Ilyushin’s Armoured Fighters; the Il-1/Il-2I

[@yes_head]

Interesting synchronicity given that the WWII in Real Time channel just released their first coverage of the Battle of Kursk (which happened this week in 1943). And anyone who's played the Il-2 flight sim knows the fun of using the Il-2 as a fighter: You just chop the throttle and let the big wing keep you in the air as the Germans on your tail overshoot you. You then put them in your sights and reduce them to scrap metal. 😁

[@alsanchez5038]

Life is so easy. Show me more!

[@somebloke3869]

Unless they shoot big holes in your wings or blow them off. Playing on the other side I found the only way to shoot an IL-2 down, even with cannons, was to aim for the wings.

[@simonlemerveilleuxdelisle3779]

Haha I did that to a 109 litterally tonight. I also love catching 111's landing when flying the Sturmovik. That 23mm does damage I tells ya.

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@somebloke3869 Experienced German pilots aimed for the oil cooler

[@guaporeturns9472]

So you are talking about a video game? Cool

[@mrjockt]

The Il-2 was originally built as a single seat attack aircraft, the rear gunner was added after the aircraft was found to be vulnerable to fighter attacks whilst carrying out its attack mission, some of the early single seat Il-2’s were modified in the field just through the expedient of cutting a hole for a gunner in the upper fuselage behind the pilot whilst the units were waiting for the redesigned two seat Il-2 to come from the factories.

[@old_guard2431]

Just what I was thinking: Deja vu all over again, in the words of one of our illustrious former presidents.

[@mpersad]

Another terrific video. Excellent details and use of vintage footage. Thanks Ed!

[@johnforsyth7987]

Thank you for a video on another plane that I did not know existed. I used to tell my students to try and learn something new each day of your life. Your channel has helped me achieve the goal on many occasions.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Glad to oblige. :)

[@bacarnal]

REALLY great photo of the plane at 8:22+ showing the use of standard US General Purpose bombs, possibly 500lb'rs (note the distinctive box fins). Great job!!!👍👍👍

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Well spotted! (Although the USSR would probably insist they were Soviet bombs and werry stronk!)

[@bacarnal]

@@Simon_Nonymous: Being a retired USMC EOD Tech, SOME things from NAVSCHOLEOD DID sink in past the alchohol/hangover haze😁😄😉

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@bacarnal glad to have an expert on board! Semper fi sir!

[@bacarnal]

@@Simon_Nonymous : You know what they say about experts 😄😉. And Semper Fi to you also, Sir!!

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

No komerade. Dey are Soviet FAB(ulously) Square Bombs!

[@cheekibreeki4638]

Was just looking at the IL-2I while playing IL-2 1946! Good timing and great vid.

[@dallesamllhals9161]

+1 for being an OLD-timer! ..'1946 on CD-ROM FTW :-D

[@Easy-Eight]

The "mess up" in the IL-2I was the wing, that is the majority of drag. BTW, the USAF did the same thing with the B-36 to B-60 bomber. They gave the jet eight J-57 jet engines and got a total increase of top speed of 72 MPH. The reason for the drag was a fat wing. The B-52 using the same engine set could fly at over 600 MPH, nearly 100 MPH than the B-60.

[@dylanmilne6683]

Wish there were more of these about. Crazy that so few are in museums or flying considering how prolific the aircraft was.

[@rodneypayne4827]

There is exactly 1 flying, made out parts of 3 different aircraft with new parts made as needed. The current warbird pilot has said that it needs to be handled like a twin engine bomber being nose heavy and not very responsive to control inputs for a single engine. Makes sense.

[@MrDdaland]

Not really surprising IMO. Remember most IL-2's were made with wooden wings and aft fuselage . Also , you have to look at the Red Air Forces belief that a aircraft with 500:flight hours (combat) was wore out Finally, it is my understanding the IL-2 was the only aircraft the Luftwaffe captured- and upon examination of it- banned even their test pilots to fly it

[@McRocket]

Thank you for this, Ed. I knew little/nothing of the Il-1 or Il-2. Nice looking aircraft, btw. ☮

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Interesting that as the IL-2 was originally a single seater, what a balls up to make the conversion from the two seater version back to a single seater a bit of a mess! EDIT - thank you to my learned friend below.... it was originally a two seater after all. But still a balls up :-)

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@k3D4rsi554maq well I didn't know that - thank you :-)

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@k3D4rsi554maq Without a gunner, you get twice as many pilots, komerade!

[@rodneypayne4827]

According to Il2 to 10 pilot in his autobiography, pilots preferred the single seater due to reduced weight behind the CG. The conversion to twin seater caused tail buffet until the culprit was found being the straight inner wing trailing edge and changed on the production line.

[@vaclav_fejt]

They were going back and forth in the prototype phase. One had better flight characteristics, while the other was defended...I think they were CKB-50 and CKB-55 or something...

[@trooperdgb9722]

Excellent episode. I had no idea of the development sequence of the IL-10. That filled a gap nicely!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Ed...👍

[@joshkamp7499]

To say that Ilyushin messed up is a bit harsh and mostly untrue. At such low top speeds in level flight, the frontal area and overall shape of the airplane contributes far more to the total drag number than the weight. Given that (essentially) the aerodynamics of the aircraft were unchanged, it's unsurprising that simply removing 15% of the weight would result in only a modest speed increase. It would've taken a completely different airframe designed at the lower weight to take advantage. That said, keep up the fantastic content!

[@themera8921]

Basically the IL-10 which manage to get 150kmh more by having a much more aerodynamic shape.

[@alex7x57]

The onscreen alternate units are a nice change. Keep that going forward.

[@ericbrammer2245]

No. The Initial IL-2's were Single Seaters, and quickly fell victim to Luftwaffe Bf-109's. They were pulled back, as Reserves. Then, re-introduced as Base Defense in the rear, as Yaks/P-39's/LaGG fighters took to 'the front'. It was truly a numbers-game of Attrition, with Soviet Soldiers being the Gambit-Buster.

[@oneshotme]

Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@geordiedog1749]

Great stuff Ed. War winning machines.

[@PaulieLDP]

Another great video.

[@tbwpiper189]

I'd like to have seen a match between a British Typhoon against an IL2I in a dogfight. Something tells me that the IL2I would have needed that belly full of armour.

[@Redhand1949]

Very interesting development history!

[@ProjectFlashlight612]

Superb clip

[@Chiller01]

Another informative episode.

[@lebien4554]

Would love to watch a video on it's lesser known successor the Il-10

[@SanderAnderon]

brilliant that defensive para-bomb, esp. that it reportedly worked well...any other aircraft with similar armament?

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

I'd imagine it wasn't so much a case of 'actually damaged' the fighter as much as it was scaring them off lol. "what the fuck was that? Did that tiny floating thing they dropped explode?! I'm not getting near that!"

[@craigpennington1251]

Over 36,000 made-where the hell are they? Looking great in the single seat form.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

I don't think they had a long service life same as the T34

[@steveshoemaker6347]

THANKS ED NASH....Shoe🇺🇸

[@Galvars]

As Soviets were fast with build them... Germans were even faster with shooting them down. Il-2 units did take the horrible losses, they had been slow and sluggish planes, easy to engage and shoot down, both by fighters and AA. More then 11.000 had been lost thru conflict, probably one of the highest production to loss ratio in combat planes in history.

[@JohnyG29]

I think the ME-109 takes the top spot on that list (with c.60% of those built shot down), but you're right that the IL-2 is way up there too.

[@unclenogbad1509]

To be fair, much of the high loss rate is also due to their intended role in low-altitude combat - which has to be the most dangerous place in any air war.

[@vanja2565]

Will there ever be a video on La-5? It has a very interesting story on how it came to be

[@McRocket]

In terms of historical aircraft, Ed seems to focus on rare and/or fugly planes. Which is fine with me. The La-5 was neither - they made almost 10,000 of them. Plus, the La-5 is covered in numerous, other KZbin videos. ☮

[@vanja2565]

@@McRocket I know but, but the way he makes these videos, it's just, Idk how to say it but it's nothing like the others

[@calvingreene90]

Sometimes truly being just as good is not good enough.

[@centurionmk.1365]

Can u do ki-61 and ki100 next?

[@babaganoush6106]

The IL1 looks like the offspring of a p39 and me309

[@poil8351]

so the il1 was built after the il2 makes sense i wonder when they built the il3?

[@sim.frischh9781]

"which stood for... i´m not even going to try and pronouce that" LOL Can´t blame you on that one. IL-2 has such a heritage, i wonder, are there any left today? Especially ones in airworthy condition? Me, i´m a big fan of the IL-20, i just LOVE the ugly ones.

[@jonathansteadman7935]

There's one not long been returned to airworthiness in Russia.

[@sim.frischh9781]

@@jonathansteadman7935 Given the sheer number constructed of the IL-2, only having one left is shocking. How many intact one are there? Not airworthy but still existing?

[@Galvars]

@@sim.frischh9781 Few, some in museums and some as monuments. Small number, more then 1/3 of production run was destroyed in combat, rest serve for some time and then start to be replaced by IL-10, scraped mostly after that.

[@sim.frischh9781]

@@Galvars So not much Engines to see-r, right? XD Thanks for the info though. Given that they didn´t get sold much outside communist nations which did not have the surplus wealth to preserve antiques, there being few left over at all is probably not a big surprise.

[@sim.frischh9781]

@@k3D4rsi554maq Did they dump them in there hoping they would grow?

[@andyb7900]

can you also use kph

[@TCK71]

Great plane, fly it on iL2 great battles, it’s excellent.

[@moss8448]

Spit-Stuka IL2 Flying Panzer ... no matter what an iconic plane of WWII

[@shawns0762]

Weight affects the acceleration rate, not the top speed

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Also, from attack plane it had emerged, into attack plane it shall return

[@comentedonakeyboard]

No IL-2 mini Van🤔

[@teodor9975]

Then why not remove the armour? How fast would it be?

[@Mr.T-SI]

Armor is actually structural part of the fuselage , so cant be removed in Il-2

[@teodor9975]

@@Mr.T-SI as far as im aware. not as much as to be believed. tho a part of the structure it still relies on the framework. just keep the framework and remove the armourplates.

[@Mr.T-SI]

@@teodor9975 There is no framework between the engine and till aft of the cockpit , nose below the engine and cockpit function as stressed structural members of the plane they are not attached to internal structure, the structure is attached to them . Google picts of restoration and salvage of IL2 . As for armor thickness, it must be understood that the fuselage presents a steeply sloped armor to most threats it encounters so can be relatively thinner that in ground vehicle, and armor alone still weighs 950kg in Il-2

[@MrDino1953]

Russian aircraft naming sequences were very confusing. IL-1 coming after IL-2, then jumping to IL-10?

[@johnjensen2217]

Agreed. I had to watch twice to make sure I didn’t miss something in the video. I thought there would have been an explanation for this odd naming sequence.

[@Rom3_29]

There probably were number of prototypes. Named 3,4,5. But Russians like propaganda and uneven numbering. (Apple skipped iPhone 9 and built iPhone X “marketing purposes”. Microsoft did the same for windows 10. Or something similar).

[@michaelkroger899]

experts fly below and under an il 2 and shoot in the oil..cooler..blue flames show hits and the il2 will go down

[@Rom3_29]

Finnish troops haited IL-2 as it was very hard to shoot down. Nicknamed flying combine. Ground attack aircraft and combine harvester are similar Finnish words. Maataistelukone and maatalouskone. If I remember right.

[@jakkeledin4645]

Il2 and PE2 nearmost everytime shoot over that point what they wanted. Those doesn't destroy so much In Finland. Germans got bigger problem because they got more than 1 truck. 😅

[@RemusKingOfRome]

"Cementer"!!!

[@eze8970]

🙏

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Here's the easy pronunciation for y'all: "istre-bitel' bombar-dirovs-chikov" Thank me later

[@titus_livius]

IL-2I designation is a fighter bomber

[@godfree2canada]

juiced up in war thunder

[@jeffw1246]

I always wondered why there was no rear facing gun the pilot controlled mounted about where the tail wheel was in any aircraft. Would be a deterrent to staying on their tail trying to get lined up for a shot. All tracers as well. A single 30 cal might have saved some pilots and planes.

[@Wasko1312]

whispering death...

[@lmyrski8385]

The IL-2 is a plane of many myths. The air mines were effective mostly in the imagination of Soviet fliers who managed to survive an attack on their formation with their lives. Mostly, they were not effective. Notice that the Luftwaffe made no attempts to copy the system. Also, the IL-2's air to air successes are grossly overstated as part of russian propaganda. Yes, they could take down an HS-126 which was not much better than a piper cub or a Westland Lysander, but they rarely encountered HS-126s, despite soviet propaganda fictions, and it was rare that the IL-2 operated far enough behind German lines to encounter a Ju-52 that was unescorted, although during resupply runs to Stalingrad it may have happened, albeit rarely. The IL-2 wasn't even a very good tank killer, despite the hype. It was rather inaccurate and not very maneuverable (an opinion shared by both the Germans and Finns). It's main success was in destroying trucks and unarmored halftracks, the former were often unable to leave the roads.

[@trooperdgb9722]

Destroying trucks is probably more useful than destroying tanks...

[@johnstirling6597]

The Ukrainians could have made good use of a few hundred IL 2s in their recent campaign, given the Russians poor showing they could have performed quite well in the ground attack role! 😁😁

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

Now now, play nicely :-)

[@JostVanWair]

Even with how bloody awful the Russians are doing you must remember that the il-2 is a slow, sluggish and lightly armed aircraft. A MANPADS or Tunguska would easily shoot it down...

[@johnstirling6597]

@@JostVanWair gotta give the ruskis an even chance!

[@WildBillCox13]

Истребитель = Ees-TRYEB-ee-tyel, more or less. The "E" is pronounced "Yeh" and the "I" is pronounced "ee" as in "Feel". Any native Russian Speakers feel free to weigh in.

[@keithallver2450]

There was an armored fighter that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It's called the P-47 Thunderbolt.

[@salty4496]

:)

[@janwitts2688]

Made with metal supplied by the usa .. The near total reliance on western high quality materials would have made any clearing out of ussr from Europe in 1945 46 a relatively simple matter..

[@mbryson2899]

Wouldn't the A-bomb have been simpler? Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, et cetera could have all been annihilated. Then London, Paris, Oslo, Berne, et cetera. The U.S.A. could have owned it all, right?)

[@Chilly_Billy]

Sshhhh... the Soviets won the war single-handed without any aid* from the U.S.A. or the British Commonwealth. Everyone knows it, Comrade Stalin said so! * locomotives, railroad flat cars, airplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, tractors, tires, ammunition, explosives, high grade fuel and lubricating oil, radios, field phones, field telephone wire, food, medicine, boots, cotton... none of that stuff... by the millions of tons... none of it.

[@mbryson2899]

@@Chilly_Billy Didn't the U.S. do the exact same for Britain? Just askin'.

[@Chilly_Billy]

@@mbryson2899, they did and what is your point? The Commonwealth has never acted like the aid wasn't critical, unlike the Soviets to this day.

[@jmi5969]

This (metal supplied by the US) would be the case in 1943-1945. But at the time of introduction of the IL-2 the Union was so starved of metal that it had to incorporate lots of wood in the fuselage and empennage - adding much weight and eating up payload capacity. It was a compromised emergency design that nevertheless persisted through the war.