Ну бывают же ,хм,люди,такие
вот написал некий Vipez.Очередная жертва нацистской пропоганды.
"
"
Vipez U say that Ju87 is same armored as IL2?
Vipez are u sure ?
IL2 = AIR TANK he was well armored and of corurse u have no chance of killing him by machineguns.
But JU87 was and old plane it was dive bomber and was used only when was air superiority of LW. It was in the begining of war and that's why Stukas had suxcess in the begining of war.
But when time changed and VVS started to controll sky Stukas had huge losses and that's why they were changed on FW190 Jabo planes.
And of course STUKAS where not well armored cause they were Dive bombers and not FRONT LINE LOW LEVEL ATTACK planes." PD_CH =SF=CH
EH! JU87 was old plane yes, design back from mid 1930s! But don't be fooled by Stuka losses lost in Battle Of Britain-campaign. Early A, and B-stukas had no armor. But Stuka froM B-2, and onwards, Particularly Dora-series, were very well armored planes. It had a strong constuction, probably because it was A DIVE BOMBer, with one purpose: to sustain heavy loads on the wings and this why it had a tough air frame! And By the way, Im pretty sure Russians lost more IL-2s than Germans lost Stukas!
"Crew armor was strengthened. The pilots seat was almost completely armored with 4mm and 8mm armored plates, a 10mm armored headrest and a 5mm floor. The gunner now also had an armored headrest and side armored plates." Compare this to For example IL-2 first series, field mod.. with no armor protection for rear gunner. Yes, pilot was protected by armored glass in IL-2, but SO was the Stukas. Stuka also had well protected powerplant, by armor plates. Compare this to IL-2, with VERY vulnerable engine, particularly the radiator. One hit to the radiator set IL-2s on fire. German aces, like Erich Heartman could down a IL-2 with only one accurate hit.. Now I don't think this was possible for Stukas.. unless you kill the pilot with cannon fire or the engine. Compare the weights: Stuka D-3 with full fuel load 5,850 kg, IL-2 First series (with rear gunner) 5,165 kg.
SO my point is, Russian non-explosive 7.62 mm ammo should NOT have easy time slising through pilot armor or the rear gunner armor.. and I believe Stukas were designed to take much more heavier load to air frame, this is why Stuka was known to have a very strong constaction.. Il-2s on the other hand, suffered from quality productions, just like Yaks.. late series had wooden fuselages, so Sorry to disappoint you, but IL-2s definately are not more armored than Stuka Dora-series. This is why Pilots like Rudel and Kurt Kuhlmey lived through the war with amazing amount of ground kills, nothing you can compare to Sturmovik aces.. Just because Oleg has modelled Russian Delta wood to sustain so much damage compared to Metal-consructed German planes, does not mean this was so in real life. Why do you think Germans and Russian Sturmovik pilots called the first IL-2s as Flying Coffins?
Cannon fire is ofcourse is different, Shvaks have easy time cutting the wings off from the Stuka, like it should be.. imho easier than MG151/20 has harder time to down a IL-2. So yes, Stukas were slow, and big targets, but you probably should read memoirs of Soviet Hurricane IIB- pilots.. SOmetimes they wasted their entire ammunition when trying to shoot a Stuka down on eastern front.. rifle caliber simply was not enough. Ratas did not have easy time to down these bombers with their real type 24 and type 18s (real type 24 did not have cannons by the way!)
Draw your own conclusions.. just don't bullshit a bullshitter..
By the way I just realized PD_CH and SF_CH are the same person? Wow.. I just dislike players who play for both sides, try to choose your side if you ask me!
-- A.K.A LeOs.K_Vipez"
Ответить с цитированием
