PDA

View Full Version : Stuka vs. IL-2



darringm
02-02-2012, 01:41 AM
no aircraftt is as well protected as tank that was why calling the il-2 a flying tank was a misnomeasr. despite it's weight of armour it only gave protectiom aginst machine guns. not the 20mm caoons on all german fighters plus german antiaiircraft artillery. even with the production of great nummbers over 36,000 at no point did the russiann inventory of this aircraft exceed 6000. even 2 years into the battle on the east front during the german offive at kursk the germans caused 5x more destroyed aircraft on the russians as they suffered themseves. the stuka was the only dive bomber used on land in edurope making it at least 10x as accurate as leval bombers. . plus the stuka was upgradablec to a 37mm gun. were as most of the il-2 were only upgradable to a 23mm. a few 37mm equipped il-2 were built but the high recoil of this gun meant it was very inaccuarte also the weight of the gun preclded the carrying of other ammunition.

leccy
02-02-2012, 03:02 AM
Can you quote some of your sources for your figures please. We like some checkable sources to discuss threads, it makes it easier to see where people are coming from.

Stuka, Il2, typhoon, variants of the ME219, etc were ground attack aircraft and can not be compared with level bombers which typically operated from mid to high level.

Compare total production numbers of any combat aircraft operational in WW2 and how many were in service on any one day, you will find a huge discrepancy in the figures. The same goes for tanks, trucks, etc etc etc. Attrition through age, breakdown, losses in and out of combat all have a huge bearing. The Soviets had more aircraft to use aggressively against ground targets so they are going to suffer more losses than the relatively few Ju 87 units.

The Ju87 suffered heavy losses during the battle of France and the low countries when the Luftwaffe had air superiority never mind during the Battle of Britain.

Comparisons of 2 aircraft developed with different doctrines and capabilities are very difficult. Both had their high and low points though.

Ok why has this site singled out the Battle of Britain as a link to ebay? I did not put that there. Never seen it do that before.

leccy
02-02-2012, 06:18 AM
I will assume at the moment that since you have started four different posts relating to German and Soviet losses and supply that you are trying to make some sort of point.

It would be nice for you to come back and answer or at least participate in the ones you have started instead of starting yet another one.

Evillittlekenny
02-02-2012, 08:56 AM
The IL-2 is called flying tank because it indeed had some armour, for an aircraft quite a lot. That it did not stop all the different AA shells is natural, since an aircraft is a more fragile construction than a tank. Also what I know, the Ju-87 should get away of the target zone after dropping the bombs (the tank hunter version of course not), while the IL-2 was intended to keep pounding the ground targets with cannons, machine guns and rockets.

darringm
02-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Stuka, Il2, typhoon, variants of the ME219, etc were ground attack aircraft and can not be compared with level bombers which typically operated from mid to high level.

The Ju87 suffered heavy losses during the battle of France and the low countries when the Luftwaffe had air superiority never mind during the Battle of Britain.



the aircraft destroyed numbers come from niklas zetterling kursk 1943 p 77 aand 78.

the dive bombers wwere still much more accrate than all the above aircraft.

what is your reference for high stuka losses in france and the lowcoutries.

http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/stuka.html
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/Il-2.html

accoding to zetterlings book the russians only suffered 2.;5 x as many aircraft destroyed as the germans.

darringm
02-02-2012, 09:21 AM
Stuka, Il2, typhoon, variants of the ME219, etc were ground attack aircraft and can not be compared with level bombers which typically operated from mid to high level.

The Ju87 suffered heavy losses during the battle of France and the low countries when the Luftwaffe had air superiority never mind during the Battle of Britain.

.

desroyed aircraft come from niklas zettlingm kursk 1943 p 77 and 78.

the dive bombers were still much more accate tha the above aircraft.

coulde you give a source for the high loss rates of the stuka in france and the low couttris.

leccy
02-02-2012, 06:24 PM
darringm

Nice to see you can write better than you first posts when you want to, a lot easier to read and understand. Now can you explain what you are getting at with these posts. It may help us to answer you fully instead of replying to the seeming statements you are making about the greater losses the Soviets Forces had when compared to the German Forces.




desroyed aircraft come from niklas zettlingm kursk 1943 p 77 and 78.

the dive bombers were still much more accate tha the above aircraft.

coulde you give a source for the high loss rates of the stuka in france and the low couttris.

Strategy For Defeat, the Luftwaffe 1933 to 1945 by Williamson Murry

May to June 1940
Dive Bomber Losses (total write off) 122 or 30%
Dive Bomber Damaged (repairable airframes) 28
Total 150 or 36%

This was fairly consistent as the Luftwaffe lost 36% of its operational strength during this period

burp
02-03-2012, 05:13 AM
despite it's weight of armour it only gave protectiom aginst machine guns. not the 20mm caoons on all german fighters plus german antiaiircraft artillery.
I agree that an airplane cannot sustain the same damage of a tank. But anyway, Il-2 is better protected than Stuka, with finnish and german fighters, armed with 20mm cannons, that need to aim very carefully to this soviet airplane, because it can sustain several shots.

MJ1
02-03-2012, 10:10 PM
Cold it mean the outcome of the war was a closer run thing? Hmmm to much depth. I don't know is/was there a point? We may have to wait to see what comes next.

..MJ..
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/d1b87fb1.jpg

MJ1
02-06-2012, 10:13 AM
I got an email saying there was a reply from sweet to this thread but I don't see it there must be a problem with my PC reading the text.

flamethrowerguy
02-06-2012, 10:16 AM
I got an email saying there was a reply from sweet to this thread but I don't see it there must be a problem with my PC reading the text.

No problem there, "sweet" was a spammer and his account -incl. posts- was banned.

MJ1
02-06-2012, 03:11 PM
Yes it was a rude email.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/11d3f5de.jpg

tankgeezer
02-06-2012, 11:01 PM
It would be nice for you to come back and answer or at least participate in the ones you have started instead of starting yet another one. It would be nice if you would refrain from posting rude nonsense to established members. I would further recommend that you not do it again, ever.

MJ1
02-06-2012, 11:18 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/6d148afd.gif

I get it,,,LOL!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/66d92e90.jpg