>let's make big numbers of dedicated light level bombers instead of designing a heavy fighter like the P47 or Typhoon that can both carry a large amount of rockets and bombs for CAS/ground attack and also fulfill an A2A role well at the same timey tho?
>>65438054Stalin liked it and nobody wanted to tell Stalin that he was doing it wrong.
>>65438054It used a common tractor engine as its power plant and was very simple to fabricate, assemble.Quantity as a quality.
>>65438098P47 has almost double the HP and a supercharger, cutting edge technology at that time.
>why did the Russians make a bunch of things they could make with their primitive technology instead of a bunch of things they couldn't
>>65438163that's my question. Was something like picrel really outside of their ability to design and produce in significant numbers? They made competent two-engine light bombers and a variety of good single-engine fighters. Why didn't they ever mold a fighter airframe with a big payload of ordinance like the British or Americans did?
>>65438178>Was something like picrel really outside of their ability to design and produce in significant numbers?yesthe Napier Sabre was one of the most complex and maintenance intensive engines of the era which caused significant issues even for the British, who had less harsh conditions overall and more advanced industry than the Soviets.
>>65438178they did that too but such fighter planes came later in the war so they're not as notable. anyway the il-2 worked fine for its role, especially once they fixed early idiocy like the lack of a rear gunner
>>65438078Same reason why the T-34 saw so much production despite Soviet manufacturing being capable of putting out superior hardware after the nazis got pushed out of range of the factories.
>>65438078And Stalin liked it because of BDA tank killing reports of Soviet pilots that were taken at the face value (pro tip WWII pilots overclaimed tanks killing over 9000).
>>65438054The western allies were on another level compared to both totalitarians but ILs were good enough for Krauts.
>>65438480>. anyway the il-2 worked fine for its role,It really didn't.Light bomber that can't dive and doesn't have bomb sight for horizontal bombing. Parafrags? No too.Also IL-2 was terrible instable gun platform with abysmal strafing accuracy (btw most IL-2 didn't even have collimator gun sights, just crosshairs painted on the windshield). IL-2 was uter waste of recources, worst mass built combat aircraft ever
>>65438054Il-2 is not a level bomber
>>65438897Most ordnance by weight delivered by IL-2 were smalls bombs dropped from level flight or shallow dive (up to 30 degrees). By definitions of weapons delivery types IL-2 yes, is a level bomber
>>65438902No its not. Its an attacker. It attacks in shallow dives to strafe, launch rockets or drop bombs or bomb cassettes just like something like the Typhoon or P-47. By definitions of weapons delivery types if it doesnt and cannot level bomb its not a level bomber.
>>65438054>>65438178You're comparing a dedicated ground attack aircraft developed in the late 1930's that saw combat from 1941 onwards with the P-47, primarily a fighter aircraft, that first saw combat in 1943, and the British Typhoon which was developed as a fighter but had so many issues that it never satisifed the brass and was repurposed as a ground attack aircraft. They're both fundamentally high performance fighter aircraft meaning you're spending a lot of money and resources on cutting edge tech so it doesn't use it most of the time and instead is out there strafing trucks. They were used as close air support because they were available and had they payload to do it, not necesserally because they were the best tool for the job.The IL-2 was a cheap dedicated ground attack aircaft that required barely any aluminium to produce and could be pumped out in large numbers without impacting fighter production. In other words, you're not building more P-47's 'equivalents' by shutting down IL-2 production.
>>65438054Who's gonna go tell Stalin that his favorite attack aircraft is actually pretty bad at its job and it's a waste of resources to churn out so many of them?Certainly not anyone who values their job, life or (already questionable) liberty.>>65438480>the il-2 worked fine for its roleIt really did not. It was slow, had a poor bomb load, was extremely inaccurate both at bombing and gunnery and even after VVS shifted to saturation bombing using hundreds of PTAB, its effectiveness as a "tank killer" was abysmal (don't even ask about the NS-37 gunpods).99% of its reputation is based on ridiculous amounts of overclaiming and taking the credit for tank losses caused by other means.
>>65438054They were catching up to the Stuka and Fairey Battle>>65438178>really outside of their abilityYes>Why didn't they ever mold a fighter airframe with a big payload of ordinance like the British or Americans did?SO MUCH SHIT is dependent on the powerplant anon, to this very dayThe rest of the world would happily sell you their virgin daughters for a tech transfer from General Electric, Rolls-Royce, and Pratt & Whitney>>65438903>if it doesnt and cannot level bomb its not a level bomberIt can level bomb if it wants so it is a level bomber, checkmateYou meant to say "if it can dive bomb STEEPLY it is not a level bomber it is a dive bomber"All bombers can make a dive bomb with varying degrees of shallowness
>>65438908you need to be 18 to post here
>>65438908Is Typhoon a lever bomber for you? What about the Spitfire? It would explain many things.
>>65438866>Light bomber that can't dive doesn't matter. dive bombing is extremely inaccurate and also dangerous for thin-skinned planes that can be brought down by their own shrapnel. there is a reason that even the stuka, a purpose-built dive bomber, got cannons for tank busting. even with just 24 rounds total, they were better than dive bombingthe point is to strafe columns without getting brought down by a random hans with an mg42.
>>65438919>dive bombing is extremely inaccurateStopped reading there.
>>65438178if you look at the engines side by side the differences in complexity will be pretty apparent
>>65438903Again most ordnance it delivered as a level bomber. Therefore it's a level bomber.
>>65438937repeat after me: Spitfire is a level bomber
>>65438937>behold, a man
>>65438943Spitfire wasn't used for level bombing, IL-2 was.
>>65438964And I should add IL-2 didn't have bomb sight. So how did they aimed?I leave it to anons to figure out aiming procedure, can you do it?
>>65438978The Mi-8 carries bombs and has a bombsight, must be a level bomber as well.
>>65438991Most combat flights of the Mi-8 doesn't include level bombing.Most combat flights of the IL-2 did include level bombing.
>>65438907>99% of its reputation is based on ridiculous amounts of overclaiming and taking the credit for tank losses caused by other means.Literally every ground attack aircraft during world war 2.During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2)During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3)On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4)They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign!
>>65438178>Was something like picrel really outside of their ability to design and produce in significant numbers?yes>Why didn't they ever mold a fighter airframe with a big payload of ordinance like the British or Americans did?different doctrine
>>65438054You have a misunderstanding of what a "heavy fighter" is or what their role is.
>>65438054>>65438178P-47 and Typhoon were first and foremost high altitude fighters that ended up taking ground attack roles later on.Air combat in the east was primarily low altitude. It’s the reason why they loved the Airacobra so much while disliking the Spitfire. So an aircraft like the P-47 was pointless there. They even had a couple delivered via lend-lease and didn’t know what to do with them.So they spammed light fighters and attackers that excelled at altitudes below 3km.
>>65438054You can't make something with the performance of a P-47 or Typhoon when you will need it to be built by retards with insane tolerances and the use of wood in the airframe is necessary
Even for an ace undefeated in aerial combat, whether or not one took a hit from AA fire during a ground attack was a matter of luck and probability. The IL-2's armor plating and internal radiator must have provided a reassuring sense of security.
>>65438917>Is Typhoon a lever bomber for you? What about the Spitfire?I would not call them dive bombers because they cannot dive at the angle of e.g. a Stuka or a Dauntless
>>65438054>implying every military has the same requirements When Stalingrad is occupied range really isn't a major factor.
>>65439002Point here Il-2 was put into maxx production because of such overclaims made in 1941
>>65439018>P-47 and Typhoon were first and foremost high altitude fightersP-47 yes, Typhoon no, see graph. At high altitudes it was spanked by Spitfire.
>>65439109Well my point is moreso that the utility of these aircraft was not in the number of tanks they destroyed but the disruption they caused trough share volume resulting in constant harrasment. This is evidenced by the fact the German soldiers on the ground hated them.
>>65439126Yes, Typhoon was outclassed by the Spitfire, but it what anon says is still true. It was designed as a high altittude fighter-interceptor. It never really lived up to its role as the tactical realities changed. The fact the airframe was adaptable to the ground role is what saved it from irrelevance.
>>65439168>Well my point is moreso that the utility of these aircraft was not in the number of tanks they destroyedHere is the my point. During Soviets falling back duing 1941 they desperately threw any aircrafts at German tank columns, and IL-2 pilots claimed massive amounts of tanks destroyed, then it lead to Stalin making decision about IL-2 maxxing.But here is the catch. Latter during WWII VVS made studies, IL-2 attacking against captured German tanks on testing grounds . And they found that IL-2 attacks can't destroy these tanks, mostly because they can't hit them with weapons that can penetrate armor (rockets and bombs) and 23mm canon has not enough penetration (during 1941 IL-2 had even less powerful 20mm ShVack canon). Especially if IL-2 were piloted by combat pilots taken out from active combat duty, test facilities pilots had like 2-3 times better weapon hit rates.But these findings were carefully memoryholed in questioning pilots claims.
>>65439214We're making full circle as my original comment directly adressed this. Overclaiming was the case for every ground attack aircraft in service. All sides came to the same conclusion, close support aircraft were nearly useless against armored targets.Note neither side abandoned close support aircraft after world war 2. Their utiltiy was ultimately not in destroying columns of tanks.
>>65439225>Note neither side abandoned close support aircraft after world war 2.Soveits abandoned IL-2 line in the favor of the IL-28 bomber
>>65438054>Just skip ahead 2+ years in engine development during the fastest period of technological advancement in historical record, bro. It's that easy, bro!
>>65439040Fun fact:Ground attack squadrons flyings I-16 and I-153 had smaller loss rate per sortie than Il-2.
While a system of awards based on the number of sorties was established for Il-2 pilots, they were simultaneously compelled to fly missions carrying maximum payloads.
Has anyone ever verified the soviet production numbers as being genuine and not an attempt to intimidate their Western benefactors by presenting their industry as more capable than it actually was.
>>65439226And the US developed the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, that's not the point, point is the army knew their kill claims were inflated but still pursued close support aircraft. Also, the Il-2 was replaced by the IL-10, not the IL-28. The IL-28 was a replacement for Pe-2's and Tu-2's.
>Soviet union being able to produce something like the Pratt & Whitney R-28000 engine
>>65439435The archives are public nowadays. There's far, far, far too many people involved in all of this to pull off a large-scale fakeout and keep it secret for generatiosn after.
>>65439491so no one has taken the time to verify the numbers
>>65439168>This is evidenced by the fact the German soldiers on the ground hated them.They also hated the Po-2, doesn't mean it was a particularly impactful weapon.Expecting the troops to not hate something that harasses them from the air that they can't effectively engage is a bit of a tall order.
>>65439451>Also, the Il-2 was replaced by the IL-10, not the IL-28And then IL-28 replaced IL-10. After IL-28 got numbers in Soveit VVS , IL-10 was removed from service and no turboprop or jet replacement for it was adopted. And reason for this is that IL-28 was much better level bomber than IL-10. IL-28 had much less CEP and was invulnerable to AAA due to flight altitude. So it was much better aircraft to attack frontline trenches with bombs (what was the main job of the IL-2).
>>65439606>and was invulnerable to AAA due to flight altitudeSmall caliber AAA
>>65439606>>65439607The IL-28 did not replace the IL-10. Fundamentally different aircraft with a different role serving in different units. If anything the IL-10 was ultimately replaced by the Mig15 bomber variants and the Su7b.
>>65439635>Fundamentally different aircraft with a different role serving in different units.Level bomber vs level bomber lel? >Fundamentally differentCope and seeth shturmovic fag. IL-28 in fact replaced IL-10. One of the major use of the IL-28 in Soveit doctrine and maneuvers was bombing frontlines before assault, exactly the main job IL-2 did during WWII.
>>65439654Attacker vs bomber regiments, retard.
>>65439655You are putting names cart before effects horse.
>>65439671Waiting for innevetable>F16\F15\E\F18 are just level bombers
>>65439671You're the fucking retard claiming an aircraft that served in a completely different role with a completely different designation in a completely separate branch of the aviation was in fact replacing the IL-10. Here's your last (You) now fuck off.
>>65439684They are fighter-bombers.>You're the fucking retard claiming an aircraft that served in a completely different role with a completely different designation in a completely separate branch of the aviation was in fact replacing the IL-10. Again you are choosing shape over substance.Goal is delivering bombs on enemy trenches. IL-28 does it better than IL-2 and co.
>>65438926Dive bombing is accurate but only effective a couple times against trained AA crews. Experienced Stuka pilots stopped dive bombing because Allied AA crews could calculate their rate and angle of ascent and shoot them out of the sky instantly. Or else they disabled their autorecovery system and broke their wrists wrestling the controls to randomize their ascent
>>65439214IL2 strafing against supply convoys, trains and pontoon bridges wouldve made them vastly more strategically useful than as pure tank busters
>>65439713>Stuka pilots stopped dive bombing becausethey were sitting ducks in transit and the RAF and USAAF raped the Luftwaffe so hard that 85% of Luftwaffe casualties were all in the ETOthey were only vulnerable to ground AA if they hung around too long before making their attack run, which was probably a bad habit they picked up in the much more permissive environment of the first half of the war
>>65439719Your are mistaking IL-2 for fighter bomber and VVS for 8th Air Force.Interdiction requires penetration into enemy air space and IL-2 is bad aircraft for that, slow and vulnerable to air intercepts, nor Soviet fighter force was able to establish air superiority or provide good escorts during penetration into enemy air space.Therefore IL-2 were mostly used to bomb front line trenches (they still suffered heavy casualties from enemy fighter force).
>>65438098It was single handedly the reason German aces have kill counts in the hundreds.
>>65441630High score German aces had Soviet fighter aircrafts as majority of their kills.
>>65438622The T-34's whole shtick was that it was the best tank design that could be made fast by unskilled labor, versus the IS-3 which just wouldn't make it out of the factory floor without breaking down if the engineers didn't assemble it right.
>>65438054The Soviets had total air superiority in the second part of the war (and Germans needed their AA to try to fend off the tanks); they just needed flying trucks to deliver their bomb loads. Excessive A2A capabilities would have been a Gucci complication.
>>65441696>The Soviets had total air superiority in the second part of the warI have an objection to labelling 1944-45 the "second part"for the Americans, yes, it was; but not for everyone else
>>65441630>single handedly the reasonNot single-handedly tho; another reason for that was assigning the kills of a whole squadron to single blue-eyed poster boy.
>>65441712>assigning the kills of a whole squadronand more myths of WW2
>>65441696>they just needed flying trucks to deliver their bomb loads.IL-2 wasn't good flying truck to deliver bombs at all.Stuka was.
>>65438098Is this bait?4th gen clone of the BMW IVhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikulin_M-17Very much a dedicated aircraft engine
>>65441696>The Soviets had total air superiority in the second part of the warPer month IL-2 losses to fighters in 1944 and 1945 were 75% of the 1943 so I wouldn't call it "total air superiority".
>>65442094Millions were coming through.
