Talk:Ilyushin Il-2/Archive 2

Il-2 Rear gunners: a deliberate sacrifice?


In his book Inside the Soviet Army, the Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov alleges the lack of protection for Il-2 rear gunners was part of a deliberate policy. Suvorov claims 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. 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. http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html

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 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 they would have been deliberately sacrificed.

The rear gunner was in fact provided with armor protection from the start, but this was only 6 mm (.23 in) thick, and protected the gunner only from behind and was not effective against rounds more powerful than rifle-calibre machine guns. Moreover, no armor protection was provided at all for rear gunners of early single-seat Il-2s which had been field-modified to include a rear gunner. So desperate was the need for rear protection that a hole was cut in the fuselage panelling behind the cockpit to make room for a gunner. The gunner sat on a canvas sling with an improvised turret for a Degtyaryov machine gun.

Moved here from main page because of the lack of good source for such a exceptional claim, as per the rules... It may be put back if someone can find other sources supporting suvorovs claim Wikinegern (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To start with, this is a very clumsy move, complete with taking out references and illustrations. I question the move especially since this topic has been previously discussed. FWiW, I am restoring the section prior to a consensus arrived on this page. Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating below, the earlier discourse and debate about the aforementioned section. Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

I removed the piece beacuse I think it goes against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources Suvorovs work is not about the actual aircraft, and neither has it been shown here to be supported by another source. Concensus is not required by Wiki AFAIk, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources reuqires that "and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.", and that has not been happening yet, correct?

Wikinegern (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Casualties among rear gunners
I seem to recall reading that the decisions 1) Not to provide armour protection for the rearmost cockpit and 2) use political prisoners as rear gunners were related and comprised a deliberate policy. (To "incentivise" the protective enthusiasm of the crewmembers from the penal battalions). I also recall reading that although no protection was provided - a mechanism was developed to keep the guns level after the gunner was killed/injured. So as to fool luftwaffe pilots into thinking the aircraft was still defended. This just anti-soviet propaganda or is there any truth to this? --Sf 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the entire section about the casulaties of rear gunners, not only does it not seem to make sense but it is poorly written. Both the original accusation and the following criticism is filled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. The article would be better and more neutral with the entire lot deleted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I delete the neutrality warning from it. Espinafre, 29 October 2005 02:29 UTC

Revert to version as of 19:40 19th October
If Suvorovs claims on the IL2 rear gunners are disputed then the disputers should give properly cited/sourced rebuttal information. --Sf 12:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

See here for the full text of Inside the Soviet Army do a find for Golovanov. This text was widely published if it is now disputed then the dispute should be readily referenceable --Sf 13:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look its not just that I dispute it, it is the fact that it doesn't really fit in with the article. I am not an apoligist for the Soviet Regime, and I wouldn't put it below them to commit such actions.  The point is however that this article is about the plane and its capablilities, the paragraph is very distracting.  If you want to include the accusation, do so on another page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article makes clear reference to the issue of the disproportionate casualty rates among the rear gunners. Explanations have been offered elsewhere on reasons for this based on presumably verifable historical facts.  Therefore these reasons must be outlined.  The apparent thrust of your argument is that the issue of crew safety is irrelevant to any article on any aircraft.  I cannot support such a thesis.  However it may be that you will find support elsewhere for such a position so perhaps you might consider referring the matter for mediation or peer review. --Sf 10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You misinterpret my argument, crew saftey in itself would be quite relevant to an article about an airplane. In this case it is not just about crew saftey.  You are asserting are very controversial statement that probably has little base.  Merely explaining why it is wrong isn't a solution either  since when I first came into contact with this article it was still distracting and the counter-argument all but refuted your thesis. Until we can resolve this how about you use a much shorter temporary version.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an idea, to bow to common sense to to avoid politicizing the article how about instead of suggesting that the Soviets purposely got the gunners killed you write how the position was extremly hazardous and the men were expendable. You would not have to change it that much, still keep how they were not provided with parachutes, and often they were so called enemies of communism.  However, anyone  that reads the current version will know it would only be contrary to their interests to have a dead rear gunner even if it was made to look like the gunner was still alive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been intrigued by the addition of the last section, but haven't really been sure what to do with it. I agree with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on this: it's a valid subject, but it doesn't feel right in the article. This should be an objective, technical article on the aircraft: it's not the place for political issues. It's a bit like having the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald on the Carcano page. The section should be moved to a page about Suvorov or something similar, with a short description and link included in the Il-2 article. --Sum0 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Several points are raised
 * It is not my assertion I am merely reporting it.
 * It is not a political issue it is a historical one.
 * If the historical facts are in dispute then the refuting facts must be presented from published sources (counter arguments based on opinion are not refutations merely, apparently baseless, possibly politically motivated, rejections)


 * I agree that the section inappropriately dominates the article. However this is because the current article is so short. An article on such an important aircraft needs considerable expansion.  It still needs to be treated as a seperate section because it is obviously controversial if historically relevant.  I have therefore shortened it and made it a subsection of the history article. --Sf 13:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were solely your words, I was just saying that for the sake of conveinance.
 * 2. It has many political implications, and Viktor Suvorov would have many incentives to make the Soviets look bad, in fact after his defection he made a career out of it.
 * 3. Although I do not believe it is true since it seems to defy common sense, even if it is true I still don't think it should be in the article. So presenting both sides of the argument really wouldn't work either in my view.

As I stated above I think with only a little bit of editing I could be a useful addition about crew safty and the expendibility of the rear gunners. I would even believe the assertion that they used "enemies of communism" for the job. It would make sense that the Sovets used percieved enemies like that for such a dangerous job. after all we all know the Soviets have done much worse.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rear gunners and Suvorov
I added a short paragraph after the Suvorov citation in an attempt to make the presentation more balanced. I think historical controversy can be presented in the article so long as the topics are clearly defined as controversial and the presentation is not blatantly POV. IMHO, the biggest problem with the Suvorov bit as a standalone is the implication that ALL rear gunners were prisoners which is of course false. For good reading, see these interviews with Il-2 pilots and rear gunners (all in Russian):
 * http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/levin/index.htm
 * http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/romanov/index.htm
 * http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/ryabushko/index.htm

- Emt147 Burninate!  02:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good addition - I have my own doubts about the standalone nature of Suvurovs claims. --Sf 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's an interesting theory and not entirely impossible given the extensive use of "shtrafbats" (prisoner batallions), but it needed to have its POV explained for people unfamiliar with Suvorov's work. - Emt147 Burninate!  19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, one should avoid using Suvorov's references in serious works, as his books are widely criticized. In the first link, the guy is speaking about faulty pilots becoming Il-2 gunners, which is not exactly the same thing as prisoners claimed to be "enemies of the socialism". Giving a prisoner a rifle and sending him on a suicide mission is not exactly the same thing as putting one on a plane... Atm, I'm tagging the section POV. grafikm_fr 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagre The section presents Suvorov's argument and then explains his bias and gives a neutral analysis. There is a difference between controversial material and POV. The section is neutral. The only thing POV here is your statement "Generally speaking, one should avoid using Suvorov's references in serious works, as his books are widely criticized." - Emt147 Burninate!  22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Suvorov's works clearly fall into what one calls "original research", as it is in contradiction with most, if not all, works all over the world, and Suvorov is more a publicist than a historian. I don't have time looking for urls right now, but you surely know what I mean. The Wiki entry on this very Wikipedia refers to "an approach considered unacceptable by some professional historians", which it is.
 * If the section is to be kept, however, I would recommend either putting Suvorov's POV in some kind of quotation form (italic...) or use something more conditional. For instance, replace "The air gunners were not provided..." with "Reportedly, the air gunners..." or "The air gunners were said to...". grafikm_fr 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The section begins with "In his book Inside the Soviet Army, Viktor Suvorov alleges that" and repeatedly notes that he "claims that" etc. There was a long discussion and a lot of rewriting on this matter and the consensus was that, while Suvorov's claims were certainly controvertial, they could be presented in a neutral fashion with the bias clearly explained. As it stands, I think it adds to the balanced feel of the article. Since Suvorov is not Wikipedia, he is very much free to do original research. Since his claims are widely publicized, it makes sense to present them in the article and then to explain his bias and whether they have any plausibility. Removing the section altogether will only serve to perpetuate the myths. - Emt147 Burninate!  22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about removing the whole section, as I gather some proposed before. I was merely pointing out the fact that while the whole thing is presented as a claim, it is not "conditional" enough to be noticed on a quick to moderately fast read. grafikm_fr 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested text
Since Suvorov's arguments are known, they should be added, but I think they at presently have undue weight. Here's my suggestion for wording of the section:

Huge losses to enemy fighters forced the addition of a rear gunner. Early planes was field modified by cutting a hole was cut in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling with Degtyaryov machine gun on an improvised mounting. Later factory-produced versions had a prolonged canopy offering some protection from the weather.Unlike the well armoured cockpit, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm (.23 in) thick armour, only effective against rifle-calibre rounds.[24] The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high. Not until late models produced after 1944 was proper armour comparable to that of the pilot introduced.

In his book Inside the Soviet Army, the Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov alleges the rear gunners were taken from penal units, and that the lack of protection was part of a deliberate policy. The Soviet Air Force did in fact use "penal squadrons" in some situations,[23] but although they may have been considered expendable, there is no evidence that they would have been deliberately sacrificed. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The link to the source for the claim that the SAF used penal sqdrns is broken. Right now that leaves us only with Suvarovs claim, which is not enough to even justify a mention in the main article. It is definitely a fringe theory. Also I think the rules about "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "Questionable sources" applies too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The link has been resurrected with a web archive of the original source; it does back up the assertion that there were penal squadrons and airmen assigned to squadrons as punishment. FWiW, Peter, I appreciate the effort but here is my "take" on your revision:

Heavy losses to enemy fighters forced the addition of a rear gunner. Early IL-2s were field modified by cutting a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling armed with a Degtyaryov machine gun in an improvised mounting. Later factory-produced versions had an extended canopy offering some protection from the elements. Unlike the well-armoured cockpit of contemporary aircraft, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm (.23 in) thick armour, only effective against rifle-calibre rounds. The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high. Not until late models produced after 1944 was proper armour comparable to that of the pilot introduced.

In his book, Inside the Soviet Army, Viktor Suvorov alleges the rear gunners were taken from penal units, and that the lack of protection was part of a deliberate policy. The Soviet Air Force used "penal squadrons" in some situations, but although the aircrew in forward units may have been considered expendable, there is no evidence that they would have been deliberately sacrificed. (ref) http://web.archive.org/web/20080322081942/http://www.vor.ru/55/Stalingrad/History_4_eng.html "Penal Battalions breaching enemy defences..."] Voice of Russia, 2003. Retrieved: 6 September 2010. (ref...) Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC).]
 * Better! I think we should put in something about Suvorov's claims being controversial or disputed, if there are good sources for it. Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I'll dig up some sources for a slightly different revision- perhaps in a notes section? Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am about to revise my opinion after reading Suvorev's book and the chapter on "The Corrective System." Not only does he not make exaggerated claims, the statements are measured and have "the ring of truth." Let's start again with the original text:

Il-2 Rear gunners
'''Heavy losses to enemy fighters forced the addition of a rear gunner. Early IL-2s were field modified by cutting a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling armed with a Degtyaryov machine gun in an improvised mounting. Later factory-produced versions had an extended canopy offering some protection from the elements. Unlike the well-armoured cockpit of contemporary aircraft, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm (.23 in) thick armour, only effective against rifle-calibre rounds. Not until late models produced after 1944 was proper armour comparable to that of the pilot introduced.'''

'In his book, Inside the Soviet Army'', the Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov claims from 1942 on, all Soviet airfields had attached penal companies of air gunners who flew in a variety of aircraft, including the IL-2. Such companies were made up of prisoners who were considered to be "enemies of socialism" or "enemies of the people." Suvorov claims that air gunners were not provided with adequate armour protection, or parachutes and were reliant on their machine guns to ensure their survival. The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high although prisoners who survived could theoretically clear their sentences after nine missions. '''

'''In recent years, documents from the Soviet archives have come to light that affirmed the Soviet Air Force used "penal squadrons" in some situations, but although the aircrew in forward units may have been considered expendable, there is no evidence that they would have been deliberately sacrificed. '''

FWiW, read the entire submission in edit mode to see all the changes, Bzuk (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weinberg, Gerhard. "Review of Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War by Ernst Topitsch." The American Historical Review, Volume 94, Issue # 3, June 1989.


 * I still feel the claims are given undue weight, being about 2/3rd of the section on the rear-gunners. I would prefer the version in your revised version of my text, the remaining text could perhaps be moved to the article on penal units?--Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual word count of the present section is 309 words with 205 being the passages with the Suvorov account, while the revised section above is now 205 words with only 102 words dealing with the Suvorov claims. Now the entire contentious area is reduced to 50% and one paragraph with an additional cautionary note (Suvorov's assertions remain a matter of debate among historians, as the most controversial claims are not fully validated by other reference sources. [with source material cited]) indicating that the controversy between Suvorov and other histrorians is acknowledged. Have you read the chapter he has written about the penal battalions? He makes it quite clear that not only IL-2 units were involved. It is his contention that the penal aspects were a part of the army/air force correctional dicta and that seems to have been confirmed by other independent sources. Bzuk (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on how you count I suppose. I see the two last paragraphs as being about Suvorov and his claims, which make it 2/3rds of the whole chapter. Notice, I do not contest the claims that penal units existed, nor that they acted as rear gunners in some IL-2 units. I do contest that this was the case in all squadrons, as some IL-2 units were elite Guard units, and would hardly have had penal gunners flying with them. I propose the following text to replace the two sections:


 * Some squadrons of the Soviet airforce had penal units attached as air gunners, and this may have been the case of IL-2 squadrons as well. The Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov claims that the inadequate armour for the rear gunners in the IL-2 was intentional, making them reliant on their machine guns to ensure their survival. Though this claim is disputed by historians, the rate of loss of rear gunners remained exceptionally high until the introduction of extra armour in late 1944.


 * In my view, this article should be about the IL-2, not the penal system of the VVS. The rest of the text, about the chance of penal gunners to redeem themselves, the prevalence of penal units in the VVS etc are not specifically about IL-2, but are general to the whole VVS or even the whole Soviet system, and really belong in the Penal military unit article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it really has no place in the article on the Il-2. I don't think there is enough sources to justify mention it in any article. Even the one on military penal systems follow the Wiki rules Wikinegern (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are only a few editors at present who are involved in the review of this section, so that there really isn't a consensus to delete the passage as can be seen by the previous long discussion "string" here many different editors weighed in. I am more comfortable with Peter's suggestions and will make an alternative edit available. As to veracity, two separate sources do confirm that penal battalions did exist and trying to "wish it away" is not realistic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

I agree that the majority of Suvorov's claims belong to another article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Back to the original edit (with some mild revisions):

'''Heavy losses to enemy fighters forced the addition of a rear gunner; early IL-2s were field modified by cutting a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling armed with a UBT machine gun in an improvised mounting. Later factory-produced versions had an extended canopy offering some protection from the elements. Unlike the well-armoured cockpit of the pilot compartment with steel plating up 65 mm (2.6 in) thick behind, beneath and on both sides as well as thick glass sections, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm (.23 in) thick armour, only effective against rifle-calibre rounds. The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high and not until late models produced after 1944, when the 13mm rear plate of the armour shell was moved rearwards into the (wooden) rear fuselage to allow a gunner to sit behind the fuel tank. Side armour panels were riveted to the rear armour plate to protect the ammunition tank for the UBT machine gun. The modifications including adding the rear gunner and gun had added weight behind the cg, resulting in "marginal" stability and handling characteristics that were "barely acceptable". This was the reason for the swept back outer wings in later Il-2s.|Green and Swanborough 1980, p. 10.|'''

'In his book, Inside the Soviet Army'', Viktor Suvorov |#tag:ref|Assertions made by Soviet defector and former spy Suvorov, remain a matter of debate among historians, as the most controversial claims are not fully validated by other reference sources. |ref name="Weinberg">Weinberg 1989, p. 800.| group=N| alleges the rear gunners were taken from penal units, and that the lack of protection was part of a deliberate policy. | ref name="Suvorov" Suvorov, Viktor. Inside the Soviet Army. New York: Macmillan, 1982. ISBN 0-241-10889-6.| The Soviet Air Force used "penal squadrons" in some situations, but although the aircrew in forward units may have been considered expendable, there is no evidence that they would have been deliberately sacrificed.| ref name="Penal battalions" "Penal Battalions breaching enemy defences..." Voice of Russia, 2003. Retrieved: 6 September 2010. | ref| * Weinberg, Gerhard. "Review of Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War by Ernst Topitsch." The American Historical Review, Volume 94, Issue # 3, June 1989.|'''


 * The section should probably should compare the 6 mm of armour for the backseater to the heavily armoured cockpit provided for the pilot of the Il-2 - other types were not so heavily armoured. I seem to recall reading that the reason no more armour was fitted was that no more could be added for c.g reasons - if this is true then it puts a different spin on the matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, any sources for that? It may have all been a technical problem that had to be overcome in order to accommodate another crew member. See slight revision above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Air Enthusiast article used as a reference discusses the changes for the two seater - stating that the 13mm rear plate of the armour shell was moved rearwards into the (wooden) rear fuselage to allow a gunner to be sat behind the fuel tank. Side armour panels were riveted to the rear armour plate to protect the ammunition tank for the UBT machine gun (not a Degtyaryov). It states that additions (including the rear gunner and his gun had added weight behind the cg, resulting in "marginal" stability and handling characteristics that were "barely acceptable". This was the reason for the seept back outer wings in later Il-2s. The article also mentions that initially ground crew were used as rear gunners - perhaps as losses grew to very high levels, other sources for the vulnerable gunners were sought out. Has someone got a more recent comprehensive source (like one of the Yefim Gordon books) that can be checked?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With the additional detail here, perhaps P and W were right after all, maybe the Suvorov claim now sticks out as unnecessary but can be put into a [[Penal military unit article. Here is the final version:

'''Heavy losses to enemy fighters forced the addition of a rear gunner; early IL-2s were field modified by cutting a hole in the fuselage behind the cockpit for a gunner sitting on a canvas sling armed with a UBT machine gun in an improvised mounting. Later factory-produced versions had an extended canopy offering some protection from the elements. Unlike the well-armoured cockpit of the pilot compartment with steel plating up 65 mm (2.6 in) thick behind, beneath and on both sides as well as thick glass sections, the rear gunner was provided with 6 mm (.23 in) thick armour, only effective against rifle-calibre rounds. The death rate among the air gunners was exceptionally high and not until late models produced after 1944, when the 13mm rear plate of the armour shell was moved rearwards into the (wooden) rear fuselage to allow a gunner to sit behind the fuel tank. Side armour panels were riveted to the rear armour plate to protect the ammunition tank for the UBT machine gun. The modifications including adding the rear gunner and gun had added weight behind the cg, resulting in "marginal" stability and handling characteristics that were "barely acceptable". This was the reason for the swept back outer wings in later Il-2s.|Green and Swanborough 1980, p. 10.|'''


 * Looks good to me. I think the claims can be mentioned as they appear to be widely known, but the above is fine with me.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the present edit it fine. One could wonder if the reason for only 6mm armour was cg and weight issues all ready during design stage. No doubt the pilot would have been more important to protect as the gunner could not fly the airplane in case of the pilot being disabled. As for Suvorovs claim the lack of sources does not suggest they are widely known. So keeping that bit out is probably the best for now.83.248.225.32 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue was that while the gunner was protected from the rear of the aircraft by the relocated amour plate, he had little or no protection from below or to the sides - what side protecttion was there appears to have been on the ammunition tank for his gun - presumably as a hit therecould destry the aircraft. It wasn't until the Il-10 that the gunner was brought inside the "armoured shell" and given proper all rouund protection.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the center of gravity problems explain the lack of armor protection for the gunner. This article states that the addition of a rear gunner upset the center of gravity to such an extent that aircraft stability was "barely acceptable". Eventually the leading wing edges were swept back 15 degrees to move the center of gravity rearwards. This restored aircraft stability. Elsewhere in the article, I think that it says that the gunner's armor protection was eventually increased. Perhaps the redesigned wing and the increased gunner's armor occurred at the same time. The point is, that the designers did value the gunners, but they could only add so much rear-seat armor to the early versions of the two-seat Stormovik before the plane would become unflyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.71.31 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Soviet claims of effectiveness
This recent edit "During one sortie on 5th June 1943, six attack aircraft led by Lt. Col. A. Vitrook destroyed 15 enemy tanks in one attack, and during five days of the enemy advance, the 291st Division destroyed and damaged 422 enemy tanks." is problematic in a couple of different way. It's a valid quote, but what advance is it referring to? 5 June 1943? I'm fairly certain that nowhere along the entire front on 5 June were the Germans attacking. Is it a typo for 5 July 1943, the first day of the Battle of Kursk? And the 291st is referred to in the original text both as a division and a regiment; which is correct? The claim of 422 tanks is considerably larger than the actual German losses during the first five days of the Battle of Kursk and is not not supported by the German records. I have no problem with quoting Soviet claims like that, but we need to balance them against the German losses in the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if intentional or unintentional overestimation was involved (or both). The studies done on tank carcasses on the Western Front suggest that more than ninety percent of claimed kills against tanks weren't. That said, weapons like the PTAB were probably better than the RP-3. Pre-amble aside, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Russians classify even lightly armoured vehicles as a form of tank - so half-tracks and armoured cars would be in the Russian list, but not the German. This might add to the confusion. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. The claimed number is ridiculous. And in the articles on typhoons and other ground attack aircraft I have found other sources that dispute the claims with actual verifiable numbers form post battle research. The same would need to be done with this claim, as although the quote may be valid it is incredibly misleading and should be deleted if another verifiable source cannot be found!Tempsperdue (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

B class checklist - grammar
Second opinion here please. Reading through the article, while the grammar is clumsy (even tortuous with many clauses in some sentences) it's not actually making the text incorrect or misleading. At what point does grammar cause a "fail" on the B-class checklist? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

23mm guns being able to penetrate tanks' thin back armour
Maybe this should read 40 mm. It might be my fault. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen no references to the Il-2 carrying a 40 mm gun. The Soviets did not have a 40mm gun that was used on aircraft. The Il-2 did use 20 mm, 23 mm and occasionally 37 mm, not not 40 mm.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes
Recent changes to the article have introduced large chunks of information discussing German armour losses, particularly during the Battle of Kursk, which does appear to be sourced to WP:RS, but it is being used to draw unsourced conclusions, which is considered Original Research and is not wanted on Wikipedia. In particular - the inventory of II/Pz Regt 33 is sourced to Glantz and House, a high quality Reliable source, but it is unclear whether there 9th Panzer had other units containing tanks. The statement that it had the majority of its tanks intact three months later also appears to come from a reliable source, if from a surprisingly large page range, but there is no indication whether the units could have been resupplied or had damaged tanks etc recovered and repaired.

The claims of 270 tanks in 2 hours were added in these changes and were sourced to F. Crosby, The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of WWII, the quality of which is uncertain,, apprently just to be refuted. The claim of 240 tanks from 17 Panzer in four hours is new and unsourced.

The source for total German tank losses on the Eastern front is unclear - if Krivosheev, this seems a strange source for German tank losses, although fine for Soviet losses - the comparison of German armour losses with Il-2 & Il-10 losses is misleading, as it implies that all the Il-2 did was attack armour - in fact much of the work of ground attack aircraft would be attacking non-armoured targets (such as soft-skinned supply vehicles etc).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up much of this using Jentz for German tank strengths, since he provided total strengths for the divisions, and pointed out that 17th Panzer didn't even participate in the battle, although I didn't touch the bit about total losses for the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OKB Ilyushin by Gordon and Kommisarov(s) gives VVS Il-2 combat losses of 10759 (29% of all aircraft losses by VVS) with a further 807 lost by Naval Aviation (p. 41)- less than half the total now in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From my reading, the Soviets lost huge numbers of all types of aircraft to training/non-combat losses, but I haven't looked through the article closely enough to see if that should be explicitly clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a norm for any ww2 airforce to have a high percentage of non-combat losses (ie about 45-50% for the USAF iirc) 77.45.227.74 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course another issue with these sort of comparison is that disparities may be due to either the Soviets overclaiming or intelligence failure on what unit they were attacking - presumably the aircraft that were claimed to be attacking 17 Panzer were attacking someone if not who Soviet command/intelligence thought they were. Comparisons of totals per front would give a better idea if avail;able.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be a crusade as evidenced by changes also at Hawker Typhoon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Possible contradiction regarding the IL-2's effacacy
The opening paragraph states:
 * "The Shturmovik is regarded as the best ground attack aircraft of World War II.[4]"

However, further down in the article, it appears that the IL-2 was not as 'good' as contemporary western attack craft:


 * "The heavy armor of the Il-2 also meant that it would typically carry only comparatively light bomb-loads, which together with the poor accuracy of its attacks made it a far less deadly attack aircraft than the contemporary fighter-bombers of the western allies such as the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and Hawker Typhoon. The rocket projectiles especially were not effective, even the larger RS-132 (of which four were carried) having a warhead with only 0.9 kg (2.0 lb) of explosives, which compared poorly with the P-47's typical load of ten 5 inch (13 cm) HVARs with each having a 21 kg (46 lb) warhead, or the 8 to 12 "60 lb" (27 kg) warheads of the Hawker Typhoon's RP-3 rockets. Likewise the Shturmovik's bombs were usually only 50 kg (rarely 100 kg), too small to compensate for the typically wide variation from target point.[citation needed]"

True, this is an un-sourced paragraph, but they can't both be true (can they?). Perhaps, the term 'best' should be qualified. What I mean is, plane for plane the IL-2 may not have been as effective as a P-47, but in terms of impact on the war (due to it's high production numbers) it may have had the greatest impact - see the difference? Goood article though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.178 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I looked for the source on the first statement (Matricardi) and cant find it anywhere. It seems a little generous and the documentation looks spotty to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielvon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the Matricardi cite as I've never heard of the guy and I see little reason to trust his conclusions when most recent aviation historians agree that the Il-2's qualities are often overblown. Same with the following bit about its abilities as a tank killer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

From Yuri at ymaziev@gmail.com: I join with the above objection to the overall tone and logic of the section. It appears to argue that the Il-2's effectiveness as an attack aircraft is debatable whereas toward the end the author mentions several cases of devastating attacks on German tank units carried out by its pilots using the highly effective PTAB cumulative munitions. Furthermore, I have come across Russian sources (i.e. war memoirs) with testimony by former Il-2 pilots contending that, with proper training, it was possible to score direct hits on standalone targets, such as tanks or anti-aircraft guns, with RS-82 and RS-132 rockets. This is not to say that the Il-2 was a flawess plane. However, the respect it gained with German units who nicknamed it Die Schwarze Todt (the Black Death) suggests that it was a force to be reckoned with. In my view, the section would benefit from a revision along these lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.235.22.172 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2015

Ineffective rockets
I deleted the piece
 * "The rocket projectiles especially were not effective, even the larger RS-132 (of which four were carried) having a warhead with only 0.9 kg (2.0 lb) of explosives, which compared poorly with the P-47's typical load of ten 5 inch (13 cm) HVARs with each having a 21 kg (46 lb) warhead, or the 8 to 12 "60 lb" (27 kg) warheads of the Hawker Typhoon's RP-3 rockets."

because it confuses the explosive charge weight with the warhead weight. The HVAR has an explosive charge of 3.5 kg, not 21 kg. I couldn't find the weight of the RP-3s bursting charge, but 27 kg is also the weight of the warhead and not the weight of the contained explosive. Alos, comparing the effectiveness of the RP-3, which had only HE and AP warheads, with the RS-series which had HEAT warheads available, can not be done solely on the weight of the explosive charge. Since this paragraph cited no source and is proven wrong by the source I cited above (could provide others if needed), I decided to remove it. --Tervan (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen 5.6 kg of TNT or 60/40 Amatol given as the explosive content of the 60lb warhead, but not with a source against it. also alusions to HEAT versions. But no comparisons between Soviet, US and British anti-tank rockets. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Section Title Change
The section "Airworthy survivor" should be changed to "Survivor" as the WikiProject Aviation style guide indicates. The fact that an aircraft is included in the "survivor(s)" section usually indicates that it is airworthy. There is no provision in the style guide for use of the qualifier "airworthy" as a section header. Furthermore, no other article on aircraft uses this section title. It should be clear from the section content that the aircraft is (the only one) airworthy. —Noha307 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Then isn't it time to clarify this? There are lots of museum aircraft listed as survivors across many articles that are far from airworthy. At present we don't annotate to indicate airworthiness, but it's not at all implicit that anything listed is airworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do the section titles have to imply anything at all? My suggestion would be to stop trying to categorize surviving (i.e. all currently existing) aircraft by whether they are airworthy or not. It's pretty ridiculous in my opinion to have an entire section of an article for a single extant aircraft - as is the case with the Il-2. The article on the PT-22 is another great example of why this is kind of silly. Of course, it should still be clear whether aircraft are airworthy or not, but that should be left up to the individual entries, not the section titles. I would suggest eliminating either the category of "survivors" or "aircraft on display" all together and consolidating the rest under the remaining category.


 * I assume that by "clarifying this" you mean change the manual of style. The thing is, I assume it takes some sort of consensus or other process in WP:Aviation and I don't know how to go about doing that. My goal in changing the section title here was to create consistency. I was trying to do the same thing with the article titles for the separate surviving aircraft pages when I suggested moving the relevant page for F-4 Phantom IIs.


 * Also, I just realized I made an error in my initial post above. I meant to link to the layout instead of the general guide. Whoops! —Noha307 (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Added a letter to Shturmovik.
It was written as "Sturmovik". That would be kirillic "С", not "Ш". The latter is read as "Sh", not "S". That's all there is to my edit. Dixi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.114.225 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I previously updated the name to include a note that it's sometimes referred to as "Stormovik" or "Sturmovik" in Western literature. In German, the latter would be correctly pronounced, but 1. this is an English-language page, not German, and 2. Stormovik isn't right in any language to my knowledge. This edit was later inexplicably reverted. I've reinstated it with a more explicit explanation - someone reading about the Il-2 might have seen references to these alternative names, and may wish to know why. Please discuss before removing a relevant detail on the name of the main subject of the article. BlackNBlue (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
The norm for soviet aircraft projects on the English Language Wikipedia is to list the Design Bureau in the infobox, not the production plant - hence Ilyushin Design Bureau, not any of the production plants that built the aircraft. Note that several factories built the Il-2, not just Factory 18 (Voronezh - later evacuated to Kuybyshev) (which later became Voronezh Aircraft Production Association), but also Factory 1 (Kuybyshev), Factory 30 (Moscow) and Factory 381 (Nizhniy Tagil).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Voronezh aircraft factory 18(now Voronezh Aircraft Production Association) was evacuated for only one year, from 1942 to 1943, the Voronezh aircraft factory number 18 produced 18,000 aircraft, is 50% of the IL-2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.140.202 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Production
During World War II history of the plant(Voronezh Aviation Plant number 18) is related to the issue of aircraft "IL-2" - the best front-line attack aircraft of the time. During the war, it was made and passed to the front of about 18 thousand of these aircraft. Many of the factory workers went to the front as part of the Voronezh volunteer regiment. For courage and heroism in the battles for the Motherland, 14 inmates of the plant was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, fighter pilot AK Ryazanov it was awarded the title twice. http://www.vaso.ru/?menu=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.140.202 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ilyushin Il-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060526044422/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avil2.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051001031512/http://www.tarrif.net:80/wwii/interviews/ilmari_juutilainen.htm to http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/ilmari_juutilainen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead
This statement has given me pause in re Po-2: "... itself sometimes seen side-by-side with the big armored Ilyushin monoplane on the front lines." It does not sound encyclopedic and I'm not sure what value it adds to the lead. Would there be any objections to removing this part of the sentence? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that there are no objections I will remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A bit of confusion
May be the Il-2 effectiveness was best shown when they targeted support vehicles. Remember that the ratio was 7 support vehicles for 1 tank on the battle line. The 2 cannons mounted on the Il-2 could easily destroy those support vehicles because they were really accurate. Otherwise soviets would have ceased the Il-2 production if they were not capable of getting any significant victory on the field. I think that also the railway system could be attacked with success. My guess is that soviets when they claimed all those tanks destroyed were referring mainly to all enemy vehicles and not only to MBTs that could be killed only with cluster bombs. If I'm right the Il-2 deserves the title of best air-to-ground attacker of WWII for the overall achievement but if we consider only the destruction of MBTs other aircafts could deserve the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.236.35 (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilyushin Il-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122052808/http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-10-13_ilyushin.asp to http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-10-13_ilyushin.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ilyushin Il-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202040239/http://www.aeronauticalmuseum.com/eksponati.php?jez=eng&id=18 to http://www.aeronauticalmuseum.com/eksponati.php?jez=eng&id=18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029071244/http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplateMain.aspx?contentId=93 to http://flyingheritage.com/TemplateMain.aspx?contentId=93
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709202526/http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=96 to http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=96

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations
Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and any minor variants). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)