Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik, Weapons

[@Paladin1873]

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.

[@Triple_J.1]

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]

That's usually what I do to weld a gas tank, smaller tanks like from motorcycle's I've filled with water.

[@Slaktrax]

The Russkies are good at inventing neat ideas. I was very interested in the video Greg did on the unique throttle body which the Germans copied.

[@marcusott2973]

​@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.

[@Paladin1873]

@@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. 😞

[@UncleJoeLITE]

It's 0001 Saturday here. Evening all from 🇦🇺

[@davekrab3363]

🦀🇦🇺✌️

[@guaporeturns9472]

It’s 800 am Friday here.. US

[@youthgroupjetboat2027]

Just got to work on Friday here lol

[@faatihh1130]

Aye evening to my southern neighbor

[@briankay4713]

5.30pm Friday in Manchester UK …just settling down to my first pint and more amazing information from Greg…

[@thegenericguy8309]

You ever consider a Pe-2/3 video? Fascinating and seriously underappreciated aircraft

[@mitchelloates9406]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's certainly in harmony with everything I have seen, and it makes sense.

[@robbinsteel]

Brown said the ones he tested seemed like they all had 90 hours of engine on them.

[@joevanseeters2873]

Not surprising. That's sort of how the Russian philosophy was at that point in time. Although now days, it's amazing that many of the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's era Soviet airplanes built by Ilyushin are still flying high in the sky's after many many years of flying all around the world. Ilyushin cargo planes are legendary and highly sought after around the world due to their ability to land on unimproved otherwise inaccessible runways and their ability to carry very heavy and large loads which other aircraft cannot handle. During WWII they probably figured the pilot and aircraft wouldn't survive over 100 hours anyway, so it was just as easy to give 500 pilots a crappy aircraft in the hopes that 250 of the 500 would break through the defenses and effectively engage the target they were given the mission to destroy. Watch Sam Chui's channel where he rides on three Soviet era Ilyushin aircraft. It's pretty interesting.

[@docnele]

"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.

[@michaelkinville177]

Struck by a Scvak, what a way to go...

[@sildurmank]

Same as for Shkas BTW

[@thisherehandleIdospout]

Shvak that... 🤭

[@obic123]

@@thisherehandleIdospout IL-2 : 1946 people had quite the pronunciation for those things XD CHHHH VAK !

[@PresidentSkroob12345]

"Let's move on to bombs." A phrase I never thought I'd hear on KZbin.

[@beastboy0078]

Hi Greg. long time lurker here. thank you for all your well done videos

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I appreciate you making a comment.

[@asadunbar3324]

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.

[@rayjfroehlich84]

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.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Okay Greg. You've convinced me. Where can a guy pick up one of these Sturmoviks? 🐿

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

lol, if only...

[@paintnamer6403]

I have the 1/72 scale Airfix kit that keeps me satisfied.

[@vgramatski]

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!

[@cdgncgn]

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.

[@vgramatski]

@@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!

[@Korol1989]

I'd also add that in Soviet/Russian airplane names, the letters are not pronounced one by one. It's not "Ai-el," it's "il" (almost like the word eel, but with a shorter "i" instead of "ee"). Likewise, Tu would literally be "Tu" and not "Te-Yu." This is because most design bureaus had names derived from their directors' last names. "Tu" is from Tupolev, "La" is from Lavochkin, "Il" is from Ilyushin, "Pe" is from Petlyakov. We don't write "TU," or "IL," or "PE," because it's not really two "equal" letters. It's just Tu/polev, or Pe/tlyakov. And it is much easier to say this way. Addition: saw this elsewhere. "Tu" is as "too" or "two," "Su" is as "soo," "Mi" is as "me," etc.

[@scotty6346]

I'm a Brit and the IL-2 Sturmovik is my favorite WW2 aircraft, I just love it's looks!

[@briankay4713]

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 …

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Oh, thanks :)

[@hw97karbine]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

You are correct.

[@bruceday6799]

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.

[@davidtuttle7556]

I’m a simple man. I see a post from Greg, I put on the coffee and press play.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks David.

[@davidtuttle7556]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Plus the Sturmie is my favorite ugly bird.

[@Taliyon]

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.

[@KurttankT]

Keep it coming, all piston powered stuff is excellent .

[@atempestrages5059]

Really enjoying these videos on the Sturmovik.

[@cheekibreeki4638]

Thank you Greg! Its nice to see Soviet aviation get some love. What Soviet plane would you most want to fly? Civilian or military.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I-16, but only in nice weather. Also, I love the Mig 19 and I fly it in the DCS simulator. Oh, and the MIg 25, I would like to fly that one.

[@daszieher]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesthe MiG-19 is a true sports car!

[@jr0815_aka_gulredrel]

​​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So there's the answer, which planes will be covered next 😅 Thanks Greg for your effort. Enjoying every episode.

[@sergioleone3583]

@@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.

[@hart-of-gold]

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).

[@garyhooper1820]

Great video Greg ! More Soviet planes . The unbiased reviews are outstanding .

[@vertik7]

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).

[@wojciechkoska3515]

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.

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for another informative video, not least of which was the chilling glimpse into the psychosis of senior Soviet command.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

You da man Greg. Keep up the great work man.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wow sadwings, thank so much. I can't wait to tell my wife about this.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It is but a pittance but I pay _something_ to those that provide things I use and enjoy.

[@unclejessiesrodshop8432]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@k9killer221]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@k9killer221]

Slow speed, short range and poor manoeverability does the Stuka few favours. Probably OK in 1936, not very good in 1943. @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles

[@alexandervapnyar3979]

@@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.

[@VRichardsn]

@@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

[@juliushummer1069]

You Da Man! Always enjoy your material and presentation.

[@Slaktrax]

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. 🙂

[@andreperrault5393]

Great topic introducing things about the IL-2 I did not know

[@arjunarabindranath]

Thanks for your work again. My region does not play well with Patreon hence the semi regular Super Thanks.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you very much, I do really appreciate your support.

[@rosstisbury1626]

Excellent thank you . . Luv this aircraft

[@jiyushugi1085]

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.

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

Now there is a valuable perspective. Why don’t you tell me how she felt treated as nemka in daily life?

[@jiyushugi1085]

@@Ag3nt0fCha0s Do a search for her name, there's a lot of info about her out there.....

[@cdgncgn]

@@Ag3nt0fCha0s in canada they worship 98 old SS in parliament.

[@rbhkg3]

Love your stuff Greg! How about a B24 & B17 comparison video? I can't find anything super technical especially on the B24 on KZbin.

[@Legitpenguins99]

Hell yeah, me neither

[@alexhubble]

10:03 yes! Fun fact: Vasili Blokhin, the chief executioner, used a pistol in .25 ACP. Actually he brought a briefcase full. Busy, busy, busy, Polish officers won't shoot themselves

[@jackray1337]

Thank you.

[@rayschoch5882]

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.

[@samsmith6791]

High quality content, as always. Thanks!

[@Wolfpack345]

Great video! Thanks for making these.

[@gordonwallin2368]

Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada

[@Rubberweasel]

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.

[@joevanseeters2873]

In the hands of a skilled pilot, this aircraft was a hellfire of a machine that could rain down the wrath of the devil himself upon ground targets including tanks, which it was originally designed primarily to do being the Russian "Tank buster" machine, and an effective one at that. It later carried 192 little bomblets, packed in high explosive shape charges, under each wing which would be released at low altitude over tanks, troop concentrations, vehicles in convoy's, and other ground targets. This was the first use of a "cluster bomb" on a military aircraft. These bomblets were very effective in destroying or at least disabling tanks rendering them useless on the battlefield. German tanks had relatively weak armour on top of their tanks as they put most of the armour on the turret and lower sections surrounding the tank. In the battle of Kursk alone, the IL2's were able to knock out over 270 tanks and 2,000+ troops in a matter of two hours. When the Soviet pilots received their brand new IL2 Sturmoviks in the field, there was little direction on what role this aircraft would play in the air battles ahead. The early aircraft were shot down in greater numbers due to the inexperience the pilots had. Initially the only official training given to pilots was how to start up, take off, and land the aircraft. No gunnery training was given and no advanced tactics training either. The pilots gained all of their experience OJT (on the job training) style. As the Soviet pilots gained more and more experience using the IL2's in battle, it was clearly evident that the aircraft excelled in the area of ground assault. It was the most heavily armoured aircraft in history up to that point. It was able to sustain a lot of damage and still fly home. The main danger was German high explosive armour piercing rounds fired from the German aircraft cannons. The pilot was very well protected against any incoming fire and often would be hearing the "pings", "clangs", and other sounds of the incoming rounds as they hit the aircraft in flight. Being the most produced aircraft in history, it's strange that more of these aren't in the commemorative air forces and warbird enthusiast communities around the world. I believe less than five of these are in actual airworthy condition. The National Aviation Museum at the Smithsonian just completed or are they are nearing completion of a fully restored IL2 Sturmovik which will be put on display. They also have one of the only fully restored German HE219 "UHU"' Night Fighters in existence (which was one of the most advanced night fighters of WWII and one of only two (the other being the American P-61 Black Widow) that was designed and used specifically as a night fighter aircraft, having all of the advanced radar equipment of that time period. The Sturmovik was part of the reason the Russian's were able to repulse the German's and eventually push them out of Russian territory and back to what was left of Germany.

[@kerrymarshall2071]

Thanks Greg fantastic as usual

[@ivankagren2746]

Great video.

[@barlasalagoz159]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@stug41]

What do you think that twin engine plane is i the background at 5:25? I cannot tell if is has big scoops under the engines, or if those are just panels for the gear, or if it has a glazed nose or just a tarp draped over the front.

[@daszieher]

That also sparked my curiosity

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

It's a Tupelov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_SB

[@stug41]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ah, that makes perfect sense, thanks!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Thanks Greg. .

[@valvlad3176]

15:34 23mm shell weight is twice as much as of 20mm.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

and with velocity and rate of fire about the same as a good 20mm, those 23s hit hard!

[@valvlad3176]

@@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?

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles velocity actually also higher.

[@valvlad3176]

@@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.

[@helensisikoff]

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.

[@evanwickstrom5698]

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?

[@philbosworth3789]

Great video, glad I caught my first one live. Think KZbin membership ought to be an option

[@drudgenemo7030]

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

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's a fair point.

[@stug41]

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.

[@fafner1]

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

[@Lemard77]

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.

[@Godvana_]

@@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.

[@admiralqualityspretendingtofly]

Great stuff as always, Greg! Thanks again!

[@5anjuro]

"The final fitting was done by filing down the parts". My Soviet childhood says hello 😂

[@chrischiampo7647]

Thanks Greg Another Fact Filled Episode of Awesomeness😀😊😊😊😀

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Greg

[@bethelscrubs2549]

Another excellent video Greg.

[@garynew9637]

Il 2 with skis looks fantastic.

[@watsisbuttndo829]

It does have that look of bad intent dosen't it.

[@stevepirie8130]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

A lot of parts can interchange on a US weapon, not all. It's very different on some of the Soviet stuff.

[@stevepirie8130]

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.

[@MrDhalli6500]

What do you know about the German OV-10 Bronco but with an added single jet engine on the center rear of the cockpit, but still had it's two turbo fans in the wing pylons, They used it to tow targets.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's a bit off topic, I don't know much about it.

[@BBC42618]

3:19 Dude looks like a 1970s TV show badguy😅 The truth is the amount of political infighting and mistrust in the Soviet political system was actually worse than the freaking Nazi's. RIP Kojak looking baddie.

[@paulfrantizek102]

​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.

[@thomasbaker6563]

Didn't the sheka have terrible reliability

[@ИгорьДьяченко-з1я]

​@@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.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

@@ИгорьДьяченко-з1я Well, Shekas also required special ammunition.

[@kenneth9874]

Higher standards....​@@ИгорьДьяченко-з1я

[@Conorsev]

Exitedddd. I love the il2 vidoes

[@SamTaylors]

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

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

For comparative purposes the Typhoon is really in another league, same with the 47 and Tempest.

[@rring44]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@JakobM16]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesI personally think that would be a fair and interesting comparison, especially doctrine differences.

[@khairulhelmihashim2510]

simplify training. a fighter-bomber pilot need to master both dogfighting skill as well as ground attack.

[@rring44]

@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?

[@alexandervapnyar1030]

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.

[@scernefhaal]

About mistrust question of Ilyshin and 23mm cannon: I believe that authors of the book by “produce a reliable trouble-free cannon” meant specifically to design one. What would be happening on the factories was an afterthought. But that doesn’t mean that weapon design bureau is free of charge. Because the gun can have many problems that are because of design issues, not manufacturing. For example (I have no idea if any of these were present, but just of the top of my head naming some that come to mind): short barrel life, jamming due to breech design not the ammo feeding circuit, overheating barrels, misfiring or uneven recoil loads, different muzzle velocities associated with that, low accuracy. Yes, not every one of these factors can be considered a reliability issue. A gun can fire all of its life inaccurately just fine, but I certainly wouldn’t say the weapon is trouble-free. And it could very well be not only the manufacturing issue, but a design one as well, which is meant here in the book, as I think. And also - with that I am not trying to argue or even accept what is said about the reasoning behind that decision - I actually love the 23 quite a lot. I’m just clarifying some translation based misunderstandings as I see them I think I got it correctly, being a Russian speaker myself and seeing where the translation got it edgy

[@scernefhaal]

I know i am just in time, but heh - better late then never

[@itowmyhome797]

Thank you

[@celewign]

What a cool plane.

[@19Koty96]

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.

[@ottovangogh9477]

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]

I don't feel that would do well. This entire IL-2 series has been a bit of a flop. Very few views for the amount of work.

[@cocodog85]

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.

[@SUPRAMIKE18]

Better have faith in the opening and locking mechanism to ride in a bomb bay lol

[@cocodog85]

@@SUPRAMIKE18 and the liaison officer better be well liked by the pilot.

[@SUPRAMIKE18]

@@cocodog85 lol I wonder if Stalin ever got rid of someone like that.

[@cocodog85]

@@SUPRAMIKE18 sort of like fragging in the nam.

[@themadinspector]

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.

[@terryvanicelli267]

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.

[@thiemokellner1893]

Many thanks. Was not the Hawker Typhoon (and Tempest) used in a similar role as the IL-2? At least as the FW 190, it was designed as fighter but then relegated to fighter-bomber, as far as I know.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

They ended up in a similar role, as did the P-47, but they are all very different from the IL-2. Now we could compare the effectiveness of them, and maybe I will in the last video in this series, but we can't compare performance, payload etc.

[@SoloRenegade]

1:15 Stalin also threw away lives with that philosophy in mind as well.

[@unclejessiesrodshop8432]

correct, I was thinking the same thing

[@comentedonakeyboard]

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.

[@bruceparr1678]

Fascinating stuff. I was surprised to find out that the IL2 is the second most produced aircraft of all time, after the Cessna 172.

[@nathanielstanford3115]

I had read previously that the Shkas was a well made piece of machinery, and that the soft metal and poor tolerance issues characterized the Berezin gun that replaced it in some applications. The document at 16:40 seems to support this.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well, USSR was pretty poor country at a time. With a very limited technology abilities. And quality problems was really common on in manufacturing anything. Shkas just been in production much longer at a time so manufacturing process was much better figured out.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

"well made" is pretty subjective. The Soviet guns were well made in the sense that they did the job, but not in terms of precision machining you usually see with firearms.

[@terryboehler5752]

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

[@LuisLopez-zh9kh]

Good, quality content.

[@YuYuHakushoFan1]

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 KZbin. Thanks for all your work.

[@TheDesertFox810]

I think the fw 190 f8 is a great comparison Greg.

[@sashakarachun6423]

Douglas A-20 has good armament, was able to use bombs and rockets in ground attack role.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

It does. The A-20 is fairly under rated.

[@scottwalker8949]

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

[@kimjanek646]

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 🤔

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's going to be the last episode, much like what I did with the P-47 series.

[@kimjanek646]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesGreat 😊

[@zloychechen5150]

it played the role of ratatatata kaboom go the nazis.

[@garynew9637]

​@@zloychechen5150haha

[@kacpermatysik3859]

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]

You're welcome. I'm here to help. The Soviet invasions and war crimes in Poland and Finland are too often overlooked.

[@kacpermatysik3859]

@@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!!!

[@michaelschindlbeck1969]

Great vid Greg, but I have a small nitpick. I couldn’t help but notice you called modern Russian tanks “Soviet” at around 24:15 in reference to the Ukraine war and I didn’t see anyone else making this comment. Even if they are using T-72’s and T-80’s from the Soviet era, would they not simply be Russian now? A pointless distinction perhaps, but I’d love either confirmation or rebuttal.

[@daszieher]

He probably refers to when they were built.

[@juliushummer1069]

Good Job!

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

7:20 "ammo feed fixed in D models." It was improved but never fixed...: The P-51D by 1945 had 1000-1200 mean rounds between failures, P-47D was about 2400-3000 mrbf. I have at least fifty (50) P-51D Encounter Reports were the D model is down to 1 gun left firing on the inside of the turn. Top P-51 ace Preddy experienced the same thing at least once. It was considered routine when turn fighting. The failures came from centrifugal forces during turns, the root cause of which was never found. They even tried to put belt motors in the field, but either that was uncommon, or it did not fully solve the issue.

[@fafner1]

I seem to remember in reading a biography of Edgar Schmued that he mounted the Brownings on their side to achieve a thinner wing. This resulted in the guns jamming under G-loads.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@fafner1 That was the B model. The guns were back to straight on the D. On the D the wing thickness was the same as the B, so it was never clear WHY they tilted them... One pilot described the rate of fire going down as he accentuated the turn... A potential cause might have been a sharper P-51 elevator response at high speed. Many WWII fighters turned better than the P-51 at low sustained speeds below 250 mph (FW-190A, if the pilot was not put off of having to push on the stick and keep ailerons deflected, Me-109G, if he knew to keep pulling when the slats went bang, Ki-84 in left turns), but most did not like to go above 5 Gs above 250 mph, while the P-51 could go 7(!)... High speed turning meant little in combat compared to low speed however... The P-51's dihedral was also noticeably flatter than on the P-47, while combining this with long narrow ammo belt boxes, which might have made them harder to pull compared with shorter, deeper ammo belt boxes like on the F4U of F6F. This would mean the flaw was fundamental to the basic design layout, and worsened by the extreme high speed turn performance (better even than Spitfire as tested by tha RAE: 450 yards 180 degree radius at 400 mph vs 625 yards 180 degree at 400 mph for the Spit Mk XIV (at 10 000 ft, the Spit being better only above 25 000 ft).

[@kacpermatysik3859]

great job!!!

[@oldiron2413]

Love the content Greg could you please raise the download volume? Is that possible

[@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer]

Excellent. 😃

[@chrisknoernschild5908]

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!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@keithplymale2374]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@RiteKnight]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles This man understands. We need more of thee

[@Poverty-Tier]

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.

[@bassplayersayer]

Great video!!! Really enjoy the WWII era military aircraft!!! Rock on Greg!!!

[@trimbalemrbale575]

is there "yacking of the yaks" in the near future? or mig 1 and 3?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

If, and this is a big IF I do more Soviet aircraft after this series, then the next one will be either the La5 series or the I-16.

[@danmontie6367]

Hey, Greg, have you thought of covering the An-2 biplane?

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I have, a lot depends on how well this series does in terms of future Soviet stuff on this channel.

[@danmontie6367]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles THANK YOU!!! I know it’s a biplane, and not technically advanced, but it really does have some good features, and had been used for a lot of really odd roles all over the world!

[@sergeireischel1610]

And about Taubin... man had a bad habit of not finishing projects he started MP-6 23-mm (23x152!) autocannon design was based on one of an earlier automatic grenade launcher. Thus it had a long recoil operation with fire rate of 300 rpm and was box-fed - both considered to be unsuitable for airctaft use. Later it was upgraded to 500 and later to 600 rpm at cost of big increase in recoil and decrease in reliability. Belt-fed variant was made even later. And in the eyes of military authorities who demanded this gun to be ready yesterday it shurely didn`t look good at all But Taubin felt suicidal enough to develop 12,7-mm machinegun and 37-mm autocannon in parallel with MP-6. And then try to make a towed AA variant of MP-6. And a tank-mounted one. And a portable light anti-tank one. While base MP-6 still was plagued with jamming, out of battery detonations and parts braking - and lighter, cheaper and more reliable alternatives start to appear! All and all Taubin was unable to make any of his designs to pass all trials and enter full scale production

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

and so they executed him. It's hard to determine if the MP-6 was a good design or not because it never went into production. However he did win the order of Lenin for the design, so it must have looked good at some point. A lot of people associated with the IL-2 seemed to meet with a bad ending.

[@sergeireischel1610]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles They did. And from modern morality point of view it seems to me as bad as it is for you But try to consider circumstances - all that shitshtorm wich ravaged Russia in 1937-41 was a symptom of it's desperate attempts to secure itself and be prepared for an upcoming world war as good as it could. At any cost. And we barely made it With little to no time left engineers were developing new frames, new engines and new armament in parallel - to combine it al in a new plane when all's complete. IF all's complete LaGG-3's prototype - LaGG-1 - was planned to have M-105TK or M-106 engine and MP-6 23-mm cannon. First production 3's ended up with M-105 and .50 UB machinegun. Failure of turbocharger, M-106 and MP-6 made plane's performance to drop a lot Taubin gave plane designers a wrong number for a recoil energy, wich actually was twice as high. Fire trials discovered cracks in LaGG's engine block appear after some shooting. It was a big failure in time when failure wasn't an option

[@RiteKnight]

@@sergeireischel1610 I mean if times were particularly desperate but if Taubin was one of a small group of people who understood these concepts, you'd put him in the gulag, you'd be able to draw on that ability - they were never low on bread and water. It's something to do with instilling fear and keeping very tight control on people, that's the bit I find irksome. Plenty of German generals, soldiers and engineers who fell out of favour due to shortcomings / errors but they usually ended up on 'garden leave', or in penal battalions / behind bars and could still be there to help when needed. The Commie way just seems particularly... cold. Hey just to be clear this isn't to do with Russia; Russians are ok.

[@SoloRenegade]

13:45 also, if the rounds are explosive and fragmentation, you just need to hit near enough to the target on soft targets and groups of infantry.

[@kimjanek646]

I’m not sure how effective that actually would be. Explosive cannon rounds from aircraft have very high velocity since they carry with them the velocity of the moving aircraft. The faster the shell the tighter the fragmentation pattern. A static 23mm will maybe send lethal fragments in a 3m radius around the shell, but one that hits the ground with 700m/s will probably have a radius of just 0.5m or less, because most fragments will just get directed into the ground.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@kimjanek646 It is VERY effective. your analysis and assumptions are all wrong. And you're ignoring all sorts of variables and realities. I suggest you search the internet from some video footage of AH-64 30mm gun camera combat footage, or AC-130 20mm gun camera combat footage, or M2 Bradley main gun footage, or 40mm BOFORs footage, and much much more. Tons of footage out there from 20mm to 40mm, air to air, air to ground, ground to ground, ground to air, etc.

[@kimjanek646]

@@SoloRenegade A 20mm or 23mm is obviously more effective than firing a machine gun at the ground but in the end of the day they are nothing compared to the effect of bombs or rockets vs. soft targets. That's all I'm saying. A WW2 plane firing it's cannons at ground targets will have more of a psychological effect compared to the damage by ordanace.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@kimjanek646 "but in the end of the day they are nothing compared to the effect of bombs or rockets vs. soft targets." really?! ya think?! next you're going to tell me the sky is blue, or that water is wet.... Do you know WHY a rocket or bomb is more effective than a 20mm or 23mm cannon shell? because it contains more explosives and shrapnel! Shocker! What a life-altering revelation! "A WW2 plane firing it's cannons at ground targets will have more of a psychological effect compared to the damage by ordanace." What makes you claim that? By the way, cannons ARE "ordnance". I disagree with this baseless assertion that cannon fire is more psychologically effective. You know why? I've spent years of my life in actual front line combat, and witnessed real air-to-ground strafing attacks by .50cal, 20mm, and 30mm cannons mounted on airplanes and helicopters, as well as rocket attacks. I have also had the rare opportunity to experience danger-close drop of nearly forty 500lb bombs (within 200-500yds of my position). You want to know what was the most Terrifying by FAR? Those bombs! The shrapnel raining down all around us, the ground shaking like a massive earthquake, the sheer power of those bombs.... Never been more scared in all my life. And that was friendly fire. the risk of getting killed by our own bombs was very high that night.

[@robertkalinic335]

​@@kimjanek646 Thats wrong, some of the shrapnel from the explosion would hit the ground because of extra velocity BUT the shrapnel that would miss you flying upward would be directed towards you also, meaning stationary or flying shell it doesn't matter. You get the same random pattern. You also say velocity of 700m/s and although i cant say for sure that you are wrong, from il2 bos experience i can say that aircraft cannon shells lose speed very quickly. The added speed from plane is relatively small compared to speed of fired shell itself, making comparison with stationary cannon irrelevant. The only problem that i can imagine is if the shells were exploding underground and only creating cone of fragments upwards, but as the other guy already said that doesn't seem to be problem as the footage from apache shows.

[@RaderizDorret]

Hey Greg. Got any plans to talk about the B-25 Mitchell? Outside of the Doolittle Raid, that workhorse gets almost no love despite all the heavy lifting it did at the theatre and tactical level.

[@donberry7657]

And they made a variant that was a ship killer loaded with guns including a 75mm!

[@RaderizDorret]

@@donberry7657Way too many workhorses don't get enough love. The Hurricane did most of the heavy lifting during the Battle of Britain, the Wildcat is what did the dirty brawling that won the Pacific War, the P-40 was the MVP of North Africa and the Med, and the P-39 was the MVP of the Eastern Front for air-to-air combat. These are the planes that kept us in the fight until the newer fighters came on line to pick up the spare, as it were. The B-25s, B-26s, A-20s, and so on mixed it up over the battlefields at crucial times when the heavies were punching through to hit factories and so on. It really was all hands on deck, but the Heavies and the "glamour" fighters like the Spitfire, P-51, and so on get all the glory. I'll even say the Vickers Wellington needs more love just because of how hard it was to kill and just how much it did during the war.