[Graham Boak]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Considering they were probably flying 2 to 3 missions a day Graham, would that not mean a loss every 2 or 3 days?

Kutscha: I read the statistic as 27 losses for the whole of 2TAF, not for a single unit.

Nick: The radiator of the IL 2 was placed in an armoured duct between the engine and the cockpit, so it was much less vulnerable than the more conventional external installation of Typhoon or Spitfire. Possibly it took advantage of the ducting to reduce the drag of the installation, but it does not seem to have gained any advantages from the exit flow.

I would agree with those suggesting that the slow armoured route is indeed one justifiable answer to supplying CAS, given the rest of the system to support this. However, it is certainly not the only way, and history suggests not the optimum. Not least the Soviet abandoning of the approach post-war, despite having it as an intrinsic part of their war-winning approach.

However, the fighter-bomber claims of self-defence capability can be exaggerated. Fighter bombers are generally more heavily armoured, and thus less agile than a “pure” fighter. They are normally flown by pilots trained in ground-attack tactics not air-to-air, and will usually be encountered in an inferior combat position. These characteristics can be seen in the late combats over both Western and Eastern Fronts. In the lack of air supremacy, the use of escorts may be minimised, but not abandoned completely.