soviet IL-2 versus stuka,which is better attack aircraft.?

What do you mean moving the engine to the rear reduces armour. I know a lot of tankers think having the engine in front in some APC or tank models improves protection but in reality it just improves the crews ability to get in an out of the back. And engine is not the same as armour. It is much softer than armour… even a solid slug from a shotgun will go straight through a car engine and with a 16 cylinder engine there are a lot of tubes carrying fuel that can be ruptured… in a hot engine that will almost always start a fire as you can’t use safety foam in fuel lines like you can in fuel tanks.

The insignificant level of protection for the pilot created by having the engine in front of him is no great loss. Armour around the Pilot therefore also protects the engine behind him so it performs the same dual role as it does when the engine is in front and the engine armour protects both the engine and the crew.
A turboprop engine is also much smaller than an inline piston engine, which was a serious for WWII Russian fighters like the Migs where big long relatively heavy engines dominated the design and not in a good way. It also frees up the belly of the aircraft to allow a big gun if that is wanted without the problems of a propeller in the way.

What I mean is the structural armor, that such an arrangement, with the wings on the sides can afford. This was really the key innovation in the IL-2. Its what made it considerably lighter than the equivalen conventional warplane that was armored to the same level.

About Engines – your average engine, if you took out all the fancy gizmos has not gone as far as people believe in the last 50 years. But obviously, we’d need a better engine on “our” IL-2. (or our IL-10)

What do you mean moving the engine to the rear reduces armour. I know a lot of tankers think having the engine in front in some APC or tank models improves protection but in reality it just improves the crews ability to get in an out of the back. And engine is not the same as armour. It is much softer than armour… even a solid slug from a shotgun will go straight through a car engine and with a 16 cylinder engine there are a lot of tubes carrying fuel that can be ruptured… in a hot engine that will almost always start a fire as you can’t use safety foam in fuel lines like you can in fuel tanks.

The insignificant level of protection for the pilot created by having the engine in front of him is no great loss. Armour around the Pilot therefore also protects the engine behind him so it performs the same dual role as it does when the engine is in front and the engine armour protects both the engine and the crew.
A turboprop engine is also much smaller than an inline piston engine, which was a serious for WWII Russian fighters like the Migs where big long relatively heavy engines dominated the design and not in a good way. It also frees up the belly of the aircraft to allow a big gun if that is wanted without the problems of a propeller in the way.

Like poor forward view on takeoff? Like reduced rate of fire for syncronised guns? Life expectancy for an Il-2 was better than some less well protected aircraft in such a role but plenty were shot down. Operating over the front line is dangerous.

Talk can only do so much, I can envision a real victory here. By using a pusher propeller you’d have taken away the main thing wit the IL-2 and IL-10 – structural armor. Without which its no better than any other junk plane in the sky.

Not that I blame you, I personally designed a pusher propeller arrangement originally for this role.

(1) It probably helped having vast reserves of natural materials, iron ores etc, an indigenous steel industry, virtually unpaid labour and pretty much unlimited supplies of cheap fuel.

(2) With Avgas at £1.30 a litre in the UK and climbing everywhere else you won’t find many applications for a piston engine of nearly 2,000 horsepower.

Moggy

My country has loads and loads of cheap labor. I am forward planning to find an aviation use for it 🙂

Don’t you believe it mate. For all its aparent complexity, it is amazingly easily maintained in the field as I can attest having seen the RAF doing just that

I like the Harrier and respect what it can do, but its side mounted engine nozzles make it an easy target for manpads. Even old models that need to see the engine nozzle can be fired from most angles at the Harrier with a reasonable chance of success. I would expect armour is a minimum to increase fuel and weapon load too.

Well, for a start, if you can find any way of turning out a 1,700 bhp + powerplant on a run of 20,000 copies for less than $10,000 do let me know.

For an engine option, particularly a Russian aircraft, I would recommend the engine used in the Hind upgrade. At 2,700hp the TV3-117 engine has plenty of power and is fairly fuel efficient and will be made in huge numbers and would improve compatibility with rotary wing forces in Russia. Would personally go for a pusher arrangement to leave the nose free for a modern ground mapping radar with moving target indication capability and FLIR sensors. If a powerful gun is to be fitted like the 57mm gun they were experimenting with the Su-25 and Il-102 for a while, then thrust vectoring jet engines might allow the pilot to point the nose of the aircraft independant of the direction it is travelling, or a movable gun arrangement could be used as with several Russian gunpods.

BTW regarding price, if it is less than a million dollars with lots of little “extra” hidden expenses here and there, then most defence contractors these days wouldn’t touch the idea with a barge pole… sad as that is to say.

As far as the topic title goes, I’d have to say it’s like comparing apples & oranges.

And when talking about Vitamin C in fruit why is it not OK to compare apples with oranges?

which means that close air support in terms of simply patrolling low over the battlefield and responding to requests for support was generally better done by the Il-2 in my opinion.

Would be very unusual for an Il-2 to be notified of a target while in the air. Normally a mission is created to attack a specific target and a flight will be sent up with the appropriate armament to deal with that target and any targets of opportunity on the way back with any unexpended ordinance.

I still think that the IL-2 or even the IL-10 can play an effective role today and have many advantages that only a prop can have.

Like poor forward view on takeoff? Like reduced rate of fire for syncronised guns? Life expectancy for an Il-2 was better than some less well protected aircraft in such a role but plenty were shot down. Operating over the front line is dangerous.

hmmm, (1) how did the soviets during WWII do it then? (2) and why do the engines have to be just for this plane?)

(1) It probably helped having vast reserves of natural materials, iron ores etc, an indigenous steel industry, virtually unpaid labour and pretty much unlimited supplies of cheap fuel.

(2) With Avgas at £1.30 a litre in the UK and climbing everywhere else you won’t find many applications for a piston engine of nearly 2,000 horsepower.

Moggy

Wouldn’t the modern day adaptation of the Il-2 be embodied in the Su-25 Frogfoot?

As far as the topic title goes, I’d have to say it’s like comparing apples & oranges. They were both superb at the roles they were asked to perform, and though they did do some of the same missions, they went about them in different ways.

I think the Stuka was the better choice for precision attacks, and it could certainly carry heavier individual weapons (i.e. the massive 1800-kg weapons that the Ju-87D could carry under the fuselage) which made it capable of hitting larger targets like ships, but at the same time it didn’t have the strafing power and rocket armament of the Il-2, which means that close air support in terms of simply patrolling low over the battlefield and responding to requests for support was generally better done by the Il-2 in my opinion.

The Stuka was a close air support weapon though, make no mistake about it, and the Il-2 if fitted with a torpedo could kill ships as well as a Stuka with a big bomb. (Did Stukas ever operationally carry torpedoes?)

At the end of the day, as long as they had air cover, they were both very effective as their jobs, and the sheer fact that both are so well-known is a testament to not only their notorious reputations, but their efficiency in combat.

I just go through reading the two Osprey Combat Aircraft titles on the Stuka, and I must say I learned a great deal and I have a new level of respect for Stuka crews and their support folks….they went through some tough times. (Note: I don’t condone the Nazi cause….just a simple respect for the individuals.)

Interestingly your name sake also carried huge loads into the battlefield. I still think that the IL-2 or even the IL-10 can play an effective role today and have many advantages that only a prop can have.

Wouldn’t the modern day adaptation of the Il-2 be embodied in the Su-25 Frogfoot?

As far as the topic title goes, I’d have to say it’s like comparing apples & oranges. They were both superb at the roles they were asked to perform, and though they did do some of the same missions, they went about them in different ways.

I think the Stuka was the better choice for precision attacks, and it could certainly carry heavier individual weapons (i.e. the massive 1800-kg weapons that the Ju-87D could carry under the fuselage) which made it capable of hitting larger targets like ships, but at the same time it didn’t have the strafing power and rocket armament of the Il-2, which means that close air support in terms of simply patrolling low over the battlefield and responding to requests for support was generally better done by the Il-2 in my opinion.

The Stuka was a close air support weapon though, make no mistake about it, and the Il-2 if fitted with a torpedo could kill ships as well as a Stuka with a big bomb. (Did Stukas ever operationally carry torpedoes?)

At the end of the day, as long as they had air cover, they were both very effective as their jobs, and the sheer fact that both are so well-known is a testament to not only their notorious reputations, but their efficiency in combat.

I just go through reading the two Osprey Combat Aircraft titles on the Stuka, and I must say I learned a great deal and I have a new level of respect for Stuka crews and their support folks….they went through some tough times. (Note: I don’t condone the Nazi cause….just a simple respect for the individuals.)

Well, for a start, if you can find any way of turning out a 1,700 bhp + powerplant on a run of 20,000 copies for less than $10,000 do let me know.

Moggy

hmmm, how did the soviets during WWII do it then? and why do the engines have to be just for this plane?)

…why not?

Well, for a start, if you can find any way of turning out a 1,700 bhp + powerplant on a run of 20,000 copies for less than $10,000 do let me know.

Moggy

Not a chance.

Moggy

Not that I will disagree vehmently (as I have yet to do a full cost analysis of the investment proposition) but just to humor me, why not?

Not a chance.

Moggy

I assume you mean $100,000, and even then you are pushing it with the simplest Pipers or Cessnas being considerably above this figure despite long production runs and no armament or defences fitted.

Moggy

No, let me put my neck out here and say the base IL-2 today, built en mass (say, over 20,000 units) in the third world could cost that much. Remember the materials used on the IL-2 and compare them to what is used on Cessnas. Also remember that 10k is a lot of money in the third world..

and do so at less than $10,000 a pop if manufactured en mass.

I assume you mean $100,000, and even then you are pushing it with the simplest Pipers or Cessnas being considerably above this figure despite long production runs and no armament or defences fitted.

Moggy

mate, do you recon, leaving the Harrier aside you can think of anything that would fit the bill? Particularly propeller driven? I can’t see one. In effect, there is nothing to replace the role of the IL-2! I was never particularly happy with the IL-10 which was bigger and built on a completely different framework. More penetrator than the IL-2.

🙂

I have an issue with using a jet engine – or even a turbo fan engine – it increases takeoff and landing speeds as well as the ability to cruise at very low speeds. Not to mention becomes a lot harder to maintain in forward locations, specially with hands on ad hoc repair after coming under fire on a sortie. The harrier is way too complex to be maintained in forward locations for any sustainable period of time and way to complex to produce, induct, train and maintain. Not to mention manufacture. A prop simple has so many advantages in this role! Look at the Bronco its done an amazing job and one reason was because of it being a prop.

My Opinion is: You don’t need a jet for CAS – there is only so much speed you need to be at before you lose situational awareness and fly around like a fool 😀

Don’t you believe it mate. For all its aparent complexity, it is amazingly easily maintained in the field as I can attest having seen the RAF doing just that

With reference to the point Garry B made about artillery 30Km away. This leaves out the situation of a missile site 100Km away lobbing rockets in your direction Strangely enough it spoils your day).

Enemy missile sites would be dealt with using strike aircraft, not CAS aircraft. A CAS would likely not even know where the missile site even was, and would likely not get anywhere near it as it would be well behind enemy lines.
Counter artillery fire is a normal role for artillery, the US uses ATCAMs, while the Russians would use Tochka-U or Iskander-E (ie Tender). (120km and 300km range weapons respectively).

Even if we don’t upgrade the armor on the IL-2, you can literally fly one over a ZSU and survive a burst.

I doubt the Il-2 would survive a burst of 23mm, 57mm or 30mm cannon fire… even a burst from a 14.5mm ZSU would do serious damage.

The IL-2 could break through all these problems and do so at less than $10,000 a pop if manufactured en mass.

The tactics of flying low and directly at the target and firing from less than 500m is not really an option for aircraft these days. Even standard APCs with cannon armament are being upgraded with software to engage flying targets… the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 or BMP-3 would rip an Il-2 to pieces… especially an entire unit of them.

As Stalin once said, numbers have a quality all of their own.

There is a myth that the Soviets won on the eastern front through sheer numbers. This myth is created by the fact that our best source up until the end of the cold war was former German officers from west germany. The reality is that quantity is good but dumb application of numbers just leads to a massacre. Tactics and good planning as well as the right weapon for the job are much more important than simple numbers. Of course there can be too much quality too… you don’t need a rolls royce to tow a gun.

I have an issue with using a jet engine – or even a turbo fan engine – it increases takeoff and landing speeds as well as the ability to cruise at very low speeds.

No it doesn’t. Wing profile, wing shape, wing area, whether blown flaps are used, there are plenty of things you can do to reduce takeoff and landing speed that have nothing to do with the engine type involved.

🙂

I have an issue with using a jet engine – or even a turbo fan engine – it increases takeoff and landing speeds as well as the ability to cruise at very low speeds. Not to mention becomes a lot harder to maintain in forward locations, specially with hands on ad hoc repair after coming under fire on a sortie. The harrier is way too complex to be maintained in forward locations for any sustainable period of time and way to complex to produce, induct, train and maintain. Not to mention manufacture. A prop simple has so many advantages in this role! Look at the Bronco its done an amazing job and one reason was because of it being a prop.

My Opinion is: You don’t need a jet for CAS – there is only so much speed you need to be at before you lose situational awareness and fly around like a fool 😀

OK, I can see your thinking but if you say the frogfoot is the nearest modern incarnation of the Il-2 then the Harrier is also as they are both intended for the same mud moving role. I have to admit I cocked it up in my previous post as I said Forger when I actually meant Frogfoot, and referred to the MiG 227 actually thinking of the 27. The Il-2 concept of a ground attack aircraft has been successfully carried over into the jet age by a good many ground attack types. The Stuka concept has died because it is decidedly unwise, in this age of radar guided anti-aircraft defences, to dive straight at the target you are hoping to destroy.

I think the A-10 was way too complex and expensive to be produced in real numbers and was airfield based. I don’t think the segment that the mass produced IL-2 had served is identifiable in any aircraft flying today (perhaps except the FROGFOOT).

I agree with Garry B on the Guerilla warfare front but I am looking at the scenario of a large scale conventional battle. Numbers and simple, rough and ready platforms could clearly win an advantage after the first few weeks of any war today. Even the US airforce does not have enough funding to keep up with a decent number of A-10s. In a conventional battle over plains / deserts, a modernized IL-2 could easily be an overwhelming force that overrides all that comes its way. Even if we don’t upgrade the armor on the IL-2, you can literally fly one over a ZSU and survive a burst. And as GWII has shown, medium caliber weapons can cause a great deal of damage to modern aircraft. Armed helicopters are overcomplex, expensive, short legged and if we look at the examples today, complicated to train to fly. Further, they are almost all operationally tied to bases rather than to forces. The IL-2 could break through all these problems and do so at less than $10,000 a pop if manufactured en mass.

Clearly there is an opening here in the market, the strategic need and tactically. The power of the numbers you could field would itself be a huge advantage. As Stalin once said, numbers have a quality all of their own. (not that I like that chap personally).