PDA

View Full Version : Revised CRG: IL-2 Sturmovik



neural_dream
09-12-2005, 06:12 PM
This is the 12th post in a series of topics on the Revised Cockpit Reference Guide that i am working on. It will contain all planes this time blah blah blah ...
-----------------------------------------------
Ilyushin IL-2 "Sturmovik" (`41-`43)
One of history's best ground attack aircraft, the IL-2 Sturmovik did not start quite as successfully. The lack of a rear gunner and the air superiority that the Germans enjoyed during the early stages of the war meant serious losses for the Sturmovik squadrons. Large-scale production started in 1941 with Series 1. Series 2 and 3 were also single-seat and differed mainly in the armament. The next model was the two-seater field modification, followed by the IL-2M, Type 3, and 3M. The IL-2I was the heavy interceptor version and the IL-2T was the torpedo version. The total number of IL-2 Sturmoviks built was close to 36200, probably more than any other aircraft in history. Their finest hour was the battle of Kursk where the Sturmovik pilots claimed 70 German tanks in 20mins.

Series 1,2,3: Maximum speed: 430km/h at sea level and 450km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 7800m.
field mod.: Maximum speed: 420km/h at sea level and 440km/h at 2460m. Service Ceiling: 6200m.
I: Maximum speed: 415km/h at sea level and 434km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 6500m.
M: Maximum speed: 395km/h at sea level and 410km/h at 2400m. Service Ceiling: 6200m.
T, 3: Maximum speed: 400km/h at sea level and 410km/h at 2500m. Service Ceiling: 5500m.
3M: Maximum speed: 440km/h at sea level and 460km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 5500m.
Tips:
‚¬¶ The single-seater Sturmoviks are quite manoeuvrable and by utilising smart teamplay and their strong armament can defend themselves against fighters if they stay at very low altitudes and use horizontal energy tactics.
‚¬¶ The Sturmoviks are vulnerable to attacks from below and behind. The best way to protect themselves was to fly very low and in large formations, which increased the effectiveness of their rear gunners and hid their
weak spot, the large oil cooler.
‚¬¶ On loss of engine power the Sturmovik cannot glide well.
‚¬¶ When attacking tanks aim at the rear where they are most vulnerable.
‚¬¶ When attacking ships release the torpedo at speed lower than 350km/h and altitude under 100m.
Armament:
Series 1,2: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x20mm ShVAK (500rpg/37sec).
Series 3: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec).
field mod.: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec),
rear gunner (AI only) - 2x7.62mm DA (500rpg/14sec).
I: wings - 2x23mm VYa (150rpg/15sec).
T: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (250rpg/8sec), rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (150rpg/9sec)).
M, Type 3: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec),
rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (200rpg/12sec).
3M: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x37mm NS-37 (50rpg/12sec),
rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (200rpg/12sec).
---------------------------------------------

neural_dream
09-12-2005, 06:12 PM
This is the 12th post in a series of topics on the Revised Cockpit Reference Guide that i am working on. It will contain all planes this time blah blah blah ...
-----------------------------------------------
Ilyushin IL-2 "Sturmovik" (`41-`43)
One of history's best ground attack aircraft, the IL-2 Sturmovik did not start quite as successfully. The lack of a rear gunner and the air superiority that the Germans enjoyed during the early stages of the war meant serious losses for the Sturmovik squadrons. Large-scale production started in 1941 with Series 1. Series 2 and 3 were also single-seat and differed mainly in the armament. The next model was the two-seater field modification, followed by the IL-2M, Type 3, and 3M. The IL-2I was the heavy interceptor version and the IL-2T was the torpedo version. The total number of IL-2 Sturmoviks built was close to 36200, probably more than any other aircraft in history. Their finest hour was the battle of Kursk where the Sturmovik pilots claimed 70 German tanks in 20mins.

Series 1,2,3: Maximum speed: 430km/h at sea level and 450km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 7800m.
field mod.: Maximum speed: 420km/h at sea level and 440km/h at 2460m. Service Ceiling: 6200m.
I: Maximum speed: 415km/h at sea level and 434km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 6500m.
M: Maximum speed: 395km/h at sea level and 410km/h at 2400m. Service Ceiling: 6200m.
T, 3: Maximum speed: 400km/h at sea level and 410km/h at 2500m. Service Ceiling: 5500m.
3M: Maximum speed: 440km/h at sea level and 460km/h at 2600m. Service Ceiling: 5500m.
Tips:
‚¬¶ The single-seater Sturmoviks are quite manoeuvrable and by utilising smart teamplay and their strong armament can defend themselves against fighters if they stay at very low altitudes and use horizontal energy tactics.
‚¬¶ The Sturmoviks are vulnerable to attacks from below and behind. The best way to protect themselves was to fly very low and in large formations, which increased the effectiveness of their rear gunners and hid their
weak spot, the large oil cooler.
‚¬¶ On loss of engine power the Sturmovik cannot glide well.
‚¬¶ When attacking tanks aim at the rear where they are most vulnerable.
‚¬¶ When attacking ships release the torpedo at speed lower than 350km/h and altitude under 100m.
Armament:
Series 1,2: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x20mm ShVAK (500rpg/37sec).
Series 3: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec).
field mod.: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec),
rear gunner (AI only) - 2x7.62mm DA (500rpg/14sec).
I: wings - 2x23mm VYa (150rpg/15sec).
T: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (250rpg/8sec), rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (150rpg/9sec)).
M, Type 3: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x23mm VYa (300rpg/30sec),
rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (200rpg/12sec).
3M: wings - 2x7.62mm ShKAS (750rpg/25sec), wings - 2x37mm NS-37 (50rpg/12sec),
rear gunner - 1x12.7mm UBT (200rpg/12sec).
---------------------------------------------

neural_dream
09-12-2005, 06:13 PM
As always what i ask for is corrections/suggestions and possible tips on how to fly those planes, what to avoid etc.



The previous posts:

11. Beaufighter: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8461022653
10. Me262,163,He162,Go229: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5111042653
9. P11c, IAR80,81: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2...801042653 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2...801042653)
8. P40, P39, P63: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m...341014153
7. Bf109, Bf110: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5031062053
6. Ki84, Ki100: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9451054943
5. I16, I153, I185: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2921071943
4. Stukas,He111: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3011097843
3. La5,La7: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9311023843
2. CR42,G50: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5971000843
1. Ki43,61: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/7311047743

Kocur_
09-14-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One of history's best ground attack aircraft, the IL-2 Sturmovik did not start quite as successfully. The lack of a rear gunner and the air superiority that the Germans enjoyed during the early stages of the war meant serious losses for the Sturmovik squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Single seaters losses: one lost per 11 sorties, two-seaters one lost per 26 sorties. Add to that small payload (4-8 small rockets OR up to 400 kg bombs) and you get...:"one of history's best ground attack aircraft"...? Really?

neural_dream
09-16-2005, 04:57 AM
hm, you are right up to a point. However, Kursk would have been won by the Germans if the Sturmoviks had not performed so well. That the sturmoviks were among history's best ground-attack aircraft is repeated by many sources.
What do the rest of you think about that?

Kocur_
09-16-2005, 06:39 AM
Oh I think we shouldnt overestimate Il-2s role in Kursk battle. Germans lost there because Soviets knew German plans like 6 months earlier and spent that time fortifying the area.

Literature is full of myths like Il-2 perfectness. How can it be taken as great attack plane when one looks at facts? I would say it had potential, but it all was lost in bad designing choices (liquid cooled engine, needing armour) and bad designing/quality issues (armour on top of engine, weakness of airframe). If it had air-cooled, radial engine, weight of engine armour could have been added to payload, the plane would also be smaller - harder to hit. It was large, slow plane, which delivered small load of armament and was easy to kill.
Facts are that all that armour, which is taken as the most important in Il-2 "greateness", made Il-2 payload small and didnt really improve survability: numbers on losses say it all.

alert_1
09-16-2005, 10:19 AM
Actually, IF SU2 was chosen as main attack fighter and equipped with ASh82 radial engine, it would be much better "shturmovik" then IL2.

Kocur_
09-16-2005, 10:28 AM
But there were Yakovlev and Ilyushyn who were Stalin's pets, and there were all the others...

Kuna15
09-16-2005, 05:11 PM
Nevertheless there weren't any better attack plane available to VVS pilots so they had to give Sturmo a go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just like Stuka, it could deal nasty damage if they were't harassed by enemy fighters. Stuka had unmatched dive bomb accuracy, later big guns in "G" version for anti-armor attacks, Sturmovik had rockets (actually I don't know in what quantities they actually used them), and in later version big 2”ĒNudelman-Suranov cannon instead of VYa (object viewer).
VYa was capable of destroying 25mm thick armor from 400m, while NS37 could destroy 40mm thick armor (object viewer does not specify from which distances were NS37 could penetrate 40mm).

Those guns by itself were capable of destroying armoured targets. Accurate and fast, and no additional bomb load needed.
I believe that neural_dream has a point there, with such features, I don't doubt that they were lay waste upon German forces in Kursk.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-29_Sandman
09-16-2005, 08:10 PM
on torpedo attacks, releasing the fish at low alt was adviseable. but if u come in at low speed, the aaa will have u for dinner in a hurry. what i usually do, is come in a bit high, but turn into the ship and do a dive to gain speed dropping the fish after the mast gets a bit large. u need this speed to get out of the aaa fire with as little damage as possible. since killing ship aaa is practically impossible, it's 1 pass and haul a$$.

Kocur_
09-17-2005, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sturmovik had rockets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately neither RS-82 nor RS-132 had hollow charge warhead, so they were useless against tanks. Useful weapon were PTAB-2,5 bomblets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">while NS37 could destroy 40mm thick armor
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is those NS-37 had very large recoil and were not (unlike British 40mm Vickers S) synchronised. In result it was very unprobable to hit a tank with those cannons on Il-2. After a while all 37mm Il-2s were moved to anti-shipping duties - ships are so much larger than tankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Again its propaganda myth vs. facts: why there werent more, or all, Il-2s equipped with such a "great" anti tank weapon, IF it was so great?

CannonFodda_99
09-17-2005, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The best way to protect themselves was to fly very low and in large formations, which increased the e‚ģectiveness of their rear gunners
--------------------------------------------- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

neural_dream
09-17-2005, 06:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif hadn't noticed. When copying from pdf to here, the syllables containing f are f..d. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kuna15
09-17-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CannonFodda_99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The best way to protect themselves was to fly very low and in large formations, which increased the e‚ģectiveness of their rear gunners
--------------------------------------------- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rofl

Kuna15
09-17-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sturmovik had rockets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately neither RS-82 nor RS-132 had hollow charge warhead, so they were useless against tanks. Useful weapon were PTAB-2,5 bomblets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">while NS37 could destroy 40mm thick armor
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is those NS-37 had very large recoil and were not (unlike British 40mm Vickers S) synchronised. In result it was very unprobable to hit a tank with those cannons on Il-2. After a while all 37mm Il-2s were moved to anti-shipping duties - ships are so much larger than tankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Again its propaganda myth vs. facts: why there werent more, or all, Il-2s equipped with such a "great" anti tank weapon, IF it was so great? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have just quoted object viewer from game for the most part.
You can say that Oleg & Maddox Games are biased when they said that Sturmoviks could destroy armour with cannons (so we can do that in game without much problems with Sturmo), but that belongs to another discussion.

Also I think that I've read somewhere that BRS were anti armour rockets.

Kuna15
09-17-2005, 07:27 AM
Just found it
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m.../336108875#336108875 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/185108875/r/336108875#336108875)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:

SC-General Purpose
SD-Fragmentation bomb
AB-Cluster bomb
PC-Armor Piercing
WfGr-AntiAir rocket
R4M-AntiAir Rocket

FAB-General Purpose
VAP-Napalm canister
AJ2-Cluster Incendiary bombs
AO10-cluster bombs
PTAB-AntiArmor Bombs
RS-General Purpose Rockets
BRS-AntiArmor Rockets
M-13-Incendiary Rockets

HVAR-General Purpose Rockets

PuW-General Purpose Rockets
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOLFMondo
09-17-2005, 01:56 PM
The IL2's loss rates where also down to terrible VVS tactics. They just threw them at the enemy.

Why else would deserters and prisoners be stuck in the rear gunners seats as a punishment which odds on meant inevitable death after several missions.

Kocur_
09-17-2005, 05:27 PM
About rockets: problem is during WW2 they dropped manufacturing specialised aerial rockets for standarisation reasons, and under previous designation "RS" Katyusha rockets M-8 and M-13 were used. Now:knowing above we should ask ourselves, how often could have been BRS rockets used? In fact using RS rockets for killing tanks was not a good idea, because they had lousy accuracy. According to soviet reports one hit on tank was achived per about 70 (seventy) rockets lounched.

As for NS-37: of course it was possible to kill a tank with it - "BZT", a APT round (770g, MV 810m/s) was capable of penetrating 50mm armour at 200m, and 45mm at 400m. Thats about theory. RL problem was accuracy again. We are talking here about a plane with "WW1" gunsight, which was crosshair painted on windscreen. Another problem was lack of synchronisation between both cannons. And we are talking here about large cannons with very strong recoil! Forget about any accuracy when firing bursts.


As for gunners: unlike pilots, they didnt have any protection. Losses ratio for pilots/gunners was 1/7...