Il-2 Rear Gunners: A deliberate sacrifice?

[Macaca sylvanus]

Il-2 Rear gunners: a deliberate sacrifice?

In his book "Inside the Soviet Army", Viktor Suvorov alleges that the lack of protection for Il-2 rear gunners was part of a deliberate policy. Suvorov claims that from 1942 on, all Soviet airfields had attached penal companies of air gunners. Such companies were made up of prisoners who were considered to be "enemies of socialism" or "enemies of the people." The air gunners were not provided with either armour protection, or allegedly, parachutes and were reliant entirely on their machine guns to ensure their own survival. The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high and Suvorov alleges that the Marshal of the Air Forces, A.E. Golovanov, came up with a special device to keep the guns pointing up after the gunners were killed. Otherwise attacking Luftwaffe pilots would realise the air gunner was dead and concentrate on that aircraft. According to Suvorov, prisoners who survived could theoretically clear their sentences after nine missions. The prisoners, however, were always transferred to mine clearing or other units for "medical reasons" before this could happen.

Many Il-2 pilots and rear gunners do not remember seeing or hearing about any prisoner crews, and German propaganda may have broadcast this claim as well. In recent years documents from the Soviet archives have come to light indicating that the Soviet Air Force did in fact use "Penal squadrons" in some situations,but although they may have been considered expendable, there is no evidence that even they would have been deliberately sacrificed.With respect to armor protection, most Il-2s produced after 1944 and the follow-on Il-10 had armor for the rear gunner.

The initial omission may well have been result of the rear gunner being a design afterthought for a single-seat aircraft that was implemented during the crisis years of the war, rather than a deliberate act.

From Wikipedia.com

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Il-2_cabin.jpg/180px-Il-2_cabin.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Il-2_cabin.jpg) Cockpit of Il-2 Sturmovik

[Paddy51]

Using expendable prisoners as gunners does not make sense as it would endanger the plane and the rest of the crew - who were presumably regarded as valuable. Using prisoners do clear mines, well that sounds more credible. I do wonder if this is propaganda as suggested?

[Lokos]

Viktor Suvorov, eh? Why don't you do a little research on this character? It might provide a hint as to the veracity of the assertion.

Lokos

[Basillicus]

Well, this story sounds kind of far fetched even Soviets are considered.

[Meatwad]

Pure BS. Being a gunner in any aircraft was dangerous and all had high chances of dying on any given sortie.

[Sixpints]

The IL-2 was designed as a single seater, adding a rear gunner already shifted the center of gravity to the rear, adding the weight of steel plates would have made the plane even less airworthy.

[Jaguar]

Utter BS. Suvorov cannot be taken seriously.

[Kilgor]

No parachute? Well.. no need.

The rear seat was probably like other aircraft of the time very hard to escape from and the low altitudes from which the IL2 usually flew from made any critical hit a death sentence.

There would have been simply no time to escape.

Germans also avoided the rear gunner by flying under the aircraft and aiming for the oil cooler.

[MZKT]

Victor Suvorov as a source for historical Facts roflroflroflroflroflrofl

[redfox0035]

Victor Suvorov as a source for historical Facts roflroflroflroflroflrofl

He's not EVEN Victor Suvorov.

[Hutz]

Using expendable prisoners as gunners does not make sense as it would endanger the plane and the rest of the crew - who were presumably regarded as valuable.

X 2, that'd be waisting precious aircraft and aircrew. It takes quite a bit of resources to train a pilot (probably a fair amount for an air gunner as well), and wouldn't make any sense to waste such resources when the country's fighting for it's survival. Raise the BS flag!

[el borracho]

True, plus the IL-2 is regarded as one of the best attack aircraft of the war. If it was a deathtrap for its crew, it wouldn't have such a solid reputation.

[11 Bravo]

True, plus the IL-2 is regarded as one of the best attack aircraft of the war. If it was a deathtrap for its crew, it wouldn't have such a solid reputation.



I have to say I have read quite a bit over the years on the "ost front" and have never come across any reference to the IL2 as being anywhere near a great ground attack aircraft other than it's nickname "flying tank". It was hard to knock down , but it's bomb load was ineffectual coupled with low pilot quality. There was no russian "stuka ace" either.

[number nine]

I have to say I have read quite a bit over the years on the "ost front" and have never come across any reference to the IL2 as being anywhere near a great ground attack aircraft other than it's nickname "flying tank". It was hard to knock down , but it's bomb load was ineffectual coupled with low pilot quality. There was no russian "stuka ace" either.

Indeed?

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/decisiveairpower1950.htm


At Stalingrad in early 1943, for example, a Soviet air blockade of no less than thirty-two air divisions (approximately 4,000 aircraft) inflicted air denial on German forces, prevented an ill-conceived airlift operation from having any chance of success whatsoever, and guarded Soviet ground forces from German air attack. At Kursk that summer, German and Russian ground attack aircraft enjoyed great success against opposing armor, occasionally operating with decisive tactical and, more rarely, with strategic, effect. For example, on July 7, Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmoviks destroyed seventy German tanks in twenty minutes; another attack lasting four hours claimed 240 out of 300 Panzers

It were the German CAS aircraft before Henschel Hs129 that were coffin for the crew. For example, Ju87 was less capable of defending itself because it was not nearly as armoured as IL-2. That Battle for Britain shows. It was not faster, it was not climbing better than IL-2, or if it was, that was much lower even than Bf110 abysmal performance, and it had no IL-2 armour.

[Lokos]

There was no russian "stuka ace" either

And you know this... how?


low pilot quality

What was wrong with Russian pilot quantity after 1943?

Lokos

[el borracho]

I have to say I have read quite a bit over the years on the "ost front" and have never come across any reference to the IL2 as being anywhere near a great ground attack aircraft other than it's nickname "flying tank". It was hard to knock down , but it's bomb load was ineffectual coupled with low pilot quality. There was no russian "stuka ace" either.

Well, "best" as in much loved by its crews and hated by its enemies. Both mainly for the same reason, because it was so sturdy.

[GazB]

I have to say I have read quite a bit over the years on the "ost front" and have never come across any reference to the IL2 as being anywhere near a great ground attack aircraft other than it's nickname "flying tank". It was hard to knock down , but it's bomb load was ineffectual coupled with low pilot quality. There was no russian "stuka ace" either.

The Stuka was a dive bomber that latter had large calibre cannon added to it because of the success of the Il-2 with cannon. The Stuka was useless unless used under an umbrella of complete airsuperiority. The Il-2 fought the whole war including during the first period where there were german fighters everywhere right through to the last days when german fighters were scarce because of a lack of fuel. The very first Il-2s had effective cannon that allowed them to destroy any German tank in service in 1941. They also had bomblets that were the precursor to the modern cluster bomb with several hundred contained in each of the Il-2s internal bomb bays that were also very effective against ground targets. As level bombers, as opposed to dive bombers they were not as accurate with dumb bombs as the Stuka, but to climb to medium altitude and then dive almost vertically on the target to bomb it would have been suicide till airsuperiority had been achieved. More to the point communications within the Soviet Army were not really anywhere near what the Germans had so passing on target data to Il-2s to allow them to operate like long range and responsive artillery just really wasn't an option.

Have read a book written by a Shturmovik pilot and he preferred the models without the rear gunner. He claimed the extra weight reduced speed to the point where they were more likely to be intercepted.

[LRPV]

My understanding is that"Victor Suvorov" was the nom de plume of a soviet armoured corps defector. He published on a number of topics including spetsnaz.

Other than reading a couple of his books in the 80s I don't know anything of him. I'm interested in why he is belittled on this thread, is there any evidence to discredit his work? Links?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Maybe because he is a defector and the RussiaSTRONG!!!! crowd don't like it when there is such people.

Who knows.

The way I look at history is that I try to read/gather information from as many sources as possible and draw my conclusion.

I've personally never heard of any deliberate attempts using criminals and other enemies of the state as gunners. However the USSR did force criminal battalions to clear minefields, human wave strong points and shot retreating soldiers.

It does sound feasible that such a thing happened. But obviously not on the scale that this guy mentioned.

[LRPV]

But obviously not on the scale that this guy mentioned.

Scale? All conjecture by lefty revisionists.p-)

Still waiting on some credible feedback.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I never actually said it happened man. And if it did it was obviously not on a scale that this guy mentions otherwise there would be more sources stating this claim.

[Indiana Jones]

My understanding is that"Victor Suvorov" was the nom de plume of a soviet armoured corps defector. He published on a number of topics including spetsnaz.

Other than reading a couple of his books in the 80s I don't know anything of him. I'm interested in why he is belittled on this thread, is there any evidence to discredit his work? Links?
"Viktor Suvorov" alias Vladimir Rezun actually held the rank of major in the GRU and did indeed defect in 1978. In academic circles "Suvorov" is not reputed to be reliable, since he repeatedly obviously deliberately misquoted and misrepresented statements and has been proven to have made up evidence on several occasions in order to underpin his assertions.
All that said, "Icebreaker" makes for interesting reading and its broad thesis (although I personally do not find his case very convincing) may not be entirely dismissed out of hand, however it should be kept in mind at all times that it does not conform to fundamental academic standards and that its authors integrity must be seriously questioned.

[Indiana Jones]

At Stalingrad in early 1943, for example, a Soviet air blockade of no less than thirty-two air divisions (approximately 4,000 aircraft) inflicted air denial on German forces, prevented an ill-conceived airlift operation from having any chance of success whatsoever, and guarded Soviet ground forces from German air attack. At Kursk that summer, German and Russian ground attack aircraft enjoyed great success against opposing armor, occasionally operating with decisive tactical and, more rarely, with strategic, effect. For example, on July 7, Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmoviks destroyed seventy German tanks in twenty minutes; another attack lasting four hours claimed 240 out of 300 Panzers
Number nine, the quoted figures are utterly inaccurate. As we know from the "Panzerlage" files, German permanent tank (and StuG) losses during Zitadelle amounted to about 300 during the whole offensive; the vast majority of those was lost to Soviet armour and AT guns. No second service branch in the second world war overclaimed in the same magnitude as ground-attack aircraft-that goes for all belligerent powers.
Oh, and something else, limited airlift capabilities as well as poor weather did play a significant role in the German failure to resupply the 6. Armee as well, arguably more than Soviet resistance.

[LineDoggie]

The Stuka was a dive bomber that latter had large calibre cannon added to it because of the success of the Il-2 with cannon. The Stuka was useless unless used under an umbrella of complete airsuperiority.
.

That would be News to Hans Ulrich Rudel, wouldnt it?

He flew the Ju87 Stuka for most of the war on the Eastern Front

1 Battleship (Marat)
2 Cruisers
1 Destroyer
70 Landing Craft/Assault boats
4 Armored Trains
150 Self Propelled Guns
519 Tanks
800 Soft skins Vehicles
9 Aircraft(2-Il2, 7 Fighters)
not counting numerous frontline positions, bunkers, etc.

[Kilgor]

Rudel was no doubt brilliant but he was exceptionally lucky, and I go far to say its a sheer miracle he survived the war. Regardless of his epic record, the Stuka was completely outdated by the time of the eastern front.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Not really. It served it's purpose (close air support) extremely well in all theaters. And like all non-fighter aircraft if it had no fighter escort then it was pretty much going to go down in flames.

[GazB]

Not really. It served it's purpose (close air support) extremely well in all theaters. And like all non-fighter aircraft if it had no fighter escort then it was pretty much going to go down in flames.

But that is the point... the Stuka without airsupport would be going down in flames. Plenty of Il-2s were lost but they operated from the start of the war to the end often without fighter support and never before 1943 with airsuperiority.


That would be News to Hans Ulrich Rudel, wouldnt it?

No. He above all others would have known it was DIVE BOMBER that later in the war got some cannon for direct fire support work. Its initial gun armament was a couple of rifle calibre machineguns and a large bomb.

As I said it was a very accurate bomber... dive bombers dive almost vertically on their targets and unless some mistake happens they usually hit their targets, which is more than can be said for most level bombers of the period or even since... but it was incredibly slow and poorly armed to defend itself and its method of attack left it open to easy interception by even mediocre fighters.
Even the backward antiquated Soviet fighters like the Il-16 or Il-15 biplane had retractible undercarriage and were faster than a Stuka.

[Jippo]

Rudel was no doubt brilliant but he was exceptionally lucky, and I go far to say its a sheer miracle he survived the war. Regardless of his epic record, the Stuka was completely outdated by the time of the eastern front.

It can be argued that it was outdated, but still in many cases in the period of 1942-1943 the advance of Heer was due to the Luftwaffe. And in that, most often Ju-87. It performed magnifically, (turning tables magnifically that is)even in the defensive battles as late as 1944. That is amazing feat for plane you say was completely outdated by 1942.

What comes to the vulnerability of JU-87, the B2 version that was predominent by the start of the Barbarossa was far better armored than the 87's used in Battle of Britain. Later D & G variations further improved survivability in the form of better defensive armament and additional armor. In G the vital components of the plane were rather well protected! Remember that 87 was thought highly by the men who flew it for it's ability to sustain battle damage and get the crew home.

[StukaJr]

Il-2 was poorly protected as a rule from the rear/top attack - it's armor was concentrated to protect the aircraft from the concentrated ground fire and being a steel bathtub on the bottom front meant there was not much weight left to armor it up top... It's fuel lines had cut offs, the vital components well protected and the aircraft was very survivable when in its intended role. It would make little sense to armor the rear gunner's cockpit as he would still be vulnerable to attack everywhere else. Limiting vision by plating up gunner's view would only make aircraft more vulnerable...

Haven't heard of prisoner/shtrafniki claims being rear gunners other than from sensational dissident V. Rezun (Suvorov) - in the memoirs I've read they were regular crews. Aircraft crews were also some of the best fed and cared for in the Soviet Army - on the front, obviously, they starved in schools...

[Mamont]

Il-2 was poorly protected as a rule from the rear/top attack - it's armor was concentrated to protect the aircraft from the concentrated ground fire and being a steel bathtub on the bottom front meant there was not much weight left to armor it up top... When last time you checked il-2 armor scheme and construction?

[Jaguar]

Years ago, I guess just after Red Star Black Cross was published, Bergstrom provided figures in a Forum (couldn´t find it though) that the combat loss rate of Sturmovik flyers were bellow that of 8AF bomber crews.

Much discution about comparing apples and oranges, nevertheless, statisticly, it was safer to do battle in an Il-2 than in an Mighty Eight bomber.

[StukaJr]

When last time you checked il-2 armor scheme and construction?

I really don't... I gather my opinions from the writings of the people that flew them and formed their opinions from personal experience with the aircraft. Also, German fighter pilot's only chance to down a Sturmovik was to trail it and attack it from the rear/top - which is the sweet spot for any aircraft, but still worth the mention...

And what's wrong with my understanding of IL-2 scheme anyhow, in your opinion?

[Mamont]

I really don't... I gather my opinions from the writings of the people that flew them and formed their opinions from personal experience with the aircraft. You know, by strange coincidence i gather part of me opinions from memories of il2 pilots too. There is a great book "I fought in Il-2" by A.Drabkin, but also i do like to check the blueprints...


And what's wrong with my understanding of IL-2 scheme anyhow, in your opinion? This: Il-2 was poorly protected as a rule from the rear/top attack.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7481/image6tn7.gif
Actually the most vulnerable part of il2 was the aft fuselage section because it was a wooden construction 5mm thick. It was reinforced with steel П-profiles later.

[Lokos]

Didn't really matter when the Il-2s got their biggest share of the action, did it?

Mid-1943 onwards, they didn't really have to fear German aerial intercepts too much until the RKKA began operating on German soil.

Lokos

[StukaJr]

You know, by strange coincidence i gather part of me opinions from memories of il2 pilots too. There is a great book "I fought in Il-2" by A.Drabkin, but also i do like to check the blueprints...

This: Il-2 was poorly protected as a rule from the rear/top attack.


picture


Actually the most vulnerable part of il2 was the aft fuselage section because it was a wooden construction 5mm thick. It was reinforced with steel П-profiles later.

Right... but swooping down on the ground attack aircraft head on (especially the one making it's attack run) to hit that area, is not the smartest move a German pilot could make - called a suicide by more experienced German pilots... I was making a case of not just where the armor is thin/non-existent, it's also a case of where the fighter could line up the shot.

... Rear / Top - is that not what I've said?

[LineDoggie]

Years ago, I guess just after Red Star Black Cross was published, Bergstrom provided figures in a Forum (couldn´t find it though) that the combat loss rate of Sturmovik flyers were bellow that of 8AF bomber crews.

Much discution about comparing apples and oranges, nevertheless, statisticly, it was safer to do battle in an Il-2 than in an Mighty Eight bomber.

Il-2 Crew 2men
B-17 Crew 10 men

Of Course by numbers alone the Il-2 looks safer

[Mamont]

Right... but swooping down on the ground attack aircraft head on (especially the one making it's attack run) to hit that area, is not the smartest move a German pilot could make - called a suicide by more experienced German pilots... Il-2 was fairly maneuverable, so a head-on pass most likely could have ended badly for the attacking craft because of Il's armament. There were cases of fighter being shot down by RS from Il-2s. Germans as stated by numerous soviet pilots very rarely choosed a head-on pass anyway.


I was making a case of not just where the armor is thin/non-existent, it's also a case of where the fighter could line up the shot.If you look at the diagram, you'll see, that the thickiest armor protected pilot from the rear. Do not forget, that total weight of armor on Il-2 was about 700kg. Il-10 had about 900kg of armor.


... Rear / Top - is that not what I've said?Then, by this statement almost _all_ planes including modern are poorly protected from top/rear attack. In comparison with other planes of ww2 il2 had the best armouring, though armor was not designed to withstand cannon shells.

[Jaguar]

Il-2 Crew 2men
B-17 Crew 10 men

Of Course by numbers alone the Il-2 looks safer

Actually, as loss rates are a percentage of missions flown, it doesn´t matter if there is a crew of 1, 2 or 100 ;)

[StukaJr]

Il-2 was fairly maneuverable, so a head-on pass most likely could have ended badly for the attacking craft because of Il's armament. There were cases of fighter being shot down by RS from Il-2s. Germans as stated by numerous soviet pilots very rarely choosed a head-on pass anyway.


I don't disagree with you there...



If you look at the diagram, you'll see, that the thickiest armor protected pilot from the rear. Do not forget, that total weight of armor on Il-2 was about 700kg. Il-10 had about 900kg of armor.

I wasn't talking about just the pilot protection, but the protection of the entire plane - and since the bottom of the aircraft is serving as an armor plate for the pilot... But yes, now I can see that the pilot is well protected from the rear/top attack by the armored cockpit back - more so than the rear gunner...



Then, by this statement almost _all_ planes including modern are poorly protected from top/rear attack. In comparison with other planes of ww2 il2 had the best armouring, though armor was not designed to withstand cannon shells.

It was my understanding that Il-2 could survive a hit by 20mm in a head on or at least has been rumored to - one of the reasons why Germans developed "Ostwind" with a single 39mm FLAK gun.

[Jaguar]

The most vulnerable spot of IL-2 was the radiator, which wasn´t armored, being a liquid cooled engine one bullet there and the plane sooner or later would go down.

About reargunners losses I´ve found this from a interview with former Il2 pilot Iurii Mikhailovich (84 combat sorties):



They say that there were 7 killed gunners for each killed pilot, is that true?

No. Let me explain. We had 105 pilots and 50 gunners killed, why? Because the regiment fought from the beginning to the end of the war. The first half of the war in one-seater aircraft. And the second half -- in two-seaters. And most of the time, they died together. A ground attack aircraft pilot, according to the statistics, managed to fly 7–8 sorties and then died. Such were statistics.

Interesting account:



Were there penal ground attack squadrons?
No. They would send offending officers to us, not necessarily pilots. They would fly 10 sorties as rear gunners.

So sometimes being a reargunner was a punishment, but not in the sense of a penal/suicide function.

[Fiber]

Interesting to read about Iurii Mikhailovich doing 84 sorties and saying on average the crew could fly 7-8 before before getting killed. He must be good and lucky.

Also if you were sentenced to fly 10 sorties as a rear gunner it was more or less a death sentence..

[Jaguar]

Interesting to read about Iurii Mikhailovich doing 84 sorties and saying on average the crew could fly 7-8 before before getting killed. He must be good and lucky.

Also if you were sentenced to fly 10 sorties as a rear gunner it was more or less a death sentence..

Not only in Sturmoviks:


Canadian pilot and author Murray Peden recalls: "The crews faced formidable odds, odds seldom appreciated outside the (Bomber) Command. At times in the great offensives of 1943 and 1944 the short-term statistics foretold that less than 25 out of each 100 crews would survive their first tour of 30 operations."

For any given 100 aircrew in Bomber Command, 1939-1945, the statistical breakdown was:

Killed on operations - 51
Killed in crashes in England - 9
Seriously injured - 3
Prisoner of War - 12
Evaded capture - 1
Survived unharmed - 24

[Jaguar]

Finally found it:

One of the most common misconceptions regarding the air war on teh Eastern Front is the notion of the Il-2 as always sustaining an almost unbearable loss rate.

I have made a brief summary and comparison of the Il-2 and the heavy bombers of U.S. 8th Air Force. The reason why I chose the latter is that it is widely acknowledged that these aircraft were fairly difficult to shoot down.

In the most difficult period, 22 June 1941 - 1 July 1942, the Il-2 loss rate was a terrible 7.7 % (one lost in every 13 sorties).

But after that, the Il-2’s loss rate declined.

The period 1 August 1942 - 1 June 1943 was the second worst for the Il-2, with an average loss rate of 3.85 % (one lost in every 26 sorties).

Interestingly, during the same period (1 August 1942 - 1 June 1943), the average loss rate for the U.S. 8th AF heavy bombers was higher - a staggering 5.1 % (one lost in every 19 sorties).

The loss rate in the Il-2 units dropped from then onward.

More interesting comparisons can be made with the heavy bombers of U.S. 8th AF:

Through 1944, a total of 4,100 Il-2s were lost in combat - compared with the 8,800 at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 47 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year.

U.S. 8th AF: Through 1944, total of 3,497 heavy bombers were lost in combat - compared with the 1,686 heavy bombers at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 207 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year.

If we compare the yearly loss for 1944 with the number of aircraft available at the end of the year, we get these relations:

Il-2: 40 % (10,200 available on 31 Dec 1944)
8th AF HBs: 94 % (3,706 available on 31 Dec 1944)

In 1945, the Soviet Air Force had an average loss rate of 0.6 %, while the 8th AF heavy bombers had an average loss rate of 1.15 %.

These relations are even more remarkable in view of the fact that the Soviet most of the time were faced with a stronger - or vastly stronger - German fighter opposition than the Western Allies were. The elite of the Luftwaffe always was concentrated against the Soviets, and the Allies were quite fortunate to be spared a confrontation with the best of the Luftwaffe.

All best,

Christer Bergström

http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/index.htm

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/