Rear Gunner

[Malfador]

Just had to point out how miserable it must have been to been a IL-2 rear gunner.  

 

The poor guy is completely exposed to that frigid weather and wind.  Not only that but you have to appreciate that he is also sitting in front of the armor plate....no big deal if the bullets hit him.  And notice from external view after he bails out that the seat is a little strap.  And of course just like the pilot your sitting next to a big gas tank.  

 

Wouldn't be surprised if that was assigned to those who had crossed the commissar or was deemed as completely expendable for some other reasons.

 

 

[Charlo-VRde]

I read recently (perhaps in these forums) that some Il-2 gunners were indeed members of penal battalions, convicts who were given the choice to serve on the ground or in the air.  If I recall correctly, surviving 10 flights as an IL-2 gunner allowed you to be returned to a regular battalion. 

 

I sure am glad I chose my parents wisely enough to fly these planes as a game!

 

Charlo

[Feathered_IV]

I also read (via Egorova?) of ground crew working through the night on aircraft, then volunteering at first light to fly as gunners for their pilots. I guess with such a numerous force and such a high "turnover" of staff, there would have been room for all sorts.

[Charlo-VRde]

By the way, I recommend starting the IL-2 scenario mission, switching on auto-pilot, then changing to the gunner for the entire mission. It's quite the hairy experience, and you can even glance down at the sling you sit on to see how little you are valued.

 

Charlo

[pilotpierre]

By the way, I recommend starting the IL-2 scenario mission, switching on auto-pilot, then changing to the gunner for the entire mission. It's quite the hairy experience, and you can even glance down at the sling you sit on to see how little you are valued.

Charlo

Tried this several times and haven't got past the target airfield once thanks to all the sniper triple A

[LukeFF]

Wouldn't be surprised if that was assigned to those who had crossed the commissar or was deemed as completely expendable for some other reasons.

 

Cold War propaganda.

[Finkeren]

The idea that Il-2 rear gunners came straight from the penal battalions and were a deliberate sacrifice is a myth perpetuated by Victor Suvorov. It's not credible to say the least.

 

It really doesn't make too much sense either. When you do as severe a modification of an aircraft as installing a gunners position in a single seat plane, why would you want a random unqualified prisoner to man that gun?

[s8n]

i lived a whole mission like that...it was fun but, i wouldn't ever have wanted to do it in real life lol

[Mastermariner]

Cold War propaganda.

I must admit that I would never have expected that answer from you. If it is one thing in life that gives my pleasure it is when my preconceived negative views of a person proves to be completely wrong. Thank you!

Master

PS I might disagree in the future though!

[JG4_Sputnik]

You guys did manage do get the rear gun to work?

[J4SCrisZeri]

You guys did manage do get the rear gun to work?

it is perfectly working

left ctrl+C to take the seat

T to use the weapon

R to change mags

 

it's that easy

[Finkeren]

The conditions for the early improvised IL-2 rear gunners must indeed have been horrific, and throughout the war it continued to be a very dangerous job.

 

However, just because a task is unpleasant and highly dangerous, that's not a reason to believe, that the only way you can get people to do it is by forcing them. Like Reflected I have also read accounts of many rear gunners actually being volunteers for the position.

 

It is quite often the custom in militaries around the World to have personel volunteer for the most dangerous tasks.

[Mastermariner]

I read a book of an IL 2 pilot, can’t remember the name, bought it on Amazon, he wrote that the first crews to volunteer for the field modded rear gunner was the girls that serviced the other guns on the airplane. Casualties where high in the beginning and pilots who brought home one after another of dead gunners broke down in tears an refused to keep flying with rear gunners.

 Be careful what you mock!

Master

[kestrel79]

Any videos of anyone shooting a 109 down with the rear gunner yet?

 

I'm just trying to imagine myself sitting in the back of an open cockpit, flying backwards in 0 degrees with that freezing wind. Then on top of that have a 109 on your tail firing guns and cannons at you with little to no protection. My lord that had to be awful, I would soil myself.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Yes Emelyanenko says it was better to fly without a gunner and die than bring home the body of a friend.

[Mastermariner]

It was no game for them.

[TheCheese]

I seem to recall reading somewhere years ago that the rear gunner of an Il-2 was seven times more likely to be killed than the pilot

[Charlo-VRde]

This thread is enlightening!  I'm even more impressed that IL-2 gunners were volunteers and not what I read elsewhere.  I have Emelianenko's Red Star Against the Swastika on its way and I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

With ROF I sometimes have a friend come over and fly as my rear gunner on another computer, which is great fun.  But I don't think he would enjoy the experience of riding in the back of an IL-2 in the vague hopes of maybe hitting an attacking 109. 

 

Charlo

[LukeFF]

I seem to recall reading somewhere years ago that the rear gunner of an Il-2 was seven times more likely to be killed than the pilot

 

Not so:

 

http://english.iremember.ru/airmen/39-yurii-khukhrikov.html?q=%2Fairmen%2F39-yurii-khukhrikov.html&start=1

 

A.D. They say that there were 7 killed gunners for each killed pilot, is that true?

No. Let me explain. We had 105 pilots and 50 gunners killed, why? Because the regiment fought from the beginning to the end of the war. The first half of the war in one-seater aircraft. And the second half -- in two-seaters. And most of the time, they died together. A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7-8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics.

 

[Finkeren]

It has been brought up before, but I still have a hard time believing that figure of an average life expectancy of 7 - 8 missions. Certainly during the more intense battles, but as a general rule throughout the war? It seems unsustainable to me even in light of Soviet production numbers and manpower reserves.

[Finkeren]

Wikipedia cites a figure of an average service life for IL-2 aircraft of 26 missions in 1943 (not all of which would involve the loss of the crew)

 

The source given is "Gordon 2008". Unfortunately I have no idea whether this is a reliable source. Perhaps someone can shed some light on these numbers?

 

Ah OK, it's the famous "Soviet Air Power in WW2". I don't own it myself though. Is it trustworthy or complete rubbish?

Edited February 18, 2014 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

Wikipedia cites a figure of an average service life for IL-2 aircraft of 26 missions in 1943 (not all of which would involve the loss of the crew)

 

The source given is "Gordon 2008". Unfortunately I have no idea whether this is a reliable source. Perhaps someone can shed some light on these numbers?

 

Ah OK, it's the famous "Soviet Air Power in WW2". I don't own it myself though. Is it trustworthy or complete rubbish?

 

I own it. It is certainly detailed and thorough, mainly focused on technical details of organization, aircraft design and performance, less an analysis of fighting methods or effectiveness.  It also has a good copy of the picture from which you draw your avatar, the lovely Lydia Vladimirovna Litvyak posing on her Yak!

 

btw an average service life of 26 missions implies a loss rate of approx 2.5% per sortie. I expect the way this works out in practice is that you can have several missions in a row with no casualties, and then everything goes wrong - flak concentration or unusually determined fighter opposition - and you lose a fair percentage of your force.

[=38=Tatarenko]

It has been brought up before, but I still have a hard time believing that figure of an average life expectancy of 7 - 8 missions.

 

It depended entirely on the tactics - the least successful Attack Air Corps was losing them every 2.8 missions (!!!!!) during one operation. The most successful was losing them every 37 missions. Either way it shows our planes look far too weathered!

 

Anyway, I plan to write something on tactics in the Sturmovik, flying and surviving. All the studies show (and there were many during the war) that training and tactics influenced the survival rate far more than what kind of opposition there was. And there was a massive change in the tactics as the war progressed, sometimes with lower and higher commanders issuing contradictory orders (with dismissals etc following). Anyway, it might bore the crap out of everyone but it's fascinating to me.

 

The main lesson from all the interviews I've read etc is that a single Sturmovik cannot survive, which means we'll have to rethink what we do on dogfight missions.

Ah regarding survival rates - I read of one guy who joined a ShAP in 1943. There was only one pilot from 1941 remaining (and he had gone mad after 50 missions) and one pilot from 1942.

 

As Mastermariner put it so well above - "It was no game for them".

[Finkeren]

Good info. As I expected, the life expectancy of 7 - 8 missions, or even worse, might occur during certain operations - especially early in the war - but propably not as an average for the entire war. An average 2.5% loss rate seems believable (perhaps even rather low) it is below the average bomber losses for the 8th Air Force in 1943 (which are generally thought to have been unsustainable) but ofc losses will have varied wildly. 

 

I will look forward to whatever you write down Tatarenko. This stuff has a lot of interest for me as well.

[Georgio]

Ground attack has been the most dangerous mission for a plane since WW1 and as we've seen this week without some serious flying and luck your survival on one mission is pretty low.

Add in servicing in the field, fatigue and the figure of 7-8 missions seems generous to be honest.

Also we've generally appreciated that the 109 is a beast in comparision with the LaGG so it stands to reason that it will chew up Il-2's given half a chance.

Maybe this week we'll be able to find out...

[unreasonable]

I should hope their loss rate was below 8th USAF in 1943! Their losses was so catastrophic that they had to suspend unescorted daylight missions altogether (the original tactic) and gradually extend their operations again as escort fighter ranges increased.

 

btw my 2.5% loss rate is just the rate that gives a pilot a 50% chance of survival after the quoted 26 missions, which may not have been what an "average of 26 missions" was supposed to mean, but I think it gives a reasonable idea.

 

Wiki gives Bomber Command's loss rate for the whole war at 2.2%, but the variation is between much lower levels over France and about 5% over Germany (which was horrible). Still enough to kill 44% of all aircrew, never mind injured and captured.

 

Obviously most of the stuff I have read over the years has been about RAF and US operations, so the details that are emerging about how the war was actually fought on the Eastern Front are fascinating: keep it coming

[Finkeren]

When we're starting to imagine, which loss rates might be the more accurate (since hard data apparently is hard to come by) It's also important to take into account the highly tactical nature of IL-2 operations on the Eastern Front: Missions were generally short, took place over or very close to the front line and involved a very short period of exposure to AAA during the attack itself, but seldom more than that. The heavy flak in BoS currently shoots at low flying targets which would have been imposible to spot, much less hit, IRL. German fighters patrolling the front might pose a significant threat, but with proper top cover, it wouldn't have been a slaughterhouse, especially since the Luftwaffe was often overstretched and outnumbered.

 

While the individual mission might have involved less risk and shorter exposure than the average Bomber Command or 8th Air Force mission, it's also important to remember, that VVS aircrews flew many, many more missions within a given time frame than their British and American counterparts. What corresponds to an entire American tour of duty, might be completed in less than a month for a VVS pilot, provided that he/she survived for that long.

[Dormouse]

I read a book of an IL 2 pilot, can’t remember the name, bought it on Amazon, he wrote that the first crews to volunteer for the field modded rear gunner was the girls that serviced the other guns on the airplane. Casualties where high in the beginning and pilots who brought home one after another of dead gunners broke down in tears an refused to keep flying with rear gunners.

 Be careful what you mock!

Master

I don't remember exactly either, and has nothing to do with IL 2's, and could be my imagination, I think one of the first units to engage German armor in Stalingrad was AA young women served battery.

[=38=Tatarenko]

btw an average service life of 26 missions implies a loss rate of approx 2.5% per sortie.

 Only if you can't do maths.

[graygoose]

Once Iam in the gunners seat.  I cannot get the gun to move in any direction. In ROF I use the mouse for these movements.   I would like to

 

map this gun same way. In the sittings I can not see anything that deals with elevation and depression. I would appreciation  any suggestions

that could help me with this.      Thanks

                                                                                                   Graygoose                                                                                           

 

  Ps.    Has any one notice a blurring   when moving the head to fast with Trackir and with the Trackir of , the mouse will do the came.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Turn off cinematic camera in the options

[Finkeren]

Only if you can't do maths.

You're right. I didn't bother to check the numbers myself. It's actually almost 4%, which seems more likely to me.

[JG4_Sputnik]

it is perfectly working

left ctrl+C to take the seat

T to use the weapon

R to change mags

 

it's that easy

I wish it was. I cant get the gun to moove up and down. Only left and right. The weird controler tags dont exactely help.

[Feathered_IV]

I don't remember exactly either, and has nothing to do with IL 2's, and could be my imagination, I think one of the first units to engage German armor in Stalingrad was AA young women served battery.

I think that is correct. They used their anti aircraft guns to defend the Mamayev Kurgan against tanks. I think they may have fought until the last though, sadly.

[Frequent_Flyer]

It has been brought up before, but I still have a hard time believing that figure of an average life expectancy of 7 - 8 missions. Certainly during the more intense battles, but as a general rule throughout the war? It seems unsustainable to me even in light of Soviet production numbers and manpower reserves.

I believe many here are under the misconception the IL-2 in any incarnation was a successful aircraft. It was under powered, hard to fly( extremely difficult when damaged) made worse by adding the rear gunner and suffered horrendous losses.  Originally the pilots were poorly trained and the tactics were worse. They were easy prey for fighters and AAA.

[LukeFF]

Once Iam in the gunners seat.  I cannot get the gun to move in any direction. In ROF I use the mouse for these movements.   I would like to

 

map this gun same way. In the sittings I can not see anything that deals with elevation and depression. I would appreciation  any suggestions

that could help me with this.      Thanks

                                                                                                   Graygoose                                                                                           

 

  Ps.    Has any one notice a blurring   when moving the head to fast with Trackir and with the Trackir of , the mouse will do the came.

 

 

I wish it was. I cant get the gun to moove up and down. Only left and right. The weird controler tags dont exactely help.

 

Read the section in the Rise of Flight manual on controlling gunners, as the controls work the exact same way. If they don't, you've messed up something with your controls.

[unreasonable]

 Only if you can't do maths.

 

0.975^26 = 0.52

 

Ie after 26 missions 48% of your planes would be lost. Actually 27 is closer, but I did say approximately.

 

By average I took you to mean that you take the number of sorties for each aircraft, sum them and divide by the total number of aircraft. So some will fly less than 26 sorties, some more.

 

A 4% loss rate gives a specific pilot/aircraft a 35% chance of surviving 26 sorties.

 

If you assume that lost aircraft are constantly replaced to maintain a set number, and you want to know the loss rate that will lead to total losses equal to the starting number of aircraft, then indeed 4% is about right. (Obviously it is 4% exactly at 25 missions).

 

So two points: firstly, when you are talking about averages you need to be very specific about what you actually mean.  Secondly, the calculation for the survival chance for an individual pilot is different from the calculation of total losses in a replenishing pool.

[Finkeren]

I believe many here are under the misconception the IL-2 in any incarnation was a successful aircraft. It was under powered, hard to fly( extremely difficult when damaged) made worse by adding the rear gunner and suffered horrendous losses. Originally the pilots were poorly trained and the tactics were worse. They were easy prey for fighters and AAA.

I don't think anyone here have any illusions about the losses among the IL-2 regiments. What I'm saying is, that an average life span of 7-8 missions for an IL-2 crew (and presumably the plane) is completely unsustainable. These loss rates, heck even worse than that, might have happened during intense battles, but as an average throughout the war? No.

 

The figure of 7-8 missions I have only ever seen in that one anecdotal quote. The 26 mission average for 1943 that we get from Gordon seems a lot more believeable and still implies horrendous losses, considering how many missions were flown by VVS pilots.

 

BTW: The IL-2 did not have poor handling, you're completely wrong there. The addition of the rear gunner did offset CG and impaired handling some (especially after the addtion of a two-man cockpit) The issue was largely solved with the swept back wings introduced in late 1943.

 

That's not to say, that the IL-2 was a very effective as an attack plane. It was slow, carried a light payload and was far from invulnerable, but it was in fact a quite maneuverable plane with very pleasant flight characteristics.

[Finkeren]

0.975^26 = 0.52

 

Ie after 26 missions 48% of your planes would be lost. Actually 27 is closer, but I did say approximately.

 

By average I took you to mean that you take the number of sorties for each aircraft, sum them and divide by the total number of aircraft. So some will fly less than 26 sorties, some more.

 

A 4% loss rate gives a specific pilot/aircraft a 35% chance of surviving 26 sorties.

 

If you assume that lost aircraft are constantly replaced to maintain a set number, and you want to know the loss rate that will lead to total losses equal to the starting number of aircraft, then indeed 4% is about right. (Obviously it is 4% exactly at 25 missions).

 

So two points: firstly, when you are talking about averages you need to be very specific about what you actually mean. Secondly, the calculation for the survival chance for an individual pilot is different from the calculation of total losses in a replenishing pool.

What you seem to have done is calculating a kind of LD50 for IL-2 crews. I did the calculations different.

 

I started with a "population" of 100 aircraft, and made the assumption, that losses are replaced regularly (as was the case) so that the population remains largely constant.

 

Now to get an average life span of 26 missions, it would mean, that the losses should amount to 100 aircraft within this timeframe.

 

Remember that the losses are replaced, so the population is always 100 aircraft. To lose 100 aircraft in 26 missions would require an average loss rate of little less than 4%, we don't need a calculator for that.

 

I think this calculation gives a more precise picture, because it takes into account that losses are replaced gradually.

[Blackcloud]

A thoroughly interesting topic.  For those that were on the front lines and many who were behind them, the chances of servival in the war were never good but the realism of this title really seems to bring that home.  I think it will be interesting to see if after having played the game for a while we are able to learn the tactics that will help us survive.  It would be great to see the variation in AI as well to reflect new pilots into a squadron or even new rear gunners.