Its not wikipedia. Its a bunch of stuff from many websites put together
Its a copy/paste of the rubbish that is written on Wikipedia, i dont know who copied who, nor is it important, what is important is that you find a source that is not regurgitating the same half truths, omissions, and downright errors.
For the rear seat, yes (though field modifications to include a rear seat where made much sooner), but the VYa-23 cannons where installed early 1942, and its thouse cannons that made the plane what it was.
Sorry, but they are unguided rockets after all. Other sources say otherwise:
All rockets of that era where unguided, laser guidence is a pretty new thing afterall.. but they where gyro stabalized, and every bit as good as the Hvar rockets the western allies came up with later in the war.
The Russians where world leaders when it came to solid fuel rockets at that time, years ahead of the Germans or western allies.
Originally Posted by Airwar.ru
Like most unguided rockets, they suffered from poor accuracy. Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m (1,640 ft), a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and only 3.7% hit a column of tanks. RS-132 accuracy was even worse with no hits scored in 134 firings during one test. Combat accuracy was even worse since the rockets were typically fired from even greater distances. To further complicate the matters, RS-82 required a direct hit to disable light German armor with near-misses causing no damage. RS-132 could defeat medium German armor with a direct hit but caused almost no damage to light or medium armor with a near-miss. Best results were usually attained when firing in salvos against large ground targets
Again, this is a half truth, because its only true for the first couple of months of the war, as i said, once they found out the fins where getting damaged in transit and fixed the problem, accuracy was fine (never perfect, thease where simple rockets, not modern laser guided hellfire rockets, but you would hit most of the time if you got clouse enough, thats as good as rockets got ano 1940's).
Sorry again but armour was exclusively found a variety of other planes (whether or not shaped like a bathtub)....
No, the bathtub shape is exactly the point! because it is armour with zero gaps, full protection! thats why G/A planes are still designed like that to this day.
All planes had some degree of armour, but the IL2 was unique in the way armour was shaped, and in just plain having more of it.
The rear gunner was not as well protected as the pilot though, thats the only real shortcomming there.
As for the small arms fire unfortunately for the IL-2 German planes were armed with mgs and cannons.
As where Russian planes, well.. the russians actually abandoned MG's and just used cannons twords the end.
But IL2 survival rate speaks for itself, it has a track record that even makes the B-17 pale in comparison, thease planes where thrust into hell itself, and kept coming back, often with huge holes and missing bits, but still flying.
Or they could dive from above or come from the side and aim at the vulnerable cockpit area and kill the pilot. Or diving frontal head on attack from above and aim at engine/propellor area. Loosing an oil cooler would overheat and seize the engine that is unless the IL-2 has 25 backup oil coolers
Not to mention liquid cooled engines are more suceptable to damage than air cooled.
Wrong, the cokpit was definately not a weak spot, the armoured glass is known to have stopped 20mm fire, and because of the bathtub armour, it was all armoured, no other plane of the war had a better armoured cockpit, and i have never read any accounts of German pilots aiming for it on IL2's, it was not the way to go.
Same with the engine, it too was incased in the bathtub, whilst it could be damaged, it was not an ideal thing to aim for.
And comming head on? then you are putting yourself in range of thouse VYa-23 cannons, it was definately not recommended! the IL2 was actually supricingly manouverable for its size, not enough to dogfight as such, but the pilot would be more than capable of engaging targets of oppertunity infront of him, so that was not a good place to be, and German pilots knew it.
Coming from the top was also whishy washy, the good thing about a top down attack is usually that its real easy to just aim center mass and hit fuel tanks and damage the wing roots, but thease where armoured on the IL2, and not prone to ignite, so it was, again, not ideal, you wanted to come from below, because that oil cooler really was the achilles heel of the IL2, and therefor the only thing worth shooting at.
And yes, a smashed oil cooler will sieze the engine after 5 to 10 minutes if its hurt badly, but that is usually enough time for the pilot to reach safety and ditch the plane, they where often collected later by trucks and reused, or parts of them atleast.
The Stuka 37 mm cannon mountings were detachable and could be replaced by bomb racks or a Waffenbehalter WB MG 81 or WB MG FF as the situation required
Relavance? the IL2 Type-3M did not have to dismount anything, hence me saying "cannons AND bombs or rockets".
Actually not much faster if not very closely comparable (assuming accurate IL2 data and 'clean' aircraft):
For the IL2 M:
251 mph - 264 mph at ?? ft
And the Ju 87D/G:
249 - 255 mph at 13,500 to 15,430 ft
Speed is life mate, and add parasitic drag and weight from ordinance to thouse speeds, and the IL2 is even further ahead, now factor in that the IL2 could sustain combat speed longer, and we get further ahead still.
Sorry again but the defensive MG 81 Z (twin MG 81 3,000 rpm) installed in the Ju 87 G is much superior to a single relatively slow firing (in comparison) 12.7 mm gun. Also look below:
You dont know much about planes do you? LMG's did not pack the needed punch, HMG's where much more capable, just one HMG was easilly worth 4 LMG's, thats why the Brits went from putting 12 LMG's on their fighters, to just 2 HMG's and two cannons, or 4 cannons, LMG's where not up for the job.
It was also converted to one of the most successful anti tank aircraft in history. Sure it wasnt perfect neither was the Il-2. They were slow and vulnerable to fighters but with proper air cover..... It was a superb anti tank aircraft with at the minimum a better more potent cannon, comparable speed ect.....
We can easilly agree that the Stuka-G was a good tank buster, it was, but compared to the sheer volume of IL2's in service at any one time, all of which where also excellent tank busters, the Stuka-G is not all that impressive, nor very important (too little too late), its just incredibly overhyped because of Rudel.
But its still only a tank buster, not a pure bred ground attack plane like the IL2, the IL2 could perform a very wide array of duties, and still bust tanks nomatter what its loadout of the day, it was build for it, not shoe-horned into the role like the Stuka was.
And the IL2 was never as vulnerable to fighters as the Stuka was, countless made it home despite looking like swizz cheese, because the bathtub protected the vital bits, and it had a much more solid skeleton holding it togeather.
There's no way around it mate, the Stuka is surrounded by myth, it been glorified so much that its understandable that people like to think of it as some kind of super plane, but so much of it is nothing more than myth, its pilots where actually not fond of it at all, it was not exceptionaly armed (infact an FW-190 with a bomb rack was better armed), or armoured, survival rates where not epic by any means, and its contribution to the war is superficial at best, overshadowed by the He-111, Ju-88 and FW-190 Jabo's, it has a few big hits to its name like sinking the Marat and Rudel's score (though it is most likely more hot air from Rudel than fact), it was not all that important, and the US also had a good dive bomber in the Hell-diver, and so did the Russians in the Pe-2, so its not even unique because it was a diver.
But its strange outlandish looks, and storries of its howling sirens as it swooped like a bat out of hell out of the sky have captivated the hearts and minds of people ever since, and the myth lives on.
The IL2 on the other hand, is like the Hawker Hurricane, the forgotten real hero of the war that shaped history, but did not make movies or popular 1:72 scale model kits, the IL2 had a noticable impact on the war, i doubt the Soviets could have held off the Hun whilst they where regrouping and moving factories, without that plane constantly hammering German supply lines and reinforcements, a job that seems very unglamerous, but thats the stuff that wins wars, and the IL2 was the right plane for the job, and design features of this plane live on in G/A planes to this day, whilst the Stuka.. long dead, its design features died with the war, they where not worth expanding on.
