Response to Glider and Juha.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Hello Juha
[quote]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello VG
checked the average Il-2 loss rate in 43, it was 1 in every 26 sorties.

No, it was from 01.08.42 to 01.06.43.
Your previous post was much closer to the truth.

All is of course relative but for ex over Karelian Isthmus on 28 June 44 196 IAP lost 5 Airacobras, 159 IAP lost 5 La-5s and 29 GIAP lost 4 Yak-9s, of which one was reportedly shot down by a La-5.

Your source please?

IIRC I have seen statistics on US heavy bombers losses to heavy Flak, but just now I don’t have time to find them.

What a pity... it's hard to find accurate datas with partition.


Regards
VG

[Arsenal VG-33]

[quote=glider1;128186]
A fair comment and admit that I don't have any detailed turn rates for the Il 2.

If you don’t have any turn rates, nor for a Il-2, neither for the Typhoon you can at least use some estimative methods. So between numerous factors playing parts in the turn rate (or climb rate) of a plane, ther’e 2 main ones: the wing loading and power/mass ratio.
So for the Il-2: it’s 138 kg/m² and 3.37 - 3.2 kg/hp*
For the Typhoon: 226 and 2.9 - 2.66 Kg/hp** (supposing that Sabre had about 2000 nominal hp for 2200 max)

Once that made, you can see at least there is no evidence, even for ill educated people in mechanics of flight matters, to state wich one should be more agile than the other.

It means that (using approximate formulas) Il-2 probably was a tighter turner (radius, ToT) due to his very low power request (low wing load), even if is power available curve was lower too. Typhoon should be better in verticals due to it’s high power/weight ratio, but it’s high W.L would be a hudge handicap in sustainted turning circles.


* http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il2.html
**http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/typhoon.html


Concretly, browsing soviet documents and russian forums i can say: ToT was about 22, 23 s for early Shtormoviks, 28 in mid war and about 30 for the late Il-2 tip 3 at 6360 kg (165kg/m², 4.1 kg/hp) and a lot of underwing loads perturbating wing lift capabilities.

I don’t have precise numbers for the Typhoon, but I bet il was close to P-47: about 26 – 30 s at 3034 ft high.

Moreover the Il-2 turn was performed at lower speed than Typhoon's one, so at lower turn radius.





[quote]
Would you settle for as the IL 2 is approx 150 mph slower, 7 ft longer, 6 ft wider, had a loaded weight of approx 2,000lb more, combined with a lower powered engine and wasn't designed as a fighter, its a fair assumption that the IL 2 was a much easier target for AA fire?

Was it 150 mph slower during it's attack at low level? What was the speed used by the Typhoon for this missions.

Have you got valuable statistcs about both planes in their survivability vs german light AA weapons?

Why do you think that Il-2 was exactly as vulnerable to them, than the Typhoon due to it extra size and under-speed.
Why even no more vulnerable, or no less?

[Kryten]

ok bit baffled by the relevance of maneuverability in this context?

you can't drop bombs, fire rockets and guns or strafe ground targets whilst flying in circles or maneuvering, I would argue the speed approaching the target and ability to clear the defended area quickly, get in hit the target and get out, would have a much higher bearing on survivability than quoting a turn rate?
a plane in plan view in the turn would be a larger target for a start!

[glider1]

A couple of points.
It is a serious mistake to equate lower turn radius as being the same as agility, it isn't. In 1941 Fw 190's were all over the Spit V which clearly had the tighter turn radius.
Its also a mistake to only rely on calculations mentioned when thinking about turn rate as in the real world other factors come into play such as roll rate. Before you turn you have to lift the wings. An example, I flew gliders for many years and would defy any powered aircraft to stay with me in a turn. However the roll rate seemed to be almost as bad as an airliner so I would not be able to stay behind a Cessna as they would start turning well before me.
Another reason for not just relying on calculations when thinking about the real world is design. A bomber is designed to be stable and in particular an IL 2 that spent most of its time at very low altitude had to be stable in the rough air you get at that height. A fighter has a different basic design requirement, to be quick in responding to the controls and light to the touch.
Other factors important to agility include acceleration and drag, both of which I would expect to be in the Typhoons favour.

At the end of the day if you seriously believe that a Typhoon in less agile than an IL 2 then thats your choice

Speed of the attack. Interesting question but as most attacks were dive bombing attacks in an aircraft without dive brakes in an aircraft well known for its speed in a dive, you are going to be coming down at a rate of knots. Escape was at low altitude and at full boost after the dive so 400+ on the way out is understandable. I have read reports where a pilot realised that he was touching 500 mph in the dive which was unwise.
Do you know the attack speed of an IL 2? it would be interesting to know this.

Vulnerability to light AA weapons isn't known, but we do know that the 20mm would penetrate all areas of both aircraft with the exception of a high deflection hit on certain parts of the IL 2. I have admitted that the IL would probably be able to take more hits than the Typhoon but would be more likely to be hit.
Are you saying that you believe that on average the IL2 would take less hits than a Typhoon?

Which brings me on to the last point you made.
I believe that I said that I considered that the factors of higher speed vs slower larger targets would probably balance out. I certainly could be wrong on this, but its an unknown as they didn't fight in the same area of battle. It seems a sensible, fair statement, without bias to either aircraft which no one has questioned.
Do you have any views?

Edit
If it helps in tests between the Fw190 and the Typhoon there was little if any difference in their turn. Hope this helps

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

If you don’t have any turn rates, nor for a Il-2, neither for the Typhoon you can at least use some estimative methods. So between numerous factors playing parts in the turn rate (or climb rate) of a plane, ther’e 2 main ones: the wing loading and power/mass ratio.

Once that made, you can see at least there is no evidence, even for ill educated people in mechanics of flight matters, to state wich one should be more agile than the other.

It means that (using approximate formulas) Il-2 probably was a tighter turner (radius, ToT) due to his very low power request (low wing load), even if is power available curve was lower too. Typhoon should be better in verticals due to it’s high power/weight ratio, but it’s high W.L would be a hudge handicap in sustainted turning circles.

Sir, I read all of your debating points, and in my opinion you greatly underestimate the importance of speed in any combat situation.

If you were a foot soldier who must cross a field under enemy fire, would you want to be lightly equipped so that you run as fast as possible? Or would you prefer to wear a very heavy flak jacket, swing a heavy machine gun over your shoulder, and walk across the field instead?

Bear in mind that it would not help much to walk around in tight circles in the middle of this field when the enemy is aiming shells and bullets at you.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Ladies and Gentlemen!

My intention was just to react on some prejudices written during cold war in the west from dumbs to dumberers!

As the Stormovik was a cumbersome, slow but heavily armored & armed, vulnerable etc...In fact, it was just not as cumbersome, not as slow and not as armored and armed as it was said before

Each plane is a compromise between speed, manoeuvrability, protection, armor, arms etc: Il-2 was a kind of compromise between all of this parameters, Typhoon another one...

It is a serious mistake to equate lower turn radius as being the same as agility,

No glider, i did not confuse the box (manouvrability) and it's contents; read my previous posts.

Sir, I read all of your debating points, and in my opinion you greatly underestimate the importance of speed in any combat situation.

Are you sure to do not underistimate the importance to hit the target from time to time?

[glider1]

I understand where you are coming from but it was your emphasis on turn rates that caught my attention.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

Ladies and Gentlemen!

My intention was just to react on some prejudices written during cold war in the west from dumbs to dumberers!

As the Stormovik was a cumbersome, slow but heavily armored & armed, vulnerable etc...In fact, it was just not as cumbersome, not as slow and not as armored and armed as it was said before

Each plane is a compromise between speed, manoeuvrability, protection, armor, arms etc: Il-2 was a kind of compromise between all of this parameters, Typhoon another one...


No glider, i did not confuse the box (manouvrability) and it's contents; read my previous posts.


Are you sure to do not underistimate the importance to hit the target from time to time?

German ground attack pilots were able to speak with some authority about this and some did not agree with your opinions about Russian air force tactics. One was Karl Stein, who for 18 months piloted Stukas and Focke-Wulf 190s with SG 1. This time I won't retype all the text (there is three pages) but I'll hit some of the highlights:

1) In the spring of 1945, Karl Stein found himself in a position to compare the efficiency of the VVS with the Western Allies. He insisted that British and American fighter pilots were better trained, more aggressive, and more dangerous than the Russians. Though SG 1 flew the heavily loaded fighter-bomber version of the Fw-190, they still had the confidence to dogfight with VVS fighters, but not with the RAF or USAAF. "Never!", as he put it, and Spitfires were the most feared of all enemy fighters.

2) It was obvious to Stein and his colleagues that Yaks and Lavochkins could easily out-turn and out-climb the Focke-Wulfs, but the Russian pilots seldom pressed home these advantages. "Our thought was that they had beautiful airplanes but they do not know how to fly them". The Russians "just made one pass and were gone. They always opened fire from too far away and were hopeless at deflection shooting. Almost always they would just throw on the power and pull back on the stick". The Germans believed that poor quality of Soviet pilot training was the main cause for all this.

3) From his Stuka days, Karl Stein was even more familiar with the Illyushins. The Ju-87s would often pass Il-2s going in the opposite direction. No shots were fired by either side and sometimes the Germans waved. Apparently it was a case of empathy due to shared suffering. He remembered that the Shturmovik had formidable protection against light flak guns and always posed a serious threat to German infantry, but the Russian pilots would have done far more damage if they used better tactics. For example the Shturmoviks always struck columns at right angles, preferring a single quick hit and run to the more dangerous and effective lengthwise attacks employed by the Germans. When SG 1 attacked enemy airfields, they preferred to split up the flights in two-plane elements to attack specific targets in multiple passes. The Shturmoviks bombed airfields in massed flights, dropping on cue and departing immediately. The German pilots were very dismissive of that method as a waste of resources and firepower.

[glider1]

For the RAF the ideal attack against MT and trains was from 30 degrees ahead against the length of the target. Some units when attacking trains had a section of four fly alongside then attacking broadside on, one for the engine and one each for the three flak guns normally carried on the train. After that the train was wide open.

Tony
Would appreciate your comment on the questions raised earlier.

[Juha]

Hello VG
Greetings from Russia, I spent a long weekend around Jänisjärvi NW of St Petersburg.
The Il-2 loss rate I gave was from Gordon’s and Komissarov’s Il-2 and Il-10 book. The IAP losses are from Keskinen’s and Stenman’s Suomen Ilmavoimat VI 1944 and their sources are documents from Russian military archives.

Juha