Talk:Ilyushin Il-2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

On External Links

Externals links should be a 2nd level wiki section, not stuck under Related Content. Christopher Mahan 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The Aircontent template is inconsistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. I'll change the template and that should fix this page. My apologies and thank you for being vigilant! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, nevermind. The way the template is implemented, there is no easy way to do this (which is why I stopped using these layout templates). I'll convert the page into a non-template form. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tanks losses for Kursk?

quote; "The devastating abilities of Il-2 were best demonstrated during the Battle of Kursk. On 7 July 1943, marauding aircraft destroyed 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division in just 20 minutes. On another occasion, 3rd Panzer Division lost 270 tanks and suffered 2,000 casualties during a non-stop two-hour barrage. The 17th Panzer Division lost 240 of its 300 tanks during another four-hour raid." There needs to be a verification link for these figures, from a quick look at relevent sites indicate German tank losses were a lot less than these figures Harryurz 16:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My reference was "Profile 88" as cited. We may be looking at a discrepancy between Soviet and German figures. If you can cite German figures, please do so alongside the above numbers. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The kill claims here are the usual fantasy of combat pilots. What type of book is the reference? I get the impression it is a model guide or something similar?Michael Dorosh 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A look at actual German losses proves the figures given on the page are fantasy. Can we please see direct quotes from the book? I've removed some of the "facts" from the article as they are little more than gossip. Also removed some POV language - the article read like a love letter to the Sturmovik.Michael Dorosh 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the 'L' in Il-2

The Russian designation, as far as I can tell, is that the aircraft is named with the first two letters of the (lead) designer, then secondary designers first initial of their surname, followed by a hyphen and then number. Example Ilyushin is Il-x, Mikoyan is Mi, but because there's a second designer, Gurevich, it's MiG-x, the Lavochkin Gorbunov Goudkov is LaGG-3. So the Il-2 should always capitalise the 'I' but leave the 'l' lowercase, no? All the titles of sections seem to be IL-2, can someone explain this for me? Biscuit Knight 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it's uppercase I lowercase l. The sections should be renamed. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, it is Il-2. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for confirming this, and thanks to Emt147 for fixing it: I guess the previous authors were attempting to differentiate between the lowercase 'L' and capital 'I', short of changing wikipedia's whole font there's nothing to be done about this problem... I'll never understand people who make the I's and l's the same in fonts. Biscuit Knight 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening para edits

The Il-2 aircraft played a crucial role on the Eastern Front, and in Soviet opinion it was the most decisive aircraft in the history of modern land warfare. Flying day and night, they could defeat the thick armour of the Panther and Tiger I tanks, and occasionally shot down Bf 109s when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."

I changed and deleted a lot of this. My reasons are these

• there is no proof the Il-2 played a "crucial" or "decisive" role. Present facts, not guesses. A source would be necessary for this. Air-to-ground tank kills were hugely inflated by all the armies of WW II. I changed this to "widely used" instead, as that is verifiable at least.
• They did not attack tanks at night, so I changed the sentence to read it flew in low light conditions; the sentence makes it sound like they flew tank busting missions in the dark.
• Stalin threatening someone is not a tribute. His motivation was to get more airplanes built, not praise the plane itself. Anyway, it is unsourced. More gossip.Michael Dorosh 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty POV, thanks for copyediting that. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All the editors so far have definitely got this off to a very good start, so hopefully this doesn't seem harsh. I strongly recommend finding some verifiable sources. Tough to do in English, I realize, but would add a lot of credibility.Michael Dorosh 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inflated panzer kills and book references

It's nice that a 1966 book is used as a reference, but if anyone wants to claim more tank kills than a division ever had tanks, you need to provide direct quotes from the book, not just a reference to the title of the book. Also, calling the IL-2 "devastating" is a POV statement and inappropriate to this page. It's an encyclopedia article, not a love letter to the Ilyushin.Michael Dorosh 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You cant just delete stuff because you feel like it

If you read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

You must provide a source that says that the source is wrong, Otherwise anyone could remove anything just as you have because they "believe" it to be wrong. And changeing the word "tank" to "vehicle" is POv. You just say that they didnt have so many tanks and so then it must be so. Maybe you are wrong maybe they destroyed tanks that belonged to a different army maybe someone just added the panzer 9th div because they like you believed it to be correct but really it just said that so and so many tanks were lost within 20min and then someone like you believeing and feeling that it was the 9th panzer div added those words or maybe another million things. But in short: There is a book it has ben sourced and it says that and that number, you cant just change it because you feel that it is wrong. (DayNight1a 05:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

How can we verify what an entire book says? All I'm saying is, provide a direct quote from the book that confirms the claim. Obvious fantasy elements don't really need to be deleted before removal. And a glance at any order of battle will make obvious the likelihood of a single division losing 300 tanks in one day.Michael Dorosh 05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is some conversation from a message board I frequent:

To start with, take the ridiculous claim that 3rd PD lost 270 tanks and 2000 men in a single 2 hour air raid at Kursk.

3rd PD didn't have 270 tanks. It had 105, counting Marders. Total write offs from the entire battle of Kursk, all causes - 12. Another 70 tanks were put into the repair shops by enemy action, all causes combined.

As for the personnel, they had 2061 causalties up to July 21, from all causes combined. Not from one air raid, from 2 weeks of intense offensive combat on the left flank of the southern drive. They fought 2 RDs and an entire Mech corps, in succession.

For 7 July, 3rd PD reports "During the day the division suffered from continuous bombing and strafing by Soviet aircraft, despite strong German fighter presence (which was weaker than on previous days). Numerous downed aircraft from both sides observed, including 4 Soviet aircraft downed on 5 and 6 July by the division's own 20mm flak." They also report night bombing by level bombers on the 9th, one area in particular reporting bombing at 2100 hours. On the 19th they report "At 1030 the division's flak unit shot down a Soviet IL-2 aircraft."

There are no other reports of Russian air attacks in its combat narrative. Only the first of those can possibly have been meant. On 6 July, they report 82 tanks on strength plus 14 Marders. On 8 July it is lower by only 9 - 3 Pz IVs, 5 Pz IIIs, and 1 Pz II. No report from Marders that day, but Marders sent into repair for the whole offensive was only 6. Ergo, tanks lost on the 7th were 15 or less and probably only 10, to all causes.

He unfortunately doesn't cite his sources, but is reliable enough to show the fantasy 300 tank loss figure for what it is. Pending someone finding a reputable source, hero-worshipping nonsense can pretty much be deleted on sight, I think.Michael Dorosh 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, he does not cite his sources. Profile publications are more reputable than some Panzer fanboy on an internet forum. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk

From another poster at that forum (not my words): (Checking) THE BATTLE OF KURSK by Glantz and House in an effort to confirm or deny the damage claim against 9 PD for 7 July 1943, and was unable to find (pp.115-116) even a mention of an air attack, let alone one that destroyed most of the unit's beginning 83 tank strength. The date, the unit, and/or the statement itself may all be wrong, but something's clearly way off here. Nor is there any evidence to support this claim in Biryukov and Melnikov's important work ANTITANK WARFARE on page 115, even though the authors are at pains to present examples of effective airstrikes against tanks. The closest I can find are these: (Fair use)

"For example, on July 7, 1943, the enemy tank attack in the area of Kashara was frustrated by our attack aircraft. Acting in groups of 20-30 planes each(,) our attack aircraft destroyed 34 enemy tanks and forced the enemy to discontinue the attack. On July 8, 1943, six Il-2 planes attacked a group of enemy tanks in the area of Yakovleyvo and destroyed 15 tanks with antitank bombs dropped from an altitude of 600-800m, as well as with cannon fire and rockets launched during low-level flight.

Glantz and House mention Kashara on pp. 120-121, but there is no discussion whatsoever of what would've been such a devastating air attack that it would surely have rated a comment, but there is a mention (p.135) of the precedent setting impact of four misnamed (listed as Hs-109) Hs-129 squadrons had on Burdeiny's 2nd Guards Tank Corps, whose attack "suffered an unmerciful beating from German aircraft and Totenkopf's Panzer Regiment, losing fifty tanks in the process."

Apparently, the tanks didn't do much, for we read (Fair use)

"This unprecedented action, in which a tank attack was halted by air power alone, set a dangerous precedent. Indeed, throughout this battle, Soviet movements had to be conducted at night to minimize such losses. This in turn delayed the arrival of reserves to block the German penetration."

Summing up, I have found zero evidence to support the devastation of the 9 PD claim and nothing to indicate any effective air attack at Kashara. Could the latter have happened? Maybe against bunched up tanks, but it seems to me that losing 15 tanks, practically a quarter of a PD, would rate some remark, and I find none. From what I can tell, the aerial tide did not run the Russians' way until 11 July, which makes it that much harder to believe the various claims for 7 and 8 July.Michael Dorosh 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I cited my references. If you feel the material is controversial, the appropriate way to address this is by saying "However, another source (reference) claimed only x number of victories." It is wholly inappropriate to simply delete referenced material because your sources happen to not address the matter. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Having read the discussion here, and from studying/writing on military aviation for 20 odd years, my own opinion -for what its worth- is that claims and actual losses during the world wars rarely agree with each other; be it aircraft shot down, tanks destroyed or ships sunk, etc. If pushed to believe one or the other claim here I'd tentatively go with the German side on this occasion; as the RAF Typhoon squadrons made similar sorts of claims for tank kills in Normandy in 1944, and these were later shown to be vastly over-inflated. This was understandable and no reflection on their bravery or sincerity- After all, it must have been very difficult for an highly stressed anti-tank pilot ( Russian, English, or whatever) flying at high speed through dense AA fire to assess a tank kill in a split second. Harryurz 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Harryurz, which is why anyone who HAS researched military aviation (rather than just looking up impressive statistics in books written in the 1960s when military scholarship was not really at its peak) can tell a bogus source almost immediately. There is no way in the world any panzer division ever lost nearly 300 tanks to Sturmoviks. The page as it stands merely looks amateurish and really quite embarrassing.Michael Dorosh 15:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling source into question

I am calling the source cited in "1" into question and would like whomever is listing the exaggerated kill counts in that book to provide a direct quote here on the talk page to support the wild statements that have been reverted. I'd also like to know if the book in question is footnoted. Since Glantz - a far more recent scholar - disagrees with the former, written in 1966, I am casting doubt on its usefullness as a source. Just because something is printed in a book, it doesn't mean it is true. I suspect the book in question is not footnoted or provide reference to primary source material, but would like for that to be verified here.Michael Dorosh 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You just say that they didnt have so many tanks and so then it must be so. Maybe you are wrong maybe they destroyed tanks that belonged to a different army maybe someone just added the panzer 9th div because they like you believed it to be correct but really it just said that so and so many tanks were lost within 20min and then someone like you believeing and feeling that it was the 9th panzer div added those words or maybe another million things. But in short: There is a book it has ben sourced and it says that and that number, you cant just change it because you feel that it is wrong. (Unsigned comment by DayNight1a)

Thanks for providing the link to that website (which I moved to the section below on Stalin's tribute), but it uses the same 1966 book that is quoted in the article. Can someone please provide a quote from the actual book, and advise what primary sources were used to write it? This all comes down to veracity of research, and so far, that 1966 book looks like a dud - but no one knows, because no one knows what the book actually says. That website you list isn't a primary source, and not even a secondary source, but is basically third-hand "knowledge". Again, an actual quotation from the book in question and info on where the author got his information from is necessary before anyone can take it seriously. And if a German armoured division is losing more tanks in a few hours than it ever had to begin with, I suspect that is reason enough for deleting the info.Michael Dorosh 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalin Pays Tribute

Ok I am going to do this everytime you ignore something that I said I am going to dubble the posts of it.

But first this part "when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."" which you deleted in your deleting frenzy comes from this page http://break-left.org/air/il-2.html which can be found at the bottom of the article and which in turn comes from here http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html . (Unsigned comment by DayNight1a)

Here is the actual quote from the website

During Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, the aircraft factories located around Moscow and other major towns in western Russia were moved east of the Ural mountains. Ilyushin and his band of engineers took the opportunity to rethink their production methods. Two months after the relocation, Shturmoviks were again starting to come off the production lines, albeit in a slow tempo. Stalin was not very pleased and sent the following telegram to Ilyushin:

YOU HAVE LET DOWN OUR COUNTRY AND OUR RED ARMY.

YOU HAVE NOT MANUFACTURED IL-2S UNTIL NOW. THE IL-2 AIRCRAFT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR RED ARMY NOW, LIKE AIR, LIKE BREAD. SHENKMAN PRODUCES ONE IL-2 A DAY AND TRETIAKOV BUILDS ONE OR TWO MIG-3S DAILY. IT IS A MOCKERY OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE RED ARMY. I ASK YOU NOT TO TRY THE GOVERNMENT'S PATIENCE, AND DEMAND THAT YOU MANUFACTURE MORE ILS. I WARN YOU FOR THE LAST TIME.

STALIN.

Needless to say, the production of Shturmoviks rapidly gained speed. Stalin's notion of the Il-2 being "like bread" to the Red Army took hold in Ilyushin's aircraft plants and the army soon had their Shturmoviks available in quantity.

My reaction to this is that it is not a "tribute" though it implies - without providing a source - that workers in aircraft plants presumed it was. The point here is that the article implied Stalin intended it to be a compliment - there is nothing in the source website to suggest that was his intent.Michael Dorosh 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

17th Panzer Division losses at Kursk

The 1966 book is used as source for this statement in the article:

"The 17th Panzer Division lost 240 of its 300 tanks during another four-hour raid. [1]"

From The Soviet General Staff. The Battle for Kursk, 1943 (originally published in 1944), p 222, 228:

[German units attacking toward Prokhorovka] consisted of three SS Panzer Corps divisions (Adolf Hitler, Death's Head, and Das Reich), 17th Panzer Division units, and also the 168th Infantry Division. This grouping numbered more than 600 tanks, including more than 100 heavy tanks ('Tigers') and self-propelled 'Ferdinand' guns...As a result of five days of combat, the Germans lost around 300 tanks [and] 20 self-propelled guns....

In other words, four panzer divisions in five days (including the 17th) only lost 300 tanks in total, yet the source cited lists 240 tanks from just one division in four hours. For the 17th Pz Div to lose 240 out of 300 tanks, it would have had to have had 300 tanks to begin with - unlikely given the figures here of 600 tanks total in four divisions engaged. A look at a standard organizational chart for 1943 panzer divisions also calls into question the accuracy of claiming 300 tanks even belonged to the division, but if someone can provide a source indicating they did, I stand to be corrected.

Also see Dunn. Kursk: Hitler's Gamble, 1943, p 154, 158:

Given the attrition of the previous seven days, the combined strength of the 2nd SS Corps was probably much less than 400 operational tanks and assault guns including 70 Tigers...The first echelon of the [Soviet] attack was formed by the 18th, 29th, and 2nd Guards Tank Corps, a total of at least 450 tanks...The second echelon included the 5th Guards Mechanized Corps and 2nd Tank Corps with about 300 tanks...Both sides had suffered heavy losses. The SS Panzer Corps claimed 249 Soviet tanks destroyed or captured on July 12.... A total of 200 tanks were lost by the 5th Guards Tank Army. General Pavel A. Rotmistrov estimated that each side lost 300 tanks, probably accurate for the Russians and high for the Germans. Michael Dorosh 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

These losses are, by the way, are presumably to all causes - anti tank fire, mines, tank battles, artillery, etc. not just aircraft. I've left the claim of the book in the article but amended the citation to indicate that the figures in the book are probably for vehicles and not just tanks, but again, we don't have the exact quote from the book to know for sure.Michael Dorosh 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to provide a direct quote if you can read Russian (my copy of the Profile is translated).

FYI, the Wikipedia editing process is very simple -- burden of proof with any edit lies with the contributing editor. I have cited sources for my edits. You have been removing sourced information and replacing it with incomplete references (I assume that if you authored three history books you know how to cite sources, no?) and hearsay from some dude on this one internet forum who you totally know is legit. Please.

Just to make it very very clear. I am well aware of discrepancies in reported victories on all sides in WW2, and I am well aware that secondary/tertiary sources may carry inaccurate or oversimplified information. The material in the article right now presents the best sourced and referenced figures we have. If you can do better, with proper citations please (read WP:FOOT), please contribute. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 1966 book referenced here with the kill claims in dispute - if you actually own a copy, then feel free to provide quotes translated into English or in Russian, which I can have translated, and indicating the source material that the author cites in his bibliography. In 1966, how many Russian authors had access to German archives on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain? It seems to me that book is the sole source referenced at http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avil2.html. Which is funny, because the webmaster there indicates "The mix of sources for this document make for lively reading. I do have the suspicion, however, that much of the anecdotes about the Il-2's feats are parrotings of old Soviet propaganda. Such is history, the fuzzy lens through which we view the past." The only other sources on that webpage are aircraft books, not histories or primary sources. I've amended the reference section to indicate that the website and not the actual book is being sourced and that even the webmaster who wrote that stuff doesn't believe they are true.Michael Dorosh 17:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

First, no editorializing on the article page please. Second, the unnamed webmaster is not a credible source. Third, here's the quote: Эффективность "Кольца смерти" была продемонстрирована под Курском; массированое применение Ил-2 по германской 9-й танковой дивизии 07.07.43 привело к потере 70 ее танков за 20 минут. Два часа непрерывных ударов стоили 3-й танковой дивизии 270 танков и около 2000 убитых; через четыре часа 17 танковая дивизия фактически перестала существовать как боеспособная часть, потеряв уничтоженными 240 машин из примерно 300. The author (in my copy, at least) does not provide specific or general references. Again, if you can do better, please contribute. Don't just dispute the claims because they "don't sound right to you." - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to delete these spurious claims, which are essentially unsourced by your own admission, rather than bring the quality of the article down with perpetuated misconceptions? Is your contention that in the absence of verifiable primary sources, propaganda claims are more acceptable than silence on the matter? That seems an odd position to take.Michael Dorosh 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, what is wrong about these claims? They're sourced. OTOH, your claims starting with "I do have the suspicion that..." lack some credibility. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They're NOT sourced. They come from a book which provides no evidence of primary research having been done, in an era in which access to the German records was restricted. It's a one-sided unreferenced source. The info can stay, but needs to be identified as not accurate. And simple math will tell you the impossibility of 240 tanks from a single division being destroyed in a few hours by aircraft. I agree, let's have better sources here. In the meantime, let's identify the bad ones for what they are instead of spreading 1960s Cold War propaganda. Michael Dorosh 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New edits to abilities para

Let's try this then - leave your figures and source in, but reword so it is clear all three figures come from the same (dubious) source. I've edited it to read

The true abilities of Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. One source identifies overwhelming successes against tanks during the Battle of Kursk, including an engagement on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were destroyed by Il-2 in just 20 minutes. Other claims include the 17th Panzer Division losing 240 of its 300 tanks during a four-hour raid, and a third occasion in which 3rd Panzer Division lost 270 tanks and suffered 2,000 casualties during a non-stop two-hour attack.[1] Soviet staff publications indicate that the figure given for the 17th Panzer Division is not possible, stating that even the Red Army calculated 300 combat losses (to all circumstances, not just aircraft) for four entire divisions (including the 17th Panzer) over five days of fighting. It is possible Liss' book refers to "vehicle" claims rather than tank claims, though the source does not cite specific primary references for any of the three statements referenced above.[2]

I think it necessary to indicate the type of research that went into the claims, if they are to be included, and let the reader judge for themselves how much weigh to give them, pending the publication of better documentary material.Michael Dorosh 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian translations - there is a discussion on the translation of Russian history here at Battlefront.com It seems different translators vary on whether certain words mean "tank", "AFV" or "vehicle". I obviously have no knowledge of Russian so can't comment either way but I think the distinctions are obviously important to make. I note again also the number of "tanks" in a standard division as being problematic in regards to the kill claims.Michael Dorosh 20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up the paragraph. I hope it is acceptable to both other editors. Is there a page number for the W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 claim. If so it should be added to the citation. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell gave you the right to hide move and delete my posts

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

Ok I am going to do this everytime you ignore something that I said I am going to dubble the posts of it.

But first this part "when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."" which you deleted in your deleting frenzy comes from this page http://break-left.org/air/il-2.html which can be found at the bottom of the article and which in turn comes from here http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html .

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

And now for the part that you ignored which will be posted twice, next time it will be 4 times and the time after that 8 times untill you reply to it.

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

DONT DELETE MOVE OR HIDE MY POSTS!

You just say that they didnt have so many tanks and so then it must be so. Maybe you are wrong maybe they destroyed tanks that belonged to a different army maybe someone just added the panzer 9th div because they like you believed it to be correct but really it just said that so and so many tanks were lost within 20min and then someone like you believeing and feeling that it was the 9th panzer div added those words or maybe another million things. But in short: There is a book it has ben sourced and it says that and that number, you cant just change it because you feel that it is wrong.

You just say that they didnt have so many tanks and so then it must be so. Maybe you are wrong maybe they destroyed tanks that belonged to a different army maybe someone just added the panzer 9th div because they like you believed it to be correct but really it just said that so and so many tanks were lost within 20min and then someone like you believeing and feeling that it was the 9th panzer div added those words or maybe another million things. But in short: There is a book it has ben sourced and it says that and that number, you cant just change it because you feel that it is wrong.

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MOVEING AROUND MY POSTS ??? WHAT THE HELL GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MOVE AND HIDE MY POSTS? This only proves that you want to destroy the article because you dont like it for one reason or another, dont you dare and delete move and hide my posts again. (DayNight1a 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

You're obviously someone's sockpuppet, quite possible a wikistalker of mine. I don't see the need to reply to this; the pertinent stuff that is on topic is listed above. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

2 things

1 What is a sockpuppet

2 You deleted my posts and moved them around so much that I cant even find half of them, I am certain that that is not allowed so DONT do it again.

Now as I said before, You just say that they didnt have so many tanks and so then it must be so. Maybe you are wrong maybe they destroyed tanks that belonged to a different army maybe someone just added the panzer 9th div because they like you believed it to be correct but really it just said that so and so many tanks were lost within 20min and then someone like you believeing and feeling that it was the 9th panzer div added those words or maybe another million things. But in short: There is a book it has ben sourced and it says that and that number, you cant just change it because you feel that it is wrong.

And, But first this part "when the German pilots got careless while attacking them. Josef Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a factory building them fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: "The Red Army needs the Il-2 as it needs air or bread. I demand more. This is my last warning."" which you deleted in your deleting frenzy comes from this page http://break-left.org/air/il-2.html which can be found at the bottom of the article and which in turn comes from here http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html .

Now please respond to that without moveing everything around and deleting half the things I said. (DayNight1a 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Hello; I moved a part of your original reply to a new section so that we could discuss it in that section rather than having 10 conversations at once in the same section. Sorry for the confusion. As for spamming the page with multiple identical copies of your questions, I don't see the need for that. Feel free to use my User talk page for discussing wiki etiquette or stuff not related to the topic at hand. Here is the link to where I moved your material. You also posted what I interpreted as threats, which don't strike me as particularly sporting. [1]. Sorry again for the confusion.Michael Dorosh 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ilyushin Il-2/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Several points are being repeated, whole paragraphs repeated verbatim. Sloppy edit.

Last edited at 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

17th Panzer Division losses at Kursk

• First link to recently archived talk on this subject and second link into the archive on this subject

17th Panzer Divison to my knowledge was not present at Kursk as a full division. It was with 1st Panzer army in reserve on the Donets, according to this. Andreas 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Panzer Division losses at Kursk

3rd PD reported total write offs of 9 (nine) tanks by 17th July. This does not include tanks judged as repairable, regardless of the level of damage they suffered. The division reported before the start of the battle on 30 June 1943 that it had 116 tanks and self-propelled guns present. This is based on an MA Dissertation from University of Dresden by Roman Töppel 'Die Offensive gegen Kursk', and sourced by the author to German wartime unit records. Andreas 12:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article, then, to indicate "vehicles" lost rather than "tanks" as the other interpretation is clearly impossible, though one still does not have any faith in Liss' figures either way.Michael Dorosh 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget that write off in Wehrmacht meant the complete disintegration of the tank (into pieces). E.g. if the tank was burned down then it was not indicated as a loss (unlike the Red Army). 19 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.30.111.36 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned comment above: A burned-out tank is and was always counted as a complete loss. --Snark7 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from Archive 1:17th Panzer Division losses at Kursk:

First, no editorializing on the article page please. Second, the unnamed webmaster is not a credible source. Third, here's the quote: Эффективность "Кольца смерти" была продемонстрирована под Курском; массированое применение Ил-2 по германской 9-й танковой дивизии 07.07.43 привело к потере 70 ее танков за 20 минут. Два часа непрерывных ударов стоили 3-й танковой дивизии 270 танков и около 2000 убитых; через четыре часа 17 танковая дивизия фактически перестала существовать как боеспособная часть, потеряв уничтоженными 240 машин из примерно 300. The author (in my copy, at least) does not provide specific or general references. Again, if you can do better, please contribute. Don't just dispute the claims because they "don't sound right to you." - Emt147 Burninate! 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Running the Russian throught http://world.altavista.com/ into English gives:

"The effectiveness of the "rings of death" was demonstrated near Kursk; massirovanoye application Il-2 on German 9th tank division 07.07.43 led to loss 70 of its tanks in 20 minutes. Two hours of continuous impacts cost the 3rd tank division of 270 tanks, also, about 2000 those killed; after four hours 17 tank division actually ceased to exist as combat-effective part, after losing destroyed 240 machines from approximately 300."

Assuming good faith by Emt147 and that this is an accurate copy, and assuming that the translation is reasonably accurate I do not think the word "tanks" should be replaced with "vehicles" because that is not what was written in source. In the last phrase the term machines is used "240 machines from approximately 300", so the translation of that might be vehicles.

Having said that I am not sure that the second sentence applies just to losses to the "Ilyushin Il". It seems to me it is more likely to be talking about German combat losses to both Soviet air and ground forces against/in the "rings of death". In which case the source is only stating that "massirovanoye application Il-2 on German 9th tank division 07.07.43 led to loss 70 of its tanks in 20 minutes." I would like to here others opinions on this, preferably from some who can read the Russian --Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a link in the archives to another web forum where some native Russian speakers took a shot at translating this. discussion hereMichael Dorosh 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence on 3 Pz Div courtesy that link

posted 19 June, 2006 15:13 Michael,

Jason gave you that link in a recent post: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/data.htm

"The largest portion of this data comes from the KOSAVE II study, run by the US Army's Concept Analysis Agency, and carried out by the Dupuy Institute and Russian subcontractors Rantek. The data reproduced comes from that report, with permission. The full report - hardcopy, plus a full CD of data - can be purchased from NTIS in the US, for US Nationals." So it should be a reliable source.

The data claims for the 3rd PD that it had 77 tanks (plus 2 PzIII spotter), 2 StuGIIIs and 12 Marder II on 4 July. There are no siginificant losses on any day. Lowest number for tanks is 38 on 11th, rising to 51 on 18 July.

Total number of vehicles is 197 on 4 July hitting a low on 15th with 140 vehicles.

No room for 270 destroyed vehicles or tanks in two hours Gruß JoachimMichael Dorosh 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The last quote I added on the page is very useful in that it gives the number of aircraft (or sorties) in rough terms, and the number of tank kills claimed, in this case 60 to 90 sorties and 34 tanks claimed killed - in my opinion a better indicator of success than the early reference, which does not indicate number of aircraft or sorties, just vague references to time periods in which an indeterminate number of aircraft are discussed. The latter does, however, at face value suggest that tactical airpower was decisive beyond just tank kills in that the German force had to withdraw. A German POV on this would be most useful - losing 34 tanks of 50 would be much different than 34 out of 300. The true reason for their withdrawal would also be found in the German's histories.Michael Dorosh 15:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." that the author W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions XYZ is verifiable and (assuming good faith) true. What I am trying to do is check that we are including what W. Liss says about the Ilyushin Il (not what others say that contradicts him/her). The question I am posing is: in the second sentence is W. Liss saying that those losses were soly due to the Ilyushin Il-2 or due to the lines of defence constructed by the Soviets. If the latter, then we can remove the sentences from the article which rely on them, because they are not an indicator of the effectivness of the Ilyushin Il-2. We would then end up with:

The true abilities of Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions that a number of successful sorties were flown against tanks during the Battle of Kursk, including an engagement on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were destroyed by Il-2 in just 20 minutes. Soviet staff publications bring this figure into question, stating that the Red Army itself calculated the Germans lost a total of 300 tanks from four divisions over five days of fighting, and that these losses were inflicted by both Soviet ground and air forces.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of verifiability; the only way to do that is to subject it to scrutiny - which is what you're doing, no? It highlights a problem I've preceived in articles on famous figures which may apply here - check out Elvis Presley or Hitler for the problem of using "fringe" sources to put forward unprovable hypotheses, which are unfortunately verifiable by virtue of the fact that a book got published on them. The Kennedy assassination is another example of that. The battle then becomes one of not finding sources, but determining which ones should matter - and ISTM wikipedia doesn't to weed out the unreliable sources very well as a determined hanging on by pet theorists sometimes keep them entrenched. Which doesn't apply to this article - I think the process so far has been unbiased and cooperative - just saying, the process is indeed involved as you point out.Michael Dorosh 15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, your last edit mixes up sources - the staff source in the last part of that para was discussing 17 Pz Div - I'd re-examine which parts of the para you want to cut as there seems to be some confusion? Michael Dorosh 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a confusion. I cut "(including the 17th Panzer)" out of "Soviet staff publications bring these figures into question because they state that the Red Army calculated that the Germans lost a total of 300 tanks from four divisions (including the 17th Panzer) over five days of fighting, and that these losses were inflicted by both Soviet ground and air forces." leaving "Soviet staff publications bring this figure into question, stating that the Red Army itself calculated the Germans lost a total of 300 tanks from four divisions over five days of fighting, and that these losses were inflicted by both Soviet ground and air forces." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What was in the article was I would suggest:

The true abilities of Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions a large number of successful sorties against tanks during the Battle of Kursk, including an engagement on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were destroyed by Il-2 in just 20 minutes and that the 17th Panzer Division lost 240 of its 300 vehicles over a period of four hours.[1] Soviet staff publications bring the figures for 17th Pz Div into question, stating that the Red Army itself calculated the Germans lost a total of 300 tanks from four divisions (including the 17th Panzer) over five days of fighting, and that these losses were inflicted by both Soviet ground and air forces.[3]

Hmm, well, that's not exactly perfect either is it but it doesn't mix up the 17th Pz Div with the 9th.Michael Dorosh 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep "and that the 17th Panzer Division lost 240 of its 300 vehicles over a period of four hours." Do you read the W. Liss text as including the 17th Panzer Division in the attack by the Il-2? Because as I said above it is not clear to me that the third sentence of the W. Liss text couples the two together. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at with the 17th - if you check the translations at battlefront, it says

"in about 4 hours the 17th Panzer Division practically ceased to exist as a fighting unit, losing 240 destroyed vehicles out of a total of approximately 300"

Or in other words, yes, it does link. but it depends on which translation you want to use and I can't judge which is more accurate. Given that yours was automated and the ones at battlefront come from native speakers...still, an authoritative translation might be best before proceeding.Michael Dorosh 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also at BFC, another translator gives "17th Pz div had lost 240 AFVs from 300 and in fact was no more able to fight" so two humans there seem to think they are linked. Again, I can't judge as I don't speak Russian.Michael Dorosh 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I had already looked at their translations as well and thought they were basically the same as the machine translation.

"The effectiveness of the "Ring of death" was demonstrated at Kursk; the massive application of Il-2 against the German 9th Panzer Division on July 7 1943 led to its loss of 70 tanks in 20 minutes. Two hours of continual strikes cost the 3rd Panzer Division 270 tanks and about 2000 casualties; in about 4 hours the 17th Panzer Division practically ceased to exist as a fighting unit, losing 240 destroyed vehicles out of a total of approximately 300."

and

The effectiveness of “ring of death” was shown under Kursk. Massive stroke of IL-2 on German positions of 9th Pz div on 7th July 43 caused loss of 70 its tanks for 20 minutes. Two hours of non-stop strokes destroyed 270 tanks and 2000 causalities in 3rd Pz div. After four hours, 17th Pz div had lost 240 AFVs from 300 and in fact was no more able to fight.

The people on that page have jumped to the conclusion, that the third W. Liss text sentence is only about the Il-2 destroying things, not that it is a general comment of German losses from air and ground forces due to the multiple lines of entrenchments and tank killing zones, which are described as "Ring of death" in the text.

If we assume it does not, then with your latest source we can rewrite the whole section to be:

The true abilities of Il-2 are difficult to determine from existing documentary evidence. W. Liss in Aircraft profile 88: Ilyushin Il-2 mentions an engagement during the Battle of Kursk on 7 July 1943, in which 70 tanks from the German 9th Panzer Division were destroyed by Ilyushin Il-2 in just 20 minutes. In another report of the action on the same day, a Soviet staff publication states that

Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20-30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara.

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhapse you would like to as the people on the www.battlefront.com site if they are sure that the third sentence is about the Il-2 or could it be about destruction by all elements the "Ring of death". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the book is so poorly written as to be that ambiguous, that alone may be reason not to include the information. Certainly, it is open to both interpretations (ie the figures are for 17th PD alone, or to all four divisions). I guess we can wait and see how other editors weigh in, including our own native Russian speaker.Michael Dorosh 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean for verifiability of Liss that it is not verifiable that 17th Panzer Division even was at Kursk? I have done a bit of googling, and searched Google books, and nothing comes up, other than 17th Panzer being at Izyum during Zitadelle. It is also not included in the German OOB in Töppel. In my opinion Liss is not worth much as a source. Andreas 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The question then becomes what was Liss refering to? The Soviets must have thought 17 PD was there as the staff report quoted by Glantz et al refers to the division. Either way, doesn't say much for either Liss or his own sources. I thought the 300 tanks per Pz Div was fantasy to begin with, this is just another nail in the coffin IMO.Michael Dorosh 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

50mm anti-aircraft fire?

I am wondering if the post war interviews referenced in the article are being misreported? I'm not aware of "50mm" anti-aircraft artillery being widely employed by the Germans. Does this perhaps actually refer to 37mm? This will need an actual reference either way.Michael Dorosh 15:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking through some online sources (wwiivehicles.com and tarrif.net) and I did not find any 50mm flak guns. The highest caliber "light" flak gun was indeed the 37mm.--Ashmole 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The only 50mm I ever heard of was a late-war project that became the ZSU-57 mount. Trekphiler (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there is also the possibility that the round came from a Panzer III. Tanks did fire at aircraft. I've heard records of a HS-129 landing with a 75mm AP shell caught in the fuselage.--Hrimpurstala (talk

The calibres "widely" used by the Germans would be the 20mm and 88mm. Bout would be dangerous to the Il-2. The 2 cm FlaK 30 had a very powerfull round. Claiming that a plane was so strong that this gun would not be able to shoot it down is an extraordinary claim and as such should be well sourced or retracted. Machine gun calibre flack would not be effective against an Il-2 though, perhaps the initial poster mistook .50 calibres HMG for 50 mm. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There was an experimental german 50mm Flak, the 5cm Flak 41, developed by Rheinmetall. However only 50 pieces were produced in 1941, before production was cancelled in 1941. It is a bit unlikely, that one of these rare guns hit the IL-2. Germans (Heer and Luftwaffe) also had some 20.000 3.7 cm Flaks in service (they were not rare at all), also some Bofors sprinkled in between and some italian 75mm and russian 76,2 mm heavy flak guns. --Snark7 (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As for tanks shooting at planes - it's not rare thing. I've read book of Belokon' - Soviet Il-2 pilot. When he planned a mission where our planes will fly just over active battlefield he sad something like: "When we will be at this phase of the battle we will be under tanks fire too", so I concluded that tanks fire is realy expected at some circumstances. He also mentioned plane losses from tank fire.--Oleg Str (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Small arms fire directed from a tank is possible, tracking and using the main gun would be highly unlikely.FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

The 50 mm main gun of a Panzer III would still make short work of an IL-2 though.Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but utilizing a main gun would hardly be possible, although a lucky shot might happen. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A typical scenario would be firing on a formation of planes at very long ranges and low aspect - it would be possible to almost track the target in these circumstances. Not that the fire would be of very much use, but it might help crews psychologically and it was certainly done on several occasions.--Hrimpurstala (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Production

The intro states that in combination with its successor, the Il-10, a total of 36,163 were built. It is possibly the single most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation history.

In addition to needing a source for this, it should also be expanded on in the article itself. I've started a section on production using the Stalin quote previously on the page, but any info on number of factories, rate of production, or statistics would be useful in completing the article.Michael Dorosh 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What does the intro mean? If you add in the Il-10 production figures, the 36,163 is wrong. If you don't, it's still wrong. GrahamBould (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, 1989 gives "approximately 36,000" Il-2s and 42,330 including the Il-10. That is a good source and at least two of us disagree with the introduction, but I am not changing it because a reference newer than the above is given for 36,183.David R. Ingham (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am changing my mind a second time now. 36,183 agrees with approximately 36,000 for just the Il-2, so Jane's is the best source, so far, for the total. I have read elsewhere that it holds the production record.David R. Ingham (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aircrew

I've resectioned the Famous Pilots and Rear Gunners sections as subsections of Aircrew - a brief intro on pilot and gunner training would be appropriate I think as a lead in to what are essentially "trivia" sections. Stuff like issues specific to the Il-2 (hard to fly? hard to find volunteers for this specific type of aircraft? mortality rates compared to other aircraft.)Michael Dorosh 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The piece on rear gunners needs to be cleaned up. It goes through attack after ataack on Suvorov's personal credibility, with no back-up that actually casts doubt on the claim itself, and somewhere in the middle it grudgingly concedes that Soviet archives support his claim. That's very, very far from NPOV. --Joe Katzman 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this was different from any other WWII soviet weapon system. In every case a "good enough" solution was developed and then production was pushed to the max. For example the T-34 program accepted no modifications except those that would speed production for 2 years, despite the major tactical shortcomings inherent in a tank design which forced the commander to double as gunner. The article makes clear the pressure the designers were on to speed production, so is it any wonder that they did it in the simplest manner possible?

I'm not saying the Soviet mindest during WWII wasn't bloody-minded. There is a definite cost-bennefit equation involved that to our modern POV seems harsh. Would the reduced production needed to develop and change the assembly lines to include armor for the tail gunner balance the increased saftey for the tail gunner, when the difference in training needed for a pilot and a tail gunner is so large? The Soviets under Stalin never seemed to feel the need to come up a pretext to kill off those they didn't like. They had an entire Gulag system that openly did that.

While Mentioning that Viktor Suvorov made other claims that seem outlandish is off topic, it does seem fair to put the claim into context by giving the reader an opportunity to assess the reliability of his views, however it might be better to simply outline the basic facts of the claim regarding the Il-2 in this article and then reference the main article about Viktor Suvorov. --Jeff_F_F 10:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only fact that is proven and documented is that rear gunners had weak armour and thus their mortality rate was high. Do we have links to any documents supporting Suvorov's claims? If not then the whole paragraph should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.134.254 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on a politics behind a weakness of rear gunner position is a speculation based on a fiction book by Victor Suvorov. Along with a bit of true fact (weak armor for rear gunner), I also received a bucket of a very biased POV. If there are documents proving Suvorov's point, please link them and cite, otherwise, please rewrite this paragraph to de-bias text. --Grapesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.67.12 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sakes not this again. WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Suvorov made a claim that is controversial but widely known. It is presented as such in the article. If you can present evidence stating with absolute certainty that Suvorov's assertion is false, please do. As it stands now, the discussion contributes to the completeness of the article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case the pieces of info from Suvorov should be deleted; after all they cannot be verifed by another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." and most importantly regarding Suvorov "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

'Concrete Aircraft'

Germany's most successful air ace Erich Hartmann in the biography The Blond Knight of Germany often referred to the Il-2 as 'the concrete bomber', and in the book there is a diagram of the Il-2 and the armor specifications. Jana Deenax - 28 Jun 100 620:34 UTC

Hartmann had a tactic for shooting down IL2s. Since the 20mm shells from a 109g had a tough time penetrating its thick armor, he would aim for the "Soft underbelly" of the Il2s.

--Ashmole 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Operational history

Information is repeated at least twice in this section. Please read again and rework.

Example: "Because of this ability to absorb damage Luftwaffe pilots referred to the Il-2 as the Betonflugzeug (Concrete aircraft). Unfortunately, the rear gunners did not have the benefit of all-around armor protection and suffered about four times more casualties than the pilots. Added casualties resulted from the Soviet policy of not returning home with unused ammunition which typically resulted in repeated passes on the target. Soviet troops often requested additional passes even after the aircraft were out of ammunition to exploit the intimidating effect Il-2s had on German ground troops who had given it the nicknames Schwarzer Tod (Black Death) and Eiserner Gustav (Iron Gustav). The Finnish nickname was Maatalouskone ("The Agricultural Machine" or "Crop Duster")"

"Unfortunately, the rear gunners did not have the benefit of all-around armor protection and suffered about four times more casualties than the pilots. Added casualties resulted from the Soviet policy of not returning home with unused ammunition which typically resulted in repeated passes on the target. Soviet troops often requested additional passes even after the aircraft were out of ammunition to exploit the intimidating effect Il-2s had on German ground troops who had given it the nicknames Schwarzer Tod (Black Death) and Eiserner Gustav (Iron Gustav). The Finnish nickname Maatalouskone ("The Agricultural Machine") derived from the habitual low attack pattern of the Il-2 [8]"

Operators

The map and list of operators do not agree, which is correct? Alastairward 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List was updated later and is more correct, as usually. Piotr Mikołajski 07:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Yegorova

How many missions did Anna Yegorova fly? Under the "Famous IL-2 Pilots" heading, it says 243. Under her picture on the same page it says 260. On the wikipedia page dedicated to her it says "over 270". Some consensus would be nice.

The difference might be explained by the fact that Yegorova also flew some missions on Po-2. 50.46.154.47 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Movin' on

The article says, "aircraft factories near Moscow and other major cities in western Russia being relocated east of the Ural mountains after the German invasion." This is the popular myth; I understand (Cockburn's The Threat?) Sov factories had already begun moving well before the invasion, & most of them were beyond the Urals already. Can somebody confirm & correct? Trekphiler (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely counterfactual, there was no relocation of aircraft factories until after the invasion started, because Uncle Joe simply didn't see it coming. In fact, Russian documentary sources all agree that the relocation was carried out in the fall/winter of 41, in a great hurry, using convict labor (many of whom died during the dismantling/rebuilding of the factories), and that the relocation program was a mess that caused great disruption to aircraft production for several months until they could finally get all those factories up and running again. I'd say Cockburn's info should be thoroughly rechecked, he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Il-2 variant ?

This may be the ultimate variant of the Sturmovik (judging by it's appearance at least), the Il-102: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/modl_il-102.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-102 163.189.217.40 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Variant"? It's not related at all! Did you bother reading the wiki article? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should piece on Golovanovs invention be deleted?

My objection to this piece is the requirement "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources." I think it is an exceptional claim for two reasons: firstly defensive guns in this kind of mounting (se the Ju 87, Dauntless and other aircaft) always point upwards, there is no need for a mechanism for this. Also, a dead gunner would fall over his gun and hold it down, making it point upwards. Second and more serious is that Golovanov was a commander of Long Range Bomber units from February 1941, and eventually become [2] commander of all Long Range Aviation in 1942. He was removed from that post in 1948. This makes it not very likely he would have anything with the Il-2 to do. Lastly the source does not appear to be generally regarded as high-quality. Controversial seems the closest description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no response to this, so I will now remove the piece mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.18.31 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Competion with Su-6?

Currently the Design and development section states that the first prototype won a government competion against the Sukhoi Su-6 - this seems extremely unlikely - the Su-6 was a much later aircraft which at the earliest didn't fly until March 41, by which time the single seat Il-2 was completing acceptance tests and entering production. There could be some confusion with the ShB, an armoured derivative of the ANT-51 which was a stepping stone between that and the definitive Sukhoi Su-2, while there was also an unbuilt MiG Sturmovik project at about that time.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Penal rear gunners

I will soon remove most of this section on the grounds that it is an exceptional claim by a controversial source. Under the rules for wiki the claim need be verified by other sources, but non seems to have appeared here. Eventually I may integrate the remining bit into another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.234.217 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The book IL-2 Shturmovik Guards units of World War 2 from Osprey by Oleg Rastrenin mention an incident where the political commissar of 622 ShAP (attack squadron) flew as gunner. This alone should indicate that gunners were not "expendable", at least not as a rule. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Crop duster"

The text notes that the IL-2 was known to the Finns as "maatalouskone" (agricultural machine) and supposes that this derived from its low flight resembling crop dusting. This is rather unlikely, as crop dusting from airplanes was nearly unknown in Finland at the time. The word "maatalouskone" does NOT carry the connotation "crop duster"; it refers to equipment such as tractors, combines, etc.. Much more likely the nickname is a word play on the official Finnish definition of the type as a "maataistelukone" (ground attack aircraft, literally "ground-battle-machine").--Death Bredon (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Crop-dusting by plane is almost exclusively an US phenomenon. Finish terrain is not suite to it, and mass dusting of crop (aerial or otherwise) was not common in pre-war Scandinavia anyway. If the IL-2 was likened to an "agricultural machine" (tractor?) it would have been from the sound or something similar. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

annihilator of Sturmoviks?

This is quite a long nickname, and not an easy one to pronounce. Also, before adding something like this, please reference the claim, otherwise, it will be getting deleted. A valid reference is required when adding something like this (especially something as silly).--99.231.50.118 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Il-2 in popular culture

Is there a reason this small section containing a link to the PC-game of the same name (IL-2 Sturmovik (video game)) was deleted? Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it notable? does it connect to the popular culture or is it WP:Cruft? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

The general guideline we use is found at WP:MILPOP. I briefly played the computer game IL-2 Sturmovik when it first came out and it's a kick. I don't think a simple mention is worthy of this article. What would be a good mention is an encyclopedic description of how Oleg Maddox and Igor Egorov (and their team of programmers) researched the capabilities of the aircraft to make the game more realistic, and what, if any, contradictions they found in the historiography of the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If somebody wrote that history of the the game's development, it should also go in the game article itself, which is woefully lacking in a good history section. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it can be considered WP:Cruft. However, just being cruft isn't really a reason to delete something, as long as it is reasonable written and do not contain any original research. As far as I know, IL2 the game is the largest WWII military aviation game in the market, and as such I think it merit mention. What I do miss is appearances in films and other popular culture from the old USSR. I have been told the IL-2 has (or perhaps had) a tremendous status in the USSR (comparable to the Mustangs status in the US or the Spitfire in UK), and I can't find that reflected in the article.Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is cruft, it is not appropriate. Find some sources to take the submission beyond just a "bare-bones" mention, as indicated above, why the game is important, why is its impact connected to the Il-2? and so on...FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

I'll see what I can find. (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oleg Maddox's sim was greatly influential in generating interest and re-evaluation of the Great Patriotic War in Western Europe and North America. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for this article, but the simulation based on this plane has had a significant impact on improving historical understanding in "the West".--Hrimpurstala (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came across a mention of the game-plane connection in FlyPast, April 2011, p. 61. In an article on the IL2, it has a small section devoted to the game, which rounds off with (quote): "There is no doubt that the popularity of the flight sim has helpet the Shturmovik legend live on." In my opinion, this quote does make mentioning the PC-game relevant. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality rating

I'm dropping this down to start-class for MILHIST for too many unsourced statements. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Shturmovik in Russian is generic name of all ground attack aircrafts. Su-25 is Shturmovik. So, you can't name by this way only Il-2. Ходок (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they named this because of the precedent set by the Ilyushin? Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they named because of their function - ground attack, in russian 'shturm' (ru:штурм (атака)). See also russian 'shturmovik' (штурмовик) - ground attack aircraft. Il-2 set another precedent - name 'flying tank', which given to ground attack aircrafts and combat helicopters, like Mi-28, but it is mostly expressive word, for newspapers and propaganda materials.Ходок (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If "Shturmovik" is not allowed as the aircraft's name because it is not its "given name", then "Flying tank" is even less likely. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Il-2 hasn't any official "given name", only unofficial and propaganda nicknames ("Flying tank", "Black Death", "Humpback" and other), but never "Shturmovik". --KVK2005 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Quantity and losses

I've met opinion in Russian aviation magazine (Aviation and Cosmonautics, I can't name particular issue), that this famous Stalin's telegram lead to great number of productioned aircrafts, what caused inbalance between fighter and ground attack aviation, so Il-2 often operated without necessary fighter's support and big losses were caused because of it.Ходок (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)