Finns and the Stormovik

I have read that Luftwaffe pilots were surprised by the ruggedness and armor of
the Ilyushin 2 Stormovik and it took some time for them to understand and
exploit its few weaknesses namely the exposed oil cooler. German ground troops
are supposed to have feared the Stormovik more than any other Soviet plane.

Did the Finns have the same reaction to this aircraft both in the air and on
the ground? Did the Finns learn about the aircraft from the Germans before
they saw it on their front?

John Dupre'

I read a great book about Finland's Winter War with Russia called
'Fighter over Finland' by Eino Astere Luukkanen. Mr. Luukkanen was an
accomplished fighter pilot but he said that the only way he could shoot
down an IL-2 was to aim for the oil radiator under the fuselage and try
to hit that. Eventually the Il-2 runs out of oil and goes down. He
thought they were very tough.

Good luck
Bumper7


JDupre5762 wrote:
I have read that Luftwaffe pilots were surprised by the ruggedness and armor of
the Ilyushin 2 Stormovik and it took some time for them to understand and
exploit its few weaknesses namely the exposed oil cooler. German ground troops
are supposed to have feared the Stormovik more than any other Soviet plane.

Did the Finns have the same reaction to this aircraft both in the air and on
the ground? Did the Finns learn about the aircraft from the Germans before
they saw it on their front?

John Dupre'

I have read that Luftwaffe pilots were surprised by the ruggedness and armor of
the Ilyushin 2 Stormovik and it took some time for them to understand and
exploit its few weaknesses namely the exposed oil cooler. German ground troops
are supposed to have feared the Stormovik more than any other Soviet plane.

Did the Finns have the same reaction to this aircraft both in the air and on
the ground? Did the Finns learn about the aircraft from the Germans before
they saw it on their front?

Hi John,

I don't know whether there was knowledge about the Sturmoviks prior the
Continuation War or before actually engaging them in combat.

I check what my interviewees have commented about them, let's see:

Hemmo Leino:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2...noEnglish.html
* Do you remember from which angle you used to shoot at a target?
- It depended on the plane you were shooting at. The Il-2 had to be
fired at from the side, you could not down him from any other direction.
It was in vain to shoot a well armoured plane like the Il-2 from behind.
You could not accomplish anything. But fighters were vulnerable from
every quarter. And the bombers had a lot of weak spots. Although I did
not get to shoot at bombers very often! I cannot tell much about them.
We were shooting at a Boston and that was a piece of experience. You do
know what would happen if you approach very close behind, you shall be
hit by the debris. Next time you know to avoid that.

Antti Tani:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2...riEnglish.html
Antti Tani: The single time I got to shoot with the three cannon
Messerschmitt, I did not like her, even though I shot down three IL-2. I
fired one brief burst and at the second burst she began to veer as one
of the wing cannons did not fire. Then I had to get as close to the
target as ever possible and then take deflection in the wrong direction...
* Was the other wing cannon jammed all the time in that mission ?
Antti Tani: Yes, it did not work, not a single shot did it fire. I had
to kick down one pedal just as I fired to make the plane go straight for
an instant during firing. I managed to shoot a brief burst when next to
the target, pretty close. But it was remarkable that those Il-2s must
have been short of machine gunners. The wing planes of the formation had
gunners, at least in two of them, but there was no gunner in the third
,at least nobody fired. And in the fourth plane, as far as I saw, there
was no gunner.
* But the gun turret was there ?
Antti Tani: Yes, the equipment was there.
* There is a mention in a book about the gunner ducking behind the
armour plate ? The crew of the Il-2 sat in an armoured "tub". A gunner,
when facing oncoming bullets, may have preferred ducking his head to
survive.
Antti Tani: Yes, they may have been hiding. It could be that the gunners
abandoned their machine guns and hid themselves.
* The wing cannon recoil was tremendous, wasn't it ?
Antti Tani: Yes, just huge.
* But the rate of fire, on the other hand, was rather fast, wasn't it?
Antti Tani: Yes it was quite good... but I cannot recall how many round
per minute it was.

Tani and Jussi Huotari, same interview:
Antti Tani: Of course hits damage the aircraft, its fuselage in any case
The fuselage is not armoured. For example the IL-2, the fuselage could
be holed. But its armour could not be pierced easily. It could not be
shot down by shooting at the fuselage with a cannon, I never did succeed
in that. I used my ammunition once so that I fired at the radiators of
the IL-2 and having got drops in my windscreen I knew they were holed.
Then I fired the rest of the ammunition in the fuselage. It was to no
effect. If you fired from the rear in the fuselage, you could see if you
hit him. If the target continues straight flight, the pilot must be
dead, but if evading, then he must be...
This one belly landed on a field, but he created new field for another 150m.
Jussi Huotari: I mean, if the enemy pilot does not evade, he must be dead.
Antti Tani:Yes, then you know that the man is dead. But the Il-2 for
example was so well armoured that the pilot was behind three armour
plates and often ignored being fired upon
Jussi Huotari: They did not do much of evasive action...
Antti Tani: He did not evade anything, he flew straight on. As he knew
the game was up, his engine began to smoke and he had to belly-land, he
saw a field and decided to land on it. Land he did but with too much
speed, he ended up in the forest. He cut a swath of 150m before he
stopped, there was just some steam rising.

Antti Tani: Me, too, I never saw bombers over the Carelian Isthmus
during the "rush hour" (in summer 1944). IL-2s only. Like the one time
as Illu Juutilainen and I shot down five. They kept coming, eight to
nine planes abreast and these formations extended as far as you were
able to see. We began to shoot at the leading formation. I did think
many times that now our entire squadron should be here, we would have
really scored. This is described in my biography, I forget the date.

Kyösti Karhila:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2...laEnglish.html

- I also saw the ground attack plane IL-2. One had made a forced landing
and it was brought to Utti. I saw the fuselage in a hangar. I also saw
Tchaikas, the Finnish Air Force had a number of them in service. I saw
the Pe-2, our Air Force bought four from Germany, and then two were
destroyed in the enemy air raid against Lappeenranta (in June 1944).
* What did the production quality of the Il-2 and Pe-2 look like and
what quality as aircraft did they possess?
* The Pe-2 as far as I know was praised by Finnish pilots as the best
recce plane in the world, and I think it is true. She was reputed to be
like a fighter in controllability. She was originally designed as a
heavy fighter. The Il-2 was a terror to our infantry, because they could
not do anything about it, shooting at it was useless. As the IL-2 could
fire ahead, to the side and behind, the infantrymen could not understand
that at all.

And a little longer discussion he
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2....html#il2mersu

///////7

In general the Finns adapted to the Sturmovik. It was hard plane to
shoot down and took more than just straight 6 attack. The usual way was
to attack from the side - Brewster's 4 machine guns could penetrate the
cockpit side armor. Or to shoot at the wing roots from side and above,
this strikes at the fuel tanks. And of course oil cooler if you had the
chance. 3 cannon Messerschmitts on the other hand could hit the
Sturmovik from about any angle.

jok