Talk:Ilyushin Il-2/Archive 1

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)

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 .

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.

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.

Thanks for providing the link to that website, 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)