PDA

View Full Version : Il-10 were in active service in WWII!



Whatsmypassword
01-09-2005, 06:33 AM
Just read a story that by May 1945 the Soviet plants produced 785 (!) Il-10. Already by 10 January 1945 the VVS received 45 Il-10. Why do we have in the sim the Me-262 which was produced in less numbers that Il-10 but do not have Il-10 which was in service since November 1944 and used by the Soviet VVS in the WWII on the Eastern front and then against Japan in Far East in Korea and China in 1945?

Whatsmypassword
01-09-2005, 06:33 AM
Just read a story that by May 1945 the Soviet plants produced 785 (!) Il-10. Already by 10 January 1945 the VVS received 45 Il-10. Why do we have in the sim the Me-262 which was produced in less numbers that Il-10 but do not have Il-10 which was in service since November 1944 and used by the Soviet VVS in the WWII on the Eastern front and then against Japan in Far East in Korea and China in 1945?

robban75
01-09-2005, 06:47 AM
There were 1400 262's produced, and mass production started in November 1943.

But yeah, the IL-10 would be a nice addition. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 06:56 AM
last i read about the IL-10 was that just over 100 IL-10 were used in combat during the last 3 months of WW2

ill have to hunt down that source again

falco_cz
01-09-2005, 09:55 AM
I also heard of about only 100 IL10 were actively used in WWII, they were teh realy ones with 12.7 UBS MG (not 20mm).
IMO having IL10 in the game would be nice epilog for series that started with IL2 more then 3 yrs. ago.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 02:45 PM
but that .50cal you speak of was for the rear gunner

im not entirely sure of the exact amount , but the 20mm rear gunner equipped IL-10 had significantly less ammo than the .50cal rear gunner IL-10

VW-IceFire
01-09-2005, 05:06 PM
A single .50cal is just fine for a rear gunner in a relatively small and fast moving attack plane. I think the IL-10 would be/will be a great addition to the game.

With the Russian addon thats coming with this and other planes (supposedly) I think it'll be neat.

Udidtoo
01-09-2005, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
A single .50cal is just fine for a rear gunner in a relatively small and fast moving attack plane. I think the IL-10 would be/will be a great addition to the game.

With the Russian addon thats coming with this and other planes (supposedly) I think it'll be neat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the sniper's we often face they could be equipped with .22 single shot bolt actions and PK you from over 500 meters with regularity http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Whatsmypassword
01-10-2005, 03:19 AM
rear gun

First series of Il-10 had standard (for Il-2s) 12.7mm UBK rear machine gun.

Re less ammo for rear gun

Less ammo for a rear gunner (if you mean 150 rounds for 20mm rear cannon in later Il-10) was not a big issue for Sturmovicks. According to the Russian statistics in one regiment rear gunners spent just 14,7% of ammo or 22 rounds per a sorty in 1943-45. Were not they real snipers? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides from late 1943 Il-2 were usually escorted by more or less sufficient number of fighter planes that a single seated modification of Il-10 was considered seriously.

Eldon45
01-10-2005, 10:36 AM
Some info. on Il-10s from "The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII," general editor: Paul Eden:

..."When the last of 36,163 Il-2s rolled off the production lines in August 1944, it represented the final machine of almost 16,000 built that year, at a peak rate of 2,300 per month. Production had stopped in favour of the much improved Il-10. These aircraft [Il-10s] began to reach training units, and by October 1944, the first examples were serving on the front-line. The new machine was immediately a success, proving even more capable than the legendary Il-2, with its comparative ease of maintenance and better performance in combat. Nevertheless, the Il-2 was still available in huge numbers and although the Il-10 fought through to the end of the war and saw action over Germany as the Soviets closed on Berlin, it was the faithful Il-2 that bore the brunt of the continued Soviet offensive against the Nazis..."

"...Ultimate armament [on the Il-10] comprised either four NR-23 cannon or two 37 mm NS-OKB-16 and two ShKAS...and a new gunner's cupola was provided with a 150-round 20 mm B-20EN cannon, and enhanced protection, visibility, and headroom..."

"...A major redesign resulted in the Il-10M, the central feature of which was an all-new single-structure wing....Typical armament comprised four NR-23 cannon in the wings (with 600 rounds) and a single B-20EN in a remote-control rear turret..."

Daiichidoku
01-10-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:
Just read a story that by May 1945 the Soviet plants produced 785 (!) Il-10. Already by 10 January 1945 the VVS received 45 Il-10. Why do we have in the sim the Me-262 which was produced in less numbers that Il-10 but do not have Il-10 which was in service since November 1944 and used by the Soviet VVS in the WWII on the Eastern front and then against Japan in Far East in Korea and China in 1945? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As robban has said, they did produce FAR more 262s than IL10s during WWII, and saw a LOT mor eservice...not to mention the impact and inflence the design had fo rmany years to come, unlike the IL10, simply an improvemnt on an existing design, really.....one of the first post-war Russian jets was (sorry, cant remember the Bureau involved) basically a copy of the Me262!....was one of the better Russian early jets, but Stalin put the kybosh on it cuz it looked too much like the "Fascist" 262 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

One would be better off asking "why do we have the La7 3xB20 (what? 300 produced?) instead of the DH 98 Mosquito?

Nubarus
01-10-2005, 01:37 PM
"One would be better off asking "why do we have the La7 3xB20 (what? 300 produced?) instead of the DH 98 Mosquito?"

Maybe because it was a lot easier to add the La7 3xB20 since it only needs some minor adjustments to the already existing AI La7 and since there where 300 produced and they did see action why shouldn't they be in this sim?

You would have been better off using that fantasy LW flying wing as an example of a plane in this game that should have been traded for the Mosquito.

NORAD_Zooly10
01-10-2005, 02:29 PM
or the He162? now here is a fantasy deathtrap AND the silly 2 engined thing (Do335?), give us REAL toys and not the stupid fantasy stuff (ie the Mossie, Tempest, Whirlwind (or maybe not,but i loved that plane when i was a kid), Spit Mk XIV, Typhoon, Firefly, Swordfish etc..etc).
~S~
Zooly

LStarosta
01-10-2005, 02:51 PM
I, for one, can't wait to fly the r0xx0rz powerhorse that is the Do-335. Fact.

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 03:15 PM
wow

if those sources are correct then the IL-10 served in WW2 for 8 months

i had read perviously that it was just the last 3 months , but being in squadron service before 1945 , thats a big difference

& a 150rpg rear 20mm (to augment the 4 foward facing 20mm) . . . . . sweeeet!

stuff the mossie , this is what has been deserving of inclusion since day one !

(oh & the Go-229 rulz , just fly it more & youll see & wont be so whiney about it)

Lee_Nation
01-10-2005, 04:11 PM
It could be nice, but do we really need more soviet biased uber planes?

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 04:11 PM
LOL

BlakJakOfSpades
01-10-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NORAD_Zooly10:
Whirlwind (or maybe not,but i loved that plane when i was a kid) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
aha, and so we hit upon the real reason they were included, people love them just as you love your whirlwind, so why should they be deprived of their wishes if u get yours? (i am aware that u say maybe not and that we do not have the whirlwind in the sim) but certainly you can look around that and see my point?

geetarman
01-10-2005, 08:08 PM
Sure - if it was in servkice put it in. All you supporting this, likewise support the inclusion of the F4U-4. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 08:29 PM
the IL-10 isnt exactly a well knowen A/C , & FB is a ETO based game , seeing as how its the Ultimate Sturmovik , it should have been included in the BOX RELEASE to showcase the Sturmovik family

the Sturmoviks , while being quite a unknowen plane , were what the A-10 Groundhog was inspired from

it deserves to be included into the game even if it wasnt as good a performer as it is , simply because its the penultimate chapter in the Sturmovik family

in other words , stuff the Mossie , stuff the F4U-4 , stuff the Bearcat , but add the IL-10 to the plane list !

LEXX_Luthor
01-10-2005, 08:30 PM
Oleg supported the inclusion of F4U~4 and P~47N. Northrop/Grumman does not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif The fake arcade gamers here posted that Oleg was Biased.

lol


Zorad_Nooly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>fantasy deathtrap AND the sIlly 2 engIned thIng (Do335?), give us REAL toys...WhIrlwInd (or maybe not, but i loved that plane when i was a kId).. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WUAF, they are beginning to go nuts. But...at least *somebody* finally dares to stand up and expose themselves in public as "against" Do~335, the Cult Idol of western flight simmers.

They even start to fight among themselves over the scraps... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nubarus:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Daiich::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"One would be better off asking "why do we have the La7 3xB20 (what? 300 produced?) instead of the DH 98 Mosquito?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because it was a lot easier to add the La7 3xB20 since it only needs some minor adjustments to the already existing AI La7 and since there where 300 produced and they did see action why shouldn't they be in this sim?

You would have been better off using that fantasy LW flying wing as an example of a plane in this game that should have been traded for the Mosquito. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Although I would prefer Ar~234 over Go229, the Mossie would be good too. All are Good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Tip for the Gamer:: Go~229 was not Fantasy for the real life (not gamer) pilot who flew it, the real life (not gamer) aviation engineers that built it, and the real life (not gamer) people who Funded it. Just a Tip. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

_Neveraine_
01-10-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee_Nation:
It could be nice, but do we really need more soviet biased uber planes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

LEXX_Luthor
01-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Better than Microsoft Biased planes

You will still have Windows, you will lose nothing

Daiichidoku
01-10-2005, 10:20 PM
When I see a Goth in a server, Im right in there!

I usually fly P 47s or A6M3s, and avoid the bum's rush to the "mostest"...La7s, Yak3P, F4U 1C, Ki84C, 109K4 as SO many others do

But the Goth is one induldgence I partake of..in spite of the fact its FM is probably not accurate, and is speculative given the little data on it, and really is the type that I hate seeing in this game

As Badsight says, the Goth is ONE BAD M-F!

Zooly....tut tut...go do some more drugs, man...
You list as "stupid fantasy stuff" the Mossie, Tempest, Spit XIV, Typhoon, Firefly, Swordfish?

Perhaps the Firefly and Spit XIV saw little service (or any? someone clarify, plz?) during WWII, but ALL the others you listed are not, by a long shot, even remotely "stupid fantasy", unlike the 185 with its uncomfortable throttle lever..the Swordfish indeed!...oh, wait, I see...you're just baiting, cuz NO-one could possibly be that narrow-minded and stu.....nevermind

Lexxx....yikes..this is becoming far too disturbing...yet again I agree with you....the Ar 234 WOULD have been nicer than the Goth...more production, relativly deep service time, decent flight data available, plus another bomber to quell the mob of aerial demolitions junkies...and SO sexy, too

Whatsmypassword
01-11-2005, 08:44 AM
Il-10 was lighter, faster, better armoured and armed than Il-2 and even capable to dogfight against fighter planes. Reportedly some Il-10 were maintained in good condition until early 1979s!

Some guys are still unaware that Il-10 is potentially the best heavy prop fighter of the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif According to some official information the Il-10 won several test training dogfights against La-5FN flied by a Soviet fighter ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2005, 09:04 AM
Don't dump in the diaper Daiich, here is Norad, <span class="ev_code_yellow">yellow text</span> inserted to avoid misunderstanding (and needless dumping... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Norad_Zooly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>or the He162? now here is a fantasy deathtrap AND the silly 2 engined thing (Do335?), give us REAL toys and not the stupid fantasy stuff (ie <span class="ev_code_yellow">[give us]</span> the Mossie, Tempest, Whirlwind (or maybe not, but i loved that plane when i was a kid), Spit Mk XIV, Typhoon, Firefly, Swordfish etc..etc). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wanting the Whirlwind instead of He and Do was kinda funny though, but totally understandable, and indicates some Tolerance and Compassion for early WAR simming.

Ya, Ar~234 bomber would be fascinating.

MOhz
01-11-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:
Il-10 was lighter, faster, better armoured and armed than Il-2 and even capable to dogfight against fighter planes. Reportedly some Il-10 were maintained in good condition until early 1979s!

Some guys are still unaware that Il-10 is potentially the best heavy prop fighter of the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif According to some official information the Il-10 won several test training dogfights against La-5FN flied by a Soviet fighter ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That kind of sounds like our Il2 ingame! I wonder how the Il10 will be....(I am going red!!)

NORAD_Zooly10
01-11-2005, 10:23 AM
thanks for that Lexx, maybe i should have made it clearer (forgot the , and the give us part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

Daiichidoku
01-11-2005, 12:55 PM
makes much more sense now, ty Lexxx...sorry Zooly

NORAD_Zooly10
01-12-2005, 02:55 PM
can you imagine the whirlwind without the engine probs? it would be bloody amazing.
~S~
Zooly

WUAF_Badsight
01-12-2005, 09:03 PM
same with the Hs-129

that thing truely was a flying Tank

Daiichidoku
01-12-2005, 10:53 PM
AFAIK, the Hs 129s were troubled by bureaucracy at RLM (what else is new?) and the Gnome-Rhomes could be troublesome...but otherwise, yea, a great tank-bustin tank...luv the -3Wa with the big-*** cannon