British Sturmovik?

I believe everyone here has at least heard about IL-2 Sturmovik, the Soviet WW2 ground attack aircraft. It is considered one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war, renown for its heavy armor and armament.

On the other hand we have the British Fairey Battle aircraft, a light bomber which was a god design when it first flew, but by 1940 was too slow, weakly armed and unarmored when compared to modern fighter aircraft.

So, was it possible that the Battle could be upgraded/modified before/during the WW2 to do the same task as the IL2?

I know that the British modified the Hurricane fighter into Hurribomber after BoB, and I know of its ultimate cannon armed variant with 40mm cannons. I also know of Hawker Typhoon fighter-bomber aircraft which was designed as interceptor, but ended up as ground attack aircraft?

The main problem was that the Battle was designed as a strategic bomber, not a ground attack aircraft. It was tested with the 2,000hp Fairey Monarch engine, which would have allowed for a big upgrade in power, and a consequential increase in armour, defensive weapon load and bomb load.



On the other hand, would it have been a worthwile exercise when the Hurricane could carry 500 lbs of bombs and act as a fighter after they'd been jettisoned? The Typhoon could carry double that. Smaller, faster, cheaper and more manouvrable.

Given that the most successful ground attack aircraft in the West post 1940 were all single seaters (Fw190, P-47, Typhoon, Hurricane) I really think that trying to make a silk purse out of a Battle would have been a waste of effort.

plenka said:

So, was it possible that the Battle could be upgraded/modified before/during the WW2 to do the same task as the IL2?

Click to expand...

Someone over on What If Modellers built something that would fit in with what you're asking and it seems fairly plausible...

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,34563.0

The Battle was called a light bomber, and it was large and slow and carried a crew of three, only two of whom would win medals. It wasn't suitable for conversion to anything but a training aircraft. The Hurricane became a fighter-bomber because a more powerful engine didn't increase the speed but did increase the bomb-carrying ability. It didn't make it any more resistant to ground fire. The Typhoon could carry anything, but couldn't dive from altitude, and looked tougher than it was. Some very smart ground attack aircraft suffered appalling losses, both from ground fire and from enemy aircraft, and there was a reason that Il-2s were built in vast quantities. And yet, there is a vast difference between the Battle and the Sturmovic. The Il-2m3 was designed for the role it played from the armored shell out. Nobody knew what the Battle was designed for.

I always thought that the Gloster F.9/37 was a great analogy of the Hs-129B but you'd have to be there at the right time, want it, have the right weapons fit, and do it. Nobody did it.

plenka said:

I believe everyone here has at least heard about IL-2 Sturmovik, the Soviet WW2 ground attack aircraft. It is considered one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war, renown for its heavy armor and armament.

Click to expand...

It's less well known that large numbers were shot down by fighters and AAA

They suffered loss rates like the Battle had over France, 1 in 26 sorties in 1943

The A-36, the ground attack version of the P-51 was 1 in 132. The P-40 was 1 in 121. The P-51 was 1 in 84, P-47 1 in 137

During Barbarossa, the IL-2 had high enough losses that a rear gunner was added in 1942. He was not protected by any armor, and there was enough losses in gunners that it was considered a punishment job.
Not til the Il-10 was the gunner to get protection.

Could have the British made a dedicated ground attack craft?

sure.

But after the Battle of France, they were skittish over tactical missions over Europe in anything that wasn't a light bomber or fighter.

In the Pacific and India, however, the Vultee A-35 did good work with the RAAF and IAF in CAS missions.

Just Leo said:

The Battle was called a light bomber, and it was large and slow and carried a crew of three, only two of whom would win medals. It wasn't suitable for conversion to anything but a training aircraft. The Hurricane became a fighter-bomber because a more powerful engine didn't increase the speed but did increase the bomb-carrying ability. It didn't make it any more resistant to ground fire. The Typhoon could carry anything, but couldn't dive from altitude, and looked tougher than it was. Some very smart ground attack aircraft suffered appalling losses, both from ground fire and from enemy aircraft, and there was a reason that Il-2s were built in vast quantities. And yet, there is a vast difference between the Battle and the Sturmovic. The Il-2m3 was designed for the role it played from the armored shell out. Nobody knew what the Battle was designed for.

I always thought that the Gloster F.9/37 was a great analogy of the Hs-129B but you'd have to be there at the right time, want it, have the right weapons fit, and do it. Nobody did it.

Click to expand...

Hi folks I love finding out things that seem true but are not,
Case in point the vulterability of radials vs cliquish cooled engines to ground fire.
Sounds like a no brainier one bullet in the glycol and a liquid cooled engine is toast while you can blow a cylinder on a air cooled radial...

Well sort of but an in line engine Has a smaller frontal area and could be more effectivly armoured

Which was more vulnerable? Well if you compare loss rates per sortie in P47's and vulnerable Typhoons in the air forces over Normandy guess which fighter had the higher loss rate.

Cheers Hipper

marathag said:

It's less well known that large numbers were shot down by fighters and AAA

They suffered loss rates like the Battle had over France, 1 in 26 sorties in 1943

The A-36, the ground attack version of the P-51 was 1 in 132. The P-40 was 1 in 121. The P-51 was 1 in 84, P-47 1 in 137

During Barbarossa, the IL-2 had high enough losses that a rear gunner was added in 1942. He was not protected by any armor, and there was enough losses in gunners that it was considered a punishment job.
Not til the Il-10 was the gunner to get protection.

Could have the British made a dedicated ground attack craft?

sure.

But after the Battle of France, they were skittish over tactical missions over Europe in anything that wasn't a light bomber or fighter.

In the Pacific and India, however, the Vultee A-35 did good work with the RAAF and IAF in CAS missions.

Click to expand...

The really really fun thing about the RAF in 1944 is that they found the spitfire was quite a good dive bomber, it could pull out from a dive very quickly and had a fast diving speed.

Considering thier attitude to "loosing height bombing" this no doubt came as an embarrassment

Cheers Hipper

Converting Fairey Battle to compete with Sturmovik would require a major redesign of the center fuselage to incorporate monocoque armour surrounding g coolant radiators, etc.
It would also need much larger calibre guns (40 mm?) to penetrate even the top armour of Panzers.

riggerrob said:

Converting Fairey Battle to compete with Sturmovik would require a major redesign of the center fuselage to incorporate monocoque armour surrounding g coolant radiators, etc.
It would also need much larger calibre guns (40 mm?) to penetrate even the top armour of Panzers.

Click to expand...

20mm don't penetrate top armour?

riggerrob said:

Converting Fairey Battle to compete with Sturmovik would require a major redesign of the center fuselage to incorporate monocoque armour surrounding g coolant radiators, etc.
It would also need much larger calibre guns (40 mm?) to penetrate even the top armour of Panzers.

Click to expand...

Unbolt/drill out rivets on the existing aluminum panels.

Replace with magnesium steel armorplate, ad more bulletproof glass

easy.

Its what the Germans did with the Fw 190 A-8



The Vickers S gun worked fine in the desert against tanks.

1000 yards, 44mm@20 degrees. 1870fps. 15 round magazine

There was also a Littlejohn adapter, a squeeze bore. It did 62mm at those same conditions, 3250 fps.

Simply replacing thin aluminum cladding with heavy steel armour would over-load the Battle's wings.
You need to completely re-engineer the center fuselage to benefit from the structural advantages of steel armour.
To benefit from the armour, you also need to copy the Sturmovik's down-flow radiator hiding within the armoured fuselage.

Hashoosh said:

20mm don't penetrate top armour?

Click to expand...

.....................................................................................................

Sure, Typhoons proved that 20 mm could penetrate top armor of most Panzers, but if you are designing a dedicated Panzer-killer, it makes sense to install the largest, fastest gun you can and the RAF had perfected 40 mm anti-tank guns for ground attack Hurricanes.
Also consider that GA airplanes will not always get the perfect angle and would be better armed if they could defeat Panzer armor from any angle.

For example, Major Radley-Walters proved that Shermans could kill Tigers by shooting them in the ass, but that was a complicated and expensive process. He would have been much happier if he had a main gun powerful enough to kill a Tiger on first sight, from any angle, etc.

IOW In a gun fight, the advantage goes to the man with the longest gun.

What about doing something similar to the Fw-190 F-8/R3 which was equipped with two 30 mm MK 103 gun pods? The British design could use the Vickers S or the QF 2 pounder Mark XIV. Alternatively, the M4 cannon from the Airacobra could be imported from the United States.

riggerrob said:

Simply replacing thin aluminum cladding with heavy steel armour would over-load the Battle's wings.
You need to completely re-engineer the center fuselage to benefit from the structural advantages of steel armour.
To benefit from the armour, you also need to copy the Sturmovik's down-flow radiator hiding within the armoured fuselage.

Click to expand...

Battle Radiator is easy to protect



IL-2 armor wasn't that thick. 700-990 kg weight depending on the verson: that's why the bombload was so low

The thickness used on Il-2, was 4 mm on the cowling, 5 mm underside and sides, 6-12mm on the bulkhead and firewall



As long as the Battle doesn't exceed max take off weight, there just isn't a problem.

What issue has to be addressed, is change of the Center of Gravity. That's how the Vultee A-35 got the cranked wings, changes in equipment, and that was the fastest way to adjust. Same happened with the Me-262.

The Battle had ridiculous amount of fuel tankage, 347 gallons vs 85 for the IL-2.
The B5N Kate 'only' had 255. That's almost 2300 pounds in gas alone in that Battle, from its possible payload of 4145 pounds.

Add in three guys, you don't have much left for guns, ammo or bombs.

The IL-2 empty weight was almost as heavy as the Battle's MTO weight.

It's trade offs. The Battle was faster, yet had 33mph lower landing speed.

RAF wanted a fast, very long range light bomber.
Thats what they got. It wasn't what they needed for ground attack.

Remember, the Battle wasn't seen as a light bomber for supporting the Army. It was seen as a strategic bomber that happened to be very small and have a single engine. The four 250 pound bombs it could carry, for instance, were chosen on the grounds of some experiments that showed - wrongly - that four 250 pound bombs were sufficient to destroy a factory.

Turning it into a close support aircraft is quite a stretch, not just technically but doctrinally. Even if Fairey's engineers can do the job, the RAF is unlikely to want to buy an aircraft of that description. Their idea of an aircraft to support the Army was the Lysander.

Now, if you want to achieve something useful, I'd start with the Fairey P.4/34 dive bomber that evolved into the Fulmar fighter, or the Hawker Henley that was related to the Hurricane.

Both the P.4/34 from Fairy Aviation and the Henley from Hawker would for 1938/9 been a good starting point, another good contender at this time is the Bristol type 148 built to specification A39/34. the 1050HP of the early Merlins would have beeen a limiting factor but by 1940 this has grown to 1200hp which helps a lot. The Fulmar shows what a ground attack aircraft based on th Fairy P4/34 could have been achieveble. Simply putting the Hurricane wings (but alloy clad from the start) on the Henley goes a long way to achieving the same result. As has been said before the biggest hurdle is getting around the RAF doctrine not the practical hardware.

Pointless

The loss rate of the IL2 and Battle are comparable, and with early war weaponry their effectiveness about the same.

And that goes for any other 'light bomber' type feasible in 37-41 (say).

The problem is that a single engined bomber no longer offers a real advantage and several disadvantages to a single engined fighter performing a Ground Attack Mission.

That's apparent from the introduction Me109/Hurricane/D5XX types and remains so.

The exception is in carrier aircraft which generally have to be single engined and have to go from 0 to take off on a deck carrying a big heavy torpedo, or radar set and operators so slow vulnerable light 'bombers' survive.

Best use of the Battle is per OTL, advanced trainer.

Gannt the chartist said:

Best use of the Battle is per OTL, advanced trainer.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean engines and aluminium for Spitfires ?

Instead of wading through the technical details, why don't we ask ourselves: what would the British do with that?
The RAF did not want to be the handmaid of the Army. Close air support was kept as limited as possible.
Nor was the Army bent on carrying out Blitzkrieg, with tactical aircraft serving as flying artillery.
So neither service had the philosophy, will, and doctrine to put a British Shturmovik to good use - or any use at all.

Certainly, if they had replaced, by May 1940, all of the actual Battles with armored and cannon-armed Battles, they would probably have found them useful as a counteroffensive weapon, throwing them against the German vanguards and LOCs. But given the above, who would have wanted that modification before May 1940?

marathag said:

They suffered loss rates like the Battle had over France, 1 in 26 sorties in 1943

The A-36, the ground attack version of the P-51 was 1 in 132. The P-40 was 1 in 121. The P-51 was 1 in 84, P-47 1 in 137 (1)

During Barbarossa, the IL-2 had high enough losses that a rear gunner was added in 1942. He was not protected by any armor, and there was enough losses in gunners that it was considered a punishment job. (2)
Not til the Il-10 was the gunner to get protection.

Click to expand...

1)

2) Actually, if you believe the defector Suvorov, the job was for penals. Do 10 missions, and you were pardoned. So after the 9th mission, if you were still alive, you were transferred to a mine clearing battalion.

hipper said:

Hi folks I love finding out things that seem true but are not, (3)

Click to expand...

3) It's one thing to be a know-it-all. Its another to flaunt it.

Case in point the vulterability (4) of radials vs cliquish cooled engines to ground fire.
Sounds like a no brainier one bullet in the glycol and a liquid cooled engine is toast while you can blow a cylinder on a air cooled radial...

Well sort of but an in line engine Has a smaller frontal area and could be more effectivly armoured

Which was more vulnerable? Well if you compare loss rates per sortie in P47's and vulnerable Typhoons in the air forces over Normandy guess which fighter had the higher loss rate. (5)

Cheers Hipper

Click to expand...

4) Eye luv peepl poyteen aut othur peepls errers whyl aht thuh saym tyme mayking ther oun

5) marathag was kind enough to give us the phenomenally low loss rate for the P-47. If the Typhoons loss rate was even lower, what was it in fact?

Delta Force said:

<snip> Alternatively, the M4 cannon from the Airacobra could be imported from the United States.

Click to expand...

That cannon was so big the P-39 had to be built around it. Everybody who used it hated it, except the Soviets, who wanted every one they could get their hands on. AIUI, the recoil from that monster gun had a helluva kickback on the aircraft in flight.

Michele said:

<snip>Certainly, if they had replaced, by May 1940, all of the actual Battles with armored and cannon-armed Battles, they would probably have found them useful as a counteroffensive weapon, throwing them against the German vanguards and LOCs. But given the above, who would have wanted that modification before May 1940?

Click to expand...

What about the fact that the Germans had a huge force available to them in 1940? Wouldn't those Battles, armored or not, be slaughtered?