Around 1987 I attended a Soviet aviation design and acquisition course in the USAF. One of our guest speakers was Sergei Sikorsky. He discussed Soviet aircraft design philosophy from WWII to the present. He specifically mentioned German reaction to the difficulty in downing the IL-2 Sturmovik. The plane had a reputation for surviving repeated hits and not burning. Inspection of recovered samples revealed an armored underbelly and engine exhaust venting that piped cooled fumes into the fuel tanks to displace any air, thus depriving a potential fire of the oxygen needed to ignite a spark.
Here I thought that I invented that idea hahaha. Better/cheaper than nitrogen. Already determined the exhaust gas would need to be cooled first. Like an EGR...
@dukecraig2402 I saw a roadside mechanic in Mongolia brimming a fuel tank with fuel before welding it. Then, setting fire to the fuel, at the fuel filler neck, while proceeding to weld the damaged bottom corner of the fuel tank. Crazy but it worked.
@@marcusott2973 I agree it can work, but the risk he took was high. In the 1960s my Dad owned a small minibike manufacturing company. He once tried to do a quick weld repair on a customer's damaged machine without first purging the tank. The presence of oxygen led to fuel ignition and the loss of the bike. The owner got a new minibike out of the repair, so he was happy. Dad, not so much. 😞
"Shvak" is pronounced as "shmuck" with "v" instead of "m" ;) VYA 23mm round was a notch more powerful then contemporary 20mm-range ammo, but not as much as round dimensions would suggest (23x152mm). After the war, it was modified, made more powerful and in various forms of AP/HE, best known for use in cannons in ZSU-23-4 Shilka and ZU-23-2 AAA.
Excellent channel my man. Watched all your videos. Wish i could repay ya somehow. As a long time auto mechanic, infantry veteran, biker, and armchair historian, the information and detail on your channel really has explained these old ww2 planes to me in a way no other person has. My great granddad was an officer in the army air corps and flew a p38 in the pacific. I always thought these old machines were really the pinnacle of pure mechanical technology, no computers, limited electronics, immensely powerful and complex. Pure gold. Thanks for your service to the community.
You could always pledge a dollar too his patreon , a single dollar goes a long way to say thank you , much more then just the words alone do. I tip my uber driver or waiter more then that n i get much more value from people like greg and thier videos! Its just a dollar think about it. But then again if ur like me they add up if you have quite a few favorite channels ghat you love and watch all the time. Even tho im poor its still worth it tho.
Watched an interview with Eric Winkle Brown the other night. He said that the "throwaway" concept of the 100 hour service life also applied to Soviet aircraft engines. He had the chance to fly several different Soviet aircraft for a couple months at the end of WWII, before relations with them started going south. He said he was told directly by Soviet personnel of the 100 hour engine service life, their philosophy being why waste time producing an engine that would last upwards of several hundred or 1000 or more hours, when it was far more likely that the aircraft it was in would be lost, for one reason or another, long before the engine wore out. And according to Captain Brown, those engines definitely sounded like they'd been built to only last 100 hours, enough to make him wonder at times if they would last the duration of his test flight.
Another great video, Greg! Several points: 1. Regarding pronounciation, acronyms in Slavic languages tend to be read as a word rather than as separate letters, where consonants have a vowel added. So, where in English you'd proncounce Bf 109 and Me 109 as "B F One-oh-Nine" and "M E One-oh-Nine", in Slavic (and Russian in particular) languages, those would be "BeEf One-Hundred-and-Nine" and "Me One-Hundred-and-Nine". SH (Ш) and YA (Я) correspond to letters in the Cyrillic alphabet that are specific sounds - SH is pronunced as "sh" in the English "shell", while YA as "ya" in "yahoo". You do have the sounds, especially in American English, just not designated as separate letters in the Latin Alphabet, hence why I think people feel they are difficult to pronunce. So, taking que from the words above, SHVAK is pronounced as "sh-vac", VYa as "v-ya" and SHKAS as "sh-cas". PTAB would be pronounced as "pe-tab" rather than "Pe-Te-A-B", and so on. 2. Enough about the language part, good that you've mentioned the FW-190F! The F/G series were the workhorses of the Luftwaffe in the East, I believe much more so than in the West (where the A-series Sturmbock for bomber intercepts was far more widely used and known). They were good ground assault (F) / fighter-bomber (G) machines and, while not quite cutting edge anymore, capable and were used in a pure fighter role. I would be interested to hear about there usage (I can provide you with a great trivia piece of information how one FW-190F-8 from SG-10 was lost due to a infrantryman sniper with a 20mm anti-tank Soluthurn gun with a single shot). Looking forward to the last video on combat usage with great interest!
German/latin writing fits Russian much more, ch instead of fake Kh. Who invented kh deserves a slap. By transliterating into English, using kh ya instead of ja, Russian is much harder to get into for anybody starting from English. Me- not mi, stodeväť(deveť) Petab would still be pronounced as petap.
@@cdgncgn There is no "kh" letter. Whoever invented that when transliterating deserves a slap. And I strongly, vehemently disagree on Latin being suitable for Slavic languages. Poles use Latin and makes written Polish atrocious, whereas it is far more functional written in Cyryllic (which, no, is not "the Russian alphabet"). Learning Cyryllic if your native language is Germanic or Romanic is a breeze, just like it is for us to learn Latin alphabet. It's just that people are either too lazy or increadibly self-centered and obnoxious. Anyway, this was meant to help Greg for his vedos and we're going quite off-topic, so I'm not going into a debate here. Cheers!
Beginning to love your channel Greg …. The research levels are off the scales !!!! Watched all your P-38 content back to back ….thought I knew a bit … the education I got there on one of the most beautiful of WWII birds was the best anywhere …
Great video on the Sturmovich. One thing generally left out by us westerners though, Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland. Once again great vid, loved the info.
Greg: Says he doesn't really care to do a weapons video, and there are other/better channels for it... CRUSHES a 30 minute video anyways. You're too good to us.
The Spitfire Vb at 7:38 is the personal aircraft of Air Vice Marshal Keith Park, I believe the image was taken in May 1943 on the occasion of the official inauguration of the air strip at Safi in Malta.
27:10 A possible comparision aircraft is the CAC Boomerang built as an emergency fighter. Due to problems getting technical packages to Australia, and the knowledge that any export orders from the UK at the start of the war were likely to be used in the UK. Replacement by later models at later dates would mean a couple of years without up to date aircraft. They are armed with .303 machine guns and 20mm cannons. They were mostly used for ground attack as they were good down low but only had a basic supercharger and were outclassed as a fighter at higher altitudes. The cannons were reverse engineered in Australia apparently (common story).
20 mm SHVAK (it's very easy to say, just how it's written, don't say "shaavyak") guns had 250 rounds each (this was the fastest IL-2 version, only made in 1941, because of lighter guns), 23 mm guns had 150 rounds each (most common version), 37 mm guns had 50 rounds each. IL-10 in 1944 was of course better, with better engine and 300 rounds per 23mm gun with 12.7 mm in the back (Two seat IL-2 also had 12.7 mm gun in the back from 1942), and in 1951 IL-10M had four NS-23 guns with 150 rounds per gun and 20 mm gun in the back (IL-10M was a little bit slower than IL-10 of 1944, but still faster than any IL-2).
Greg, I noticed with the last few videos that you seem to be keeping them around 30 minutes and more consistent in their release. If that is intentional then it is a good call from my perspective. I appreciate anything you put out and always learn something, thank you.
The rate of videos coming out has a lot to do with the fact that I'm on reserve at my airline and not flying a lot this month, which is good for video production. The longer videos will return but probably after I finish this IL-2 series. I want to get this one done.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Would VERY much enjoy one of your explorations on the MiG-19. There is very little I've seen out there on the plane, and your treatment of it would be thorough and interesting for sure.
Excellent material. The preserved Il-2 in Muzeum Wojska Polskiego(Museum of Polish Armed Forces) in Warsaw has starboard wing bomb bay opened, however the shots I have seen do not yield much information. Thank you.
Just the way they approached the armament shows that even the Soviets didn't consider the plane a "flying tank" and were not too concerned about losing those when a plane was lost.
Since we're talking about the soviet (in)justice system under Stalin, i think it's safe to asume that Taubin was just the victim of the purges (and "reasons" had been made up). I mean we're talking about a system where "conspirators" could meet in a Hotel that was'nt even build.
The FW-190A was definitely a great ground attack aircraft, but the JU-87 was only a dive bomber if you wanted it to be a dive bomber. The G version with 37mm cannon pods was used as a level flight tank buster too and others carried cluster bombs for the same role. The Ju 87 has 5 weapons stations, which are highly configurable.
That's true, but many design choices were made for the Stuka that hurt performance but optimized it for dive bombing, so I don't think it's a good direct comparison with the IL-2.
Slow speed, short range and poor manoeverability does the Stuka few favours. Probably OK in 1936, not very good in 1943. @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
@@k9killer221The was a moment in the winter of 1945 when Soviet tank armies on its way to Oder-River advanced so fast that they found themself outside of the Red Army fighters’ range. And then Stukas came and knocked out a lot of Russian tanks and artillery pieces. That was one of the factors that forced Red Army to pause its Berlin offensive until April.
@@k9killer221 _Slow speed, short range and poor manoeverability does the Stuka few favours_ Perhaps when compared to a fighter, but next to an Il-2? Speed: * Ju 87 B-2: 387 km/h at 4,000 m * Sturmovik Series 1 (two seat): 405 km/h at 4,000 m Range: * Ju 87 B2: 800 km * Sturmovik Series 1 (two seat): 740 km Manouverability: * Ju 87 B-2: power to weight ratio: 0.27 HP/Kg - Power to wing area: 30.41 HP/m2 - Weight to wing area: 113,2 HP/m2 - Turn time at 1,000 m: 20 seconds * Sturmovik Series 1 (two seat): power to weight ratio: 0.26 HP/Kg - Power to wing area: 38.96 HP/m2 - Weight to wing area: 148,7 HP/m2 - Turn time at 1,000 m: 33 seconds
My grandmother (Gusti Stridsberg, an Austrian) worked as a translator and interpreter in Moscow during the late thirties. Purges were going on then as well, and she describes them in her autobiography. The Russians haven't changed much during the intervening years.
Another great video. By the way, the bomb bays were quite universal. There is even an old training film that includes shots of it being loaded, somewhere on yt.
Nicely done, Greg, as usual. "Aircraft" or "weapons" designer was obviously not an occupation to be eagerly sought after in the Soviet Union during the war unless Mr. Stalin really was your uncle. They have an interesting, or at least unusual, approach to both aircraft design and weapons. It's hard to visualize the Browning M2 as a "throwaway" weapon, or one requiring hand-fitting. Soft metals and sloppy tolerances seem like robbing Peter to pay Paul if they're not durable and have to be replaced (with hand-fitting required) often. Fortunately, not my problem. I'm inclined to think of the A24/SBD Dauntless as an American equivalent, but it was already pretty slow, and adding armor so pilot and rear gunner weren't killed instantly on an attack run would surely impact performance, as would the addition of heavier armament than the SBD already had. Anyway, the IL-2 is an interesting plane to read about - not sure, however, that I'd want to fly one.
Brilliant video as always - thank you Greg. In terms of planes to compare to the IL2, surely the canon and rocket firing beast that was the Hawker Typhoon bears some similarities
I recall reading that the Soviets were very disappointed with the ROF on the 30 Brownings that came with their A20 Bostons, swapped them over for their Shekas.
@@thomasbaker6563Quite the opposite. It did, however, run on a higher pressure 7.62×54R variant, manufactured to higher standards. Using "normal" ammunition would lead to significant increase in malfunctions.
Hey Greg, big fan of your work. I’d love to see a video about the Ki-45, it’s very hard to find anything about the plane on RU-vid. Thanks for all your work.
Greg, I m from Poland and I have to say that it is very nice that you mentioned about Polish officers killed in Katyń, thank you!!! It is good that you speak about russian war crimes, becouse this knowledge is not so common on west than nazi crimes, once again Thank you very much!!!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles and I must say I read a lot of historian books and magazines, but I cannot find in them even 10% technical info that you present in your films, great job Greg!!!
You mentioned the cannon’s parts being stamped to match them. Every machine gun I used had this. The explanation I got was when factory made the cartridge and/or head spacing was done with that exact barrel and spares to the main body and working parts. I did see the affect on one gun that used the wrong numbered barrel and it caused a lot of stoppages, gases to escape the chamber as incorrectly sealed and the gunner involved got a right “slapping.” As our machine gun fleet aged and barrels, etc, were replaced in tier 3 refurbishment you could find your guns coming back with several different numbers that were stamped out to ensure the guns service life continued. Obviously an armourer could go through what was actually done as I was only cannon fodder.
Very true on most of my service weapons of same type albeit some older stuff like Browning Hi-Power also had stamped barrel, slide and above the pistol grip to prevent mixing. Modern stuff interoperability was a factor. I get why the Soviets made them rough and ready as a lot of their stuff was made that way. Stalin’s five year projects dragging his nation up to the industrialised state it became certainly allowed method to work.
The cannon you're speaking of looks very simple, as in minimum material. Possibly a cannon with more mass might be friendlier to the mounting structure
Mistake @24:20 ''...modern Soviet tanks...'' Make it modern Russian tanks. We all know about Russia phobia, but they really are not as bad as the news media says they are. Great video Greg, I (like many) appreciate the detail you put into your work. Thank you. 🙂
Yes the 129 was twin engineed, but wasn't the combined HP about the same as the IL-2 or 190? I would consider the 129 a closer comparison to the IL-2 due to both being dedicated to the task, as opposed of an adaptation of a fighter. My $.02 Take it for what you paid for it. Good content as always
Yes, I too think the 129 is a fair comparison to the il2. It is very similar in size, also had interesting protection, power, a bit lesser in ordinance, and certainly similar in use. While the gnome-rhones were not protected like the engine on the il2 was, as air cooled engines, they didnt need the big rads, and they were sufficiently redundant to get the pilot all the way to the crash site! I hope greg does include both the 129 and 190f in future comparisons to the il2 though, as they both had the ground attack role, and 190s replaced 9/10 stukas. While the 190 couldnt so effectively knock out tanks, the more useful role for all ground attack was to destroy the logistical support and accompanying infantry, for which the 190 was more than suited.
Years ago I visited a backyard WWII airplane museum in Wisconsin. By some feat they had aquired the cockpit of an Hs-129. It was most impressive in that all the cockpit glass was a couple of inches thick. @@stug41
Combined HP of Hs 129 is similar to IL-2 only in take off power though, (700 HP per engine) and still coming a bit behind the AM-38's 1600 HP rated take off power. When using this power regime Hs 129 pilot needed to disable the RPM governor and run the engines with manual pitch control to increase RPM. Combat power regime with automatic RPM governor which would be more commonly used over the frontlines was only 580 HP per engine, compared to AM-38's 1500 HP nominal continuous power.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles You could consider a comparison the Ju 87 D-5 which had its usual MG 17s replaced with MG 151/20 to better suit its new role as a ground attack aircraft rather than a dive bomber. I believe it also had various other improvements to increase its effectiveness in this role.
I don't think I would compare the 190F8 as the German equivalent to the IL-2. The 190 is just a fighter that has some upgrades to make it a better fighter bomber. I think the countries just used different planes for the role of close air support. The Soviets didn't really have a fighter bomber, they had fighters and ground attackers. A better question would be is a fighter bomber better or worse than having only fighters and ground attackers.
That's a fair point. One thing that would be interesting is the IL-10 vs. Skyraider. What do you think of that, those two are equivalents and mostly post war aircraft.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I don't know much about those two aircraft, so it is hard for me to say. What do you think was the best fighter bomber of the war, Tiffy, Jug or 190?
It's not only a question of effectiveness but also of capabilities. Was Soviet Union capable of mass producing modern and effective fighter-bombers in 1942-44? After moving most of its aricraft factories to the East? Il-2s could be buit by poorly qualified and starving teenagers, using simple tools and machines. Would they be able to produce somethng like Typhoons or FW-190 A8? I doubt it.
After reading comments, I believe that Fw 190 F-8 is a rival of Il-10, not Il-2. Il-2 can be compared with Hs 129 B and non-diving Ju 87 D-5, indeed. Fighter-bombers, like P-51, P-47, F6F, F4U, Typhoon, Tempest, some name even Spitfire, are not that "air-presence" crafts. Ju 87 were barraging in air beforehand to deliver the strike as fast as 5-10 minutes after infantry platoon requested. Il-2 could do the same when properly managed. Troubles with Il-2 comparison is the doctrine of its design. Il-2 would be barraging above or near a deep strike of the army, where it can be shot at with random small arms or even machine-guns. Fighter-bombers could never tolerate this environment, and never designed for this role. It's just a random air-superiority fighter that has some grasp of bombs attached. On the other hand, Ju 87 D-3 (and D-5) were up-armoured, Fw 190 F-8 was up-armoured, and they converged on the task of continuous air-support over the battlefield while using armour to tolerate flying iron and making shallow dives at ground targets. The way Il-2 was designed from the start.
Mr . Gregg, Information may be very limited. I'm still rooting for a deep video on the Henschel HS-129 ground attack aircraft. (Together with the G model of the Stuka? German tank busters. Read Rudel's book, for one. The Germans with the Stuka 37mm knew that tank roof armor was minimal, and the vertical dive approach was highly lethal. Once a round gets inside, the opportunity for catastrophy is great. Or the engine in the rear.).
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Well, now you see why MiG-15 has 2x23 and 1x37 for sure. It was always my life well in short time - ammo is your life. Anyway now we are in 30mm age - remind you of 262?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesfor a small plane one shell was usually enough. Ask those who fought with MiGs in Korea - 2x23 and 1x37 salvo can down B29 from 800m distance in a shell flight time of less than 2 sec and a MiG out. And as Germans often teach us - we all have 30mm from then on.
So I am reading a book called “ to besiege a city “ by prit buttar , in chapter 3 he gose into why talbin was executed, he wrote that the 23 mm was supposed to be a clip fed canon and talbin changed it to a belt fed weapon
Dear Friend, in Russia we dont call it "Sturmovik", just Il-2. Sturmovik means "Assault plane" and Su-25 or Su-7 is "Sturmovik" too. I think this word in english speaking countries "gives roots" to Il-2 bu the old game "Il-2 sturmovik"
Have you considered the P-39 with either a 20 mm or 37 mm cannon? Or the P-38 with a 20 mm. Also variants of Hurricanes and Spitfires with 20 mm cannons. I don't see much analysis on the cannon equipped fighters. I am just curious. It is not a criticism. 😆 Excellent work. Thank you.
Thanks Mr. Greg, I have a question but not about IL-2, why didn't ww2 aircraft adapt I-16 Polikarpov's landing gear? I mean the way it fully covers the wings without 2 caps closing seems to be weight saving and practical and maybe eliminates the need for 2 actuators (I don't know whether 2 actuators are needed for one gear actually) it would be nice to know.
If I decide to cover another Soviet plane after this series, that's one of the planes I'll cover and I'll talk about the gear. The subject is just too complex for the comment section.
WW2 era 23mm VYa cannon of Il-2 has long roots. Still today used all over world and made in vast quantities ZU 23mm twin barreled AA-guns use same ammo. VYa thou need brass cases to function, ZU-23 uses steel cases.
Oh I was hoping for some more information about the weapons effectiveness ☺️ Maybe in another video you can talk about how the IL-2 performed, maybe compared to other ground attack aircraft. I’m still not sure what role the IL-2 played and how it was used 🤔
Greg your videos are fascinating. I have read that some Soviet aircraft were produced in such a rush as to not have gun sights mounted on the plane, the pilots and ground crew would draw them on the windscreen after delivery. This was used as an explanation for, in part at least, poor Soviet aerial gunnery. Separately, there is a history of the MiG bureau that reports that many of the aircraft did not have turn coordinators installed. Artem Mikoyan has a letter explaining that this is one of the reasons for his MiG 3 being considered unstable. If Soviet aircraft were chronically flown without the pilot being able to remain coordinated wouldn't this make their aircraft poor gunnery platforms? Slightly off topic question, I apologize. Love all your videos, hope to fly for an airline like you sometime soon. The information you have put out, especially on propellors, is immensely useful for teaching aerodynamics and explaining constant speed props and how they work!
Yes, and those are only small parts of the problems. There are a lot of small factors outside of aircraft specs and its in those small factors that are difficult to quantify that the Soviet stuff tends to fall down. This is going to be a discussion in this series.
If you read the German armored unit histories you'll see that the effectiveness PTAB bombs has been grossly overrated. Despite the carpet of bombs they could lay, the accuracy of the IL-2, for whatever reason, was very poor, especially against moving targets. Many sources publish extravagant victory claims from Soviet units, but when compared to the loss records of actual German units, they are credited with very few tank kills. I have read more than one account by German infantrymen in which they explained the Panzer crews would speed off and make comments like, "they can't hit anything." The infantrymen were less amused as they were more vulnerable. The Finns were also not very impressed, especially when IL-2s attacked stationary AA guns in Flak suppression. The account I read, if I recall correctly, stated that a dozen planes failed to land a bomb within 200 meters of the battery. My point here is whenever you see an IL-2 claim, or any Soviet claim, take it with a barrel of salt. Gauge their accuracy by loss reports of the units attacked. There's a book out now by Roman Toeppel that examines some of the battle of Kursk claims versus actual unit reports, and you'd think the Soviets were hallucinating. They were ridiculously overstating their successes (yes, everyone did, but the Russians take the prize by far).
The Germans only recorded their total losses as a loss, whereas the Soviets counted anything that stopped their vehicle from taking part in operation as a loss. Since PTABs would mostly not completely destroy a tank, the Germans would not count as a loss. However, there's a good chance PTABs could at disable a tank, limiting its effect in the immediate operation.
@@Duncomrade It is not really true ""germans only recorded their total losses as a loss". Naturally it did exists records about repair work, number of units in service and so on. Initial usage of PTAB in Kursk battle bring some success, but germans quickly adopt to it (mainly - by increasing distances in columns and improving disguise) and it was not a major factor downstream.
3:30 The problem with Taubin's cannon was simple. He was arrested in May 1941 for the reason, that this MP-6 cannon, aswell as many other weapons from his OKB were not quite ready, but he was "selling" them as A-OK weapons. He was shot in Oktober 1941. Thats why Iljushin did not use Taubin's cannon - it was not good to use something from "peoples enemy" and it was to raw anyway.
So we’re just ignoring the fact that his successor took the prototypes in the exact state they were in when Taubin finished them and sold them to Soviet command as his own brand new design, where they were immediately accepted? And that subsequent iterative designs from said stolen Taubin guns are still in use today?
Lavrenti Beria, who was Stalin's head of the NKVD, predecessor of the post war civilian KGB and the military GRU. Beria is credited with the saying; "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." The person Greg said was executed in 1941, along with literally hundreds of thousands of other victims, according to that saying. IMHO the FW-190F/8 is a good comparison. In the early period the HS-123 biplane was used for the ground attack role as long as they lasted.
We are seeing that same mentality today in the U.S. The idea that law enforcement should investigate a person and find a crime, rather than investigate a crime and find the person responsible. Combine that with the press's guilty until proven innocent mentality and they can bring down any innocent person they want.
I have an irrational love for the Soviet 14.5x114mm cartridge and on the surface, it seems like a better option than 20 or 23mm for aircraft armament, unless the intent is for explosive projectiles.
apparently the il 2's bomb bays were large enough to carry a person and were sometimes used in emergencies to transport ambulance stretchers or as liaison battlefield transport. must have been a very cold method in the winter. also an effective dog fighter with no bomb load at low altitude...over all a super multi roll aircraft.
You're discussion are they adding a rear gunner to the IL2Open up a whole new topic that I have wondered about. So I hope you'll find time to discuss just how well these are well operated In He's 2 sea airplanes. We could even take It farther An exam the efficacy of defensive armament.
Thanks for another excellent video, Greg. As always, you explore the nuances and politics of design choices, which I find fascinating and so human (although the execution of designers for political purposes was a definite bummer, as you well noted). You clearly understand the historian's dictum (a variation on the great philosopher Yogi Berra's law) "things are hard to predict, especially the past."
