Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik as A FIGHTER!

[@yosemite-e2v]

When I used to play IL-2 1946 online years ago, there was a server that had a very early eastern front map where I would sometimes use the Sturmovik as a fighter. I would load it as lightly as possible, and it worked pretty well. I had someone once sending me chat messages saying "You aren't supposed to use it that way!" - I guess they were wrong!

[@snowstalker36]

My friend and I used to do that on our return trips after dropping our ordnance. Little did we know we weren't far off from reality!

[@Jbroker404]

Also shows IL-2 (not just 1946 but the current one too) gets it right regarding performance between IL-2s and German fighters. The IL-2 is by far the underdog in any fight, but it does have a chance; and in the game, it does occasionally succeed in that fight. It would be nice if we could modify them more, like removing bomb bays, machine guns, etc.

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

The Stuka was a good troll plane in '46 as well.

[@alangordon3283]

The wonders of heroic games

[@martijn9568]

In War Thunder this is more of a rule for the Il-2 if you want to win in an air quake meta😅

[@jeffbangle4710]

When I was in US Air Force intel, I met an older fighter pilot who insisted that wing loading was the only factor that he needed to learn about Soviet aircraft. This was after the F-15 and F-16 had entered service, so even professionals sometimes fall into the trap of over-rating the wing loading of fighters.

[@steffen19k]

You should see railfans & tractive effort

[@valvlad3176]

Just keep your watch - 360 degrees took 10 sec of Su or Mig at any speed less than 1 Mach. Just 10. Don't be on the other side of the turn.

[@GordonFalt]

Damn I love these videos. My youth was spent as a Russian pilot serving in the Great Patriotic War on IL-2 Sturmovik, and then online through IL-2 1946. It was tough and I went through scores of airframes…. But I made it

[@spookyghost3209]

Now adays free videos online are better than any multi-million dollar show on TV. Sad.

[@jacafren5842]

You are right. This is top quality. Better than they have ever been able to do on TV

[@ironteacup2569]

@@jacafren5842i actually don’t like nebula as much since it is further from videos like these. Just let me hang out and listen to your awesome videos I don’t need high production value.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

I’m glad to have KZbin.. there isn’t anything on cable

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

@@toby2581 I’m amazed that Greg’s channel doesn’t have more subscribers.. as I have watched every episode several times .. the algorithm should reward a channel for that level of interest.. I can watch a video 5 times but can only like it once ..

[@spookyghost3209]

@@toby2581 Your saying that something like this would not be welcome on the military channel back when it did actual history?

[@helensisikoff]

5:53 Just a little sidenote: The fighter-version is called not Il-2 L , but Il-2 i (Ил-2 И) , where И stands for Истребитель (fighter) Thx for another great video!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Great point. You are of course correct.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

The Japanese used the Aichi D3A as combat air patrol at times for the IJN, so sometimes people just do what they need to do. My father trained on the Mig 23 in the late 1980s but then retrained to do air to ground in the Mig 27 which seemed mostly the same airplane.

[@jerryle379]

Indeed su22 was design for ground attack , but if need it still can do some air to air stuff with it heat seaker missile

[@poopoo7705]

The 27 was very much the same plane, just heavily modified to suit the ground attack role better

[@rayschoch5882]

Nicely done, as usual, Greg. The Sturmovik is a very interesting aircraft - in some ways not that far from being an eastern front prototype for the current A-10, which is also slow by military jet standards, but carries "the gun" as well as hard points for a host of external weapons. Because my dad put a 500 lb. S.A.P. bomb into a Japanese carrier during the Battle of Leyte Gulf while flying an F6F-5, and lived to tell the tale, the Navy must have decided he had some skill at that task, so after VF-19's combat tour was over, his next assignment was to VBF-150, flying F4U-4s. He spent most of 1945 training in that plane for not only aerial combat, but also for what I assume would have been ground support missions during the proposed invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall), which never took place. The Corsair was obviously a competent fighter plane in 1945, but its long service life for the U.S. Navy, into the jet era and the Korean War, seems to me largely due to its abilities as a ground attack aircraft with heavy firepower and the ability to carry, for its size, a LOT of exterior stores (a navalized A-10, if you will). I think it interesting that even the Navy designated the Corsair as a "bomber-fighter" at the end of WW 2 (hence the "VBF" label for his squadron of Corsairs), rather than "fighter-bomber," which would have been "VFB" in naval parlance, or perhaps just the existing "VF" letters before the squadron number.

[@steveperreira5850]

Nice anecdotes!

[@Jbroker404]

Their landing gears also give them a similar look.

[@chrischiampo7647]

The Douglas A1 Skyraider in Korea & Vietnam

[@nodirips_8537]

The F4U Corsair, beautiful beast

[@fafner1]

Part of the reason the F4U lasted so long was its perfomance envelope was close to that A-1 Sky Raider, allowing them to be used together.

[@gort8203]

Fighter pilots have long lived by the adage "rate kills", and this was a good explanation of why. Speed is life was the other adage, and that was the priority in fighter design.

[@mbryson2899]

I am gobsmacked, sir, by the weight of information you dropped upon me on an underreported subject. Thank you!

[@stephend4909]

Greg, I once heard that the FW190 could routinely carry the luftwaffe's heaviest bomb. A 1.8 ton ordnance (I think called the SC1800), which had to have its lower fin cropped to achieve ground clearance. Extraordinary effort, especially from one of the smallest fighters of WW2, operating from unpaved forward strips. I would love to see some comparisons here between bombloads especially between the IL2 and FW190 and an opinion as to which actually was (as you suggest) the better ground attack aircraft. That would be fascinating! Love your work!

[@Kuschel_K]

Well, against anything that isn't a figher, the IL-2 is basically a heavy fighter :)

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Oh, that's a really good way of putting it.

[@Lemard77]

I can imagine the 7.92mm rear guns of German bombers being rather useless against the armored angled nose and thick windshield of the IL-2. Their only chance would be to enter the curved intake for the internal water radiator, ricochet down into it and cause a leak that way.

[@Kuschel_K]

@@Lemard77 The IL-2 was pretty much designed to resist rifle caliber fire. For a ground attacker operating very close to the ground, rifle caliber rounds are just omni-present. Together with the two high velocity 23mm guns, they must have eaten German bombers alive.

[@sir0herrbatka]

The fightiest not-a-fighter airplane? ;-)

[@czwarty7878]

@@Lemard77 rifle-caliber weapons were ineffective vs many planes already by mid-WWII. While I can somewhat understand for example why Brits didn't switch to 50cals or cannons in their heavy bombers, I can't for life of me understand why Germans didn't rearm their bombers and Ju52s.

[@tomcrosby6332]

Hey Greg, I've watched a bunch of your great videos. I had a career as a pilot of light fixed wing and helicopters, and a semester as a ground instructor. I much admire your grasp of math and the charts. I remember being in the back seat of a Super Cub when we got "bounced" by our buddies in a Pitts S-2. The cub could turn insides the Pitts all day, and the simulated ak- ak -ak -ak over the radio confirmed the Cub as the winner. Great fun. I love the Sturmovik. I had a model of the "cement plane" on skis when I was a kid. Thanks!!

[@garyhooper1820]

Yes ! The Eastern front was the major theater of conflict . And yet so little factual accounts exist . Love that you are covering this.

[@spindash64]

If you’re going to bring up the concept of “Bomber Fighter” at some point, I imagine the SBD is going to be a mandatory call-in as well. You mentioned the incident with Swede, but it should be noted that he was in the AO specifically on an Air to Air mission. Not to hunt ZEROs, mind you, just Japanese bombers, but it was good enough at this that it’s one of the only bombers in WWII to CLAIM a positive Victory Ratio. Of course, claimed kills are very different from actual kills, but given that this effects _every_ kill count for WWII aircraft, it’s still indicative that the Dauntless was far from toothless

[@martijn9568]

This is also due to the nature of carrier combat. The US Navy wanted to conceal their carrier's position as much as possible. Taking out as many enemy scout aircraft was a part of that. Then there's the peculiar nature of carrier combat, where there's limited space on the aircraft carrier's flight deck and limited aircraft. The lack of flight range of the F4F Wildcat also didn't help and the SBD was already being used as a scout plane.

[@fafner1]

Early in the war the Navy used SBD's as part of the CAP. They soon stopped doing this due to excessive losses, and started increasing the number of fighters on board instead. Howard Buell in his book on flying SBD's and SBC2's in combat describes shooting down Kate's while flying the SBC2.

[@PhilKelley]

Thank you for another thoughtful, and thought-provoking, video. I especially appreciated the part about how things flipped during the war. People tend to think of things as static, but in war things are changing all the time. You brought up two very interesting topics: 1) how the experience of workers affects production quality - and how it can increase or decrease depending on how your side is doing; and 2) how pilot experience affects battle results, and how that can increase or decrease depending on how your side is doing. Clearly, from a U. S. perspective, that change was extremely dramatic, which had a major impact on why we won the war. But, we don't often think about the Soviet perspective. You seem to be indicating there was a similar dramatic improvement by the Soviet air force that allowed them to dominate the air space later in the war.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'm not sure I would say their quality allowed the to dominate. I'm not even sure I would say that they dominated, but they did get a lot better and had the edge over the Germans by mid 1944.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

From Soviet perspective role of experience was even much bigger - because of traditionally poor training. Not only for pilots and aviation. And it was really impotent dynamics - when inexperienced and poor trained solders had quite low life expectation in a front and so had low chances to gain that experience. And than when things turning - life experience grows and that allow to even more experience accumulation - and than more life experience grow - like a snow ball.

[@78jog89]

Thanks, Greg. Really enjoyed. Any vids describing Soviet aircraft are always appreciated. Would not mind any on the LAGS, MIGS, or Yaks.

[@arjunarabindranath]

Thanks

[@BabyGreen162]

6:00 from what I remember the fighter version was named IL-2I, where the "I" stands for "Istrebitel" ("Fighter").

[@SuperchargedSupercharged]

Thank you so very much! I really appreciate you making this video! I do not know why I like this plane so much, however I do so thank you.

[@RyanTheHero3]

Il-2 pilots developed some pretty cool tactics, like the circle of death where, upon the arrival of enemy fighters, the il-2s would form a large circle so no enemy fighter could get on the tail of one without being blasted out of the sky itself

[@richardrichard5409]

Same as Bf110, but then it's not a fighter, it's a victim😎

[@rinkashikachi]

Japanese used it too

[@thuff3207]

Thanks!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you very much.

[@GGj-q9k]

Very nice pictures, never seen before.

[@edwardsmith6609]

Good Lord, before watching this... never knew I was "fiending" for an IL-2 wiring harness diagram. You never cease to amaze. Well Done !

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

It's actually really simple by aircraft standards. For some serious aircraft electrical discussion watch my video on the B-32 Dominator.

[@edwardsmith6609]

It appears that everyone built better "Jabo's" than the Germans did.

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

1:02 I remember reading somewhere MANY years ago in a some US Naval aviation book that one of the carriers had depeleted its fighter complement that it only had eneough fighters to cover a air strike and had the scouting squadron fly CAP over the carrier.

[@OfMoachAndMayhem]

Once in multiplayer on the IL2 Great Battles series, I used a 1941 (single seater) model IL2 successfully against no fewer than three BF 109s, which came down on me during an airfield raid. Completely out of options, I figured to go out with guns blazing, and turned the thing head on, blasting 23mm AT/HE mix fire up into their faces. Two of them disintegrated at that first pass, another made the (welcome) mistake of engaging in a low-and-slow turn fight with me. It also went down. One of the Axis pilots, laughing out loud at that point, commented: "I didn't expect you to be so aggressive". I replied: "well, that's why it worked" ... never managed to pull off that 3:1 stunt again, though I've downed many more 109s with the tank-buster

[@robertdevito5001]

The Dauntless was also intentionally used as a fighter, for combat air patrol. It had a slightly positive kill to death ratio in WW2.

[@Joshcodes808]

In air combat, SBDs had a kill ratio of 3.2 to 1. During the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, pilot Lt. John Leppla got four kills and his gunner, John Liska, three.

[@davidpf043]

I was going to make the same point. By doctrine, the SBD was deployed at low altitude to counter torpedo planes if available. As the Navy increased the number of fighters in the air groups this use decreased but it was still done as late as Santa Cruz.

[@robertdevito5001]

@@Joshcodes808 I heard it was much closer to 1 to 1, perhaps that’s factoring in when the bombers were hit by flak or shot down by fighters during their bombing runs.

[@assessor1276]

Cool video Greg - the Sturmovic was quite a rig. In considering manoeuvrability,it is more than just wing and power loading though. One must also consider the moments of inertia in roll, pitch and yaw - which, I suspect would be much higher for the Il-2 than for a small airplane like a Bf109. Anyhow, interesting analysis.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Yes, and all those other factors favor the 109.

[@barryscott6222]

Including the size of control surfaces.

[@chefchaudard3580]

And the controllability at high speed. It does not help if you dive onto an enemy and the controls are rock solid. It is usually underrated in most comparisons, like in comparing an F4U and an F6F, the first one being more advance in that respect. I agree it is more useful in a boom and zoom tactic rather than a dogfight, but exchanging altitude for speed is part of the game, though, and can be useful when the fight takes place at high speed, that is usually in the first moments of the dogfight.

[@Triple_J.1]

Actually, lower wing loading translates directly into excess drag. Because a large wing means more surface area. It also means larger stabilizers, longer tail, even more surface area, etc. For turn radius, sure it helps. But not necessarily for sustained turn, where the excess drag robs energy. The IL-2 had very good power-loading. It had a large wing to carry ordinance and fuel out of unimproved strips. That cost in fighter performance. But again, any power loading better than 6lb/hp is really good.

[@awathompson]

First and foremost, good job on covering turn rates and radius and explaining it to non-pilots. Yet from every F-86 pilot I know growing up and taking glasses from (my gym teacher in High School flew F-86's in Korea), they were all consistent on stating that their control surfaces where far superior to the Mig-15. The F-86's rate of roll and reversal put the Mig to shame. Not to mention the superior gun site. Also, F6f Hellcat pilot I knew growing also stated that their let your TAS fall below 270 mph's when fighting a Zero as the Zero's controls where so heavy it would take superhuman strength to even move the controls. Then of course there is the famous Bf-109's negative g push over against a Merlin powered opponent. There are many things that effect what make a good fighter plane or even any plane.

[@ВячеславФролов-д7я]

Considering f86 vs mig15/17 situation. That difference in roll speed and overall high-speed maneuverability comes from the mig's flaw of not having a hydraulic assistance for aircraft controls. Its stick wad strictly connected to the control surfaces, just like in ww2 planes, thus at high speeds pilots simply couldn't deflect the stick far enough to force an energetic maneuver

[@awathompson]

True, the hydraulics was a major issue! Yet the Mig-15 according to Chuck Yeagar in his testing of a captured Mig, the Mig had stability issues as well especially in yaw and never exceed Mach .97 (I think it was). Not putting down the Mig it is a great aircraft as well. The F86 had issues as well, like still being armed with .50 call machine guns. Not to mention its much lower service ceiling.@@ВячеславФролов-д7я

[@SlinkyTWF]

In gunfighter battles, speed, acceleration, rate of climb, and ceiling were king. Saburo Sakai described F6Fs flying past him 100 knots faster than his A6M was, and he had no chance to do anything but evade.

[@ВячеславФролов-д7я]

I'd add another factor contributing in il2 losses. During 1941/42 air navigation was removed from a pilot's training course in order to save some hours. Only wing/squadron commaders received navigation training, thus, there were a lot of non-combat losses when pilot had lost his comrades and couldn't find a way home. Instructions from that era were clear: if you are not sure about your location, fly east until you run out of fuel, than make an emergency landing

[@BrockvsTV]

Thank you Greg for your well done videos and especially how you bring multiple data points together fir a bigger picture

[@sadwingsraging3044]

I suspect a 23mm with 15grams of RDX bursting charge in it could do a number on transport and bomber aircraft and if you put a few rounds into a fighter it would be a significant emotional event indeed. You da man Greg!😎👍

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wow, thanks so much sadwings. My wife really appreciates it, and she was very thankful for the last donation as well.

[@JamesWilliams-en3os]

Excellent video, Greg. The discussion of aerodynamics was particularly good, IMO. A lot of desk jockeys seem to like to argue the merits of turn radius and wing loading as “proof” of their favorite WW2 fighter’s alleged superiority, but fail to grasp the reality that turn rate-rather than radius-and higher airspeed were the primary determinants of air combat success.

[@rolanddunk5054]

Hi, an excellent episode with great narration which I found very informative.Thank you.Roly 🇬🇧.

[@richardlincoln8438]

Thanks Greg. Best Wishes.

[@jaredneaves7007]

My favourite ww2 planes and Greg has covered them all... P47, Corsair, B24, Lancaster, Il2

[@jaredneaves7007]

Oh and Fw190

[@Token_Civilian]

Another first rate presentation. Thanks.

[@BadByte]

Thanks Greg. I for one love this stuff 👍

[@localbod]

Thank you very much. I have been looking forward to another video about the IL-2 Sturmovik.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Thank you thank you Greg. 🐿

[@RaderizDorret]

Perfect example of rate over radius: the F-16. The Viper is a turn rate MONSTER that will rip around that circle at better than 20 degrees per second with energy enough to pull 9Gs instantaneous in that envelope if it has to.

[@DSRT888]

I think the closet thing in WW2 to a F-16 is the Bf-109 series. Relatively low drag and unrivaled power to weight ratio.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I'm sure the F-16 is awesome. The reason I used the F-14 in the picture is because USN Tomcats pilots had a saying. It was that there were planes faster than the Tomcat, and there were planes slower than the Tomcat, but there were no planes that were both faster and slower. No matter what the Tomcat had a turn fight advantage somewhere over every possible adversary. (keep in mind this was back in the 80's.

[@Tacticaviator7]

@@DSRT888I would give that to the Spitfire personally, power to weight is slightly smaller than the 109 (F15 has better thrust to weight than the F16 btw) but it has much better turn performance (which fits the F16), it's also not the fastests one from its generation which again, also fits. The only thing that doesn't match is the ground attack performance but it is still the best fit.

[@DSRT888]

​@@Tacticaviator7 If we are going off of what fits the F-16 turn rate best, I'm still going with the Bf-109. I believe the power to weight ratio and aerodynamics for the Bf-109 allowed for this better than the Spitfire. The Spitfires turn performance shines at low speed dogfighting. In DCS good Bf-109K4 pilots are a headache when they stay at medium speeds. Everytime I see a Bf-109 pilot enter a sustained turn right I shake my head lol.

[@RaderizDorret]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'd say the F-15 would be more or less on par with the F-14. The difference between the planes was pilot skill and who had the energy advantage at the merge.

[@bentilbury2002]

Excellent video. I've always been curious about the use of the IL-2 as a fighter, so this is perfect 👍 There would have been Japanese fighter pilots with more experience than the Germans at the end of 42. They'd been fighting the Chinese since 37. Though I don't know how many of those veterans would have still been around by then!

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

Germany had sent pilots to the Spanish Civil War, and in addition had been facing arguably more skilled opposition since late 1939. The best Polish pilots were very good, did miracles with what they had in September 1939 and did even better when given Spitfires and Hurricanes to fly.

[@chrischiampo7647]

Thanks Greg Learned A Lot This Episode 😀😊😀

[@flightlinemedia]

Great video! Very informative.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Andrew.

[@alanrogers7090]

Thanks Greg. I've been waiting for this episode.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

"The most shot-down aircraft of World War 2." Almost makes you wonder what would have happened if there had been 35,000 Fairey Battles. The Battle has a horrific reputation in popular culture as a victim airplane and the IL-2 as a flying tank, and nobody who isn't widely read would realize how many Sturmoviks were actually lost. Barrett Tillman's "The Dauntless Dive Bomber of World War Two" would have you believe that the Dauntless actually has a plus score against enemy aircraft. IIRC the only other pure bomber of which this can be said is the B-52 (the armed versions of the Mosquito which are not pure night fighters are in a different category). On the topic of fast bombers intercepting airbridge transports, I recall reading that the USAAF had a glorious moment with B-26's against Luftwaffe transports in the Mediterranean? I believe the Marauders in question had forward firing package guns, which made them even better as temporary fighters.

[@kimmoj2570]

LaGG-3 in reality, not just on documents had empty weights all over the place. It was resin impegrated wood structured plane. How much resin these workers compared to those over there used, varied wildly and easily made 100kg difference. By La5/LA5FN Soviets got specs and factory worker much better on line.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Very good point.

[@alexandervapnyar3979]

In addition, LaGGs were produced by six different plants, each of them using whatever materiel and toolsets they had available in the chaos of the fist year of the war. Also, one of those plants was supervised by Gudkov (the first “G” in LaGG) who had a habit to make changes to the design without notifying Lavochkin or VVS.

[@kimmoj2570]

This is really non issue. Il-2 was like flying an barn made of sogged wood 😂

[@GNpatent]

Sorry, babe! New Greg video just dropped! I’ll be up in a few!

[@0giwan]

There was a period early on in the Pacific war where policy was to use Dauntlesses as a sort of last ditch CAP, with the theory being that they would dive on anyone threatening the carriers. I believe this was covered in "The Fast Carriers".

[@dr.argentina]

man i love this plane

[@Br1cht]

I know that there were a German guy in Armegroup South that used a HE-111 as a fighter at several occasions during the fighting in Crimea. So you can use most tactical aircraft as fighters in a pinch.

[@RussianThunderrr]

-- Awesome, I'd like to write more, but peak season is upon us... So the most important essentials beside wing loading for turn, are the size of control surfaces, and how much thrust available to help overcome dragier airframe, and prevent airflow from delaminating. So Bf-109 at low speed will have a hard time steering an aircraft, since it's control surfaces were designed to fly at much higher speeds. -- Earlier in the war 1941-42, when Luftwaffe dominating the sky, and like you pointing out attrition rate was unsustainably high, because pilots training was only a few hours(just like Brits in Battle of Britain in 1940) behind sticks, or what Soviets pilots called - "Take off and Land"(Взлёт-Посадка) training only or roughly 10-12 hours of flight hours in flight school, for those who survived 10-12 bombing missions would be awarded a "Gold Star" medal that have a title of the "Hero of Soviet Union", during later years in 1943 and on it was extended to more flight missions, but 1941 and earlier 1942 was the most dangerous for IL-2 pilots. -- LaGG fighter, just like most Soviet aircraft bared initials of the main creator, in this case Lavochkin, Gudkov, Gorbunov, but among pilots, because it was a bit heavy and underpowered, so dogfighting in this fighter with aggressive maneuver had to be done with at most care, unlike Yaks(which BTW used the same engine, Klimov's - 105, and S. Lavochkin wanted to adapt Michulin's IL-2 engine, but was specifically denied and forbidden by Stalin himself, that is how much more important IL-2 was to Red Army) - had less, then thrilling "nickname" - La-cquered, Guarantied Coffin(Ла-кированный, Гарантированный Гроб), because it was made out of mostly specialized fire retardant epoxied "delta plywood" - and was slightly heavier, then aluminum. However, in Lavochkin's last ditch effort to put A. Shetsov engine(that just like any other radial engine, nobody in the World wanted) LaGG-3 bacame La-5, then La-5FN, and eventually La-7, which splitted 10 highest scoring Allied Aces spots of WWII with P-39 pilots almost equally. Mating ASh-82 engine to Lagg-3 airframe, also saved both engineers jobs - since both: S.Lavochkin, and A. Shetsov's, products was on a "chopping block". It's great that you make this well known subject in East, available for those WWII buffs in the West... I wonder how many pips will comment - "I'did not know this!"?

[@terminusest5902]

Another example where fighter pilots need good training in large numbers and pilots are a strategic asset.

[@stevehofer3482]

I imagine tactics like the “Thatch weave” would work well with the Il2.

[@tomhutchins7495]

I could imagine the Lufberry circle working well too. It essentially creates an overshoot which is where the Il-2 benefits. Also, the psychology of a Luftwaffe pilot is interesting to speculate on: with the Il-2 being a tough plane might the attacker be tempted to pull in behind and get slow for the sake of a longer or better-aimed burst? We know many Luftwaffe pilots had a very low opinion of Soviet pilots who they felt flew with no initiative or aggressiveness, so they may have been caught out by the occasional Il-2 that fought back.

[@TheSpritz0]

ANOTHER very well researched and presented video!!!💯

[@DaveSCameron]

Brilliant work and I've often wondered about mix no match aircraft. #OurHistory

[@klegdixal3529]

in a somewhat similar fashion Pe-2 started out as a heavy fighter before being redesigned as a dive bomber. there were reported instances of those getting into dogfights with German fighters.

[@lapantony]

Wasn't it the other way around though ? I thought Pe-3 was based off of Pe-2

[@klegdixal3529]

@@lapantony Pe-3 was a variant of Pe-2 which was developed from a project called a VI-100. A high altitude fighter.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Wing-loading can indeed be a rabbit hole. But speed.....speed is initiative, initiative allows attack/disengage options. Climbing ability and diving rate are the other big ones. As a simmer, I'd take an Se5 over a Camel any day. Not so sure it's like that in an all-aspect missile environment, but before that.. speed first, climb/dive next and turn comes last. Mind you, that's just my opinion!

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

And I think very correct opinion.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Well thank you!@@vladimirpecherskiy1910

[@thomasbaker6563]

SE5 were the big rival to the camel, late war camels did a lot of ground attack, look up what air power did to an ottoman division post the battle of meigedo. Ver messy.

[@SoloRenegade]

the P-51 was actually DESIGNED to be a ground attack aircraft, that was then modified to become a high altitude long range escort.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

True.

[@gort8203]

Not true. The plane was designed to be a better fighter than the P-40 the British purchasing commission asked North America to build for them. When the Army got a look at the aircraft they wanted it, but at the time they were not allowed to spend money on another new fighter design. So they asked NA for a ground attack version with dive brakes because they were allowed to spend money on attack aircraft. The A-36 was a stopgap measure just to get production allocated to the Army, it is not what the plane was designed to be. Relatively few A-36s were built, and it was withdrawn from service before the end of the war.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@gort8203 British were using the P-40 for a ground attack and fighter. The P-51A was designed to have .50cal, or 4x 20mm, and bomb racks, and were fitted with dive brakes for the A-36 (a P-51A model). Its combat debut in Europe was with the RAF, and they sent a flight into Germany to attack bridges, airfields, etc. RAF used the early mustangs primarily for Ground attack and high speed low altitude Recon, including over Berlin, and they were operated in those roles for about 1yr prior to the Merlin being fitted to the XP-51B, and a full year prior to the P-47s combat debut. The British already had an air superiority fighter in the Spitfire. They rarely used the P-51 as an escort or fighter, and mostly for ground attack and recon. Yes, only a few hundred A-36 were built, but they were also the Best dive bombers of WW2. And the Only dive bomber the Allies allowed to perform Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs near Allied troops in contact because no others were as consistently accurate. And the A-36 was preferred by its pilots over the P-47. The P-51 could actually carry the SAME weight in bombs/rockets as the P-47 as a percentage of it's total weight. It's just that the P-51 was a Much smaller and lighter aircraft than the P-47, so it carried less total load. But keep in mind the only Real major difference between a P-51A/MkI/MkIa/MkII and the A-36 was the dive brakes.

[@gort8203]

@@SoloRenegade Doesn't matter what the P-40 was being used as. The P-40 was designed as a fighter, and Edgar Schmued and Dutch Knidelberger designed a fighter that would would outperform it. The airfoil section and radiator installation chosen were large contributors to that performance. It is absolutely hilarious to see people on KZbin claim the P-51 was originally designed as a ground attack aircraft, while the rest of KZbin world claims it was clearly unsuitable for that role due to its 'highly vulnerable' liquid cooling system. How ironic. In any case the history on this airplane is well known.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Gort is right, but the version of the 51, the A-36 was intended as an attack airplane, but the P-51 a "pursuit" or fighter.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

A fighter on the edge of stable flight would be better. Today's fighter planes are built for instability. This controlled by the Fly-by-wire system. Greg in case don't get to tell you. Thank you for your great channel. Be safe and God bless.

[@gort8203]

The actual purpose of relaxed static longitudinal stability is more misunderstood than wing loading is. Maybe Greg will debunk that as well.

[@fafner1]

The P-51 (and most other successful WWII fighters) was famous for not having excess stability.

[@gort8203]

@@fafner1The P-51 had reduced longitudinal stability only when the auxiliary fuselage tank was full, because that tank was not part of the original design.

[@skyprof9067]

That not an il2 "L", but probably kirilic letter "I"- И the capital i (stands for "istrebitel"-fighter) Great video, thnx

[@19Koty96]

Hi Greg, one note, it's Il-2I, with capital i suffix for istrebitel, meaning fighter cheers

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Fair enough! When reading Russian I am prone to making mistakes. They use a weird alphabet over there.

[@lamwen03]

Very nice.

[@gato2]

Guys guys look IT'S GREG!

[@xmeda]

Empty Stuka was quite good in dogfights. Just read notes of Hans Ulrich Rudel. But the difference like with IL-2 is in pilot training. These guys were not trained in advanced tactics of air combat and focused on bombing and strafing ground targets. So only few enthusiasts and experienced pilots were able to use all the plane abilities in air to air combat after they drop bombs.

[@mikepette4422]

Yes the Stuka was occasionally lucky enough or the pilots skilled enough ( late war Stuka Pilots were all very experienced ) I believe the Great Stuka pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel shot down either 9 or 15 planes in his stuka and his rear gunners had some good kill numbers too. But what he didn't do was shootdown over 50 planes which I read somewhere. If other people recall seeing this please let me know. Now it's possible he did have some air to air success as he flew FW-190F models ( thats the ground attack version) late in the war. But I hope people stop spreading the lie he shot down 50 planes in his Stuka.

[@jackd1582]

He also flew 190's??

[@rodneypayne4827]

​@@jackd1582yes,Jabo groups were converting to the 190F right up to the end of the war.

[@rodneypayne4827]

There is quite a few F and G 190 aces according to the Fw190 aces reference book that I have.

[@josephstabile9154]

Don't think Rudel claimed 50 aerial victories, but, late war, he also had a FW-190 D-9 at his disposal. Without bombs (or 3,7cm cannons), Stuka with its full-span "flaperons" could be surprisingly nimble, and could catch out an unsuspecting opponent. Fighters could have a difficult time staying with the Stuka in a dive, because the Stuka could maintain a constant speed.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day Greg, Yay Team ! Yikes - you missed one...; in the category of "Trainers Used As Fighters'... I'm thinking of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation's Wirraway. Built in Melbourne, after Wackett took a North AmeriKan Texan & while N.A. were turning their idea into the Harvard..., Wackett produced the Wirraway. The Pilot had a fixed Forward-firing 0.303" Browning in one Wing, Behind him facing backwards was a W.Op/AG. (Wireless Operator/Air Gunner) Brandishing a 0.303 inch Vickers K - Gun. (Looked like a WW-1 Aerial Lewis, but not so - firing at a much higher cyclic rate, with more capacious Drum Mag's). They even had underwing Bomb Racks. The RAAF had the unmitigated Gall to call them "Modern Monoplane Fighters, with enclosed Cockpits and retractable Undercarriages...!", And then Deploy them To Papua New Guinea in 1942, With instructions to Use them to locate and pursue And chastise The King's designated Enemies, Among the Imperial Japanese...! And, it is in fact recorded that One Wirraway Did actually Surprise and dive on, and Attack and hit, and Shoot down One Zero, Once..., While defending Port Moresby, Before the Curtis P-40 "Tomorrow-hawks" Arrived to put in their Showing. What they learned building Wirraways led them to take a DC-3 Engine and graft Wirraway Centre-Section/Undercarriage & Tailfeathers onto a new set of outer Wings & a Buffalo-esque stubby fat Barrel of a Fuselage - and have it flying about 90 dayze after the first sketch on the back of an envelope... And the resulting Boomerangs were also failures, as Fighters, but they did put in a lot of Ground Attack/Army Co-operation/Close-support. Trainers turned into Fighters, it's always had a very strong flavour of the Fantasist's Tale Hanging over it...(!). Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@cabletie69]

Aussie initiative!

[@itowmyhome797]

Thank you

[@GnaedigerJupp]

By 44 the Soviet’s stopped using forced labor and their aircraft factories were the worker's paradise everyone dreamed of, with cake and 2 months of paid vacation

[@ZealothPL]

Were you playing Enlisted? This is LITERALLY exactly what happens in Moscow campaign. The 109 will absolutely style on the IL2, as long as you have energy advantage and/or can use the higher effective top speed to avoid being caught. If you do not have altitude or speed advantage it gets rough. At slow speeds that thing turns like crazy. And it can comfortably keep maneuvering almost indefinitely, especially compared to the 109. And those two ShVAKs can shred almost anything you get to hit.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Nope, I have never heard of Enlisted.

[@ZealothPL]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesI'm mentioning it because that's what my experience was in that game - it's based on some intermediate version of an engine that powers War Thunder and Il2 Sturmovik game (as far as I understand) Obviously it's connection to reality is tenuous at best (simulation and extra gameplay constraints), but so far some of the lessons from manuals seemed to have worked for historical matchups. The Bf109 top speed and better energy retention is what kills you usually, it's a bit similar to what killed the biplane. Who cares how well you turn when any competent 109 pilot can just keep making passes on you, as long as they keep their energy

[@airplayn]

I always thought fighters should have controllable fuel dumps (especially like the P-51 fuselage tank) so they could be prepared for both endurance as well as the possibility of lightening the load for effective air to air combat. The pilot could also spray some extra ammo when testing the guns to also lighten that load and ensure gun operation. BTW Your videos are my most anticipated.

[@allangibson8494]

That’s why drop tanks exist. The P-51 wasn’t optimised as an interceptor - it was optimised as a bomber escort (for which range is critical). The weakness of the Me109 was it was optimised as an interceptor but used as a bomber escort - which meant that a significant number were lost due to simply running out of fuel. A fighter without fuel is simply another way to get a kill. Spitfires were another example - dozens were lost in combat with the Mitsubishi A6M Zero (simply because they ran out of fuel chasing the extremely long ranged Zeroes).

[@martijn9568]

The issue is that fuel dumping takes quite a bit of time. Time that's just not there during air combat.

[@cerdon4076]

Nitpick but at 4:00 you use weight/power but call it power/weight which was slightly confusing.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Good catch, but as long as you know what I mean I think it's ok.

[@paullubliner6221]

Excellent as usual Greg. ---Please consider doing one of your in-depth technical appraisals of Lindbergh's throttle and spark settings upon range. But not only on the Pacific Theater's P-38's, also how about a "what if" with my own favorite: the P-47 in the ETO, and what having done that might have meant in the spring of 1943 and later (...bomber mafia aside). Weren't these variables covered in the P-47N manual? My Dad (20th AF) had a story on an N's rate of climb at Hickham in '45 I could share. Would you also please consider speculating a bit on Lindbergh himself and his having -not- advised the USAAF on potentially improved escort range, engine settings at that time on the early P-47's in the European theater? Or again, was it perhaps the "Bomber Mafia" somewhere in the mix? As far as I'm concerned, you are the only genuinely honest and truly in-depth aviation researcher n this venue on many aspects including those that are far too often overlooked (or avoided?) Such aspects as politics and personal or career biases with regard to fighter design(s) and their applications in service. Your evaluation of the P-47 range re: drop tanks for both Schweinfurt raids comes quickly to mind. Something I was to a degree aware of, but your excellent relating of the facts and the variables really had me quite loudly agreeing with you! Yesterday, I met up with a friend a ways up north in Chino, Ca. to watch a DH 98 fly and it was well worth the 2+ hour each way drive. He had a 3 hour trip each way (initially south). While there at the excellent Plane's Fame Museum and looking at the P-38 and the P-47G, I thought I'd ask you to look into what crossed my mind on those engine settings. Thank you. .

[@jiyushugi1085]

Some discussion of the very heavy bomb loads Lindbergh carried on the Corsair, also. The fuel consumption topic definitely needs the 'Greg Treatment'.

[@fafner1]

The short version of Lindbergh's work is max lean mixture, max ignition advance and minimum rpm's, still a recipe for good economy today.

[@paullubliner6221]

Are you serious; "rpm'S"? --How about simply using "rev's" instead? We are speaking in accurate technical terms, in order to avoid confusion, right?

[@manilajohn0182]

Greg, I absolutely love your videos. They've always struck me as professionally done and voiced. This one is no exception. That said, I thought that I'd clarify one small point in this one- specifically regarding Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa. Vejtasa did indeed claim three Zeros during the battle of the Coral Sea while flying a Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber. It appears however, that Vejtasa's claims are "inaccurate". "First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway" (by John B. Lundstrom) references this combat. The author- who has a reputation for poring over after- action reports- states that the Japanese recorded no losses in that action. It surprised the hell out of me when I read it, and I'm not sure what to make of it- but there ya go. What do you think?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I don't know. Combat losses are extremely difficult to verify. What I do know is that Swede made it back in one piece.

[@jeffreymcfadden9403]

Stanley Vejtasa,,,,,,,,,,,The "J" is silent,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,pronounced Vetasa. Lived to be 98 years old too!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

They why put it there?

[@topmenace]

😂

[@mastathrash5609]

Being "swede" it'd be pronounced roughly : Vay-ta-sa . The j is usually pronounced kinda like y in english. I come here for the planes and their details though

[@Anacronian]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Same reason they put a W in sword, to fuck with you, To fuck with all of us... bastards!!

[@davidellis2021]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I ask the same about French. They don't pronounce the last letter of every word. Think how much smaller the books could be.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The thing with the SBD's was that the early air groups were more attack oriented - and didn't have enough fighters. Thus - their commanders had a choice - did they want to send Escorts with their attack - or - did they want to keep interceptors for the Combat Air Patrol. Since they had plenty of Dive Bombers - between the Scouting and Bombing Squadrons - they got the idea that they could use some of these Dive Bombers - on their Combat Air Patrol. The SBD did after all - have 2 .50 cal. machine guns in it's cowl that gave it a serious amount of fire power compared to Japanese Aircraft. The thing with this idea was that the nick name for the SBD - was that the letters stood for _"Slow But Deadly"_ ... It was just not a fast aircraft - and that meant - that attempts by the Combat Direction Center to Vector SBD's from the CAP toward enemy aircraft - were hurt by the SBD's inability to rapidly respond. The SBD's would often fail to intercept before the enemy aircraft had made their attacks. Of course - if it did engage the enemy and they had fighters - the SBDs were at a disadvantage. So - they started carrying more fighters. One other thing about the Luftwaffe from 1943 onwards was that the American 8th Air Force had begun to make serious attacks on German Cities and more and more of their Front Line Fighters were transferred to their Air Defense Network and away from the Front Lines. .

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The USN pilots were initially not specialised for one aircraft type.

[@XscrewdriverX]

Another great vid! I think that while Soviet planes may not generate the views immediately, the videos will have long lasting attention.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Following on from getting a bit confused by compound turbocharging...this is almost a break! _We'll see ;)_ Makes sense after Soviet pilot quality grew from 1943 on. A decent IL-2 pilot, hanging on until another decent IL-2/LAG joins in, would likely at least deter an inexperienced Luftwaffe pilot in his [patchy?] Me109. So all was not lost for the IL-2 boys, if they could slow the Me/FW down enough & not be alone, was my main takeaway.

[@mattewj1268]

Greg is the best

[@MrJunglebear1]

I hope you will see this , but i am wondering if you have any tutorials on the sea fury , and the family it was derived from

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Yes I do, I have a long video all about the Sea Fury.

[@MrJunglebear1]

Oh Thankyou , i am facisnated with WW2 aircraft, actually from the Model 299 to the F 14, I think that era had the most technological advancement in Aircraft and flight systems, especially from 38 to 45 some of the aircraft like the black window that made it into production and the Batwing fighter that made it to a flying prototype it was Douglass, Do you know anything about that plane , i would like to know if they had any performance specs and it's flight characteristics , curious to see how it might have done against any of the fighters that were out there at the time , Thank you for your help , And your lectures are fantastic @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

[@Halinspark]

Interesting. This is exactly how it works out when I fly IL-2 in War Thunder. Going after attackers is fine. Fighters, either I get lucky, or I delay them as long as possible and bleed their speed for my smart allies to pick them off. Also, I get shot down a lot.

[@Andy-P]

I remember ww2 air- air wargaming back in the early 80's and experienced player would pick IL2 as a 'fighter' aircraft when up against more inexperience players (me)

[@Enegene_History]

Finnish pilots reported that the IL-2's would try to fire on them with their front guns at every possible opportunity. Despite this (to my knowledge) only four Finnish planes were shot down by IL-2's and at least in one of those cases I know (read the report) the gunner of the IL-2 was responsible for shooting down the Finnish plane. This, considering the great amount of times that Finnish planes clashed with IL-2's would implicate that the IL-2 wasn't very effective as a fighter against the Finnish airforce fighters.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The Finns were generally very effective, as least on a per man or per unit basis.

[@alexandervapnyar3979]

IL-2 was horrible on maintaining the energy after a shallow dive. Which was the main battle tactic for the ground attacks used by the plane. IL-2 needed two turns to regain the initial altitude (usually about 500 m) in case the second attempt was needed. So, I guess, any vertical maneuver in a dog fight was out of the question.

[@billsmithjones756]

Is there a good definition or set of necessary/sufficient conditions that define “maneuverability”?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Yes, see John Boyd's book on "energy maneuverability".

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

Turn performance is great, if the other guy is all over your 6. Apart from that it's pretty at airshows.

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

I know next to nothing about Soviet aircraft, so this was fascinating. Another "bomber fighter" is the Royal Navy's Blackburn Skua. It was a solid dive bomber that was also used to defend British ships from enemy aircraft. Worked OK around Norway, but it was too slow to be effective in the Mediterranean and was replaced by the Fulmar.

[@thomasbaker6563]

They got the first air kill against a warship of the war, put bombs through the very thin armoured deck of a German light cruiser in Norway.

[@carlrichards5207]

Excellent.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

With a skilled pilot in a two seater I imagine the IL-2 could be a very difficult kill. It makes one wonder if the "Thach weave" would have baffled the German pilots as much as the Japanese. Cheers!

[@malcolmbruce1894]

Greg, can you carry out a similar analysis between the Me 262 and the P 51?

[@spazmodicusrex6629]

One thing I've noticed about almost every plane comparison video is that "horsepower-to-weight ratio" is always mentioned but, "thrust to weight ratio" (from the propeller) is never mentioned. I think that a good motor fitted with a bad propeller could be worse than an "acceptable" motor fitted with a good propeller.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

The prop does have a significant effect here, but I covered that in an entire series on props.

[@Sophocles13]

Omg new content! Yessss

[@john_smithchiropractor3931]

Greetings Greg!

[@jeremycraft8452]

The convention in Russia/Soviet Union is to say the manufacturer abbreviation as a word, not as initials. We already do this with Yaks, LaGGs, and MiGs. Sukhoi would be “Su,” like the name Sue. Ilyushin would be “Il,” like someone is ill.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Got to feel sorry for the pilots of JU52's. The plane was basically an antique. The JU252 looks interesting.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Would be interesting to see if the 109's armaments would be effective. The Dauntless was fairly agile when it wasn't carrying bombs

[@stilgar2007]

Already knew all this from hunting bombers in attack planes playing WarThunder.

[@robertkalinic335]

I am bit surprised that you didn't mention il2 coffin cockpit, I don't know if thats somehow not really problem but this is imo bigger penalty than lack of power versus fighters.

[@alphana7055]

Could you make a video on the Yak-3U?

[@michaelmcneil4168]

The British tended not to read comics back in the day, however there were less than serious article published during WW2 that were the equal to German manuals. I can't say I have read many of them but one of your videos made me think of the type. Sitting around at ready, was boring and light amusement at a premium with heavy rationing affecting paper. I dare say it will be next to impossible to find such stuff these days and I am sure the Russian Government or population would never have dared to let Stalin know what they were thinking in print.