SHTURMOVIK PILOT
On August 22, 1943, Ilyushin
Il-2 1870930 was being flown
by 34-year-old Capt Alexander
Ivanovich Kalichev who was
the squadron leader of the
3./46th ShAP.
This aircraft is believed to have
been armed with four FAB-100
bombs in the internal wing bomb
bays, along with two ROFS-132s
and two RS-82 rockets on the wings.
Kalichev had been with the unit
since its formation, leading the 1st
Squadron between May 1942 and
January 1943 (as part of the Black
Sea Fleet). On being re-equipped
with the Shturmovik, he moved to
the 3rd Squadron in January 1943
and led this unit until his force-
landing. A few weeks later, Kalichev
was posted to another unit. He
survived the conflict and received
numerous awards. Having qualified
as a pilot in 1933 he retired as a
lieutenant colonel in 1955 and is
thought to have died in 1985.
On reflection, considering the
potency of the machine flown
by men such as Kalichev, it’s
hard to believe that Britain’s
relatively vulnerable Fairey Battle
was designed to fulfil a similar
specification to the Il-2. That said,
the belief that the Russian type
suffered one of the lowest loss
rates in the VVS (Army Air Force)
is untrue. Losses were significant,
but no other aircraft inflicted
such damage on the enemy. The
level of destruction dealt to Axis
tanks, cars, men, aircraft, ships and
fortifications by the Shturmovik
was astounding. It made a
significant contribution in
turning the tide of war in favour
of the Allies.
The Il-2 came with 13mm of
armour protection for the gunner
and the pilot’s backplate. The
thickness of the canopy’s side
panel glazing was 8mm, the front
windscreen 55mm and the engine
cowling and cockpit sides 6mm.
This was enough to protect the type
from machine gun fire – it took an
exceptional and ‘lucky’ cannon shot
to bring it down. This is probablyone of the reasons that 20-30mm
cannon became standard armament
on later Luftwaffe aircraft.
Originally, the Shturmovik
prototype was designed as a
two-seater, but retention of the
gunner hinged on the debate of
performance versus utility – was
it more effective to have a higher
speed/climb rate or to have better
defence? Initial models were
completed in single-seat format,
though following significant losses,
and the conclusion that most
operations would be at low level,
it was decided that having rear
defence was a better option and the
gunner’s position was reintroduced.
It is hoped the restoration of
Shturmovik 1870930 will be the
finest and most historically correct
attempt to date – even if fitted with
an Allison V-12 powerplant, which
now seems to be standard practice
for the type.Thanks to Boris Osetinsky, the
IKAR recovery group and Rune
Rautio for their help in compiling
this article, as well as Juanita Franzi
for the profile.thought to have died in 1985. but no other aircraft inflicted
such damage on the enemy. The
level of destruction dealt to Axis
tanks, cars, men, aircraft, ships and
fortifications by the Shturmovik
was astounding. It made a
significant contribution in
turning the tide of war in favour
of the Allies.
The Il-2 came with 13mm of
armour protection for the gunner
and the pilot’s backplate. The
thickness of the canopy’s side
panel glazing was 8mm, the front
windscreen 55mm and the engine
cowling and cockpit sides 6mm.
This was enough to protect the type
from machine gun fire – it took an
exceptional and ‘lucky’ cannon shot
to bring it down. This is probably
“Kali ev landed right in the middle of the lake, and a er 30 minutes
was pi ed up by a rubber boat and survived”one of the reasons that 20-30mmLeft
The fatal shot that
went through the 6mm
armoured cowling into
the cam cover, destroying
the valves.Above left
The aircraft serial was
clearly stencilled on the
wings and elevators,
as well as on the
undercarriage leading
edge shroud and fi n.Above
Boris Osetinsky, who
has been involved with
warbird recoveries for
more than 25 years.December 2018 FLYPAST 27