>You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have the nerve not to manufacture IL-2s until now. Our Red Army now needs IL-2 aircraft like the air it breathes, like the bread it eats. Shenkman produces one IL-2 a day and Tretyakov builds one or two MiG-3s daily. It is a mockery of our country and the Red Army. I ask you not to try the government's patience, and demand that you manufacture more ILs. This is my final warning. Telegram to government aviation production plant superintendents by Stalin in the autumn of 1941, warning them to produce more Il-2 Sturmovik ground attack aircraft for national defenseWas IL-2 a good aircraft?
>hey, guy who does [thing]? do [thing] better and faster or I'll kill you>wtf, we killed all the people who do [thing], and now it's way worse?hard to believe the USSR isn't around anymore when it featured administrative genius like this
>>65318334Fuck no, it's a garbage scow of an aircraft still eating out on a bullshit reputation as a good ground attack platform.
>"Why did you beat me so hard?" to his mother in her later years. Her response was "That's why you turned out so well".Bros...
>>65318334>Was IL-2 a good aircraft?It was an okay ground attack aircraft but it didn't excel at anything in particular.The humble retarded Stuka could carry bigger bombs, or bigger cannons.The FW190F was faster and still could carry a bigger bomb while doubling as a fighter.The HS 192 could carry a way bigger gun, and used off the shelf engines from France.The IL2 for the most part excelled at getting shot down in vast numbers for little actual gain.
Do not underestimate the damage inflicted on supply convoys by attacks using autocannons, small bombs, rockets, and rudimentary cluster munitions.
>>65318334>Was IL-2 a good aircraft?Largest waste if recources of the WWII.Decision to spam IL-2 came from Soveit IL-2 pilots boasting about destroying German tanks (and Soviets had panic a out German tanks breakthrough in 1941. These reports were completely fake.
>>65318443Soviet air force barely executed interdiction missions using IL-2. Most of their missions were attacking frontline trenches for barely any effect. Soviets had great problems with air reconnaissance and protecting strike aircrafts from interceptiin so they settled for easiest mission available, closet to their airbase.
>>65318367>IL-2 number built: 36,183Looks like the plant figured out a way to make more.
>>65319122and then the engineers and the scientists fled the country in the proceeding decades
>>65318334yes. it was basically immune to the most common AA of the time (small-caliber machineguns) and the PTAB bomblets were probably the most effective anti-tank weapon put on an aircraft in WW2. (granted, you could put PTABs in other planes as well)
>>65319152people only started fleeing when the country ceased to exist and the standard of living plummeted.
>>65318424This. It's the reason German aces have kill counts over 100.
>>65319602The IL2 was resilient to 7.92mm German AA machineguns.One small problem, the Germans went to 20mm and up once the war started. Machineguns were only pre-war AA weapons.
Il-2 is the Sherman tank of World War II combat aircraft. Quantity masspro logistics beats all
>>65319602>PTAB bomblets were probably the most effective anti-tank weapon put on an aircraft in WW2What evidence is there to actually back that up? Because Il-2 tankbusting kills are mad overclaimed.
>>65319602>most common AA of the time (small-caliber machinegunNever was the problem.On Eastern front Soveits claimed (just claimed not confirmed) 600 German aircrafts using small caliber AAA fire.At the same time Soveits lost 12000 Il-2.
>>65318334Like the T-34, it's a case of Stalin obsessing over one fairly mediocre piece of equipment and demanding that everybody pulls out all the stops to build a million of them, even though the manpower cost alone is not worth the losses these pieces of crap are taking.
>>65320902Spamming tanks had actual merits, tanks work like that more tanks win.In air spam of aircrafts wasn't working for Soveits because they were gated by avgas availability. More aircrafts didn't transferred to more combat flights because Soveits simply had no avgas. In that light spamming Il-2 was counterproductive because it had high performance M-38 engine requiring deficit high octane (95) gas. Robbing fighter aircrafts fleet for mediocre performance strike aircrafts flights.Soveits would've much much better if they made strike aircraft using old M-62 engine (I-16 fighter) that could use low octane (70) avgas, Soviets had like triple amount of such avgas.But Soviets couldn't into strategic planning at all. Their decisions +like all lefties) were drived my fe-fees, myths, culst of personality and bureaucratic intrigues. They made myth of "tank busting Il-2" and it sealed their fate.
>>65321086Talking about alternative history in 1937 Soviets developed I-207 prototype fighter. It used M-62 engine. While biplane design was outdated for fighter for strike aircraft it had it's merits. With better wing area that tiny (empty weight 1600kg) fighter demonstrated ability to take off, fly normally, and diclve with 2 250 kg bombs (500kg bomb load). Comparing to IL-2 that had 400kg normal bomb lad and couldn't dive bomb. But Soviets understoot nothing in air to ground strikes and project didn't get development.
>>65319122They were a few months into production at the time, production of aircraft normally was in full swing after about a year after starting. Combined with the possibility that they may have had more factories producing them as the war went on, Stalin's threat likely didn't do much, and carrying it out would've just killed off what the people who had the most experience producing aircraft.
>>65320789as we all know, all nazi 7.92mm machineguns despawned the moment the first nazi 20mm appeared
it is absolutely incredible that the soviets lost 100,000 aircraft in WW2. Mind-boggling.
>>65318424>>65321123divebombing is massively overrated. you only get a few bombs and the accuracy is pretty bad. getting witin 30 meters was considered good but you needed to hit within 3.5 meters to destroy it with a 250kg bomb. (granted, it would do better against softer targets such as trucks)this is why tank-hunting variants were developed. the ju-87g, despite having just 24 rounds for its 37mm guns, was better than a divebomber for anti-tank operations.
>>65320902cope. tank artisans lost. gigafactories vvon.
>>65323368Dive bombing gets your shot nearer to the target than not dive bombing.Name a method of bombing in WW2 more accurate than it and you win a point.
>>65323396By 1943 precision-guided bombs and air-to-ground/anti-ship missiles had been developed and fieldedDive bombers became obsolete
>>65323396cannons, rockets and bomblets are arguably better for attacking columns because more than 5 can fit on a single plane. not saying that the accuracy was necessarily better but at least you got a lot more tries before you ran out of ammo and had to head back
>>65323455>cannons, rockets>attacking columnsCorrect, for air-to-ground warfare cannons became an effective weapon during World War II, even the larger (over 20 mm) caliber ones. Bigger cannons were not quite as effective in the anti-ship role, it was found. Unguided rockets became a highly effective and sought weapon after 1941 especially by the Allies for both air-to-ground and anti-ship missions.
>>65323368btw "it" here is supposed to be a tank. tanks are heavily armored so you need to get very close to actually destroy one with a bomb, even a big one
>>65323368>was better than a divebomber for anti-tank operations.Fie tank killing Indeed.Thing is IL-2 until PTAB deployment (mid 1943) had absolutely abysmal anti tank capabilities (Soviets had trials attacking against static captured German tanks on shooting grounds and failed to do damage, especially pilots taken from combat units). While at the same time main argument to spam IL-2 was because it was considered tank buster aircraft.Overall tank killing by aircraft was a special mission for WWII and other types of target were more than vulnnerable to bombs. Famous Rudel in his book wrote that after getting Ju-87G they quickly developed tactics when G variants were escorted by bomb carrying Ju-87s that used dive bombing to suppress flaks if AAA defenses were expected.
>>6532333820mm were incredibly common on the Eastern Front, and even they were getting replaced by 37mm weapons during the war.The most common form of AA was not machinegun fire, unless you count 'guy sees plane and tries hitting it for lulz' style AA shootings.
>>65323532>Thing is IL-2 until PTAB deployment (mid 1943) had absolutely abysmal anti tank capabilities (Soviets had trials attacking against static captured German tanks on shooting grounds and failed to do damage, especially pilots taken from combat units). based on what I have read, this wasn't exclusive to the Il-2. but applied to basically every ground attack aircraft in the early 1940s. turns out life is not like a videogame where every other shot hits and destroys something
>>65323379Shermans had the same equivalent per-unit cost as the T-34 and they were actually GOOD. The Soviets were capable of building competent equipment if they were allowed to do so, but Papa Stalin wanted T-34s by the trainload so that was what he'd get.
>>65323555there were about 7 MG34s / MG42s for every flak 30 or flak 38 made (counting each flakvierling as 4 since it had 4 barrels).>unless you count 'guy sees plane and tries hitting it for lulz' style AA shootings.why wouldn't you count them? we've seen people shoot down strike drones (think geran or AN-196) with handheld AKs and PKMs (not even mounted ones) so I figure an MG42 without a mount is a potential threat
>>65323610>There was more machineguns than flak gunsNo shit, there was also more K98's.
Even German fighter pilots employed the tactic of aiming their fire at the rear of the radiator.
>>65323610>>65320892
>>65323570>Shermans had the same equivalent per-unit cost as the T-34The T-34 got cheaper (but also better) as the war went on so this would not have always been true.The T-34-85 had roughly the same armor as the Sherman (frontal armor was thinner but more aggressively sloped so effective thickness was the same) but also had a better gun (the D-5T was better than either the 75mm or 76mm gun put on Shermans, though the 105mm M4 howitzer seen on some Shermans would be better in some situations)
>>65323637>The T-34-85Barely participated in the WWII.It's so funny when Soviets put T-34-85 everywhere in WWII memorials creating this media T-34 image.When actual WWII T-34 tank was that little chubby tonk.
>>65323629this is a war thunder-inspired shitpost right? pretty sure that a pilot's idea of aiming is to get the enemy in the cone of fire and pray that some bullets find the weak spot
>>65323647Nope. It was standard procedure for German pilots to get close and destroy the oil cooler.Of course, shooting the wings and taill with HE also worked.As stated above, the Il-2 is why there were German aces with 100+ kills.Well, and the fact that Soviet fighters were not exactly good, unlike in War Thunder.
>>65323642>Barely participated in the WWII.strangle claim considering that over 22,000 were made in 1944-1945. for comparison, only about 10,000 (roughly- I did mental napkin math to add up production counts for 76mm-armed variants) Shermans were made. The rest used 75mm guns comparable to the F-34 gun used on most T-34 tanks
>>65323666T-34-85 arrived into combat units in significant numbers in June 1944 so T-34 saw combat in 11 month out of 46, but let's memory hole these 35 month ok?
>>65323660>just get right behind the maneuvering aircraft bro, it's easy peasy trust megranted, the early Il-2s didn't have rear gunners but this would have still been very difficult, given that fighter pilots have reaction times and stuff
>>65323660It's just pilots delusions. Soveits pilots curiously also wroteein their memoirs that they aimed at Ju-87 engine and radiatior. (Firing from behind and bebelow of possible is obvious choice against such type of craft because it's outside pilots vision and gunner cone of fire.But pilots delusions and actual real world is much different things. Like Germans with their scientific autistic approach analyzed gun cams and found that pilots actual aim accuracy is many times larger than size of aircrafts. Pilots MAY think they "aim at the radiator" while actually they just spray all over the place.
>>65323678good point! why do we think of the tiger tank as an iconic weapon of WW2 when it wasn't first produced until August 1942? Why do we associate atomic bombs with Japan's defeat, even though the first atomic bomb was only tested in July 1945, 43 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor?I'm so glad I get to share my planet's oxygen with critical thinkers such as you
>>65323687>why do we think of the tiger tank as an iconic weapon of WW2 when it wasn't first produced until August 1942?Because it created panic with its initial overmatch.Soviets pissed their pants when realized in trials that Soveit tank and AT guns can't penetrate even side of the Tiger tank.Tiger fobia was a real thing.
>>65323692for what it's worth the nazis reacted similarly to the first T-34s and KV-1s they encountered.>Soviets pissed their pants when realized in trials that Soveit tank and AT guns can't penetrate even side of the Tiger tank.this isn't true. the tiger 1's side armor was 60mm thick, and the M1937 45mm anti-tank gun (the cheapest and weakest soviet model, not counting anti-tank rifles) would (barely) be able to pierce that at 100 meters.
>>65323703>the tiger 1's side armor was 60mm thick,Nah.
>>65323681>maneuvering aircraft>Il-2I hope you see where you're assuming impossibilities.Also, it's not me making shit up, it's in literally all the German reports, diaries and biographies.
>>65323684>it's all pilot delusionsOK, sure. You know better than the people who flew(delusional), the reports they wrote to their superiors(all lies), the reports from their enemies(all deceived, and delusional too), and a century of research into the question(all researchers are stupid, all archives are filed with lies).Thanks for clearing that up, chief.
>>65323714>and a century of research into the question(all researchers are stupid, all archives are filed with lies).See above actual research of Germans using gun cams.>You know better than the people who flew(delusional),See allies pilots tank busting claims in Normandy and then BDA examiners found that less than 10% of tanks were actually destroyed by air attacks.There is reason why do guncams were the thing in the first place.
>>65323712thanks for the pic.piercing the 60mm thick part requires a hit between the wheels and the superstructure. it requires luck and accurate aim but it's not impossible with enough volume of fire. more powerful guns like the F-34 or the M1942 45mm anti-tank gun would also be able to pierce the 80mm-thick superstructure or turret side.
>>65323713all I see is that you're a snarky faggot from reddit. aligning your aircraft precisely with another one is tricky enough even when the other aircraft consents. if the other plane is trying to shake you off then it becomes much harder to aim at its coinslot even if that plane is less maneuverable than yours. (I would have added 'slower', too, but that makes your job harder rather than easier)
>>65318334slavs are subhuman so all signs point to "no"
if fighter pilots could actually aim for weak points while flying, then there would be no need to have several machineguns / autocannons on each plane. just give each pilot a sniper rifle! one shot, one kill. a handful of aces, each with a box of loose ammo in his lap, could take out an entire enemy air force in a matter of hours!
Targeting the oil cooler would have made it possible to destroy the radiator located further back via the cooling duct, or even damage the rear of the engine and the fuel tank situated beneath the seat. In the case of Erich Hartmann's first aerial victory, an Il-2 targeted in this exact spot caught fire and subsequently exploded.
>>65323756ok
>>65323368>>65323396Dive bombing is also only effective a few times, once AA crews witness dive bombing patterns a couple of times they can immediately calculate the rate of ascent and trajectory of a dive bomber regaining altitude. By the end of the war Stuka pilots stopped using their plane's autorecovery system because Allied AA crews would just shoot them out of the sky when the plane started to climb. They either adopted IL2 style bomb runs or attempted dive bombing but manually wrestled with the controls to change the direction of recovery.
>>65318424>>65318867One word (acronym): PTAB
>>65325411PTAB's are great but you don't need a flying suicide craft to use them.The Yak 9's could load up on PTABs and double as excellent low altitude fighters.
>>65325411Didn't exist in the year 1941 when Soveit pilots wrote glorious reporte about destroying dozens of German tanks in a single sortie (and stupid Stalin bought into these fairy tales lol).
>>65324304>they can immediately calculate the rate of ascent and trajectory of a dive bomber regaining altitude.What a bunch of nonsense, dive bombers left target area using extremely low NAP flight. Idea of climbing in the target and possible AAA area is extremely stupid, WWII aircrafts and especially Stuka had snail level sustained climb rates.>By the end of the war Stuka pilots stopped using their plane's autorecovery system because Allied AA crews would just shoot them out of the sky when the plane started to climb. Another bunch of nonsense, Stuka use on Western front ended in 1942 because of slow speed and therefore vulnerability to to fighter intercepts. On Easten front though Rudel flew Stuka into 1945 and no Soviet fighter ever shot him down (speaks volumes about Soviet aviation) finally was grounded by 12.7 HMG fire from IS-2 tank.Brits estimated that dive bombing run had twice less hit probability than staffing fighter-bomber run by same AAA gun.
>>65319604Kek. No.
I would love to see a photograph showing a PTAB penetrating top armor, but I haven't come across one. Did they treat it as a secret weapon to avoid the folly of flaunting their success and prompting the enemy to devise countermeasures?Or perhaps it was employed more frequently as a fragmentation cluster bomb than as an anti-tank bomb?
>>65326417NSGr 2 flew Stukas (D-5s, mostly) on the western front as late as 1945, NSGr 1 in more limited numbers as well.
>>65326473NSGr 1 and NSGr 2 operated in Poland.
>>65326534Both relocated to Germany in late '44 and flew Stukas in the Battle of the Bulge. Not very effectively, mind, I only know of this because they appear on loss records for the battle.
>>65318418She's rightAll of the bad behavior from wiggers is because CPS stopped fathers from whooping the shit out of misbehaving sonsJust like how the hood would be better if cops ignored it. Contrary to leftist pussies, “community policing” would result in a glorious and righteous brutality that the police have been unwilling and unable to enforce. Black “community policing” would cause a level of violence that would make the Rwanda genocide look like a bum fight, because your average bn isn’t defecting against anything by committing murder. He’s making what is ultimately a genetically rational decision that will result in his becoming a baby daddy to ten kids. The effect of the Anglo police system is actually to inhibit the birth of an actually black male cooperative order proper to their race (which would look really brutal to us, but who cares) by overlooking spontaneous violence while cracking down on collective violence. The birth pangs of this would be both absurdly eugenic and really fun to watch from a safe distance.
>>65326567This seems like an odd way to cope with being beaten by your parents as a child.
>>65326549They operated on Eastern front. They got on Western front by falling back to the west until Eastern and Western fronts met.
