Around 1987 I attended a Soviet aviation design and acquisition course in the USAF. One of our guest speakers was Sergei Sikorsky. He discussed Soviet aircraft design philosophy from WWII to the present. He specifically mentioned German reaction to the difficulty in downing the IL-2 Sturmovik. The plane had a reputation for surviving repeated hits and not burning. Inspection of recovered samples revealed an armored underbelly and engine exhaust venting that piped cooled fumes into the fuel tanks to displace any air, thus depriving a potential fire of the oxygen needed to ignite a spark.
Here I thought that I invented that idea hahaha. Better/cheaper than nitrogen. Already determined the exhaust gas would need to be cooled first. Like an EGR...
@dukecraig2402 I saw a roadside mechanic in Mongolia brimming a fuel tank with fuel before welding it. Then, setting fire to the fuel, at the fuel filler neck, while proceeding to weld the damaged bottom corner of the fuel tank. Crazy but it worked.
@@marcusott2973 I agree it can work, but the risk he took was high. In the 1960s my Dad owned a small minibike manufacturing company. He once tried to do a quick weld repair on a customer's damaged machine without first purging the tank. The presence of oxygen led to fuel ignition and the loss of the bike. The owner got a new minibike out of the repair, so he was happy. Dad, not so much. 😞
Another great video, Greg! Several points: 1. Regarding pronounciation, acronyms in Slavic languages tend to be read as a word rather than as separate letters, where consonants have a vowel added. So, where in English you'd proncounce Bf 109 and Me 109 as "B F One-oh-Nine" and "M E One-oh-Nine", in Slavic (and Russian in particular) languages, those would be "BeEf One-Hundred-and-Nine" and "Me One-Hundred-and-Nine". SH (Ш) and YA (Я) correspond to letters in the Cyrillic alphabet that are specific sounds - SH is pronunced as "sh" in the English "shell", while YA as "ya" in "yahoo". You do have the sounds, especially in American English, just not designated as separate letters in the Latin Alphabet, hence why I think people feel they are difficult to pronunce. So, taking que from the words above, SHVAK is pronounced as "sh-vac", VYa as "v-ya" and SHKAS as "sh-cas". PTAB would be pronounced as "pe-tab" rather than "Pe-Te-A-B", and so on. 2. Enough about the language part, good that you've mentioned the FW-190F! The F/G series were the workhorses of the Luftwaffe in the East, I believe much more so than in the West (where the A-series Sturmbock for bomber intercepts was far more widely used and known). They were good ground assault (F) / fighter-bomber (G) machines and, while not quite cutting edge anymore, capable and were used in a pure fighter role. I would be interested to hear about there usage (I can provide you with a great trivia piece of information how one FW-190F-8 from SG-10 was lost due to a infrantryman sniper with a 20mm anti-tank Soluthurn gun with a single shot). Looking forward to the last video on combat usage with great interest!
German/latin writing fits Russian much more, ch instead of fake Kh. Who invented kh deserves a slap. By transliterating into English, using kh ya instead of ja, Russian is much harder to get into for anybody starting from English. Me- not mi, stodeväť(deveť) Petab would still be pronounced as petap.
@@cdgncgn There is no "kh" letter. Whoever invented that when transliterating deserves a slap. And I strongly, vehemently disagree on Latin being suitable for Slavic languages. Poles use Latin and makes written Polish atrocious, whereas it is far more functional written in Cyryllic (which, no, is not "the Russian alphabet"). Learning Cyryllic if your native language is Germanic or Romanic is a breeze, just like it is for us to learn Latin alphabet. It's just that people are either too lazy or increadibly self-centered and obnoxious. Anyway, this was meant to help Greg for his vedos and we're going quite off-topic, so I'm not going into a debate here. Cheers!
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.
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 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.
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.
I recall reading that the Soviets were very disappointed with the ROF on the 30 Brownings that came with their A20 Bostons, swapped them over for their Shekas.
@@thomasbaker6563Quite the opposite. It did, however, run on a higher pressure 7.62×54R variant, manufactured to higher standards. Using "normal" ammunition would lead to significant increase in malfunctions.
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.
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
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).
3:30 The problem with Taubin's cannon was simple. He was arrested in May 1941 for the reason, that this MP-6 cannon, aswell as many other weapons from his OKB were not quite ready, but he was "selling" them as A-OK weapons. He was shot in Oktober 1941. Thats why Iljushin did not use Taubin's cannon - it was not good to use something from "peoples enemy" and it was to raw anyway.
So we’re just ignoring the fact that his successor took the prototypes in the exact state they were in when Taubin finished them and sold them to Soviet command as his own brand new design, where they were immediately accepted? And that subsequent iterative designs from said stolen Taubin guns are still in use today?
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
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. 🙂
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.
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
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
Greg, I m from Poland and I have to say that it is very nice that you mentioned about Polish officers killed in Katyń, thank you!!! It is good that you speak about russian war crimes, becouse this knowledge is not so common on west than nazi crimes, once again Thank you very much!!!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles and I must say I read a lot of historian books and magazines, but I cannot find in them even 10% technical info that you present in your films, great job Greg!!!
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
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.).
WW2 era 23mm VYa cannon of Il-2 has long roots. Still today used all over world and made in vast quantities ZU 23mm twin barreled AA-guns use same ammo. VYa thou need brass cases to function, ZU-23 uses steel cases.
Sort of, maybe the 129 because although it's a twin engine, they have relatively low power. The Beaufighter is in another league though, that's more like an A-20.
@@FirstDagger True, however the Typhoon most certainly was adapted quite quickly to the strike role and definitely employed as such - all improvements were made with that purpose in mind (RP-3, bomb carriers).
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 UA-cam. Thanks for all your work.
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.
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.
Looking forward to this one! Another potential reason why Talbin was executed is because of having the misfortune of having the wrong name in Soviet Union…Jakov if you catch my drift…
I became aware of that after I made the video. I simply didn't make the connection until someone in live chat pointed it out during the video's premier.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg, I was just providing more historical context for the viewers on here. Considering how much development was impacted by Stalin’s regime, it’s actually impressive they were able to come up with the wartime tech that they did have.
Dear Friend, in Russia we dont call it "Sturmovik", just Il-2. Sturmovik means "Assault plane" and Su-25 or Su-7 is "Sturmovik" too. I think this word in english speaking countries "gives roots" to Il-2 bu the old game "Il-2 sturmovik"
comparative aircraft with weapons loadout for ground attack -in the west for comparable operations at least for RAF Westland Wirlwind 4 x 20 mm HS cannon plus bombs. Hurricane Mk IIC again 4 x 20 mm HS Canons plus bombs and later 8 x 3 inch RPs , or in Mk IVC 2 x 40 mm Vickers S cannon plus 303 Brownings to assist aiming. Mk IVC without 40 mm but same loadout as Mk II. Typhoon 4 x 20 mm HS cannon as standard with bombs (bomb-phoon) or 8 x 3 inch RP, sometimes for short range operations 16 x 3 inch RP -same for Hawker Tempest, Whilwind Typhoon and Tempest used superior speed in place of armour, Hurricane less so but still probably out performed IL-2.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Ilushin, Yakovlev and Mikoyan were the only aircraft designers that were not arrested (guess why?), the rest had to enjoy the most creative days of their careers in NKVD prison. Some of them shared Taubin's fate.
Imagine how the SU would have gone without Stalin & his henchmen executing people of talent for petty silly reasons. They even executed the designer of the T34 tank engine. An alloy quad OHC multivalve V12 Diesel, still used today in much updated form in the T90
I know everyone knows this. But Stalin invaded Poland at the same time as Hitler (close enough, it was part of the same operation anyway - does anyone wonder why the Poles hate the Russkis so much?). Anyway - We gave the Muscovites a pass because they ended up our ally vs the Nazis but given the imperialist supremacism those choads are still showing I think we need to make clear that the war in Europe started when Stalin and Hitler decided to eat up Poland between them. It was always a toss up as to who was going to break that alliance first. If Hitler hadn’t gone into Russia, they would have happily stayed ‘neutral’ or maybe joined in just as Hitler was about to take London (as they did later with Japan) if Hitler was winning but if he wasn’t, Stalin would have ploughed in right at the end. And this is the arsehole they are trying to rehabilitate!
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.
@@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.
I wonder if Iluyshin just would have rather had the ShVAK rather than the mp-6. I'd imagine that aircraft engineers don't like armament in general, being so inelegant compared to everything else, and the lighter easier weapon would have been preferred to him while still being far more effective than rifle caliber.
Taubin was the kind of engineer who has a brilliant mind for conceptualizing innovations but not developing them. For a more detailed understanding of what I'm writing about here you can look for photos and a schematic of the first ever automatic grenade launcher of his design. Was it a brilliant idea ahead of its time? Yes. Was it a weapon that an army could use in battle? Absolutely not. Taubin personally committed to Joseph Stalin to develop an automatic cannon, the image of which was shown in the video. This gun was aimed to be the primary weapon for combat for all soviet airplanes. What later became the ShVAK, basically. And he failed. Given his fate (he was shot), it's easy to pin "another stupid crime" on Stalin. But as with most Soviet designers and engineers who suffered in one way or another from the Soviet regime, from Korolev and Tupolev to one of the Mitin brothers, it's not all that simple: During the attempt to interest the People's Commissariat of Arms in his automatic grenade launcher in 1937, he repeatedly wrote letters to the NKVD insisting on the fact of sabotage against his invention. Demanding that those responsible be found and punished. In the end, a brilliant mind, a big mouth, and personal dishonesty got him where he ended up.
Well, ShVAK had been created by Shpagin - same man as created Shkas, it was already existed at a time and that completely different line, nothing common to Taubin's gun
@@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!
Those cannons look pretty minimalistic. Light weight, without proper design will result in high recoil. If it looks like a duck etc. I see no reason to question Ilyushin's statement. If anything Ilyushin himself was probably the one constantly fighting Communist politics, in order to do his job.
Taubin bit off more than he could chew. He simultaneously ran several of the most complicated weapon projects, while not having neither resources nor experience to do so. Moreover, he lied to higher-ups about the pace of his work. As a result, when his weapon prototypes were checked by state at the deadline, they were found to be not sufficient and lacking described characteristics and quality. Then in soviet union people were shot for less, so he was pretty much screwed. Still, his work was not in vain, as some of his designs were later finished by other weapon designers, even if it was in secrecy from the higher ups until presented. Even decades later, when developers of soviet automatic grenade launcher used some of his experience.
I think the FW190 is a fair IL-2 comparison for the reasons you mentioned. Even Hans Rudel flew the FW190 in ground attack configuration. He also had 9 air victories, but I'm not sure how many of those were scored in the FW190, if any.
@@whtalt92 You mean like the P-47? What about the F4U? Or the Typhoon/Tempest? Hawker Hurricane? P-40? P-39? Yak-9? Mosquito? What about the FW190, EXACTLY, makes it unsuitable for a comparison? The FW190 was particularly well armored. It's aluminum skin was actually armor, and could even stop .50cal at shallow angles and extended ranges. The annular ring radiator was armored, making it one of the best protected fighters of WW2 in terms of its engine. Far less vulnerable than the IL-2. It was fast. It was not optimized for high altitude fighting like the P-47 or P-51, so performed well at low altitude. It carried a wide variety of armament including Medium MGs, Heavy MGs, Cannons, Rockets, Bombs, etc. It could dogfight and self escort. Due to its exponential control geometry in the flight controls for the elevator specifically, it was a Very stable gun platform, enabling pilots to make very fine and precise targeting adjustments. Almost no other fighters or ground attack aircraft of WW2 had this feature. It is a single engine, single seat, monoplane design used specifically for ground attack on the Eastern Front, same as the IL-2. It also suffered lower casualties than the IL-2, with nearly 11,000 IL-2 being shot down.
@@whtalt92 wrong. Additional armor was added to the F8, but the A series default airframe skin used a duraluminum, which provided effective armor to the whole airplane. It didn't make it invincible by any means, but was far better than other aircraft. You still haven't stated why the FW190 is not a suitable comparison though, nor addressed the P-47, Typhoon, and others I mentioned.
@@SoloRenegade dural in and of itself is not armour. It needs a certain thickness to be effective as armour, which is a weight penalty that one tends to minimise when building aircraft.
In War Thunder, the IL-2 on the German tech tree (I know yet another German main) is my favorite GRB ground attacker, it really holds its own against fighters too as long as you get the drop on them, if they come for you first however, you better run and pray someone helps you.
A 37 mm cannon they mounted to later aircraft did do considerable recoil to cause enough recoil that only the first shot was ever aimed and the rest were random as the aircraft moved - i don't know whether it was in your videos. However its likely that reason was a diplomatic excuse to shun Talvin and there may be many reasons for it. By the late 1930s, the USSR was running history's biggest, most successful and most famous counter-intelligence operation to identify enemy spies and collaborators that was called the 'Operation Trust'. He may have been implicated in this operation or thought to be suspicious. Hence causing Ilyushing to shun him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust
Worst soviet commander, that's against some very stiff competition! In Soviet union and later Russia it almost never paid to be very good at anything, mediocrity and incompetence are the standard.
Perhaps the Typhoon is something close to the IL-2. A lot more hp, but massive, ugly, and effective ground attack. A lot heavier than the IL2, but perhaps similar power to weight ratio. Much faster. But... just as ugly.
The Kulik story highlights a useful way to look at Stalin's regime: we often regard him as a politician or even statesman. He was in effect a gangster: his 'mean streets of Chicago' was his period as a hunted revolutionary and in the Russian/Soviet Civil War. As such, his core of cronies were the men with him in this period. Many were awful in their ineptitude: Timoshenko, Voroshilov, but he kept them around as their loytalty was assurred. But all others who came into his orbit over time were disposable. While Stalinism and Communism are not inseparable, it is an error to make the very common mistake of seeing every communist/socilaist regime as Stalinist. Russia as it is today has derived from the capitalist democracy of the 1990s. Do we do the same mental filtering?
I'm quite familiar with the "it wasn't real communism" argument. If this was a political channel and I wanted to spend time on that I would, but it's not and I don't.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles a pleasure to hear from you! I believe "banter" is acceptable in the States as it is here in Australia. Your content is top class.
"Shvak" is pronounced as "shmuck" with "v" instead of "m" ;) VYA 23mm round was a notch more powerful then contemporary 20mm-range ammo, but not as much as round dimensions would suggest (23x152mm). After the war, it was modified, made more powerful and in various forms of AP/HE, best known for use in cannons in ZSU-23-4 Shilka and ZU-23-2 AAA.
Excellent channel my man. Watched all your videos. Wish i could repay ya somehow. As a long time auto mechanic, infantry veteran, biker, and armchair historian, the information and detail on your channel really has explained these old ww2 planes to me in a way no other person has. My great granddad was an officer in the army air corps and flew a p38 in the pacific. I always thought these old machines were really the pinnacle of pure mechanical technology, no computers, limited electronics, immensely powerful and complex. Pure gold. Thanks for your service to the community.
You could always pledge a dollar too his patreon , a single dollar goes a long way to say thank you , much more then just the words alone do. I tip my uber driver or waiter more then that n i get much more value from people like greg and thier videos! Its just a dollar think about it. But then again if ur like me they add up if you have quite a few favorite channels ghat you love and watch all the time. Even tho im poor its still worth it tho.
Watched an interview with Eric Winkle Brown the other night. He said that the "throwaway" concept of the 100 hour service life also applied to Soviet aircraft engines. He had the chance to fly several different Soviet aircraft for a couple months at the end of WWII, before relations with them started going south. He said he was told directly by Soviet personnel of the 100 hour engine service life, their philosophy being why waste time producing an engine that would last upwards of several hundred or 1000 or more hours, when it was far more likely that the aircraft it was in would be lost, for one reason or another, long before the engine wore out. And according to Captain Brown, those engines definitely sounded like they'd been built to only last 100 hours, enough to make him wonder at times if they would last the duration of his test flight.
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.
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 …
Yes the 129 was twin engineed, but wasn't the combined HP about the same as the IL-2 or 190? I would consider the 129 a closer comparison to the IL-2 due to both being dedicated to the task, as opposed of an adaptation of a fighter. My $.02 Take it for what you paid for it. Good content as always
Yes, I too think the 129 is a fair comparison to the il2. It is very similar in size, also had interesting protection, power, a bit lesser in ordinance, and certainly similar in use. While the gnome-rhones were not protected like the engine on the il2 was, as air cooled engines, they didnt need the big rads, and they were sufficiently redundant to get the pilot all the way to the crash site! I hope greg does include both the 129 and 190f in future comparisons to the il2 though, as they both had the ground attack role, and 190s replaced 9/10 stukas. While the 190 couldnt so effectively knock out tanks, the more useful role for all ground attack was to destroy the logistical support and accompanying infantry, for which the 190 was more than suited.
Years ago I visited a backyard WWII airplane museum in Wisconsin. By some feat they had aquired the cockpit of an Hs-129. It was most impressive in that all the cockpit glass was a couple of inches thick. @@stug41
Combined HP of Hs 129 is similar to IL-2 only in take off power though, (700 HP per engine) and still coming a bit behind the AM-38's 1600 HP rated take off power. When using this power regime Hs 129 pilot needed to disable the RPM governor and run the engines with manual pitch control to increase RPM. Combat power regime with automatic RPM governor which would be more commonly used over the frontlines was only 580 HP per engine, compared to AM-38's 1500 HP nominal continuous power.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles You could consider a comparison the Ju 87 D-5 which had its usual MG 17s replaced with MG 151/20 to better suit its new role as a ground attack aircraft rather than a dive bomber. I believe it also had various other improvements to increase its effectiveness in this role.
20 mm SHVAK (it's very easy to say, just how it's written, don't say "shaavyak") guns had 250 rounds each (this was the fastest IL-2 version, only made in 1941, because of lighter guns), 23 mm guns had 150 rounds each (most common version), 37 mm guns had 50 rounds each. IL-10 in 1944 was of course better, with better engine and 300 rounds per 23mm gun with 12.7 mm in the back (Two seat IL-2 also had 12.7 mm gun in the back from 1942), and in 1951 IL-10M had four NS-23 guns with 150 rounds per gun and 20 mm gun in the back (IL-10M was a little bit slower than IL-10 of 1944, but still faster than any IL-2).
Greg, I noticed with the last few videos that you seem to be keeping them around 30 minutes and more consistent in their release. If that is intentional then it is a good call from my perspective. I appreciate anything you put out and always learn something, thank you.
The rate of videos coming out has a lot to do with the fact that I'm on reserve at my airline and not flying a lot this month, which is good for video production. The longer videos will return but probably after I finish this IL-2 series. I want to get this one done.
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.
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.
I don't think I would compare the 190F8 as the German equivalent to the IL-2. The 190 is just a fighter that has some upgrades to make it a better fighter bomber. I think the countries just used different planes for the role of close air support. The Soviets didn't really have a fighter bomber, they had fighters and ground attackers. A better question would be is a fighter bomber better or worse than having only fighters and ground attackers.
That's a fair point. One thing that would be interesting is the IL-10 vs. Skyraider. What do you think of that, those two are equivalents and mostly post war aircraft.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I don't know much about those two aircraft, so it is hard for me to say. What do you think was the best fighter bomber of the war, Tiffy, Jug or 190?
It's not only a question of effectiveness but also of capabilities. Was Soviet Union capable of mass producing modern and effective fighter-bombers in 1942-44? After moving most of its aricraft factories to the East? Il-2s could be buit by poorly qualified and starving teenagers, using simple tools and machines. Would they be able to produce somethng like Typhoons or FW-190 A8? I doubt it.
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.
Okay Greg. You've convinced me.
Where can a guy pick up one of these Sturmoviks? 🐿
lol, if only...
I have the 1/72 scale Airfix kit that keeps me satisfied.
Around 1987 I attended a Soviet aviation design and acquisition course in the USAF. One of our guest speakers was Sergei Sikorsky. He discussed Soviet aircraft design philosophy from WWII to the present. He specifically mentioned German reaction to the difficulty in downing the IL-2 Sturmovik. The plane had a reputation for surviving repeated hits and not burning. Inspection of recovered samples revealed an armored underbelly and engine exhaust venting that piped cooled fumes into the fuel tanks to displace any air, thus depriving a potential fire of the oxygen needed to ignite a spark.
Here I thought that I invented that idea hahaha. Better/cheaper than nitrogen. Already determined the exhaust gas would need to be cooled first. Like an EGR...
That's usually what I do to weld a gas tank, smaller tanks like from motorcycle's I've filled with water.
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.
@dukecraig2402
I saw a roadside mechanic in Mongolia brimming a fuel tank with fuel before welding it.
Then, setting fire to the fuel, at the fuel filler neck, while proceeding to weld the damaged bottom corner of the fuel tank.
Crazy but it worked.
@@marcusott2973 I agree it can work, but the risk he took was high. In the 1960s my Dad owned a small minibike manufacturing company. He once tried to do a quick weld repair on a customer's damaged machine without first purging the tank. The presence of oxygen led to fuel ignition and the loss of the bike. The owner got a new minibike out of the repair, so he was happy. Dad, not so much. 😞
Another great video, Greg! Several points:
1. Regarding pronounciation, acronyms in Slavic languages tend to be read as a word rather than as separate letters, where consonants have a vowel added. So, where in English you'd proncounce Bf 109 and Me 109 as "B F One-oh-Nine" and "M E One-oh-Nine", in Slavic (and Russian in particular) languages, those would be "BeEf One-Hundred-and-Nine" and "Me One-Hundred-and-Nine".
SH (Ш) and YA (Я) correspond to letters in the Cyrillic alphabet that are specific sounds - SH is pronunced as "sh" in the English "shell", while YA as "ya" in "yahoo". You do have the sounds, especially in American English, just not designated as separate letters in the Latin Alphabet, hence why I think people feel they are difficult to pronunce. So, taking que from the words above, SHVAK is pronounced as "sh-vac", VYa as "v-ya" and SHKAS as "sh-cas". PTAB would be pronounced as "pe-tab" rather than "Pe-Te-A-B", and so on.
2. Enough about the language part, good that you've mentioned the FW-190F! The F/G series were the workhorses of the Luftwaffe in the East, I believe much more so than in the West (where the A-series Sturmbock for bomber intercepts was far more widely used and known). They were good ground assault (F) / fighter-bomber (G) machines and, while not quite cutting edge anymore, capable and were used in a pure fighter role. I would be interested to hear about there usage (I can provide you with a great trivia piece of information how one FW-190F-8 from SG-10 was lost due to a infrantryman sniper with a 20mm anti-tank Soluthurn gun with a single shot).
Looking forward to the last video on combat usage with great interest!
German/latin writing fits Russian much more, ch instead of fake Kh. Who invented kh deserves a slap. By transliterating into English, using kh ya instead of ja, Russian is much harder to get into for anybody starting from English. Me- not mi, stodeväť(deveť) Petab would still be pronounced as petap.
@@cdgncgn There is no "kh" letter. Whoever invented that when transliterating deserves a slap. And I strongly, vehemently disagree on Latin being suitable for Slavic languages. Poles use Latin and makes written Polish atrocious, whereas it is far more functional written in Cyryllic (which, no, is not "the Russian alphabet").
Learning Cyryllic if your native language is Germanic or Romanic is a breeze, just like it is for us to learn Latin alphabet. It's just that people are either too lazy or increadibly self-centered and obnoxious. Anyway, this was meant to help Greg for his vedos and we're going quite off-topic, so I'm not going into a debate here. Cheers!
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.
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.
You are correct.
Thank you Greg! Its nice to see Soviet aviation get some love. What Soviet plane would you most want to fly? Civilian or military.
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.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesthe MiG-19 is a true sports car!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So there's the answer, which planes will be covered next 😅
Thanks Greg for your effort. Enjoying every episode.
@@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.
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.
Really enjoying these videos on the Sturmovik.
I'm a Brit and the IL-2 Sturmovik is my favorite WW2 aircraft, I just love it's looks!
I’m a simple man. I see a post from Greg, I put on the coffee and press play.
Thanks David.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Plus the Sturmie is my favorite ugly bird.
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.
Didn't the sheka have terrible reliability
@@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.
@@ИгорьДьяченко-з1я Well, Shekas also required special ammunition.
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.
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
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).
Great video, glad I caught my first one live. Think UA-cam membership ought to be an option
"The final fitting was done by filing down the parts". My Soviet childhood says hello 😂
Thanks Greg Another Fact Filled Episode of Awesomeness😀😊😊😊😀
3:30 The problem with Taubin's cannon was simple. He was arrested in May 1941 for the reason, that this MP-6 cannon, aswell as many other weapons from his OKB were not quite ready, but he was "selling" them as A-OK weapons.
He was shot in Oktober 1941.
Thats why Iljushin did not use Taubin's cannon - it was not good to use something from "peoples enemy" and it was to raw anyway.
So we’re just ignoring the fact that his successor took the prototypes in the exact state they were in when Taubin finished them and sold them to Soviet command as his own brand new design, where they were immediately accepted? And that subsequent iterative designs from said stolen Taubin guns are still in use today?
Thank you.
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
I know i am just in time, but heh - better late then never
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. 🙂
Also in 1939 the USSR invaded Poland after Germany, in accordance with their secret pact with the Nazis.
Frankly saying, USSR did not invade Poland as it is. Polish government escaped, and USSR entered deserted Polish land.
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada
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.
Better have faith in the opening and locking mechanism to ride in a bomb bay lol
@@SUPRAMIKE18 and the liaison officer better be well liked by the pilot.
@@cocodog85 lol I wonder if Stalin ever got rid of someone like that.
@@SUPRAMIKE18 sort of like fragging in the nam.
Douglas A-20 has good armament, was able to use bombs and rockets in ground attack role.
It does. The A-20 is fairly under rated.
Great video.
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
Exitedddd. I love the il2 vidoes
Thanks Greg fantastic as usual
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
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!!!
You're welcome. I'm here to help. The Soviet invasions and war crimes in Poland and Finland are too often overlooked.
@@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!!!
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
For comparative purposes the Typhoon is really in another league, same with the 47 and Tempest.
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.).
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.
WW2 era 23mm VYa cannon of Il-2 has long roots. Still today used all over world and made in vast quantities ZU 23mm twin barreled AA-guns use same ammo. VYa thou need brass cases to function, ZU-23 uses steel cases.
You da man Greg. Keep up the great work man.
Wow sadwings, thank so much. I can't wait to tell my wife about this.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It is but a pittance but I pay _something_ to those that provide things I use and enjoy.
IL2 also carried poison gas bomblets , I remember it from the Flight sim Game
Hs 129 is pretty much an equivalent. For the Allies I would argue the Beaufighter is.
Sort of, maybe the 129 because although it's a twin engine, they have relatively low power. The Beaufighter is in another league though, that's more like an A-20.
Hs-129 Was worse
Allied equivalents would be closer too: Hawker hurricane Mk.2c/d Mk.4, Typhoon, P-47
@@firefox3187 ; All of those are fighter pushed into the attacker role, totally different from the IL-2.
@@FirstDagger True, however the Typhoon most certainly was adapted quite quickly to the strike role and definitely employed as such - all improvements were made with that purpose in mind (RP-3, bomb carriers).
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 UA-cam. Thanks for all your work.
Soviet design & manufacturing based on the premise that factory personnel were eminently expendable.
What a cool plane.
1:15 Stalin also threw away lives with that philosophy in mind as well.
correct, I was thinking the same thing
I think the fw 190 f8 is a great comparison Greg.
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.
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.
That also sparked my curiosity
It's a Tupelov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_SB
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ah, that makes perfect sense, thanks!
Looking forward to this one! Another potential reason why Talbin was executed is because of having the misfortune of having the wrong name in Soviet Union…Jakov if you catch my drift…
I became aware of that after I made the video. I simply didn't make the connection until someone in live chat pointed it out during the video's premier.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg, I was just providing more historical context for the viewers on here. Considering how much development was impacted by Stalin’s regime, it’s actually impressive they were able to come up with the wartime tech that they did have.
I don't get it. What's wrong with the name Yakov? One of Stalin's best friends was the guy named Yakov Sverdlov.
@@Admin-gm3lcit’s a Jewish name. They were persecuted in the USSR since about 1936
@@mattkucharek4683 No, that's a russian name. A lot of jews from eastern europe either have german, polish and russian names and family names.
Another aircraft at least somewhat comparable I think is the Henschel 123. Not nearly as well armored but well regarded for its CAS capabilities.
Dear Friend, in Russia we dont call it "Sturmovik", just Il-2. Sturmovik means "Assault plane" and Su-25 or Su-7 is "Sturmovik" too. I think this word in english speaking countries "gives roots" to Il-2 bu the old game "Il-2 sturmovik"
Thanks buddy. I'll get around to finishing this series up pretty soon.
Was the IL2 the first plane to be called Sturmovik?
Serious question.
comparative aircraft with weapons loadout for ground attack -in the west for comparable operations at least for RAF Westland Wirlwind 4 x 20 mm HS cannon plus bombs. Hurricane Mk IIC again 4 x 20 mm HS Canons plus bombs and later 8 x 3 inch RPs , or in Mk IVC 2 x 40 mm Vickers S cannon plus 303 Brownings to assist aiming. Mk IVC without 40 mm but same loadout as Mk II. Typhoon 4 x 20 mm HS cannon as standard with bombs (bomb-phoon) or 8 x 3 inch RP, sometimes for short range operations 16 x 3 inch RP -same for Hawker Tempest, Whilwind Typhoon and Tempest used superior speed in place of armour, Hurricane less so but still probably out performed IL-2.
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.
У Олега Растренина на Тактик Медиа прекрасная серия про ИЛ-2
I agree... I think. 🐿
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.
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.
"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.
Ilushin, Yakovlev and Mikoyan were the only aircraft designers that were not arrested (guess why?), the rest had to enjoy the most creative days of their careers in NKVD prison. Some of them shared Taubin's fate.
Something like a 57mm Molins Gun may have affected flight by its recoil. It was tried.
Imagine how the SU would have gone without Stalin & his henchmen executing people of talent for petty silly reasons. They even executed the designer of the T34 tank engine. An alloy quad OHC multivalve V12 Diesel, still used today in much updated form in the T90
The Soviet propensity to reward failure with execution was not the incentive the leadership thought it would be. 😏
I agree, I think it's a big part of the reason they fell behind.
I think a better comparison to the il-2 would be the hawker hurricane mark4 which adapt to CAS
Hmm, you may be onto something there.
Excellent. 😃
TakeOff,Shoot Target, Return, Re-Arm, TakeOff, Shoot Target, Return, Re-Arm, TakeOff, Shoot Target, Return, Re-Arm, TakeOff
I know everyone knows this. But Stalin invaded Poland at the same time as Hitler (close enough, it was part of the same operation anyway - does anyone wonder why the Poles hate the Russkis so much?). Anyway - We gave the Muscovites a pass because they ended up our ally vs the Nazis but given the imperialist supremacism those choads are still showing I think we need to make clear that the war in Europe started when Stalin and Hitler decided to eat up Poland between them.
It was always a toss up as to who was going to break that alliance first. If Hitler hadn’t gone into Russia, they would have happily stayed ‘neutral’ or maybe joined in just as Hitler was about to take London (as they did later with Japan) if Hitler was winning but if he wasn’t, Stalin would have ploughed in right at the end.
And this is the arsehole they are trying to rehabilitate!
Greg, you ever real Solzhenitsyn? The Gulag Archipelago? Cheers.
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.
And they made a variant that was a ship killer loaded with guns including a 75mm!
@@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.
I wonder if Iluyshin just would have rather had the ShVAK rather than the mp-6. I'd imagine that aircraft engineers don't like armament in general, being so inelegant compared to everything else, and the lighter easier weapon would have been preferred to him while still being far more effective than rifle caliber.
01:33 Sat here.
Taubin was the kind of engineer who has a brilliant mind for conceptualizing innovations but not developing them. For a more detailed understanding of what I'm writing about here you can look for photos and a schematic of the first ever automatic grenade launcher of his design. Was it a brilliant idea ahead of its time? Yes. Was it a weapon that an army could use in battle? Absolutely not.
Taubin personally committed to Joseph Stalin to develop an automatic cannon, the image of which was shown in the video. This gun was aimed to be the primary weapon for combat for all soviet airplanes. What later became the ShVAK, basically. And he failed.
Given his fate (he was shot), it's easy to pin "another stupid crime" on Stalin. But as with most Soviet designers and engineers who suffered in one way or another from the Soviet regime, from Korolev and Tupolev to one of the Mitin brothers, it's not all that simple:
During the attempt to interest the People's Commissariat of Arms in his automatic grenade launcher in 1937, he repeatedly wrote letters to the NKVD insisting on the fact of sabotage against his invention. Demanding that those responsible be found and punished. In the end, a brilliant mind, a big mouth, and personal dishonesty got him where he ended up.
Well, ShVAK had been created by Shpagin - same man as created Shkas, it was already existed at a time and that completely different line, nothing common to Taubin's gun
Hey, Greg, have you thought of covering the An-2 biplane?
I have, a lot depends on how well this series does in terms of future Soviet stuff on this channel.
@@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!
I would also advocate that Quality has a Quantity of its own …
True, a plane with a 80:1 kill ratio has its own type of quantity.
well done
Those cannons look pretty minimalistic. Light weight, without proper design will result in high recoil. If it looks like a duck etc. I see no reason to question Ilyushin's statement. If anything Ilyushin himself was probably the one constantly fighting Communist politics, in order to do his job.
Taubin bit off more than he could chew. He simultaneously ran several of the most complicated weapon projects, while not having neither resources nor experience to do so. Moreover, he lied to higher-ups about the pace of his work. As a result, when his weapon prototypes were checked by state at the deadline, they were found to be not sufficient and lacking described characteristics and quality. Then in soviet union people were shot for less, so he was pretty much screwed. Still, his work was not in vain, as some of his designs were later finished by other weapon designers, even if it was in secrecy from the higher ups until presented. Even decades later, when developers of soviet automatic grenade launcher used some of his experience.
Il2 rear gunner, not the best job I’d say😬
Totally expendable.
Better to have a rear gunner and not need it then to need it and not have it.. 🐿
@@Knuck_Knucksnot if you’re the rear gunner. I’d say it’s definitely always better to not have a rear gunner if you are the rear gunner 😂
If Star Fleet flew Il2's, they would give the gunner a red shirt.
@@fafner1 😂
I think the FW190 is a fair IL-2 comparison for the reasons you mentioned. Even Hans Rudel flew the FW190 in ground attack configuration. He also had 9 air victories, but I'm not sure how many of those were scored in the FW190, if any.
Fw-190 is a JaBo - a fighter that's been adapted to a ground-attack role.
Not quite such a fair match compared to a dedicated ground-attack design.
@@whtalt92 You mean like the P-47? What about the F4U? Or the Typhoon/Tempest? Hawker Hurricane? P-40? P-39? Yak-9? Mosquito?
What about the FW190, EXACTLY, makes it unsuitable for a comparison?
The FW190 was particularly well armored. It's aluminum skin was actually armor, and could even stop .50cal at shallow angles and extended ranges. The annular ring radiator was armored, making it one of the best protected fighters of WW2 in terms of its engine. Far less vulnerable than the IL-2. It was fast. It was not optimized for high altitude fighting like the P-47 or P-51, so performed well at low altitude. It carried a wide variety of armament including Medium MGs, Heavy MGs, Cannons, Rockets, Bombs, etc. It could dogfight and self escort. Due to its exponential control geometry in the flight controls for the elevator specifically, it was a Very stable gun platform, enabling pilots to make very fine and precise targeting adjustments. Almost no other fighters or ground attack aircraft of WW2 had this feature.
It is a single engine, single seat, monoplane design used specifically for ground attack on the Eastern Front, same as the IL-2. It also suffered lower casualties than the IL-2, with nearly 11,000 IL-2 being shot down.
@@SoloRenegade That armour was ADDED for the F8 model actually. The A series did not have it.
@@whtalt92 wrong. Additional armor was added to the F8, but the A series default airframe skin used a duraluminum, which provided effective armor to the whole airplane. It didn't make it invincible by any means, but was far better than other aircraft.
You still haven't stated why the FW190 is not a suitable comparison though, nor addressed the P-47, Typhoon, and others I mentioned.
@@SoloRenegade dural in and of itself is not armour.
It needs a certain thickness to be effective as armour, which is a weight penalty that one tends to minimise when building aircraft.
OMG
In War Thunder, the IL-2 on the German tech tree (I know yet another German main) is my favorite GRB ground attacker, it really holds its own against fighters too as long as you get the drop on them, if they come for you first however, you better run and pray someone helps you.
I'm glad you like that way that the developer modeled this aircraft. HOWEVER there is NO connection between the video game and reality.
Don't let redditors shame you for playing the most fun nation.
6:31 was it a political remark?
Not that I'm conscious of.
Russian guns shoot heavy loads, they are world beaters in terms if weight of fire.
Seems like the political issue was the most likely issue, and keeping distance from that mess.
A 37 mm cannon they mounted to later aircraft did do considerable recoil to cause enough recoil that only the first shot was ever aimed and the rest were random as the aircraft moved - i don't know whether it was in your videos.
However its likely that reason was a diplomatic excuse to shun Talvin and there may be many reasons for it. By the late 1930s, the USSR was running history's biggest, most successful and most famous counter-intelligence operation to identify enemy spies and collaborators that was called the 'Operation Trust'. He may have been implicated in this operation or thought to be suspicious. Hence causing Ilyushing to shun him.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust
Worst soviet commander, that's against some very stiff competition! In Soviet union and later Russia it almost never paid to be very good at anything, mediocrity and incompetence are the standard.
use both the fw and hs as comparisons i'd say, hs is twin engine yes, but with shit engines
BAngin. More blood than your average plane. Way more blood. See they had a tactic where they circled in a pack and took turns to dive
That's a fairly standard ground attack profile.
Perhaps the Typhoon is something close to the IL-2. A lot more hp, but massive, ugly, and effective ground attack. A lot heavier than the IL2, but perhaps similar power to weight ratio. Much faster. But... just as ugly.
I think the Typhoon is a good looking plane, the Tempest even better.
@@unclejessiesrodshop8432 Its all relative. Compared to the F6F or F4F, I agree the Typhoon is very pretty! ;)
More like ruggedly handsome than pretty...@@demetridar506
What I got out of this video is Communists and the Red Queen have a lot in common... 🐿
The Kulik story highlights a useful way to look at Stalin's regime: we often regard him as a politician or even statesman. He was in effect a gangster: his 'mean streets of Chicago' was his period as a hunted revolutionary and in the Russian/Soviet Civil War. As such, his core of cronies were the men with him in this period. Many were awful in their ineptitude: Timoshenko, Voroshilov, but he kept them around as their loytalty was assurred. But all others who came into his orbit over time were disposable.
While Stalinism and Communism are not inseparable, it is an error to make the very common mistake of seeing every communist/socilaist regime as Stalinist. Russia as it is today has derived from the capitalist democracy of the 1990s. Do we do the same mental filtering?
I'm quite familiar with the "it wasn't real communism" argument. If this was a political channel and I wanted to spend time on that I would, but it's not and I don't.
get on with it!
YES! GET ON WITH IT!
Wow! That's too bold for me with Greg! You pulled it off guys. 😅
The start time has a lot to do with when youtube approves the video for monetization. Otherwise I don't get paid for the first few hours of views.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles a pleasure to hear from you! I believe "banter" is acceptable in the States as it is here in Australia. Your content is top class.
"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.
Struck by a Scvak, what a way to go...
Same as for Shkas BTW
Shvak that...
🤭
@@thisherehandleIdospout IL-2 : 1946 people had quite the pronunciation for those things XD
CHHHH VAK !
You ever consider a Pe-2/3 video? Fascinating and seriously underappreciated aircraft
It's 0001 Saturday here. Evening all from 🇦🇺
🦀🇦🇺✌️
It’s 800 am Friday here.. US
Just got to work on Friday here lol
Aye evening to my southern neighbor
5.30pm Friday in Manchester UK …just settling down to my first pint and more amazing information from Greg…
Excellent channel my man. Watched all your videos. Wish i could repay ya somehow. As a long time auto mechanic, infantry veteran, biker, and armchair historian, the information and detail on your channel really has explained these old ww2 planes to me in a way no other person has. My great granddad was an officer in the army air corps and flew a p38 in the pacific. I always thought these old machines were really the pinnacle of pure mechanical technology, no computers, limited electronics, immensely powerful and complex. Pure gold. Thanks for your service to the community.
You could always pledge a dollar too his patreon , a single dollar goes a long way to say thank you , much more then just the words alone do. I tip my uber driver or waiter more then that n i get much more value from people like greg and thier videos! Its just a dollar think about it. But then again if ur like me they add up if you have quite a few favorite channels ghat you love and watch all the time. Even tho im poor its still worth it tho.
Hi Greg.
long time lurker here.
thank you for all your well done videos
I appreciate you making a comment.
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.
That's certainly in harmony with everything I have seen, and it makes sense.
Brown said the ones he tested seemed like they all had 90 hours of engine on them.
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.
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 …
Oh, thanks :)
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
That's a fair point.
Yes, I too think the 129 is a fair comparison to the il2. It is very similar in size, also had interesting protection, power, a bit lesser in ordinance, and certainly similar in use. While the gnome-rhones were not protected like the engine on the il2 was, as air cooled engines, they didnt need the big rads, and they were sufficiently redundant to get the pilot all the way to the crash site!
I hope greg does include both the 129 and 190f in future comparisons to the il2 though, as they both had the ground attack role, and 190s replaced 9/10 stukas. While the 190 couldnt so effectively knock out tanks, the more useful role for all ground attack was to destroy the logistical support and accompanying infantry, for which the 190 was more than suited.
Years ago I visited a backyard WWII airplane museum in Wisconsin. By some feat they had aquired the cockpit of an Hs-129. It was most impressive in that all the cockpit glass was a couple of inches thick. @@stug41
Combined HP of Hs 129 is similar to IL-2 only in take off power though, (700 HP per engine) and still coming a bit behind the AM-38's 1600 HP rated take off power. When using this power regime Hs 129 pilot needed to disable the RPM governor and run the engines with manual pitch control to increase RPM.
Combat power regime with automatic RPM governor which would be more commonly used over the frontlines was only 580 HP per engine, compared to AM-38's 1500 HP nominal continuous power.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles You could consider a comparison the Ju 87 D-5 which had its usual MG 17s replaced with MG 151/20 to better suit its new role as a ground attack aircraft rather than a dive bomber. I believe it also had various other improvements to increase its effectiveness in this role.
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).
Great video Greg ! More Soviet planes . The unbiased reviews are outstanding .
Greg, I noticed with the last few videos that you seem to be keeping them around 30 minutes and more consistent in their release. If that is intentional then it is a good call from my perspective. I appreciate anything you put out and always learn something, thank you.
The rate of videos coming out has a lot to do with the fact that I'm on reserve at my airline and not flying a lot this month, which is good for video production. The longer videos will return but probably after I finish this IL-2 series. I want to get this one done.
"Let's move on to bombs." A phrase I never thought I'd hear on UA-cam.
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.
Love your stuff Greg! How about a B24 & B17 comparison video? I can't find anything super technical especially on the B24 on UA-cam.
Hell yeah, me neither
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.
I don't think I would compare the 190F8 as the German equivalent to the IL-2. The 190 is just a fighter that has some upgrades to make it a better fighter bomber. I think the countries just used different planes for the role of close air support. The Soviets didn't really have a fighter bomber, they had fighters and ground attackers. A better question would be is a fighter bomber better or worse than having only fighters and ground attackers.
That's a fair point. One thing that would be interesting is the IL-10 vs. Skyraider. What do you think of that, those two are equivalents and mostly post war aircraft.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesI personally think that would be a fair and interesting comparison, especially doctrine differences.
simplify training. a fighter-bomber pilot need to master both dogfighting skill as well as ground attack.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I don't know much about those two aircraft, so it is hard for me to say. What do you think was the best fighter bomber of the war, Tiffy, Jug or 190?
It's not only a question of effectiveness but also of capabilities. Was Soviet Union capable of mass producing modern and effective fighter-bombers in 1942-44? After moving most of its aricraft factories to the East? Il-2s could be buit by poorly qualified and starving teenagers, using simple tools and machines. Would they be able to produce somethng like Typhoons or FW-190 A8? I doubt it.
Keep it coming, all piston powered stuff is excellent .
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.