Why IL-2 catches fire so easily?

[Finkeren]

Looks awful or not, but a nice gesture by raaaid to make you the picture. And after all the slack he has received from the forum.

 

To be fair. I've always tried to be mildly encouraging towards raaaid (not least because I find the guy entertaining) I think he has a unique drive and I like that he's using his (limited) skills to their full extent and proudly presents the results, never caring what others think.

 

I draw semi-well myself, and I must say I envy raaaid his big cojones. I have a hard time presenting my works to public scrutiny without feeling embarrased.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

Back to topic,

 

A dude posted it in history forum, an erich hartman interview.

It seems he doesn't consider the il2 armor as a russian myth, even as a german pilot

Many knows it, but here it goes anyway:

Q: When did you score your first kill?


A: That was a day I will never forget, 5 November 1942, a Shturmovik IL-2,

which was the toughest aircraft to bring down because of the heavy armor

plate. You had to shoot out the oil cooler underneath, otherwise it would not

go down. That was also the day of my second forced landing since I had flown

into the debris of my kill. I learned two things that day; get in close and shoot

and break away immediately after scoring the kill. The next kill came in

February the following year. This was when Krupinski came to Taman and

was my new squadron leader.

[Dakpilot]

Also by Hartman

 

"Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik which was their main ground-attack aircraft, flew like B -17's in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire til the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time."

 

From a conversation with Eric Brown on how he had amassed 352 air victories

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sparrer]

S!

 

This statement could explain the big kill ratio of il2: The poor tactics of il2 pilots

This one too:

You might have read this about how Werner Molders showed another pilot how to bring down IL-2s in November 1941.

 

"He positioned himself of to one side of - and some distance away from - the last IL-2 in a formation of six. He then turned in quickly and opened fire at the enemy's cockpit from an angle of some 30 degrees.  The IL-2 immediately burst into flames and crashed. "Do you see how it's done?" Oberst Molders voice came on the R/T. "Right, now you take the next one".

 

I carried out the same manoeuvre and sure enough the next IL-2 went down on fire. "And again!". It was like being on a training flight. Another short burst and the third IL-2 was ablaze. The whole lesson had lasted no more than 12 minutes!" 

 

From German Aces of the Russian Front, John Weal, Osprey 2002

 

 

 

Thats why i think the kill ratio could be an evidence, but not an proof

[HagarTheHorrible]

Also by Hartman

 

"Well you can't believe it, but the Sturmovik which was their main ground-attack aircraft, flew like B -17's in formation and didn't attempt to make any evasive manoeuvres. And all they had was one peashooter in the back of each plane. Also, some of the pilots were women. Their peashooter was no threat unless they had a very lucky hit on you. I didn't open fire til the aircraft filled my whole windscreen. If I did this, I would get one every time."

 

From a conversation with Eric Brown on how he had amassed 352 air victories

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

It's going to be interesting to see if BoS is able to recreate this sort of scenario for it's campaigns.  If RoF, pop gun, rear gunners are anything to go by, then no and if the A.I continues to treat all aircraft as fighters then, no.  It would be great to have a campaign that had VVS tactics gradually improve, from the downright suicidal to the competent with the occasional flash of brilliance.

[Brano]

What do you think sturmoviks were supposed to do?Cancell formation and fly zigzag to all directions possible?They had mission to fulfill.And what do you think other bomber pilots did when attacked by fighters?They did the same.Tried to stay together to increase chance of survival.Some of them would die,for sure,but chances for other to fly another day were greater when formation was kept.And without fighter escort any bomber is sitting duck.

Regarding that pilot testimony, it is on the edge of boasting.Like shooting down slow moving,low flying ac was some kind of heroic deed.And that remark about women,that was quite chauvinistic statement.They were not flying in each sturmovik and their presence in VVS should be regarded as unprecedented deed of courage and will to defend ones own homeland.And that he was not shot down by rear gunner doesn´t automaticly traslate to "noone ever was".

[HagarTheHorrible]

Brano, you have to allow for the time his remarks are set and not judge them by modern sentiments. Formations are all good and well but only if they have a tactical purpose of mutual support rather than just trying to reduce flying to it's simplest parts. Russian tactics at this time were basic and mutual support was not considered as a priority.

[GAVCA/Jambock__28]

A squad mate made ​​this video:

 

 

Using only 7.92mm he can ignite the IL2 from rear position...

[kissklas]

I have only good experiences with the IL-2s armor. Yesterday I was attacked over and over again, by a 109. He shot me to shreds while attacking an airfield. My pilot was so hurt I couldn't see at the end. but the plane held together perfectly. I saw bursts that lit up the entire cockpit with a warm glow at least 3 of the times times. It just dimmed back down and I kept flying. I could not believe my eyes. My gunner bought it quite fast though. In the end the 109 gave up/went out of ammo or something. I was able to fly back over Volga and glide to a field where I could land, when the fuel had all leaked out.

It is a very strong plane. But of course, a good hit to the engine, or fuel tanks and it might be over quickly. I also heard something about aiming for the oil radiator. The general construction of the plane seemed to hold together marvellously though. Probably well reinforced?

[Dakpilot]

A squad mate made ​​this video:

 

 

Using only 7.92mm he can ignite the IL2 from rear position...

 

 

from many angles the fuel tank has zero armour protection

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sparrer]

S!

 

Last night i killed maybe 4 il2 in a sortie and some other later with only mg. Wasn't just lucky

My aiming is horrible, my joystick a crap and i'm a poor dogfighter

Can't agree it's right, but i would like to know the truth better. Can't agree germans maked russian propaganda about il2

 

Some guys just affirm it's correct without getting even suspicious or doubt, looks like they were in 2WW.

[Sokol1]

IL-2 fuel tank.jpg

 

from many angles the fuel tank has zero armour protection

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Extra fuel tank behind pilot? (Boris is not there, so the Vodka bottle theory is bursted).

"Golden bullet" ricochet at negative angle?

 

Sturmovik catches fire easily? "Believe it or not".

 

 

Sokol1

Edited September 3, 2014 by Sokol1

[GAVCA/Jambock__28]

IL-2 fuel tank.jpg

 

from many angles the fuel tank has zero armour protection

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

• The evolution of Il-2 in late 1941 included:
• the extension of the armour to the upper and rear part of the canopy including the fuel tank ; a slight extension of the side plates on the sliding hood; replacing the rear armorglass with a metal armor with two side armorglass windows;

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/il-2/il2-camo/il-2-evolutiontable.htm

 

Either way, the angles are not favorable. And the tank itself was equipped with exhaust gas inerted. With all these, 7.92mm shots are not (should not be) really effective against IL-2. The Russians are not crazy to let the fuel tank so exposed, is not it?

Edited September 3, 2014 by GAVCAViJambock__28