Soviet bloc COIN aircraft

problem was that US attack helicopters were rather limited. The MI-24 in comparison was able to use its own extensive storage capacity to reload and refuel in the field without returning to base. Armour and survivability was also significantly better reflected in the 333 helicopters lost in afghanistan compared to the 5600 Helicopters lost in vietnam.


Again, the requirement for a prop driven COIN aircraft wasn't really there as the soviets did not really like wasting resources on coin specific equipment, when equipment designed for the conflict deemed important (mechanized warfare against NATO) with minor field mods would do. The tendency when equipping allies seemed to be in the same vein even if the conflict they fought was primarily a COIN conflict.
 
Specialized COIN aircraft don’t have to cost a lot. The original Vietnam AC-47 was just a standard transport plane with Browning M1919 machines guns. Even Columbia mounted a 20mm in their AC-47T for the gunship role. The Soviets could easily have done this with an early transport like the Il-14.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
Specialized COIN aircraft don’t have to cost a lot. The original Vietnam AC-47 was just a standard transport plane with Browning M1919 machines guns. Even Columbia mounted a 20mm in their AC-47T for the gunship role. The Soviets could easily have done this with an early transport like the Il-14.
how effective could a plane like IL-14 [or for that matter any antonov ] be in dropping "barrel bombs" in anti-insurgency role ?

I know they are dirty weapons but it seems like they would be perfect to use in an urban insurgency when the goal is to intimidate rebellious civilian population
 
how effective could a plane like IL-14 [or for that matter any antonov ] be in dropping "barrel bombs" in anti-insurgency role ?

I know they are dirty weapons but it seems like they would be perfect to use in an urban insurgency when the goal is to intimidate rebellious civilian population

My understanding is barrel bombing is done with helicopters during hover or at very low speeds. It is relatively precise and cheap.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
1280px-Antonov_An-2_3view.svg.png
Antonov AN-2 from 1947
Near 5000 pound payload, durable, rough field takeoff, almost STOL performance
The 5000 pound payload is not weapons though, can it be fitted with weapons under wing ? Esp rockets and bombs ?
 
The 5000 pound payload is not weapons though, can it be fitted with weapons under wing ? Esp rockets and bombs ?

I don't see why you couldn't with a bit of spit and elbow grease. Especially if you're willing to make modifications to the basic design and start a new production line.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I don't see why you couldn't with a bit of spit and elbow grease. Especially if you're willing to make modifications to the basic design and start a new production line.
Can 12 larger caliber rockets could still be fitted below the lower wing ?
 
If the Soviets are going to have a piston engine COIN aircraft it's going to be the IL-2/IL-10 simply because they built so many of the damn things and are literally built like tanks. In order to increase the payload they would be likely to remove the rear gunner and his armour protection as such an aircraft wouldn't be used where there is an airborne threat to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-10

photo_ru_il-10_1.jpg
 
Like setting yourself on fire. Sheesh, that is an interesting way to "own goal".
Those overgrown black powder fireworks might have scorched the struts a little but the 100mph wind blowing over them stopped them catching light in the very brief time they were exposed to the rockets exhausts.
 
Those overgrown black powder fireworks might have scorched the struts a little but the 100mph wind blowing over them stopped them catching light in the very brief time they were exposed to the rockets exhausts.

Sometimes the rockets hung up or HIT the launch aircraft. Not often, but it is still NTB to use rockets next to what amounts to a nitrate based glue doped flying coffin.
 
Sometimes the rockets hung up or HIT the launch aircraft. Not often, but it is still NTB to use rockets next to what amounts to a nitrate based glue doped flying coffin.
Modern launching systems for COIN have improved 50 years after the Great War
MOA-Day1-314-0-2A-SKYMASTER.jpg

and the few that used fabric over metal ribs like the AN-2, were not using the old Dope formulas. Paints technology advanced as well.
 
Sometimes the rockets hung up or HIT the launch aircraft. Not often, but it is still NTB to use rockets next to what amounts to a nitrate based glue doped flying coffin.
They're going into combat without parachutes, often sitting on the fuel tank in contraptions made of kindling and bed sheets, with unreliable engines and designed by people with very little idea of aerodynamics, handling or stress factors. What's one more risk to worry about? The odds are still better than climbing out of a trench and walking slowly towards massed enemy machineguns weighed down by 120lbs of gear.
 
They're going into combat without parachutes, often sitting on the fuel tank in contraptions made of kindling and bed sheets, with unreliable engines and designed by people with very little idea of aerodynamics, handling or stress factors. What's one more risk to worry about? The odds are still better than climbing out of a trench and walking slowly towards massed enemy machineguns weighed down by 120lbs of gear.

Or serving in a WWI fleet led by Admiral Beatty or in a German U-boat in ANY war, but the point is well made.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
If the Soviets are going to have a piston engine COIN aircraft it's going to be the IL-2/IL-10 simply because they built so many of the damn things and are literally built like tanks. In order to increase the payload they would be likely to remove the rear gunner and his armour protection as such an aircraft wouldn't be used where there is an airborne threat to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-10

photo_ru_il-10_1.jpg
Agreed ! Good point
I was always confused about its warload
If u look even at the wiki article u quoted
Its 4 rockets and 4 bombs or only rocket and bomb can be carried at one time ?
 
Agreed ! Good point
I was always confused about its warload
If u look even at the wiki article u quoted
Its 4 rockets and 4 bombs or only rocket and bomb can be carried at one time ?

It is one weird plane. It's payload is ridiculous compared to a Dauntless (500 kg for the IL2 at max loadout). This clay pigeon was shot down in more numbers than any other plane of which I know. (About 25,000 of them.). What makes it effective, is that there are a lot of them, and their unique "cassette" bomb dispensers that allowed them to make low level horizontal passes and drop lines of top-down HEAT grenades on massed enemy armor. (Means average pilots can use the plane for CAS, no need for fancy dive bomber training.) These grenades were dual purpose as not only could they defeat German armor topsides, but there was a blast frag feature that sprayed and killed panzer grenadier bodyguard troops if the grenades missed the tanks during the pass. Point contact detonators. The guy who came up with the IL2, Sergey Ilyushin, was absolutely brilliant because he thought of everything, as a system of systems guy, except the tail-gunner, who it turns out, was completely useless, so he was right (and Stalin was wrong) about that one, too.
 
Top