Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VR-DriftaholiC

IL-2 1941

Recommended Posts

I have to admit, I've found the most joy in this sim flying the IL-2 where I would normally spend my time in a fighter the IL-2 is finding a special place with me. It's the only aircraft that I've been able to sustain massive damage and return to base alive, several times missing a tail wing and rudder. So what advantages / disadvantages is the 1941 model going to have? I'm thinking it will be more durable, roll better (counterweights) and have quite the rearward view. Pretty exciting since I've been able to shoot down 190's and 109's when they make the mistake of ditching their energy to try and turn slow with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Lighter construction due to more metal being used.

Much better rearward view (with ShVAK cannon armament).

No rear gunner option.

No 37mm cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rear gunner is going to be a huge advantage for any enemy who refuses to do the slow dance with an Il2. I haven't been shot down by an IL2 in quite a while and don't think an IL2 pilot has gotten me in almost a year now. There are a few pilots, however, who are damn good with the snap shot on an overshoot during a BNZ attack.

 

Does the lighter construction equate to the ability to take less damage, more damage, or no effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rear gunner is going to be a huge advantage for any enemy who refuses to do the slow dance with an Il2. I haven't been shot down by an IL2 in quite a while and don't think an IL2 pilot has gotten me in almost a year now. There are a few pilots, however, who are damn good with the snap shot on an overshoot during a BNZ attack.

 

Does the lighter construction equate to the ability to take less damage, more damage, or no effect?

It should be more durable that the current 1942 version. The wooden wings and tail boom of the 1942 version are more fragile and don't sustain much damage to 109's armed with gondolas. Also the rear gunner space in the 1941 was occupied by a fuel tank. It should be lighter and, as Luke said, the visibility far better but the lack of rear gunner was a big issue and the quick development of FM to equip one made the plane as we have now(in the game) with that CoG/maneuverability problems in comparison with the 1941 one.

I'm sure I will use(thus I love the IL2) it but I'm really waiting for the arrow one.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion guys! Despite being the title aircraft I feel like we spend so little time discussing the IL-2. I'm really curious to see how the two types handle... Given they are fairly similar on the face of it but in the details I'm learning just how different they are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know the first versions of the IL-2 were "widowmakers" and not very popular among their pilots. A good part of that was due to an offset balance making the aircraft tailheavy. As result decent ammount of them have been lost during takeoff and landing.

 

Not sure if the 1941 version should be trickier to fly than the 1942 but I wouldn't set high hopes for it. Durability should be improved but lacking armarment wise (no 37mm + I think no RS-132 rockets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as excited to fly an IL-2 without a tail gunner as the troopers who flew them were.  I'll hold my breath for an IL-2M in a later installment.

 

 


Not sure if the 1941 version should be trickier to fly than the 1942 but I wouldn't set high hopes for it. Durability should be improved but lacking armarment wise (no 37mm + I think no RS-132 rockets).

 

 

The 37mm so badly degrade the handling of the aircraft that I wouldn't even notice their absence.  Especially when one has to be wary of human pilots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take the tail gunner. If I ever need him it means I've already messed up. I'll make the most of the better rearward visibility though. That will be very handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take the tail gunner. If I ever need him it means I've already messed up. I'll make the most of the better rearward visibility though. That will be very handy.

It's a two was for me. If I go all alone I usually have my gunner, but when I'm with anyone else, fighter or other Il-2 we go in "finger four" without gunners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take the tail gunner. If I ever need him it means I've already messed up. I'll make the most of the better rearward visibility though. That will be very handy.

 

 

I fly in a group of ~6 and often we have to attack targets that are defended from the air(of course) .  Even with competent fighter cover, the ability to defend yourself from attack while still focusing on your target and multiply your rear gunners by five times(or however many guys you're in close formation with) is irreplaceable.

 

Judging by the loss rates and very, very quick addition of the rear gunner the VVS felt similarly.

Edited by Silas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem was that the IL-2 single seater option was the result of thinking that there would always be fighters available to escort the attack planes in and out of the target area. But as fighter reserves and operational realities kicked in it was slowly realized that the IL-2s had to be able to defend themselves with the field modified guns being a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem was that the IL-2 single seater option was the result of thinking that there would always be fighters available to escort the attack planes in and out of the target area. But as fighter reserves and operational realities kicked in it was slowly realized that the IL-2s had to be able to defend themselves with the field modified guns being a start.

I think the choice depends on many things. 

 

-Rockets, Bombs or Guns 

With a Gun and Rocket armament I'll go light, with a Bomb armament I'll take a Gunner.

 

-Static, Soft or Armored Targets 

Against Static Targets I'll mostly take a Gunner, but against moving soft and armored targets I'll go for an armament that doesn't cause me to crash on strafing

 

-Distance to Target

The longer the mission and the further I have to go into enemy territory, the more likely I am to take a gunner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will make rate of roll much improved, and slight improvements in climbs, dive speed, wing failure and general durability. 

 

 

Why does the early version have a better rate of roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the counterbalance mechanism?

 

I would gladly take a tailgunner if they ever hit anything. I usually just hear him scream "he is attacking" en though I set him to attack at far range and fire at will.  Wish they would call out spots as I try to do when I'm playing gunner.

Edited by driftaholic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually started with the 1941 version in the Battle of Moscow campaign.  Don't think I am going to keep going with the IL-2 (1942 versuib) in Battle of Stalingrad, it is such a slug.  If your fighter cover lets any Messerschmitts through your are functionally dead.  Although in the campaign they make you take at least 80% fuel.  Which only makes the fire bigger when the Messers get you.  If you can reduce the fuel load (i.e. on the on-line servers) you might be able to arm it decently and still get off the ground without a tow truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...