PDA

View Full Version : About IL's armor and JU's guns



Foehammer-1
09-22-2008, 12:54 PM
Well, here is what surprised me recently. Historically, an "average" Il-2 (we shall take IL-2 AM-38 as an example) had 4-6mm armor on the fuselage, 4mm around the engine, and 6mm on the propeller cap. 6mm on fuel tanks.

Now, several times now a lucky tailgunner on a Ju-87 scored a single hit on my Il from roughly ~300 meters. Those hits often punch massive holes in the wings, and whenever those bullets hit the engine, I lose power and have to land. The engine makes all those noises and starts smoking as the cooling of the cylinders stops.

Now, how in heavens do machine-gun rounds go through 4mm armor at a VERY shallow angle, pretty much a glancing blow, and make big holes in wings, or puncture cylinders? I mean, let's remember how 20mm armor can take the abuse of heavy machineguns at 90 degree angle, and be very much together. I know that 4 or 6mm is not much, but you can't put more on a plane. However, at a very shallow angle it should deflect bullets, instead of letting them go right through.

And let's remember that historically, if an Il and a Ju-87 met, the Ju would be brought down in most cases. Has this happened to anyone else, or am I just attracting those one-in-a-million shots consistently? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TinyTim
09-22-2008, 01:18 PM
You are getting your radiator pierced and loose your cooland consequently. In order to see where bullets hit you, change arcade=0 to arcade=1 in the config.ini (or is it conf.ini). You will also see exactly where your bullets hit the enemy.

There are rumors that IL2 radiator flaps, when closed, actually shield the radiator itself. Maybe you should experiment with closing radiator before going into "hot" zones.

Afterhours
09-22-2008, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Foehammer-1:
And let's remember that historically, if an Il and a Ju-87 met, the Ju would be brought down in most cases. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Historically? What are your sources? I would like to read about all the Ju-87s shot down by IL2s.

If you want to read about Ju-87s shooting down IL2s, and NO Ju-87s shot down by IL2s, then read Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel, which is a first hand account of a man who destroyed over 700 soviet tanks himself.....

If you are being taken out by tail gunners then your technique needs a he11 of a lot of work. When I attack an aircraft with a tailgunner, I DON'T get hit by the tailguns at all. Go figure....

stalkervision
09-22-2008, 01:51 PM
Don't chase Ju-88's with a il-2 is all. It ain't ment to be a fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
09-22-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Don't chase Ju-88's with a il-2 is all. It ain't ment to be a fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It ain't meant to be. But try attacking a formation of them?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It's a Sim! with all the embodiments of whatever the programmers have enabled it with.

We can question and critisize. Even Mod apparently.

Just, treat it as such and get used to it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

DKoor
09-22-2008, 03:15 PM
At one point in history IL-2's were used as bomber interceptors.
Not with stellar successes, tho.

M_Gunz
09-22-2008, 03:21 PM
Are your radiator slats shut tight? It's made a difference since the demo in 2001.

BTW, IL2 pilot armor was titanium alloy, very strong yet light.
I dunno about the engine armor, be interesting to find out.

Aaron_GT
09-22-2008, 03:57 PM
At one point in history IL-2's were used as bomber interceptors.

A version was considered, and we have it in the game I think, but AFAIK it never entered full scale production.

M_Gunz
09-22-2008, 04:37 PM
In Conquerors of the Air (Carlo Demand and Heiner Emde):

* Sturmovik was used as all-purpose combat aircraft.

* First is 1939 1 seat prototype with 1350HP AM-35 engine. Later they had 1700HP AM-38 engines.

* Then they say that before the invasion there were 249 CKB-57 experimental Sturmoviks that had
292mph at 6,500ft -- 470kph at 2km.

* After the attack production did not resume until March 1941.

* The 2 seaters didn't go into action until August 1942.

Foehammer-1
09-22-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Afterhours:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Foehammer-1:
And let's remember that historically, if an Il and a Ju-87 met, the Ju would be brought down in most cases. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Historically? What are your sources? I would like to read about all the Ju-87s shot down by IL2s.

If you want to read about Ju-87s shooting down IL2s, and NO Ju-87s shot down by IL2s, then read Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel, which is a first hand account of a man who destroyed over 700 soviet tanks himself.....

If you are being taken out by tail gunners then your technique needs a he11 of a lot of work. When I attack an aircraft with a tailgunner, I DON'T get hit by the tailguns at all. Go figure.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know Russian, then read "Il-2 Flying tank" by Oleg Rastrenin, "Tactics in combat applications" by Skomorochov and Chernetskiy, "Battle for Stalingrad" Olma-press, Uh, who knows English better than me? What's a translation into English of "Суровая школа"? Basically "a hard school" by A.S. Achkurin.

If you want, I will give you specific examples, with names and places, of Il's downing bombers. Btw, Il's coming back from combat missions mostly, with only machine gun and sometimes cannon ammo left over.

Ask if you want, but i wont reply till tomorrow, got a Microbio formal lab report to write...

[edit] Those bombers were unescorted. Every once in a while, an Il would shoot down a FW or BF, but admittedly they lost more planes than they shot down. But heck, that's still great, considering a sturmovik is not supposed to defend against fighters anyway.

Tipo_Man
09-23-2008, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Afterhours:

If you want to read about Ju-87s shooting down IL2s, and NO Ju-87s shot down by IL2s, then read Stuka Pilot by Hans Ulrich Rudel, which is a first hand account of a man who destroyed over 700 soviet tanks himself.....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Well, I'm impressed someone still trusts such old-style propaganda.
Let say overclaiming was common practice by all sides, but still shooting down planes could be verifeid by wreckage or guncams.
Would you please answer these questions:
- How he confirmed a destroyed tank? Can you show me 700 cuncams films of exploding tanks?
- How he confirmed his hits actually penetrated the tank?
- Even if penetrating the tank, how he knew he has hit some vital parts?
- Even if he has hit a vital part, how he knew that it won't be replaced.
- Even if he penetrates and kills all the crew, is that a kill? The russians had plenty of people to die, they put a new crew and the tank is in service again.

Tank kills are much harder to confirm generally, it is not like a plane crashing into the ground.

But these claims remind me of soviet claims of IL-2 tank kills in the beginning of the war. Actully the high command trusted them and that was the reason of increasing the production of otherwise unsuccessful IL-2. Only later during the war the truth came out...

Foehammer-1
09-23-2008, 05:27 AM
But these claims remind me of soviet claims of IL-2 tank kills in the beginning of the war. Actully the high command trusted them and that was the reason of increasing the production of otherwise unsuccessful IL-2. Only later during the war the truth came out...

Indeed. However, some weapons like PTAB's were (although short-term) very effective against all sorts of armor. To the point of German tankers having to hide in the forests during day time, since PTAB's couldn't go through trees. That changed after the Germans put steel mesh on top of their tanks.

Other thinks like AJ-2 were extremely effective against tanks, and especially support columns.

Let's say that an Il-2 was not a great TANK-killer, but excelled at disrupting enemy supplies. Which is what they were mostly used for after '42. When I get back from uni, I'll show that they did to artillery, trucks and horse carriages

Afterhours
09-23-2008, 06:42 AM
You really have to read Rudel's book, it is amazing, it has photos in it, including one of the battleship Marat which he split in half with a bomb.

I am not a fan of every facet of Rudel, I think that he was a Nazi sympathizer if any German pilot was, but if you get to know him a little and what was personally important to him, you would see that propaganda was the last thing that was important to him.

Just his surviving the roughly 2500 sorties he flew in the course of the war is enough of an achievement, let alone what he did on them.

Punks trying to tear down WWII pilots that flew on their least favorite "side" is what makes them punks.

I have read the autobiographies of all the major aces from all sides and fronts in Japan and they all have in common a great quality as far as being a man that punks will never know and maybe cannot comprehend or understand, it may just not be part of them.

Johnnie Johnson, Boyington, Hartmann, Sakai, Anderson and too many to list will be the last people who's words anyone should hold under scrutiny, they were too smart and too good a men to be involved in B.S. like this.

Foehammer-1
09-23-2008, 07:48 AM
Did we ever say we tried to tear down anyone? No. But look at it realistically for once, please. Imagine yourself the best ace in the world. In a WW2-era bomber or stormer (is there a better English variant of sturmovik?). There is no precise radar, no laser-guides, no infra-red cameras. There are 7 or 9 planes in your flight. You drop your bombs and pull up. The explosions are behind you. You cannot see them. Your bombs kick up an enormous cloud of dust, which covers everything on the ground. After your mates drop their bombs, how in heavens will you be able to count how many targets all of you hit, and especially how many YOU hit? Without something that can see through smoke and dust, it's impossible.

Indeed, all pilots that bombed things on land could only estimate the results, and only using secondary factors such as smoke columns, explosions, etc. However, in an intense battle, a lot of explosions and flashes of light are your mates' bombs, artillery shell impacts, tank cannons firing.

All sides overestimated their effectiveness. If you only read one source, there is an enormous probability it was biased one way or another. Pilots counted the number of flashes of light and assumed every single one was a destroyed tank. This happened on all sides, mind you. Suppose the pilots reported that they destroyed say 20 tanks. However, ground forces advancing there later only reported 3. So whom do we believe? Also, how do we know how many tanks were actually hit, how many of those were not disabled, and out of those disable, how many were fixed?

We cannot believe the numbers given by pilots, but we also can't discredit them, since they really have no ability to accurately judge how well they did.

I bet ya that this Rudel guy did NOT have X-ray vision, and he did not know exactly where he had hit those 700 tanks. What was the % chance of hitting a tank-sized target with a single bomb? I bet no more than 15-20 %. That means he dropped 3500 bombs, and does not mean every 5th one hit. Since he just could not see that.

Phew. Off to next lecture for me. I shall post some pictures when i get home... eventually.

M_Gunz
09-23-2008, 08:28 AM
AM-38 engined IL2 1 seaters of 1941-42 able to go 470kph at 2km wasn't just to shoot ground
targets. They were able to chase down bombers that the I-16's could not catch. IL2 did see
action as in interceptor. Those cannon make short work of bombers at long range. There was
a real need to stop the bombers that IL2s did fill. Stalin was very happy with IL2, yes?

Foehammer-1
09-23-2008, 11:57 AM
Stalin was very happy with IL2, yes?

Indeed. He wrote a letter to the factories building them, and instead of "do it or else" persuasion, he wrote something along the lines of "The Red Army needs these planes like bread" (I can't remember, and don't have the book with me at the moment)

I will post dates and places Il's were used against bombers, just let me finish this stupid genetics assignment