compare them to the bf-109 or other mass-produced nazi weapons than to "wunderwaffe" like the me-262
>>62129077
tsmt the rus-ukr war has really rattled people's brains here. all that's left is
>soviet = russian = LE BAD

>>62128873
>lots of ammo and a stable plane for strafing.
Funny thing is Soviet in their trials found IL-2 was a terribly bad gun platform. Removing red dot sights from IL-2s didn't help either.

>>62129403
>the guns were pretty good. The Il-2 mostly had Ya-23s
It was exactly opposite. IL-2 staffing accuracy was extremely bad, moving from Shvak to YA-23 reduced them even more, because YA-23 had particularly large recoil even for gun of their size.
Il-10 evolution of IL-2 abandoned YA cannons.

>>62129077
what might have occurred between "old /k/" and "nu-/k/" (let's be real you came here in 2016 and wouldn't know an oldfag if boof wandered in) to change people's perceptions on the effectiveness of Soviet era weaponry

>>62129442
>it'd make more sense to compare them to the bf-109
Why are you talking like you know anything if you're comparing the IL-2 to the Bf 109 instead of it's actual comparables like the Stuka, P-47, or Typhoon, the planes that were actually providing air support and interdiction from 1941 onwards

The Il-2 compares favorably to the Stuka because the Stuka was a much older design that soldiered on past it's expiry date, the P-47 and Typhoon were superior in every aspect but being big dumb tubs of armor

>>62129494
> IL-2 staffing accuracy was extremely bad, moving from Shvak to YA-23 reduced them even more, because YA-23 had particularly large recoil even for gun of their size.
This mattered less than you think
>Il-10 evolution of IL-2 abandoned YA cannons
Only to replace them with 4 NS-23 cannons.

Anyway, even a mediocre autocannon is probably better than an excellent .30 cal machinegun for a ground attack aircraft

>>62129512
Nothing that has anything to do with the il-2 or the majority of soviet weaponry for that matter. Certainly nothing where said weaponry primarily fought contemporary weaponry from “the other side”

>>62129555
>This mattered less than you think
Soviet trials mentioned effective bursts longer than 1 second from YA-23 on IL-2 were impossible because recoil through aiming off target. That was drastically different to aircraft strafing with smaller guns.

>Only to replace them with 4 NS-23 cannons.
And NS-23 is not YA-23 at all. It's up necked 14.5mm machingun.

>>62129528
>The Il-2 compares favorably to the Stuka
Stuka could routenely dive with 500kg bomb and had 30m CEP.
IL-2 carried 4x100kg, couldn't dive steeper than 45 degrees m and during Soviet trials had reduculously large CEP. Bombing 20x100 meters target max hit probability was 8% for dropping salvo of 4 bombs.

>>62129607
>It's up necked 14.5mm machingun
you mean an autocannon?
14.5mm is a powerful cartrige so you'd get okay muzzle velocity even with 23mm shells
>>62129670
>500kg vs 400kg
>terrible vs terrible accuracy
both were shit against tanks. at least the il-2 got PTAB bomblets later on. (the Stuka-G had 37mm guns but these were rare. they were also presumably less effective: the Il-2 was tested with 37mm guns but this idea was abandoned in favor of PTABs)

>>62129316
That was mainly due to the early PC game of the same name. At the time, it was very rare for flight sims to feature Russian planes at all.

>>62129607
Did Soviets test 14.5mm a lot as an aircraft gun?

>>62129442
>soviet = russian = shit

That was always true.
Just needed a big event to shake everyone out of the le hecking powerfull soviet fumes emitting from astroturfers that plague this board

>>62129528
the comparison is that both were mass-produced war machines that their respective armies actually relied upon, as opposed to wunderwaffe (flashy but impractical shit)
the implication isn't that the il-2 was used in the exact same role as the bf109
>>62129965
you have terminal CDS (commie derangement syndrome)

>>62129760
>you mean an autocannon?
it's only a cannon by convention if it fires explosive shells

>>62127937
>tactical bomber
wasn't it an attack bomber/CAS ?

>>62129512
Reality

>>62129442
>>62129965
>>62129512
>what might have occurred
kid said the emperor was naked, don't blame the crowd for laughing

seriously, "old /k/" was a flood of Soviet cocksuckery and any attempt to point out inaccuracies (deviations from USSR propaganda) was shouted down
granted, there are a couple of autistic normies and lots of clueless tourists today who reverse the flow, but things are much more balanced now
Soviet kit rarely worked anywhere near what they claimed on paper, and then again they were rarely delivered according to paper spec

>>62129528
the Stuka and the IL-2 were comparable in performance on paper
if Soviet manufacturing, Soviet fighter pilots, and Soviet AA had been better, the Stuka would have a more shaky reputation on the Ostfront

>>62127920
I love the huge ass vertical stabs it has + streamlining

>>62130447
>the Stuka and the IL-2 were comparable in performance on paper
only in the broadest sense. the "on-paper" stats for both differ quite a bit, sometimes in favor of the ju-87 and sometimes in favor of the il-2, and the difference can be quite large depending on the variants of both that you compare.

>>62129821
IL-2 sturmovik only came out after 60 years of mythologizing the thing.

>>62127920
The Il-2 aircraft wererash t. The early variants, which did not have a rear gunner, struggled with engine issues on high altitude and for some fucking reason the designers decided to place an unprotected radiator at the very bottom of the aircraft.

>>62129077
>USSR
>Russia
Pick one.

>>62129077
/k/ back in the day (especially day/k/are) liked slavshit because it was cheap. Now that it’s not cheap anymore, there’s nothing positive left to say about it.