He's mad Sweden didn't send more iron to Nazi Germany. Probably wanted Sweden to join the WarsawPact after WW2.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
He's mad Sweden didn't send more iron to Nazi Germany. Probably wanted Sweden to join the WarsawPact after WW2.That is a bit harsh on Bergstrom; he may cherry pick some Soviet successes to highlight that the air war on the Eastern Front wasn't entirely one sided, but otherwise provides a balanced account. He does stretch it a bit when comparing Jg 26 on the Eastern Front versus Western Front, harder in the east than the west.
1. How do books on postwar aviation relate to the topic under consideration here?I have:
Soviet Tactical Aviation
Flankers: The New Generation Vol 2
MIG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History (Warbird History)
Sukhoi S-37 and Mikoyan MFI: Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter Demonstrators - Red Star Vol. 1
You're welcome to purchase & see for yourself
It looks very logical: the Il-2 was hard to shoot down, so it took over 36,000 of them to produce. And 9 (nine!!!) sorties per one loss in 1941 also certainly testifies to the IL-2's invincibility.I don't think it was overrated at all. It was VERY difficult to shoot down from below
I really wish that Oleg Rastrenin would finally publish his books in English, so that those who do not speak Russian would finally familiarize themselves with the history of IL-2 based on documents, not Soviet propaganda. The history of IL-2 was very complex and ambiguous. And now, when we know the alternatives (and there were more than one) there is no certainty that the decision to produce the IL-2 on a mass scale was optimal.and was almost solely intended for ground support missions, which is why the German troops were under so much constant pressure (well, in addition to the weather, anyway) and were almost always short of supplies since the Il-2s were attacking the supply chain as it moved along the ground.
Undoubtedly, the airplane contributed to the victory over Germany, but it is a definite exaggeration to consider it decisive. Artillery and infantry were of the greatest importance in the Soviet army, while air force was probably the weakest branch, unless you consider the navy, which did not prove itself at all.The Il-2 was a major reason why the Germans didn't succeed in their invasion of the USSR.
1. Il-2 cannon efficiency against tanks was low - 37 mm cannons did not provide accuracy and rate of fire, 23 mm cannons did not provide guaranteed penetration of armor of even medium tanks, 20 mm ShVAK with an improved shell did not always penetrate the upper armor of even lightly armored half-tracked vehicles, giving a large number of ricochets.According to a book I have on anti-tank aircraft they attacked in large numbers, line abreast, salvoing those inaccurate rockets. I suppose quantity does have a quality of its own.
First of all, there were 18 combat ready Il-2s altogether in all Western Military Districts on 1 June 1941, so their impact on the failure or success of the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion into the USSR in 1941, was minimal. Later they became significant but were clearly less effective than the legends tell.I don't think it was overrated at all. It was VERY difficult to shoot down from below and was almost solely intended for ground support missions, which is why the German troops were under so much constant pressure (well, in addition to the weather, anyway) and were almost always short of supplies since the Il-2s were attacking the supply chain as it moved along the ground.
The Il-2 was a major reason why the Germans didn't succeed in their invasion of the USSR.
The Il-10 was less effective at ground attack than the IL-2. Moreover, it was less resistant to damage - a "fighter" wing profile gave less chance for emergency landing. The La-5/7, due to its low fuel reserve, was used for escorting rather rarely comparing to Yaks.Hi Juha3.
I think everybody in here knows that early WWII Soviet Aviation, including the early single-seat Il-2, was not exactly top notch. But, later, they WERE top notch, and Il-2s / 10s played a big part in it, especially when they were escorted by La-5/7s.
And at the same time they suffer heavy losses from anti-aircraft artillery, as Il-2 was a relatively large aircraft with low maneuverability. Do you know the story of the 13 IL-10s crashed in one group flight due to weather conditions?They were flying when the winter weather had the Luftwaffe grounded and were able to attack with no air opposition, too.
All we need is to analyze the documents, not the fairy tales of Soviet propaganda.I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. No biggie.
As much as you like, considering the scale of production. The Soviets won primarily through quantity, not quality, unfortunately.How bad could they have been?
The point is that the Soviets had very decent alternatives - starting in the late 1930s. And in the long run they would have been much more effective than the Il-2.However bad or good, they were better than the opposition when it counted, particularly from mid-1944 forward.
Since then, Oleg Rastrenin has published several excellent books in Russian, based on archival documents, which examine the history of Soviet attack aviation in great detail. The quality of books by Rastrenin is on par with the best modern monographs in English.There is at least one book on Il-2 by Oleg Rastrenin published in English, Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units of World War 2. Osprey Combat Aircraft 71 (2008). Having only 96 pages it does not go very deep.
Soviet fighter pilots have had high praises for the P-39. That tells us a lot about how lacking Soviet fighters were.I think everybody in here knows that early WWII Soviet Aviation, including the early single-seat Il-2, was not exactly top notch. But, later, they WERE top notch, and Il-2s / 10s played a big part in it, especially when they were escorted by La-5/7s.
Soviet fighter pilots have had high praises for the P-39. That tells us a lot about how lacking Soviet fighters were.
Mentioning the Il-10 in the context of ww2 is red herring, same as the P-51H or DH Hornet.
Let's face it - despite the serious shortcomings the Cobra was the best fighter in the Soviet Air Force considering the whole set of parameters (including pilot comfort and radio communication) until the summer of 1943 at least. Pokryshkin (official score 59 victories, 3xH.o.t.S.U.) was invited to convert to any Soviet fighter, but he refused.The P-39 certainly had it faults, but it was not a bad ground-attack airplane, especially at short ranges, which suited the Soviet VVS to a tee since the P-39s stayed low in Soviet service mostly, they ALSO weren't bad fighters down just above the heads of the troops. Under 10,000 feet, they were a decent match for most WWII fighters.
You might recall that the Soviet VVS persevered and drove the Luftwaffe back to Germany and, eventually, defeated them. The Il-2s / Il-10s were flying and delivering punches when the Luftwaffe ceased operations. How bad could they have been?
Are you shure you're not trying to reanimate a monster slain many times over? But possibly the 39s were flying bottom cover for the Laggs.(on 8 March 1945 two P-39s and two La-5s intercepted and shot down a Ju 88S which was flying at 9 000m altitude. That was the last German attempt to reach the airspace of Leningrad in WW2.)