"Sturmovik losses" Topic

Perusing the book, Famous Russian Aircraft, Ilyushin IL-2/IL-10 by Yefim Gordon and two Komissarov's, I was shocked to learn that the Russian combat loses of the Sturmovik were 10,759l. In 1941 the loss rate was one per 8-9 sorties, and as low as one to 4-5 sorties. As the Russians got a handle on the formidable climb to air superiority, in 1945 the loss rate became one to 95-96 sorties. One pilot scoffed at the moniker, "flying tank," saying the armored tub would not stop a 20mm shell. The said the Sturmovik was more likely a "flying armored personnel carrier."
I learned something new.

I recall reading they had some armor.

My guess is it's probably to the front and on the lower surfaces, so they'd still be vulnerable to air attack from above and behind.

Makes some sense Mako, although the P-47 had its armor behind the pilot.

Engine, pilot, and fuel were protected on the Sturmovik by an armored tub. However there were back end parts on the tail and fuselage made of wood. Once, the factory could not get the compasses to work. They discovered the crane moving the pieces had a huge magnet lifter. They had to degauss the airplanes and replace the hulking magnet used to move airframes. Landed Sturmoviks would pick up downed aircrew on the German side of the lines. The rescued guys would jump up into the wheel wells and hang on until the IL-2 got back over their lines. Pilot just had to remember not to bring the wheels back up.

In Erich Hartmann's book he described attacking from below and hitting the unarmored oil cooler.

The Germans had 20mm APCR rounds that were designated for the AA role which could be effective against the Sturmovick armor.

Armor layout: link

Wolfhag

That link is to a modern Russian armor (tank) page.

Mako11,
Sorry about the link.

Try this one: link

Wolfhag

The moniker "Flying Tank" is part myth of the robustness of the airplane, and part fact about the method of design/construction.

It was the first plane in mass production that had an armored structure. By this I mean that armor was not an after-design add-on, a few plates installed here and there, like it was in US airplanes of the time.

In the IL-2 the whole front half of the fuselage was constructed with armor. The "skin" covering the airframe was riveted armor-grade homogeneous steel that was 5 – 12mm thick. This covered the cockpit, engine, fuel and oil/water cooling compartments from all angles (except for the necessary openings). The canopy was of bullet-proof glass (as much as 75m thick!), so thick that it was often noted to be difficult to see clearly.

As others have noted, the rear half of the fuselage (behind the pilot) was not armored. It was generally metal tubing skinned with laminated wood (plywood) panels. Control panels had fabric skins.

On the IL-2m3 (the most familiar version to most western students of the war) the rear gunner had the unfortunate position of being outside of the armored portion of the plane, in the wood-skinned portion. It was generally observed that rear gunner casualties were about 9-to-1 compared to pilot casualties. This is most likely because it was, in fact, much less likely that gunfire would damage the portions of the plane within the armored shell. In other words the armor worked pretty well. But another contributing factor may well be that in crash landings, which were pretty frequent, the gunners were at a great disadvantage. In any case, I would not envy the guy who got that job.

Often missed in western writings is that the most common Shturmovik models in the first part of the war (1941, 42, and to a lesser extent in early 43) were single-seaters. There was no tail gunner. During those times these planes generally flew un-escorted. It was fast enough to be used as an interceptor against Stukas or Ju-52s, but was slow and lumbering compared to any German fighter (after the last biplanes were withdrawn). Basically the challenge facing the Luftwaffe fighter pilots was whether they had enough ammo to bring them down, and comments from the aces focus on methods to conserve ammo to complete the destruction of the attacking IL-2s before they had to break off to return to base for re-load.

Hartman did indeed describe his preferred approach being to get below (behind) and shoot at the oil cooler. It is not that this was not armored … it was within an armored shroud, but that shroud was open to the front and back (as it needed to be, if it was to do it's job of letting the air flow over the coils.)

Another popular approach was to aim for the tail itself, hoping to shred the control surfaces. But this took time and ammo.

Either approach suggests that shooting at the wing roots, which would have been the approach used on almost any other plane, was not considered to be particularly productive on the Shturmovik.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)