Is there any advantage to flying the IL-2 over the Pe-2?

[Piet_Hien]

Hello fellow pilots,

 

I am returning to flying in this game after more than a year of absence. When I played previously, I played German planes mostly, specifically the JU-87, the JU-88, and the He-111  (I like bombers/attackers.) Now however, I feel like giving their soviet equivalents a try, and have discovered the IL-2, and the Pe-2.

 

The Pe-2 seems to be faster, capable of flying to higher altitudes, and carrying heavier bomb loads, as well as coming with dive breaks and a bombsight.

 

With all those advantages in favor of the Pe-2, what does the IL2 have going for it? it would seem that there is no reason to fly the IL2 on paper. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks in advance for any replies

 

 

[LukeFF]

Durability, cannons, and anti-tank bomblets, to name but a few.

[Willy__]

22 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Durability, cannons, and anti-tank bomblets, to name but a few.

 

I would argue that durability is in favor of the Pe.... ?

[Trooper117]

It's all down to Stalin wood...

[[DBS]Browning]

The IL2 is better at strafing. That's it.

[Gomoto]

The IL-2 was the cheaper plane.

 

Vasily Emelianenko flew the IL-2.

 

Do you need any other reasons? ?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Gomoto

[Bremspropeller]

You can use all the flaps they gave you for landing.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Icebird said:

 

With all those advantages in favor of the Pe-2...

 

 

 

Huh?

Are you after historical realism/fun or online ego boosting? (which I realize some guys see as fun also)

If you’re flying a bomber or attack aircraft  - you’re obviously not that guy. So must be history/fun then.

 

The IL2 is an IL2...it’s fun to fly because it’s an IL2. It normally has a different role than the Pe-2. The IL2 was the first A-10.

 

It doesn’t have dive brakes because it has no use for them. It doesn’t have a level bomb site for the same reason a Devastator or an A-10 lacks a level bomb site. It doesn’t need to fly higher because most normal tanks and trucks are sitting in the ground.

 

If the bottom of your aircraft isn’t scratched from rubbing the tree tops - you’re doing it wrong.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Gambit21

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, the Il-2 does have a level bombsight, in the 1943 version at least. It's those white lines on the nose, on which you superimpose black ones on the window.  There's a video out there which tells you which line is used for which altitude.

 

It's actually more accurate than a realistic Pe-2 sight would be. What we currently have for a "bombsight" is far more capable than what was historically used. Norden bombsight came close, but even that was a bit more complex to operate.

[FTC_Etherlight]

Since I realize that you are asking for objective reasons in terms of performance, I want to bring forward one area where the IL-2 is second to none: Tankbusting. If you master the use of the IL2's rockets, you are a tankkilling monster in terms of efficiency per sortie. Didn't think that I'd ever post it again, but take a look at this very old video of mine to see what I mean:

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Etherlight

[Gomoto]

Thanks for the nice rocket video.

[Avimimus]

Manoeuvrability, cannons, and a lot more armoured glass, armouring around the engine, and armouring around the pilot... the Il-2 is more like the Hs-129... low altitude attack, vehicle destruction, and anti-tank work... The Pe-2 has more redundancy (two engines) but is virtually unarmoured in comparison and has very little forward firepower.

[Luftschiff]

The Pe-2 doesn't need armour, it's advanced radar-guided CIWS gunners will shoot down any plane, projectile, missile or asteroid that get within three kilometers, well before they have the ability to endanger the Pe-2 or its crew.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Luftschiff

[Na-zdorovie]

you like tanks? the IL2 is one with wings, plus the added bonus of being able to fly, drop bombs low, (much more fun tree hoping) straffe like a boss, use rockets, laugh at huge amounts of enemy fire trying to make you into swiss cheese, and get home with half a wing/no tail/etc etc............and its an IL2....nuff said

[=621=Samikatz]

The Pe-2 is better at getting in, dropping its ordnance, and fleeing alive. It's better in contested airspace for sure. The Il-2's advantage is carrying very powerful cannons, it can destroy far more vehicles before running out of munitions if left to its own devices

[Zeev]

2 hours ago, Na-zdorovie said:

you like tanks? the IL2 is one with wings, plus the added bonus of being able to fly, drop bombs low, (much more fun tree hoping) straffe like a boss, use rockets, laugh at huge amounts of enemy fire trying to make you into swiss cheese, and get home with half a wing/no tail/etc etc............and its an IL2....nuff said

I think if you are IL2 pilot then you dont like tanks. 

[=FEW=fernando11]

Reasons to fly an il2

-Its an il2

-flying an il2 will give you moral justification to drink up to 1/4 L of vodka, at any time of the day of your choosing.

-its damn fun to do landscape redesign with it.

-you can git gud, get a wingman, and shoot down enemy Planes in MP, extra points if using the 1941 model, with no rear gunner or extra cannons.

-you will grow chest hair, whether you want it or not.

-its an il2.

 

[Avimimus]

On 6/2/2021 at 8:16 AM, Luftschiff said:

The Pe-2 doesn't need armour, it's advanced radar-guided CIWS gunners will shoot down any plane, projectile, missile or asteroid that get within three kilometers, well before they have the ability to endanger the Pe-2 or its crew.

 

Imagine how people would complain about a Tu-2... with its third reward firing UB heavy machine gun...

 

I think the only way to limit the complaining would be to bypass the Do-217 and do a Ju-88 instead (as it could carry up to two heavy machine guns and one cannon reward firing).

[Pict]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:29 PM, Icebird said:

The Pe-2 seems to be faster, capable of flying to higher altitudes, and carrying heavier bomb loads, as well as coming with dive breaks and a bombsight.

 

With all those advantages in favor of the Pe-2, what does the IL2 have going for it? it would seem that there is no reason to fly the IL2 on paper. Am I missing something?

 

They are totally different aircraft designed for different roles and had very little overlap in use, so considering advantages one over another is not logical.

 

It's something like comparing an Hs-129 with a Ju-88, except they both have two engines so have more in common.

 

If you had said Yak-7 and La-5 it would be logical to compare and discuss relevant advantages as they filled very similar, if not identical roles.

 

=====================

 

That said I've flown both, more Pe-2 time but getting into the IL-2 recently. They both excel at their intended roles.

 

The Pe-2 is not easy to land and had a historic tendency to bounce on touchdown and drop a wing very quickly if your approach is a shade too slow. Both are beautifully modeled here. There appears to be some mixed advice about flap setting. I go with what I've read and seen in the excellent Pe-2 Peshka book written by Peter C Smith and published by Crowoods. For me full flaps on short final is the way to go, and make sure you fly it onto the runway in a semi 3 point attitude, (tail slightly lower than horizontal) with enough speed / power to avoid that nasty wing drop. It takes some practice to perfect and when you do it will still bounce, as it should  

 

=====================

 

They both take a fair bit of damage the IL-2 is a good bit tougher especially the 1941 variant and it still has metal wings and a big bullet proof glass behind your head.

 

The Pe-2 is hard to RTB on one engine, but I've done it a few times. Landing it on one engine is pretty much hit or miss depending on what else is damaged. Mostly if you have taken hits in an engine you're going down sooner than later.

 

The myth about the Pe-2 being hard to shoot down is put up to cover the lack of technique and or ability of those failing to shoot them down. I've been shot down many, many times in a Pe-2 by both flak & fighters.

 

As often as not I've scored kills while being shot at as most of the inexperienced pilots attack from dead astern or at least within the gunner field of fire.

 

And this is where the myth comes from. They make a suicidal attack in an easily damaged plane facing 2 machine guns. Following in the Pe-2's 6 o'clock the bombers forward speed can be subtracted from the fighters forward speed which makes it a sitting duck.

 

They get shot up or shot down and need to blame something other than their own lack of understanding and sheer impatience.

 

The better few pilots out there take more time to plan their attack and approach from the front or sides far enough forward to be out of the Pe-2 gunners field of fire. This all takes time and practice but it's worth the effort as these guys usually get good hits on you and leave without a scratch, knowing full well that they've done enough damage to down you if not now certainly before you get home. Their angle of attack also allows for a PK and they often get it.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Pict

[Na-zdorovie]

indeed landing the IL2 with full flaps has always been easier for me, i have found, as you say fly into the runway, 3 point landing but as you get very low then pull up to your 3 pointer, i fly pretty much straight in and bar engine probs find it pretty easy to land that way.

yea comparing is slightly wrong, the pe is is great high alt bomber, the il is down and dirty, but in a fire fight i know which one i would prefer to take, you can look at it too that it fly's so low it needs to be hard, maybe decide if you want to fly high or down in the trees.....far more exiting down low.......plus as =FEW=fernando11 says you get vodka too

@zeev, oh yea i do like tanks they blow up sooo pretty

Edited June 3, 2021 by Na-zdorovie

[Willy__]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

And this is where the myth comes from.

 

There are plenty of videos showcasing the ability of gunners land 1hit kill impossible shots, its not a myth. Even if you do everything by the book (fast slashing attacks or frontal attacks), everytime you enter the gunner field of fire it was like throwing a dice. Sometimes you dont get hit, other times you get a bullet to the face. 

 

Just take a look at this:

 

[Avimimus]

53 minutes ago, Willy__ said:

 

There are plenty of videos showcasing the ability of gunners land 1hit kill impossible shots, its not a myth. Even if you do everything by the book (fast slashing attacks or frontal attacks), everytime you enter the gunner field of fire it was like throwing a dice. Sometimes you dont get hit, other times you get a bullet to the face. 

 

Just take a look at this:

 

Are you sure that video isn't actually showing a collision (invisible due to some netcode issue)?

 

As for "everytime you enter the gunner field of fire it was like throwing a dice" ...yeah, that is an obvious statement there. The UB machine gun can fire an armour piercing shell through the armoured glass over every fighter in the game. It could do that in real life as well.

 

There is a reason why pilots didn't like attacking bombers, and why they uparmoured the bomber destroyers and upgunned them so as to attack from outside of effective range for the turret guns (or only attack head on where the gunners were non-existent or had less time to shoot).

 

The question isn't whether it is a 'throw of the dice' to enter the field of fire of a heavy machine gun... the question is what the odds of those dice should be.

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Willy__ said:

There are plenty of videos showcasing the ability of gunners land 1hit kill impossible shots, its not a myth.

 

 you're pulling my leg right, or you didn't actually watch that video.

 

If not here's a screen from it at the point where the 109 gets hit, it happens about 2.04 where the 109 has passed from the front of the bomber unscathed to the rear of the bomber and is dead on it's six o'clock when it takes the hit.

 

So thanks, you have just proved my point, not that it needed any help.

 

There is no point is taking the time to set up a frontal attack of any kind if you are going to wind up in the kill zone at after your gunnery pass.

 

 

 

 

There plenty of videos showing people flying right on the Pe-2's six and getting hammered by the AI gunners as they would in real life. I just added this one to the list. This guy deserves a Darwin award to boot  

 

I don't make videos myself, but I can assure you after many hours on Pe-2's that the majority of people attack dead on my six and get hammered and rightly so.

 

As far as random AI gunner hits goes if this phenomenon was as prevalent as you make it sound it's bound to have been raised as an issue with the developers and they in turn would have done something about it if they deemed it an issue. My confidence lies with them. Not with YouTube cowboys.

 

This kind of misinformation is what makes up most of the myth about the Pe-2.

 

====================

 

If you fly straight at any AI gunner, it will hit you, damage you and probably shoot you down, same applies when flying directly away, as was the case in your video  Try this yourself with an airfield AA in a quick mission, it's a sure thing, solid, offline no net issues,

 

It is what it is. It has zero to do with the Pe-2 and everything to do with wrong technique and an ego that pervades admitting it.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Pict

[Willy__]

Oh boy... people see what they only want to see... In the video the guy attacking just passed in the firing zone for maybe 1-2 secs, coming from an angle where the gunner wouldnt have any chance of predicting the plane path (the gunner is looking behing the plane, not to the front). The 109 in the video got unlucky because the tail got destroyed within a single hit (it was a known issue, thats why we had concrete 109 tails for a couple of patches, idk how it is now), but the point is, he got hit.

 

And let me tell you, this is not exclusive to Pe's, its a generic problem with all gunners, its just more pronounced in the pe2 because of the .50cal on the back. 

 

If you think that doing a slashing attack from the front and getting hit in that 1 sec window is fine you are delusional. If it was an isolated case then ok, but that video is just one of many. There loads from others Pe's, 87's and 110's doing the same. People who park on the bombers asses deserve to get destroyed by the gunners, the issue I'm bringing up isnt that.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Willy__

[56RAF_Roblex]

Back on subject,   the anti-tank bomblets on the IL2 are surprisingly effective and will also decimate a convoy where the PE2 can only pick off a few.  Otherwise,  I would fly the PE2.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

In this game, you get the best careers flying IL 2, in general IL 2 gives the best single player experience if you want something else than fighters.

I hope one day I can test, or rather have time to test Typhoon career. 

And you can not compare the two at all.

In real life, slightly modest modeled in game PE 2 was described as a pig to fly, it shows in game when flying it slow. It was made as a durable dive bomber, but most did not have dive brakes installed, and only a few squadrons was trained for this task. IL 2 was heavy but handled well by trained pilots. It supported ground troops and did that job well. I kill myself often due to target fixation , lawndart is my middle name. I fly it, because those who did have all my respect and admiration

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by LuseKofte

[56RAF_Roblex]

Quote

" It was made as a durable dive bomber,"

 

It was originally designed as a twin engined fighter designed to intercept high altitude bombers but when they realised that Germany was not making very many high altitude bombers it was modified to be a dive bomber instead.