I seriously don't know why people don't watch videos on "Soviet Planes" as much as other planes, but I hope you cover this one more, given that it is a superbly popular plane... which we don't know enough about when it comes to technical details. Cheers from Poland!
I can think of several reasons. As was said before, it's not easy to get useful information on the topic due to the oppressive information control in the USSR and today's Russia. Furthermore, this is an American channel in English. Eastern Europeans / Russians usually aren't that good in English and most people are more interested in their own country's aviation. Then there are a lot of people dismissing Soviet engineering or in this case aviation as bad and not that interesting. And lastly, I can imagine the current situation in Ukraine doesn't exactly spark euphoria to learn about Russian achievements.
@@Leon_der_Luftige Since this felt a bit personal (I'm sure it wasn't meant to be) and I thought that the person was wrong, I was.... sarcastic. Please take it in good stride, I wish you all the best and good health - it is most important. First of all his problems were mostly coming from before Russian invasion of Ukraine. Second of all - hi, I'm Polish, glad to meet you. I apologize for my atrocious English, but sadly that is the language we view like 95% of videos we view. It's hard to get information now, not in USSR. Though sometimes of course some things might have gotten lost due to that. But "forgetfulness" due to repressions is overstated. It just means that there will be more in secondary sources. I viewed almost every Greg's video. At least 2 of my friends also watch him regularly. Not much Polish stuff. Honestly I find the US planes most boring. Because every American will be saying "This is the best". BTW I do apologize to Americans for that generalization. From what I've seen good half of you aren't assholes. And on this channel, even less. As for "worse aviation" - similar thing about Japan. Yet you have weebs selling their souls to hear about it and others are also interested. It is mostly Wehraboos and Weebs and Americans with their sense of superiority (which when it comes to this topic is often warranted, but US didn't have "best everything" ffs!) who follow this videos. Since Soviet stuff doesn't have as much following, and this is more specialized channel, there are less "fans" here. Oooof. Sorry. I really needed to vent. If you also need it - you can rant and vent at me.
Please continue to cover the IL-2. Interesting to me is the armored "bathtub concept that we see in the A-10. I flew some aerobatic flights in a SU-29. I asked the owner why the radial engine used a pneumatic starting system and was fitted with no/or very minimal electrical system. The lack of electrical system was for weight savings as the Soviet generator/alternator was a backup boat anchor for the Soviet Navy. Used for short aerobatic flights only required a small battery to power a few items such as a radio, etc. I was told the pneumatic starting system was specifically used because this engine was used in extremely cold climates. Batteries and electrical starters do not do well in extremely low temperatures. Pneumatic starter systems do just fine with a round air pressure tank to serve as a "battery" via an engine powered air pump. You've probably covered this elsewhere. But I found it fascinating. The Russians weren't stupid. That's for sure.
Yes, a lot of the features of Soviet planes were so they could be used in extremely low temperatures. It's not fair to compare the engine to an English thoroughbred which is only expected to be used in the moderate temperatures of southern England.
I'd like to learn more about those connecting rods; whoever designed them however they did had good reasons I'm sure. The amount of resources poured into a fundamentally poor engine didn't help the Soviet war effort any.
I used to read old Soviet tractor and car repair manuals as a child, they were so much fun to read. The art was very nice, showed you a lot of detail on how the engines and other components were built and worked. Never seen a repair manual for a plane, but I'm sure it's every bit as fun to read.
@@tiikerihaiWorth looking up that channel. A guy who grew up in Ukraine and moved to the US as a young adult does research and explains how life was like in the Soviet Union.
I covered the M-82 AKA Ash-82 engine in another video. Other than that I haven't talked about Soviet stuff very much. Depending on how this video does and the poll on Patreon, I may do more.
Unfortunatly they designed a one man aircraft and when they found they needed a rear gunner he got little armour and as a result suffered very high casualties.
The most mass produced aircraft aircraft in WW2. A 'flying tank' - I never appreciated that the armour also formed part of the structure. The Il-2 was unique. A remarkable design. Thanks for a fascinating intro Greg!
The Armour has some disadvantages. It provided a lot of coverage but could still be penetrated and couldn't be all that thick. If a round got through it would ricochet around inside very likely killing pilot or gunner. The German Ju 87 didn't have integral fuselage skin Armour but it did have thick Armour around the pilot that was less likely to be penetrated. The gunner only had rear Armour and bottom Armour but if a round went through the side it was unlikely to ricochet. There is a lot to be said for the 'all or nothing' concept where you won't waste weight on thin amour that will be penetrated anyway but use it on concentrated area where it will provide 100% protection.
But like respected Greg said, the structural armor is not invented for IL-2 at all, known to everyone at that time, but not now. Il-2 was in fact very vulnerable (statistics), they were shot down very often. One pilot, poor speed and altitude, clumsy, unstable (rear mass), short range, tiny bomb load, very poor visibility. No country would want one. But unfortunately, short-range bomber Su-2 was produced in Kharkov, which was soon occupied. Compare the Il-2 and Su-2 with the Fairy Battle. Battle is three-seater, with navigator, has a range. But the USSR bought a license for the Vultee V-11 and even producing them in time for the war that started soon. But Ilyushin had lobby and influence and was a high official.
@@williamzk9083 Ju-87 never was IL-2's counterpart. Unlike many believe, it's Soviet counterpart would be twin-engine Pe-2 used in a similar role. The most unique thing about IL-2 was its intended role, nowadays replaced by attack helicopters.
The articulated connecting rod is fairly common in Sovjet V12s and other engines. It is in a way the same principle as a Radial conecting rod. So per crank bearing there is one main rod and a slave rod. The cilinder banks are not staggered as on a modern V type engine. The slave rod bank has less dispacement as the main rod bank does. The Soviet WW2 era diesel V12 tank engines do have te same set up.
Given I grew up reading about how crude and simple Soviet equipment was, it's fascinating to learn that they were pretty sophisticated in their own way, and often quite competitive with Western kit, if not superior for their purposes. As a matter of fact, when you mentioned semi-exposed landing gear and armored tubs, I thought of the much later A-10! Keep it up! This is really informative and enjoyable!
I was one of the earliest owners of the IL2 flight simulation package. I believe I paid a high price for the most powerful single processor at the time. I astounded pilots for years after with the "real feel" and even the visuals. Force feedback on the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick was awesome for twenty years ago. I knew the Soviet military created the Sim engine. It was the best.
Soviet military had nothing to do with IL-2 (both old and new) or DCS. DCS started on OGRE. IL-2 used their own engine. ROF/BOS, also. AFAIK none of these engines is used in Russian military simulations.
Dear Greg, I love your channel. The articulated con rod is composed of a master rod with a slave rod with its own big end bearing, like a conventional radial engine's con-rod. I saw it in a museum back in the seventies that espoused the virtues of soviet engineering, etc... I was also given permission to visit Domo, or Dromo-something, memory doesn't fade, it's completely gone, a large aviation park near Mosko. I wish I could find the thousands of pictures I took while in the ASA. I was a diplo-courier at the time and it was a rare opportunity to see Russia.
I honestly would love to see more on the IL-2 and the LA-5! The soviet stuff is often over looked i feel. They may not have been the best but there certainly was some unique design choices that worked very well for them. The IL-2 armor being one of them.
If you've ever played ANY of the IL-2 series of games, you'll know that the LA-5 is a beast. Of course, this may be because the games original designers were Russian!
@@FelixstoweFoamForgegame designers for IL2 series were Luftwaffe fanboys as the result most of the times Soviet planes are nerfed (build around low end of specs) and German planes are OP (build around top and even unrealistic specs). Some significant issues of a real world soviet planes were ignored in the games but most of them are pretty much impossible to implement within PC game/sim or just not a problem for gaming scenarios
@@tsorevitch2409 So, on the one hand, all the Soviet planes are Nered, and the German ones OP, but at the same time, significant issues with the Soviet planes were ignored? That doesn't make any sense. I really think the designers were a bit kind to Soviet aircraft, tbh. But still, I mainly fly IL46, (Because I'm damned if I'm going to keep buying "modules", just to get a few more aircraft. I don't mind doing it in ROF, because the core game is free, but Current IL2 pricing is stupid), and I find that if I set up a 2 on 1 dogfight between a BF109F4 and I16's, and vice versa, and fly to the aircrafts strengths, I'll win most of the time. energy with the the 109, angles with the I16. And that's what I want from a flight sim; good flight models, decent AI and a dynamic campaign. Graphic some a long way down the list. And I maintain that the LA5 and it's variants is a beast. Get one of those behind you when you're flying a BF 109G and you run out of options very very quickly. So much for "Nerfed". Russian designers being Luftwaffe fanboys? Just can't see that. If they were, the Fw190 wouldn't be such a pig to fly well in combat.
How does one define best? i think i get what you mean, not quit cutting edge but servicable and at a much reduced production cost of many of It's western counterparts!
I like the Soviet equipment videos. You do a good job on a difficult topic.Too few people take the time to show how the Soviet war equipment was designed and used. It is a comparison to the other allies and their equipment and doctrine that deserves a fair comparison.
@Ernest-jr I said nothing about unfair. My point is giving fair comparison between any number of like and unlike airframes and their different mission capabilities. I think Greg is the man that can do such a comparison justice.
Greg, keep doing what you do. There are certainly many people who are interested in Soviet airplanes and their production under the Soviet regime (including me), but your videos are popular because YOU are interested in the material. Keep telling us about the stuff that interests you and we will keep watching.
The IL2 Sturmovik simm really brought soviet ww2 aviation into focus. I'd definitely like to see more about the IL2 - and maybe some interesting also-rans like the I-185
By all means please continue this series! The IL2 is such an iconic airplane, I was immediately interested when I saw the title. Leaving us sit with just the intro would be quite disappointing.
I really appreciate your Russian videos. For reasons you mentioned due to language barriers Russian information is rare and harder to access, I thank you for bringing this historiography to the English history sphere. There's a billion mustang spitfire etc videos but informed Russian information is rare and amazing.
A casual aircraft and WWII enthusiast here. I have never even seen a feature on Soviet developed aircraft. I would be interested in more videos about this era of Russian history. I have enjoyed your in-depth videos about multi-speed superchargers and various fighter planes.
Oh yeah I love soviet designs so I'm gonna love this one. Found your channel recently it's simply amazing for aviation enthusiasts. Thank you for your work.
Everything that follows is from memory. Sorry I don't recall the source book. Stalingrad. A German soldier at Gumrak airbase. He is guarding Russian prisoners. He's got a rifle. They have shovels. They are digging trenches. An IL-2 appears and attacks. The Russians dive in the hole. The German dives in on top of the Russians. He is looking up into the air and describes the action. The IL-2 passed overhead. Everyone was firing at it. Sparks were flying off the armored belly in a line from the front to the back of the aircraft. "It looked like someone took a welding torch and dragged it along the belly of the plane. Showers of sparks just flying ." I distinctly remember that final line. It gave me a good visual. Please, Greg. Please finish this series.
I find Soviet aerospace engineering fascinating for both its successes and its failures. They worked under different constraints than Western designers and came up with some creative solutions. I would love for you to make videos on Soviet aircraft from the 1930s to the 1970s.
Hi, there are different manuals for different purposes in the Red Army and Soviet Army. In this case, this manual is not the principal guiding manual for all Il-2 pilots, there are technically-focused manuals such as "Техническое описание самолета Ил-2 с мотором АМ-38", which is "Technical description of the Il-2 airplane with AM-38 engine". It includes troubleshooting information, general technical information, and so on.
Greg your wonderfully detailed dives in to these aircraft is very appreciated regardless of the country of origin. I'm looking forward to more videos on the IL-1 thanks again as always.
I liked the video please talk more about this plane. It's also interesting to hear about the intricacies and complications of the Soviet production methods and considering those, I'd say they did surprisingly well.
Greg, I watch your videos with a unique respect and admiration. Because I remember in university doing research papers with dread at their often cumbersome requirements. Laugh! ⚡⚡🤯⚡⚡ Nice job! Thanks. PS Don't stop. There is a need for this, rounding out your inventory of WW2 aircraft representation. and many of us find the unique Russian equipment fascinating. Aircraft, Tanks, all of it.
I hope you will follow up with more videos on this plane. I don't know why people don't like videos of Soviet aircraft. They built some beautiful planes after the war. I am an 81 year old American, and love my country, but am interested all war planes. The manual of this plane sure shows the difference in pilot training compared to the U.S. and the U.K. I can't imagine having to tell the pilot to make sure the tires aren't flat. I always look forward to your videos.
Considering what my friend who went to Cadet School in the Soviet Union, and was trained as a pilot for a brief time before being considered for a different role experinced. What was important was your ability to withstand the strain, and anything else would be learned by doing while the ground crews would be the ones who actually know about the aircraft and how to care for it. Therefore, the people they brought in weren't expected to know much, but things might have changed somewhat between WWII and the late Cold War.
Honestly I'm always fascinated by the completely different design and operational philosophies between the Americans, Germans, Brits, Japanese, and Soviets, etc. and how they changed throughout the war depending on available resources.
I got into IL2 (the sim) fairly early on, and the unglamorous workhorse nature of the IL2 was appealing in contrast to the Spits / P51 'glamour'. I'm pretty sure that 'IL2' introduced many to these lesser known types. Just like Gran Turismo did for JDM cars. Greg, the comparison of the manual styles was very interesting. I wonder if the soviets made their own manuals for lendlease aircraft like the P39/P40 and if so, how they conpare. I downloaded a translated version of that IL2 manual a few years ago and was very surprised with its comic book appearance, but given the apparent Soviet bias towards strength in quantity over quality, it makes sense!
For combat aircraft it had a lot of armor relative to everything else. But the armor was quite nicely distributed as you noted and engineered into the structure. A good informative primer on the Sturmovik.
The IL2 is THE Iconic Soviet plane, like the Spitfire or Zero so it deserves a look. Plus it was produced in the greatest numbers for the biggest ground war of all time.
The articulating rods would have been patterned after the BMW licensed engines they had, BMW VI that mikulin had already designed. I think it's something that was carried over along with several other BMW features. Something similar ended up in the later VK-10(x) engines as well afaik. It's all very strange but I wonder if it had to do with existing production methods the factories already knew? It's just very weird and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one confused by the Soviet preference in master/slave connecting rods. The V-2 tank engine also has this con rod arrangement.
I knew someone would post on this. I'm sure you know this, but I'll post it in case someone doesn't. All radials have it. The second connecting rod is connected not to the crank, but to the other connecting rod - hence master/slave reference. It gives the slave piston a different stroke length. I can only think they did this to try and reduce engine length. Not good for revs - which isn't such a problem on a radial.
The BMW VI V12 was developed from the BMW IV Inline six cylinder engine. They just added a second cylinder bank with master and slave connecting rods. My guess is they wanted to keep the crankshaft and crankcase as it was and this was the easiest way to do this without redesigning the whole thing. The russians later build a copy of the engine which was called Mikulin M-17. It`s just weird that the russians keept this feature into all further developments.
Another excellent video, Greg. Personally, I don’t understand the lack of views or the hate comments. I’m a military aviation buff (prop & early jets) amongst other interests and the variety is nice and it’s educational as well. Thank you.
Here's an angle that could make the Il-2 story more popular: It's a little known fact that America's best known pilot hero, Eddie Rickenbacker, admired the Sturmovik, and even consulted with the Soviets to improve the plane as well as advising on how to achieve high production volumes. This plane doesn't get much love from western writers, but it appears to have been enormously successful and influential in the outcome of the war. I have read that it's the most produced airplane of the entire war - that alone has to give it a bigger impact than many of the "popular" hero planes of the war. (Much like how the Hurricane and Typhoon played a bigger role in the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire.)
This video seems to have gotten a healthy number of views in the initial hours, so I hope you continue. I fell in love with the Russians and their planes in the context of IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad. (Trying to keep the faith despite current events under the Man Who Would be Emperor.) The Sturmovik is an excellent example. You will probably cover this, but when they first realized they needed a rear gunner they simply cut a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit, provided a strap for the gunner to sit on and a 12.7mm machine gun on an improvised mounting. So there is old Yuri, sitting in the back flapping in the breeze with his MG, some spare ammo and a flask of vodka. (Note that I am inferring the flask of vodka from the AI gunner’s behavior in the game. Not a reliable source, necessarily.) I was chased all the way back across the Kuban by an AI Bf-109 in a PvE mission once. Fortunately he seemed to be out of canon. Yuri in the back had run through his ammo without effect, just sat there watching the show and sipping his vodka, couldn’t even be bothered to call out the fighter passes. My right wing was so shredded by MG I had to hold full left stick to keep it level. The Bf-109 finally ran out of ammo or just gave up. Really proud of the landing on that one. So, the Russians and their planes. Always kind of borderline insane from our western perspective and I hope you cover more of them.
Congrats on breaking that bias barrier. This was an extremely important plane and deserves your excellent treatment. Hell, didn't they end up making over 35K IL-2 and over 40K with other variants making it the single most produced military aircraft design in aviation history, as well as one of the most produced piloted aircraft in history?
I don't see why this video would do bad. Objective information about Soviet machines is hard to come by, so a detailed comparison with other contemporary planes is quite valuable. We need more of them.
I understand the Soviet planes are difficult to research. But it’s so nice to have completeness and, personally, I find them interesting in themselves. Especially the solutions that some of their very smart people come up with to try to even the scales when compared to the more advanced manufacturing precision and materials that the western allies and Germany had. The same applies to the Japanese. If it’s not as popular content as the Germans, Brits and Americans it’s a shame as it actually sheds light on those other planes in comparison. There’s not much that I can say except I appreciate it and once my health issues are dealt with and I’m back at work I’ve been intending to join the Patreon club to check out all those juicy docs :D
Please keep producing more videos on Soviet aircraft. The level of detail you provide is so great that any aircraft will benefit from your studies. Don't worry about what people may like. As Steve Jobs said (allegedly) about the iPhone, people didn't know what they wanted until Apple built it :)
No hate from this guy. Here's to hoping this vid gets enough views to make for a multi chapter series. The IL-2, and Soviet aviation in general, are important parts of WW2 history.
This is the best video on any Soviet VVS airplane that I've ever seen. Yakovlev, in his book, ( Aim Of A Lifetime, I think) says that when copying the B-29, a seemingly random hole that was found in a bulkhead was replicated in every single Tu-4 that they built because Stalin ordered an "exact copy". As someone said, they had a rather dynamic zero-defects policy.
I think I have it as “notes of an aircraft designer”. In reality, because Soviet industry worked with different alloys and gauges, every single piece of the B-29 had to be analysed and then redesigned for Soviet manufacture. They put their own engines, radios and guns in as well, abandoned integral fuel tanks for flexible bag tanks, and reworked the design of the bomb bays.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 I got my copy from Major Uri Orin, Military Attache. The problem with anything the Soviets handed out, was their total lack of credibility. That's why I posted the source with the comment. There's no way to know who wrote it or why.That's why I love this channel. Someone will comment who actually knows.
@@paddy1952 I find no mention of the Tu-4 in Yakovlev’s autobiography; it must be a different book. Interestingly enough Yakovlev wrote that he managed to convince Stalin that copying the Me 262 would be a bad idea. (To the detriment of Sukhoi, whose early Su-9 looked a lot like it.) He skirts around the fact that early Soviet jet engines as used in the Yak-15 were copies of German engines, despite the pioneering work of Lyulka in the 1930s. Interesting book but Yakovlev was an agile man - alone of the major Soviet designers, he was never jailed by Stalin - and his autobiography is probably more self-serving than most.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 It's completely possible that I've confused his book with another, or it was a different edition. My Soviet aircraft phase of life was a few decades ago. I've been looking through the book pile but haven't found it so far.
another astounding, informative video from Greg! So to get German pilots to think about the approach and attack angles on an enemy aircraft... German WWII flight manuals showed cartoon illustrations of a (mostly) naked temptress? ONLY GREG gets that in the weeds!
I loved this video. The IL2 has always seemed like an oddball plane to have been produced in such huge numbers. I’m very interested in learning more about its design and how it played into its tactical use.
It is not "oddball" if you first understand the Soviet tactical doctrine. Their doctrine was almost completely opposite of the US and Great Britain. The IL2 makes perfect sense for they type of war that the Soviets were fighting. This is the same reason the the P39, an aircraft that was considered "mediocre" by the other Allies were loved by the Soviet Air forces. The IL2 and P39 fit into the Soviet Tactical plan perfectly.
@@Ernest-jr They did not need great range, the IL2 was almost always based a short distance from the front lines, flying from crude airfields. They did not need "navigators" as the Soviet planes were ground controlled and pilots could usually SEE the enemy or the smoke from the battle and thus, where they were to attack. Think of Ivan the pilot, speaking to the commissar: "the NAZIS are 40 kilometers in that direction, go and kill them". I don't see a navigator being of much use in those conditions. When you consider the rudimentary training give the pilots, would such a system have produced many skilled navigators? If it did, would these have been sacrificed in a lowly ground attack aircraft that did not need one? I think not. The IL2 was shot down often, because they fought a dangerous, well armed and capable enemy in the most dangerous conditions for any aircraft. As I said, you first need to understand the Soviet tactical doctrine.
@@mlynch001 You mean, commissar speaking to Ivan the pilot? I would imagine it would not bode well for the former since Ivan would immediately go to his squad leader with the question of why was political officer (placed there to read papers, popularize his party's ideas and recruiting to said party) giving him attack orders. Also I'd like to note that despite being shot down frequently due to dangerous conditions, pilots often survived the crash landing. All in all, IL-2 filled the attack helicopter role in CAS.
Very interesting. I remember making a model of a ‘Stormovic’ when I was a kid more than 50 years ago - I thought it was an interesting plane despite definitely not being a ‘Soviet fan-boy’ Thank you for this video.
The IL2 has been needing a proper in-depth look at for as long as I can remember so Very much looking forward to the rest of the series. My particalar favourites amongst the Soviet WW2 aircraft are the radial engined fighters - particularly the LA5 and LA7, but the IL2 comes very close behind for me!
I think we need more videos about soviet aviation from unbiased authors. I would encourage you to make more! That being said, in old IL-2 1946 sim we copied soviet tactics of splitting the flights: two planes would make ground attack run, two would cover from 1000m above. It was amazing how many german planes we would shoot down. Thach weave, also, worked nicely!
Nice, finally some proper plane designed for war :D Yes IL-2s with good pilots were able to hunt various aircraft with good success, but the issue is, that these pilots were not trained as fighter pilots, but as bomber/attack pilots and their orders were also mostly aimed on that. But there are many notes about IL-2 planes shredding various Ju52, Ju87 and also bombers.
That air cooled engine gives it great proportions for rubber free flight scale. This may be the reason that a liquid cooled engine was chosen I believe.
Thank you for posting this. You always produce content of the highest order and detail. I think the IL-2 doesn't get the love and respect it deserves for a number of reasons, but I have always been curious about this aircraft.
While people love to call the IL-2 a "Flying Tank", it rarely could actually kill tanks. It carried two 23mm cannon, not 37 mm or 40 mm "can openers". Like all the unguided rockets of the time, the RS-82 was highly inaccurate and ineffective against AFVs. That left the pilots trying to hit moving, shooting back with tracers targets using small, unguided bombs and bomblets. The Sturmovik excelled at the destruction of soft-skinned vehicles in the convoys supporting the AFVs. These two dynamics were mirrored in Western Europe with Typhoons and Thunderbolts.
In 1938 when Sergey Illushin originated the term "flying tank", tanks were not viewed as weapons for fighting other tanks so much as armoured infantry support vehicles. Many tanks at the time carried only machine guns or light cannons that were ineffective against other tanks. @@amerigo88
Greg, I think the videos on Soviet planes are the most interesting ones you have made because of the fact that its hard to get information on them and they aren't as widely talked about. There are thousands upon thousands of accounts about the planes & the pilots involved in the air war over Western Europe/Pacific from 1942-1945. What i dont see talked about nearly as much is the Air War over the Eastern Front, Africa, and China/India/Burma Theaters and so for me any videos related to those topics are the ones that i get really excited to watch. In any case keep up the great work! Side Note: Seeing you mentioning the Tu-4 in this video makes me interested in seeing you do a P-47/Ki-84 style series of videos on the 4 Engine Heavy Bombers produced by all the countries that ended up building such aircraft types. I know you made the video on the B-32 a couple months ago and i thought it was very cool
Would love to see more of these. There’s been a recent shift into baseless revisionism of Soviet gear due to recent political events, particularly around, ahem, tanks but it’s been appearing everywhere. It’s nice to see some of us still value data and historiography.
A few of my relatives (long passed away) flew the Sturmovik in the early 1950s after the war when it was no longer front line. Their instructors were from the Patriotic War and generally said the plane was okay but the Germans shot them down like a turkeyshoot, luckily there were always more (Sturmoviks). So yeah it was a tough airplane but no plane ever made is tough anymore when 30mm cannon shells hit it.
My workmates father was a German soldier wounded on the Eastern front. He said what stopped the Russian attack was that they couldn't climb over their own dead bodies. I believe mass attacks by Sturmoviks would have been more successful but still costly.
Thank you for your hard work researching these and also for your fondness for primary sources. Honestly I don't care much which nation's aircraft you talk about -- each has an interesting story, even if it's just to learn what a fighting force deemed "a problem" and how a design team then came up with "a solution". Speaking of solutions: I think the sleek nose has a big advantage in better visibility for the pilot. A thing like that has the potential to save lives, especially when the plane's low and slow (under relatively high angles of attack).
Definitely looking forward to more videos on the IL-2. Apart from the Yaks, this is probably the most well-know Soviet Era warplane from World War II. If anyone wants to know how the US finally got to the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog), I believe it started with here with the Soviets.
I've always been interested in what the Soviet was using in WW2 for fighters, besides what they got from the allies. When I was in grade school I was super interested in the WW2 fighter planes in Europe and the Pacific, especially the Pacific...
The Yakovlev Yak-1, succeeded by the Yak-9, followed by the Yak-3 seems to have been the best design they fielded. I also see a MiG-1 (which was apparently pretty bad) and a MiG-3 successor as interceptors. The LaGG-1/3 were apparently the early versions of the La-5 and La-7, another major type. The Polikarpov I-16 was innovative in the 1930’s but pretty dated by the time the war really got going. Looks like they had quite a few very reasonable aircraft, though none as famous as the Il-2.
@@Justanotherconsumer I'm from Russia. You list common estimates, which to me, after many years of study, seem very controversial. The MiG-3 produced 3,000, and it flew much earlier Yak, which is very, very important. Its production was stopped when the Germans approached the factory that assembled them. So the tale of a relatively unserviceable MiG is obviously made up, I suppose. That was the custom under Stalin, to make up fairy tales. It, like all airplanes hastily created after the 1937 shootings, was more like the real thing than it was. 3 thousand interceptors could do little and already Moscow was being defended by brit Hurricane and old I-16. The Yak-1 was very poorly mastered, flew late, had poor stability at first. It had a canvas skin and veneer wings. Good for 1918. A mediocre French style project: compare it with the Yugoslavian Rogožarski IK-3, which flew much earlier and had at least some chance of being ready in time for the war. But it didn't. That's it in a nutshell. Amusing facts: Ilyushin is an old party member, Yakovlev is almost adopted by Stalin, son-in-law of the shot party secretary Rudzutak, Mikoyan is the younger brother of the Commissar, Gorbunov (the leader in LaGG) is the brother of the dead minister (the term is inaccurate for clarity).
One more vote for more content on the IL-2 here. As a non-engineer “engine guy” I find your description of this engine fascinating… I mean, articulating connecting rods? How the heck would that work? Let’s talk some more about this!
I'd love to hear you cover the LaGG 3 and more specifically the La 5 development and characteristics the same way you covered the Thunderbolt. Great video.
To be fair, Greg has stated that the Thunderbolt series was to explain a lot more of the basic fundamentals of aircraft design as an entry point for his channel, so any other deep dives like that will be more condensed.
@@fusilier3029 of course, and he would have to painfully translate and fill in the gaps of the very basic level manuals they wrote, but I'd still love to hear about the development and struggles they had.
Only a few minutes into the video so far, hearing you talking about how no other country had manuals this basic- how does it compare to what a kamikaze pilot would have been given? Fascinating video so far.
I seriously don't know why people don't watch videos on "Soviet Planes" as much as other planes, but I hope you cover this one more, given that it is a superbly popular plane... which we don't know enough about when it comes to technical details. Cheers from Poland!
The algorithm hate Soviet maybe
As Greg said it is hard to read up on this plane with unbiased reports. I certainly would like to hear more on this air armor from Greg.
@@paulwoodman5131 Yup, I heard. That's why I'd love to see more from Greg about it.
I can think of several reasons.
As was said before, it's not easy to get useful information on the topic due to the oppressive information control in the USSR and today's Russia.
Furthermore, this is an American channel in English. Eastern Europeans / Russians usually aren't that good in English and most people are more interested in their own country's aviation.
Then there are a lot of people dismissing Soviet engineering or in this case aviation as bad and not that interesting.
And lastly, I can imagine the current situation in Ukraine doesn't exactly spark euphoria to learn about Russian achievements.
@@Leon_der_Luftige Since this felt a bit personal (I'm sure it wasn't meant to be) and I thought that the person was wrong, I was.... sarcastic. Please take it in good stride, I wish you all the best and good health - it is most important.
First of all his problems were mostly coming from before Russian invasion of Ukraine. Second of all - hi, I'm Polish, glad to meet you. I apologize for my atrocious English, but sadly that is the language we view like 95% of videos we view.
It's hard to get information now, not in USSR. Though sometimes of course some things might have gotten lost due to that. But "forgetfulness" due to repressions is overstated. It just means that there will be more in secondary sources.
I viewed almost every Greg's video. At least 2 of my friends also watch him regularly. Not much Polish stuff. Honestly I find the US planes most boring. Because every American will be saying "This is the best". BTW I do apologize to Americans for that generalization. From what I've seen good half of you aren't assholes. And on this channel, even less.
As for "worse aviation" - similar thing about Japan. Yet you have weebs selling their souls to hear about it and others are also interested. It is mostly Wehraboos and Weebs and Americans with their sense of superiority (which when it comes to this topic is often warranted, but US didn't have "best everything" ffs!) who follow this videos. Since Soviet stuff doesn't have as much following, and this is more specialized channel, there are less "fans" here.
Oooof. Sorry. I really needed to vent. If you also need it - you can rant and vent at me.
Please continue to cover the IL-2. Interesting to me is the armored "bathtub concept that we see in the A-10. I flew some aerobatic flights in a SU-29. I asked the owner why the radial engine used a pneumatic starting system and was fitted with no/or very minimal electrical system.
The lack of electrical system was for weight savings as the Soviet generator/alternator was a backup boat anchor for the Soviet Navy. Used for short aerobatic flights only required a small battery to power a few items such as a radio, etc.
I was told the pneumatic starting system was specifically used because this engine was used in extremely cold climates. Batteries and electrical starters do not do well in extremely low temperatures. Pneumatic starter systems do just fine with a round air pressure tank to serve as a "battery" via an engine powered air pump.
You've probably covered this elsewhere. But I found it fascinating.
The Russians weren't stupid. That's for sure.
Yes, a lot of the features of Soviet planes were so they could be used in extremely low temperatures. It's not fair to compare the engine to an English thoroughbred which is only expected to be used in the moderate temperatures of southern England.
LOVE the idea of doing a whole series on the IL2!
Seconded
Thirded?
Yep! I would as well
I'd like to learn more about those connecting rods; whoever designed them however they did had good reasons I'm sure. The amount of resources poured into a fundamentally poor engine didn't help the Soviet war effort any.
Fourtht!
I used to read old Soviet tractor and car repair manuals as a child, they were so much fun to read. The art was very nice, showed you a lot of detail on how the engines and other components were built and worked. Never seen a repair manual for a plane, but I'm sure it's every bit as fun to read.
Do you watch the Ushanka Show?
@@kirbyculp3449 Never heard of that before.
@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistusyou can buy a replica print. Very fun read.
I read somewhere that the Il-2 was designed to be operated by tractor drivers, directing better pilots to the fighter command.
@@tiikerihaiWorth looking up that channel. A guy who grew up in Ukraine and moved to the US as a young adult does research and explains how life was like in the Soviet Union.
I wasn't aware you covered Soviet machines, nice!
I covered the M-82 AKA Ash-82 engine in another video. Other than that I haven't talked about Soviet stuff very much. Depending on how this video does and the poll on Patreon, I may do more.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesI'd love to see a video on the I-16, love that little flying barrel lol
@@SUPRAMIKE18that would be an awesome treat!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobileshope you get good response on patron so that in next video you can cover YAK - 3 and MIG - 3 fighters
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobileswe like it all. Can't go wrong 👍
I always thought the IL-2 was a very interesting plane. The integration of the armored bathtub into the structure is very clever.
Copied in the A10? An aircraft with the same tactical role and to some degree equal armament, but more power of course. And still going strong.
Unfortunatly they designed a one man aircraft and when they found they needed a rear gunner he got little armour and as a result suffered very high casualties.
Why do you people always think everything is "copied" from something. Designers can have similar ideas without "copying" anything.
@@Leon_der_Luftigeif it’s not anything that’s been done before in anything or anywhere then it’s copied from something isn’t it 🤷♂️
@@alangordon3283 No it really isn't.
The most mass produced aircraft aircraft in WW2.
A 'flying tank' - I never appreciated that the armour also formed part of the structure.
The Il-2 was unique. A remarkable design. Thanks for a fascinating intro Greg!
The Armour has some disadvantages. It provided a lot of coverage but could still be penetrated and couldn't be all that thick. If a round got through it would ricochet around inside very likely killing pilot or gunner. The German Ju 87 didn't have integral fuselage skin Armour but it did have thick Armour around the pilot that was less likely to be penetrated. The gunner only had rear Armour and bottom Armour but if a round went through the side it was unlikely to ricochet. There is a lot to be said for the 'all or nothing' concept where you won't waste weight on thin amour that will be penetrated anyway but use it on concentrated area where it will provide 100% protection.
@@williamzk9083
Interesting point.
But like respected Greg said, the structural armor is not invented for IL-2 at all, known to everyone at that time, but not now.
Il-2 was in fact very vulnerable (statistics), they were shot down very often. One pilot, poor speed and altitude, clumsy, unstable (rear mass), short range, tiny bomb load, very poor visibility. No country would want one.
But unfortunately, short-range bomber Su-2 was produced in Kharkov, which was soon occupied.
Compare the Il-2 and Su-2 with the Fairy Battle. Battle is three-seater, with navigator, has a range. But the USSR bought a license for the Vultee V-11 and even producing them in time for the war that started soon. But Ilyushin had lobby and influence and was a high official.
@@williamzk9083 Ju-87 never was IL-2's counterpart. Unlike many believe, it's Soviet counterpart would be twin-engine Pe-2 used in a similar role. The most unique thing about IL-2 was its intended role, nowadays replaced by attack helicopters.
I thought that the most mass produced aircraft in WW2 was the Messerschmitt 109. What are the numbers?
Soviet WWII aircraft are seriously under-examined, I enjoyed this episode and look forward to more on the IL-2.
The articulated connecting rod is fairly common in Sovjet V12s and other engines. It is in a way the same principle as a Radial conecting rod. So per crank bearing there is one main rod and a slave rod. The cilinder banks are not staggered as on a modern V type engine. The slave rod bank has less dispacement as the main rod bank does. The Soviet WW2 era diesel V12 tank engines do have te same set up.
Please more Soviet, Japanese, and Italian stuff! The fans are out there, great work again!
Always a good day when Greg uploads - interested to see some in-depth information on Soviet designs!
Given I grew up reading about how crude and simple Soviet equipment was, it's fascinating to learn that they were pretty sophisticated in their own way, and often quite competitive with Western kit, if not superior for their purposes. As a matter of fact, when you mentioned semi-exposed landing gear and armored tubs, I thought of the much later A-10!
Keep it up! This is really informative and enjoyable!
I was one of the earliest owners of the IL2 flight simulation package. I believe I paid a high price for the most powerful single processor at the time. I astounded pilots for years after with the "real feel" and even the visuals. Force feedback on the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick was awesome for twenty years ago. I knew the Soviet military created the Sim engine. It was the best.
Soviet military had nothing to do with IL-2 (both old and new) or DCS. DCS started on OGRE. IL-2 used their own engine. ROF/BOS, also. AFAIK none of these engines is used in Russian military simulations.
Multiple episodes on the Sturmovik? That would be great! Thank you for this.
Dear Greg, I love your channel. The articulated con rod is composed of a master rod with a slave rod with its own big end bearing, like a conventional radial engine's con-rod. I saw it in a museum back in the seventies that espoused the virtues of soviet engineering, etc... I was also given permission to visit Domo, or Dromo-something, memory doesn't fade, it's completely gone, a large aviation park near Mosko. I wish I could find the thousands of pictures I took while in the ASA. I was a diplo-courier at the time and it was a rare opportunity to see Russia.
I sincerely hope you find those pictures and post them either to a YT vid or some web page. That could be some priceless footage for the community.
Yay. Got to catch a real fresh one!
I honestly would love to see more on the IL-2 and the LA-5! The soviet stuff is often over looked i feel. They may not have been the best but there certainly was some unique design choices that worked very well for them. The IL-2 armor being one of them.
If you've ever played ANY of the IL-2 series of games, you'll know that the LA-5 is a beast. Of course, this may be because the games original designers were Russian!
@@FelixstoweFoamForgegame designers for IL2 series were Luftwaffe fanboys as the result most of the times Soviet planes are nerfed (build around low end of specs) and German planes are OP (build around top and even unrealistic specs).
Some significant issues of a real world soviet planes were ignored in the games but most of them are pretty much impossible to implement within PC game/sim or just not a problem for gaming scenarios
@@tsorevitch2409 So, on the one hand, all the Soviet planes are Nered, and the German ones OP, but at the same time, significant issues with the Soviet planes were ignored? That doesn't make any sense. I really think the designers were a bit kind to Soviet aircraft, tbh.
But still, I mainly fly IL46, (Because I'm damned if I'm going to keep buying "modules", just to get a few more aircraft. I don't mind doing it in ROF, because the core game is free, but Current IL2 pricing is stupid), and I find that if I set up a 2 on 1 dogfight between a BF109F4 and I16's, and vice versa, and fly to the aircrafts strengths, I'll win most of the time. energy with the the 109, angles with the I16.
And that's what I want from a flight sim; good flight models, decent AI and a dynamic campaign.
Graphic some a long way down the list.
And I maintain that the LA5 and it's variants is a beast. Get one of those behind you when you're flying a BF 109G and you run out of options very very quickly. So much for "Nerfed". Russian designers being Luftwaffe fanboys? Just can't see that. If they were, the Fw190 wouldn't be such a pig to fly well in combat.
How does one define best? i think i get what you mean, not quit cutting edge but servicable and at a much reduced production cost of many of
It's western counterparts!
Need to look into the I-185 prototyes. They were quite the plane for their time.
I like the Soviet equipment videos. You do a good job on a difficult topic.Too few people take the time to show how the Soviet war equipment was designed and used. It is a comparison to the other allies and their equipment and doctrine that deserves a fair comparison.
I am a bit surprised Greg did not make any comparisons with the similar Fairey Battle light bomber fielded by the RAF.
And what exactly is unfair that you would point out?
@@amerigo88 And Vultee V-11, the license for which was bought in the USSR and began production.
@Ernest-jr I said nothing about unfair. My point is giving fair comparison between any number of like and unlike airframes and their different mission capabilities. I think Greg is the man that can do such a comparison justice.
Greg, keep doing what you do. There are certainly many people who are interested in Soviet airplanes and their production under the Soviet regime (including me), but your videos are popular because YOU are interested in the material. Keep telling us about the stuff that interests you and we will keep watching.
The IL2 Sturmovik simm really brought soviet ww2 aviation into focus. I'd definitely like to see more about the IL2 - and maybe some interesting also-rans like the I-185
By all means please continue this series! The IL2 is such an iconic airplane, I was immediately interested when I saw the title. Leaving us sit with just the intro would be quite disappointing.
I really appreciate your Russian videos. For reasons you mentioned due to language barriers Russian information is rare and harder to access, I thank you for bringing this historiography to the English history sphere. There's a billion mustang spitfire etc videos but informed Russian information is rare and amazing.
More IL 2 please as you say it’s a massive project to be covered in one video
A casual aircraft and WWII enthusiast here. I have never even seen a feature on Soviet developed aircraft. I would be interested in more videos about this era of Russian history. I have enjoyed your in-depth videos about multi-speed superchargers and various fighter planes.
Fascinating, more please
Oh yeah I love soviet designs so I'm gonna love this one. Found your channel recently it's simply amazing for aviation enthusiasts. Thank you for your work.
Everything that follows is from memory. Sorry I don't recall the source book.
Stalingrad. A German soldier at Gumrak airbase. He is guarding Russian prisoners. He's got a rifle. They have shovels. They are digging trenches.
An IL-2 appears and attacks. The Russians dive in the hole. The German dives in on top of the Russians. He is looking up into the air and describes the action.
The IL-2 passed overhead. Everyone was firing at it. Sparks were flying off the armored belly in a line from the front to the back of the aircraft.
"It looked like someone took a welding torch and dragged it along the belly of the plane. Showers of sparks just flying ."
I distinctly remember that final line. It gave me a good visual.
Please, Greg.
Please finish this series.
0:23 You talked about the P-47 for FIVE whole episodes and we're still here, so go nuts and tell us everything!
I find Soviet aerospace engineering fascinating for both its successes and its failures. They worked under different constraints than Western designers and came up with some creative solutions. I would love for you to make videos on Soviet aircraft from the 1930s to the 1970s.
Hi, there are different manuals for different purposes in the Red Army and Soviet Army. In this case, this manual is not the principal guiding manual for all Il-2 pilots, there are technically-focused manuals such as "Техническое описание самолета Ил-2 с мотором АМ-38", which is "Technical description of the Il-2 airplane with AM-38 engine". It includes troubleshooting information, general technical information, and so on.
I have those, they are not pilot manuals.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Oh, could you elaborate on why?
seriously interested in the follow-up videos
I would very much like to see more material on Soviet equipment specifically because it is so difficult to find quality, unbiased material.
All comrades in favor of the Series raise hands. Done! Approved to foster the greatness of the channel!
😂
Many of us here are interested in all WWII aircrafts. Well researched and presented. We thank you Sir. 😎 🛬
More videos about the IL-2? Sounds good to me!
Greg your wonderfully detailed dives in to these aircraft is very appreciated regardless of the country of origin. I'm looking forward to more videos on the IL-1 thanks again as always.
Would love to see you cover Sturmovik in depth.
I liked the video please talk more about this plane. It's also interesting to hear about the intricacies and complications of the Soviet production methods and considering those, I'd say they did surprisingly well.
Greg,
I watch your videos with a unique respect and admiration. Because I remember in university doing research papers with dread at their often cumbersome requirements.
Laugh!
⚡⚡🤯⚡⚡
Nice job!
Thanks.
PS
Don't stop.
There is a need for this, rounding out your inventory of WW2 aircraft representation.
and many of us find the unique Russian equipment fascinating. Aircraft, Tanks, all of it.
I hope you will follow up with more videos on this plane. I don't know why people don't like videos of Soviet aircraft. They built some beautiful planes after the war. I am an 81 year old American, and love my country, but am interested all war planes.
The manual of this plane sure shows the difference in pilot training compared to the U.S. and the U.K. I can't imagine having to tell the pilot to make sure the tires aren't flat. I always look forward to your videos.
I adore the La-5/7 series, they just look so good.
Considering what my friend who went to Cadet School in the Soviet Union, and was trained as a pilot for a brief time before being considered for a different role experinced. What was important was your ability to withstand the strain, and anything else would be learned by doing while the ground crews would be the ones who actually know about the aircraft and how to care for it.
Therefore, the people they brought in weren't expected to know much, but things might have changed somewhat between WWII and the late Cold War.
Honestly I'm always fascinated by the completely different design and operational philosophies between the Americans, Germans, Brits, Japanese, and Soviets, etc. and how they changed throughout the war depending on available resources.
Yes please!! Well done Greg, I like all your videos, and I'd love to hear what you researched about IL2.
Don’t get the hate for Soviet equipment episodes, love to hear more about them. Must be from those who kneel at the altar of the main stream media.
I got into IL2 (the sim) fairly early on, and the unglamorous workhorse nature of the IL2 was appealing in contrast to the Spits / P51 'glamour'. I'm pretty sure that 'IL2' introduced many to these lesser known types. Just like Gran Turismo did for JDM cars.
Greg, the comparison of the manual styles was very interesting. I wonder if the soviets made their own manuals for lendlease aircraft like the P39/P40 and if so, how they conpare. I downloaded a translated version of that IL2 manual a few years ago and was very surprised with its comic book appearance, but given the apparent Soviet bias towards strength in quantity over quality, it makes sense!
For combat aircraft it had a lot of armor relative to everything else. But the armor was quite nicely distributed as you noted and engineered into the structure.
A good informative primer on the Sturmovik.
The IL2 is THE Iconic Soviet plane, like the Spitfire or Zero so it deserves a look. Plus it was produced in the greatest numbers for the biggest ground war of all time.
“So much to cover.” I’m looking forward to all of it.
It's very interesting Greg, don't be discoraged by the naysayers!
Soviet aircraft of WW2 are always interesting as were those of the 50s and 60s. More please.
The articulating rods would have been patterned after the BMW licensed engines they had, BMW VI that mikulin had already designed. I think it's something that was carried over along with several other BMW features. Something similar ended up in the later VK-10(x) engines as well afaik. It's all very strange but I wonder if it had to do with existing production methods the factories already knew? It's just very weird and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one confused by the Soviet preference in master/slave connecting rods. The V-2 tank engine also has this con rod arrangement.
i was thinking of the Hispano-Suiza v-12. same thing.
@@peevee2009 the VK-105 and later versions of the licensed HS-12 ended up with the master/slave rod set up if I recall correctly.
I knew someone would post on this. I'm sure you know this, but I'll post it in case someone doesn't. All radials have it. The second connecting rod is connected not to the crank, but to the other connecting rod - hence master/slave reference. It gives the slave piston a different stroke length. I can only think they did this to try and reduce engine length. Not good for revs - which isn't such a problem on a radial.
The BMW VI V12 was developed from the BMW IV Inline six cylinder engine. They just added a second cylinder bank with master and slave connecting rods. My guess is they wanted to keep the crankshaft and crankcase as it was and this was the easiest way to do this without redesigning the whole thing. The russians later build a copy of the engine which was called Mikulin M-17. It`s just weird that the russians keept this feature into all further developments.
@@davidellis2021 on a radial they all have the same stroke right?
Thank you Greg. For very long I've been wondering why Mikulin's engines had such low max rpm. Looking forward to part 2!
The Hispano-Suiza 12Y also lacked counterweights on the crankshaft. The VK engines started out as license-built 12Ys.
Hope to see more on the Il-2! Always look forward to videos.
Another excellent video, Greg. Personally, I don’t understand the lack of views or the hate comments. I’m a military aviation buff (prop & early jets) amongst other interests and the variety is nice and it’s educational as well. Thank you.
Thanks Greg!
Here's an angle that could make the Il-2 story more popular: It's a little known fact that America's best known pilot hero, Eddie Rickenbacker, admired the Sturmovik, and even consulted with the Soviets to improve the plane as well as advising on how to achieve high production volumes. This plane doesn't get much love from western writers, but it appears to have been enormously successful and influential in the outcome of the war. I have read that it's the most produced airplane of the entire war - that alone has to give it a bigger impact than many of the "popular" hero planes of the war. (Much like how the Hurricane and Typhoon played a bigger role in the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire.)
Would love to see more IL2 and Soviet stuff in general where possible. Always look forward to your videos Greg!
This video seems to have gotten a healthy number of views in the initial hours, so I hope you continue. I fell in love with the Russians and their planes in the context of IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad. (Trying to keep the faith despite current events under the Man Who Would be Emperor.)
The Sturmovik is an excellent example. You will probably cover this, but when they first realized they needed a rear gunner they simply cut a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit, provided a strap for the gunner to sit on and a 12.7mm machine gun on an improvised mounting.
So there is old Yuri, sitting in the back flapping in the breeze with his MG, some spare ammo and a flask of vodka. (Note that I am inferring the flask of vodka from the AI gunner’s behavior in the game. Not a reliable source, necessarily.)
I was chased all the way back across the Kuban by an AI Bf-109 in a PvE mission once. Fortunately he seemed to be out of canon. Yuri in the back had run through his ammo without effect, just sat there watching the show and sipping his vodka, couldn’t even be bothered to call out the fighter passes. My right wing was so shredded by MG I had to hold full left stick to keep it level. The Bf-109 finally ran out of ammo or just gave up. Really proud of the landing on that one.
So, the Russians and their planes. Always kind of borderline insane from our western perspective and I hope you cover more of them.
I am very interested in seeing more Il-2 videos. You've obviously done a lot of prep work, it would be a shame to not present it.
Congrats on breaking that bias barrier. This was an extremely important plane and deserves your excellent treatment. Hell, didn't they end up making over 35K IL-2 and over 40K with other variants making it the single most produced military aircraft design in aviation history, as well as one of the most produced piloted aircraft in history?
Love this aircraft. I had no idea the engine was of such huge displacement!
I don't see why this video would do bad. Objective information about Soviet machines is hard to come by, so a detailed comparison with other contemporary planes is quite valuable. We need more of them.
Thank you very much.
I understand the Soviet planes are difficult to research. But it’s so nice to have completeness and, personally, I find them interesting in themselves. Especially the solutions that some of their very smart people come up with to try to even the scales when compared to the more advanced manufacturing precision and materials that the western allies and Germany had. The same applies to the Japanese.
If it’s not as popular content as the Germans, Brits and Americans it’s a shame as it actually sheds light on those other planes in comparison. There’s not much that I can say except I appreciate it and once my health issues are dealt with and I’m back at work I’ve been intending to join the Patreon club to check out all those juicy docs :D
As a user of the IL-2 sim since 2001 this video got my immediate attention. 🙂
Please keep producing more videos on Soviet aircraft. The level of detail you provide is so great that any aircraft will benefit from your studies. Don't worry about what people may like. As Steve Jobs said (allegedly) about the iPhone, people didn't know what they wanted until Apple built it :)
No hate from this guy. Here's to hoping this vid gets enough views to make for a multi chapter series. The IL-2, and Soviet aviation in general, are important parts of WW2 history.
This is the best video on any Soviet VVS airplane that I've ever seen. Yakovlev, in his book, ( Aim Of A Lifetime, I think) says that when copying the B-29, a seemingly random hole that was found in a bulkhead was replicated in every single Tu-4 that they built because Stalin ordered an "exact copy". As someone said, they had a rather dynamic zero-defects policy.
Thats the funniest shit i have ever heard.
I think I have it as “notes of an aircraft designer”. In reality, because Soviet industry worked with different alloys and gauges, every single piece of the B-29 had to be analysed and then redesigned for Soviet manufacture. They put their own engines, radios and guns in as well, abandoned integral fuel tanks for flexible bag tanks, and reworked the design of the bomb bays.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 I got my copy from Major Uri Orin, Military Attache. The problem with anything the Soviets handed out, was their total lack of credibility. That's why I posted the source with the comment. There's no way to know who wrote it or why.That's why I love this channel. Someone will comment who actually knows.
@@paddy1952 I find no mention of the Tu-4 in Yakovlev’s autobiography; it must be a different book. Interestingly enough Yakovlev wrote that he managed to convince Stalin that copying the Me 262 would be a bad idea. (To the detriment of Sukhoi, whose early Su-9 looked a lot like it.) He skirts around the fact that early Soviet jet engines as used in the Yak-15 were copies of German engines, despite the pioneering work of Lyulka in the 1930s. Interesting book but Yakovlev was an agile man - alone of the major Soviet designers, he was never jailed by Stalin - and his autobiography is probably more self-serving than most.
@@emmanuelgustin7851 It's completely possible that I've confused his book with another, or it was a different edition. My Soviet aircraft phase of life was a few decades ago. I've been looking through the book pile but haven't found it so far.
another astounding, informative video from Greg! So to get German pilots to think about the approach and attack angles on an enemy aircraft...
German WWII flight manuals showed cartoon illustrations of a (mostly) naked temptress? ONLY GREG gets that in the weeds!
A concise and analytical look at an aircraft that really hasn’t been done!
Superb short documentary - as usual! More videos on the Il-2 (and any other Soviet WWII planes) PLEASE!
I loved this video. The IL2 has always seemed like an oddball plane to have been produced in such huge numbers. I’m very interested in learning more about its design and how it played into its tactical use.
It is not "oddball" if you first understand the Soviet tactical doctrine. Their doctrine was almost completely opposite of the US and Great Britain. The IL2 makes perfect sense for they type of war that the Soviets were fighting. This is the same reason the the P39, an aircraft that was considered "mediocre" by the other Allies were loved by the Soviet Air forces. The IL2 and P39 fit into the Soviet Tactical plan perfectly.
@@mlynch001 Il-2s were shot down very often and carried bombs very few and far between. They had no range, no navigator, and no visibility. Perfect?
@@Ernest-jr They did not need great range, the IL2 was almost always based a short distance from the front lines, flying from crude airfields. They did not need "navigators" as the Soviet planes were ground controlled and pilots could usually SEE the enemy or the smoke from the battle and thus, where they were to attack. Think of Ivan the pilot, speaking to the commissar: "the NAZIS are 40 kilometers in that direction, go and kill them". I don't see a navigator being of much use in those conditions. When you consider the rudimentary training give the pilots, would such a system have produced many skilled navigators? If it did, would these have been sacrificed in a lowly ground attack aircraft that did not need one? I think not. The IL2 was shot down often, because they fought a dangerous, well armed and capable enemy in the most dangerous conditions for any aircraft. As I said, you first need to understand the Soviet tactical doctrine.
@@mlynch001 You mean, commissar speaking to Ivan the pilot? I would imagine it would not bode well for the former since Ivan would immediately go to his squad leader with the question of why was political officer (placed there to read papers, popularize his party's ideas and recruiting to said party) giving him attack orders.
Also I'd like to note that despite being shot down frequently due to dangerous conditions, pilots often survived the crash landing. All in all, IL-2 filled the attack helicopter role in CAS.
Very interesting. I remember making a model of a ‘Stormovic’ when I was a kid more than 50 years ago - I thought it was an interesting plane despite definitely not being a ‘Soviet fan-boy’ Thank you for this video.
Super detailed and informative video about the most produced combat plane of WW2. More, please. Thanks, Greg!
Great video. Very interesting about the pilot manuals. Looking forward to hearing more about the IL-2.
I'd love to see the Il-2 covered in more detail. Maybe, perhaps also a follow in with the much better looking Il-10
This is awesome! I would love more info. Hope it gets enough traction to warrant more parts ❤️🔥❤️🔥
I would hope there is enough interest to get more videos on the IL-2. You really do some fascinating and informative work.
Great video! My father worked on IL-2. Looking forward to a next video!
The IL2 has been needing a proper in-depth look at for as long as I can remember so Very much looking forward to the rest of the series. My particalar favourites amongst the Soviet WW2 aircraft are the radial engined fighters - particularly the LA5 and LA7, but the IL2 comes very close behind for me!
I think we need more videos about soviet aviation from unbiased authors. I would encourage you to make more!
That being said, in old IL-2 1946 sim we copied soviet tactics of splitting the flights: two planes would make ground attack run, two would cover from 1000m above. It was amazing how many german planes we would shoot down. Thach weave, also, worked nicely!
I love this channel to bits
Nice, finally some proper plane designed for war :D
Yes IL-2s with good pilots were able to hunt various aircraft with good success, but the issue is, that these pilots were not trained as fighter pilots, but as bomber/attack pilots and their orders were also mostly aimed on that. But there are many notes about IL-2 planes shredding various Ju52, Ju87 and also bombers.
That air cooled engine gives it great proportions for rubber free flight scale. This may be the reason that a liquid cooled engine was chosen I believe.
Greg saying he'll have to do multiple parts on the IL-2: "Oh no!" (I said, smiling widely)
We need more. Thanks Greg. multi part series is a GO
I'd definitely love to see more videos on soviet stuff like the Yak series.
Thank you for posting this. You always produce content of the highest order and detail. I think the IL-2 doesn't get the love and respect it deserves for a number of reasons, but I have always been curious about this aircraft.
While people love to call the IL-2 a "Flying Tank", it rarely could actually kill tanks. It carried two 23mm cannon, not 37 mm or 40 mm "can openers". Like all the unguided rockets of the time, the RS-82 was highly inaccurate and ineffective against AFVs. That left the pilots trying to hit moving, shooting back with tracers targets using small, unguided bombs and bomblets.
The Sturmovik excelled at the destruction of soft-skinned vehicles in the convoys supporting the AFVs.
These two dynamics were mirrored in Western Europe with Typhoons and Thunderbolts.
In 1938 when Sergey Illushin originated the term "flying tank", tanks were not viewed as weapons for fighting other tanks so much as armoured infantry support vehicles. Many tanks at the time carried only machine guns or light cannons that were ineffective against other tanks. @@amerigo88
Please expand on this, I’m truly interested!
Greg, I think the videos on Soviet planes are the most interesting ones you have made because of the fact that its hard to get information on them and they aren't as widely talked about. There are thousands upon thousands of accounts about the planes & the pilots involved in the air war over Western Europe/Pacific from 1942-1945. What i dont see talked about nearly as much is the Air War over the Eastern Front, Africa, and China/India/Burma Theaters and so for me any videos related to those topics are the ones that i get really excited to watch. In any case keep up the great work!
Side Note: Seeing you mentioning the Tu-4 in this video makes me interested in seeing you do a P-47/Ki-84 style series of videos on the 4 Engine Heavy Bombers produced by all the countries that ended up building such aircraft types. I know you made the video on the B-32 a couple months ago and i thought it was very cool
Would love to see more of these. There’s been a recent shift into baseless revisionism of Soviet gear due to recent political events, particularly around, ahem, tanks but it’s been appearing everywhere. It’s nice to see some of us still value data and historiography.
A few of my relatives (long passed away) flew the Sturmovik in the early 1950s after the war when it was no longer front line. Their instructors were from the Patriotic War and generally said the plane was okay but the Germans shot them down like a turkeyshoot, luckily there were always more (Sturmoviks). So yeah it was a tough airplane but no plane ever made is tough anymore when 30mm cannon shells hit it.
The Germans didn't really have the 30mm until 44 when the VVS started to gain air superiority.
My workmates father was a German soldier wounded on the Eastern front. He said what stopped the Russian attack was that they couldn't climb over their own dead bodies. I believe mass attacks by Sturmoviks would have been more successful but still costly.
@@redtobertshateshandles This comment shows how ignorant you are on the subject.
Thank you for your hard work researching these and also for your fondness for primary sources. Honestly I don't care much which nation's aircraft you talk about -- each has an interesting story, even if it's just to learn what a fighting force deemed "a problem" and how a design team then came up with "a solution".
Speaking of solutions: I think the sleek nose has a big advantage in better visibility for the pilot. A thing like that has the potential to save lives, especially when the plane's low and slow (under relatively high angles of attack).
Definitely looking forward to more videos on the IL-2. Apart from the Yaks, this is probably the most well-know Soviet Era warplane from World War II.
If anyone wants to know how the US finally got to the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog), I believe it started with here with the Soviets.
I hope the video does well and that the other videos will be done.
I've always been interested in what the Soviet was using in WW2 for fighters, besides what they got from the allies. When I was in grade school I was super interested in the WW2 fighter planes in Europe and the Pacific, especially the Pacific...
The Yakovlev Yak-1, succeeded by the Yak-9, followed by the Yak-3 seems to have been the best design they fielded.
I also see a MiG-1 (which was apparently pretty bad) and a MiG-3 successor as interceptors.
The LaGG-1/3 were apparently the early versions of the La-5 and La-7, another major type.
The Polikarpov I-16 was innovative in the 1930’s but pretty dated by the time the war really got going.
Looks like they had quite a few very reasonable aircraft, though none as famous as the Il-2.
@@Justanotherconsumer I'm from Russia. You list common estimates, which to me, after many years of study, seem very controversial.
The MiG-3 produced 3,000, and it flew much earlier Yak, which is very, very important. Its production was stopped when the Germans approached the factory that assembled them. So the tale of a relatively unserviceable MiG is obviously made up, I suppose. That was the custom under Stalin, to make up fairy tales. It, like all airplanes hastily created after the 1937 shootings, was more like the real thing than it was. 3 thousand interceptors could do little and already Moscow was being defended by brit Hurricane and old I-16.
The Yak-1 was very poorly mastered, flew late, had poor stability at first. It had a canvas skin and veneer wings. Good for 1918.
A mediocre French style project: compare it with the Yugoslavian Rogožarski IK-3, which flew much earlier and had at least some chance of being ready in time for the war. But it didn't. That's it in a nutshell.
Amusing facts: Ilyushin is an old party member, Yakovlev is almost adopted by Stalin, son-in-law of the shot party secretary Rudzutak, Mikoyan is the younger brother of the Commissar, Gorbunov (the leader in LaGG) is the brother of the dead minister (the term is inaccurate for clarity).
One more vote for more content on the IL-2 here. As a non-engineer “engine guy” I find your description of this engine fascinating… I mean, articulating connecting rods? How the heck would that work? Let’s talk some more about this!
A full description is coming in the next video. As an engine guy, I don't think you will like it, it certainly seems like a bad idea to me.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I suspicion you are correct.
I'd love to hear you cover the LaGG 3 and more specifically the La 5 development and characteristics the same way you covered the Thunderbolt. Great video.
To be fair, Greg has stated that the Thunderbolt series was to explain a lot more of the basic fundamentals of aircraft design as an entry point for his channel, so any other deep dives like that will be more condensed.
@@fusilier3029 of course, and he would have to painfully translate and fill in the gaps of the very basic level manuals they wrote, but I'd still love to hear about the development and struggles they had.
That was awesome, looking forward to part 2!
Only a few minutes into the video so far, hearing you talking about how no other country had manuals this basic- how does it compare to what a kamikaze pilot would have been given? Fascinating video so far.
I went into this expecting some really, really detailed tangent and I. Wasn't disappointed, welcome to manuals 101.