How good was the soviet air force? (2 Viewers)

[RaptorFan]

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.

He's mad Sweden didn't send more iron to Nazi Germany. Probably wanted Sweden to join the WarsawPact after WW2.

 

[bf109xxl]

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

1. How do books on postwar aviation relate to the topic under consideration here?
2. At least the book on MiG-15 looks absolutely adequate. I did not find any of the things you attributed to the authors there. I will repeat the request: please cite the specific page and paragraph numbers to which you have specific complaints. I am ready to consider any additional sources to clarify the matter.
3. Gordon's books on Soviet aviation in WWII are perfectly adequate and based on documents. I consider your criticism to be completely unjustified.

 

[bf109xxl]

I don't think it was overrated at all. It was VERY difficult to shoot down from below

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.

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.

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.

The Il-2 was a major reason why the Germans didn't succeed in their invasion of the USSR.

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.

 

[bf109xxl]

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.

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.
2. Mass production of rockets with acceptable effectiveness against tanks (RBS-82, -132) began only in 1944. Effective use of such rockets required either a large salvo - the entire ammunition at once - or a close-range salvo. Both options were available only to experienced pilots. Therefore, Il-2 pilots' opinions on the rockets' efficiency against tanks vary from "absolutely useless" to "the most effective Il-2 weapon" depending on their qualifications.
3. The most effective weapon against tanks according to documents were PTAB bombs with cumulative effect.

Overall anti-tank effectiveness of the Il-2 was inadequate. German tank units did not suffer heavy tank losses from the Il-2. This is generally confirmed by Soviet documents as well

I've written about all of this here before....

 

[Juha3]

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.

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.
They were difficult planes to shoot down but downing them even by 20 mm AA cannon fire was entirely possible contrary to that 60s myth.

 

[Juha3]

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.
Vasily Borisovich Emelyanenko's memories is also good, if my memory serves me right

Ps. Emelyanenko was a famous Il-2 pilot, 92 combat sorties IIRC.

 

[GregP]

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. They were flying when the winter weather had the Luftwaffe grounded and were able to attack with no air opposition, too.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. No biggie.

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?

However bad or good, they were better than the opposition when it counted, particularly from mid-1944 forward.

 

[bf109xxl]

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.

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.
Your impressions about Ils are based mainly on propaganda and contradict SOVIET documents.

They were flying when the winter weather had the Luftwaffe grounded and were able to attack with no air opposition, too.

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?

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. No biggie.

All we need is to analyze the documents, not the fairy tales of Soviet propaganda.

How bad could they have been?

As much as you like, considering the scale of production. The Soviets won primarily through quantity, not quality, unfortunately.

However bad or good, they were better than the opposition when it counted, particularly from mid-1944 forward.

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.

 

[bf109xxl]

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.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

 

[Snautzer01]

Now.. would strategy and altitude have to do something with that i wonder.....

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

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.

 

[GregP]

According to the histories I read, the Il-10 had its combat introduction in Sep 1944 and 99 were produced before the end of 1944. Unless I miss my history, that was firmly in WWII and firmly against the German Luftwaffe. Most of the production was after WWII, to be sure, but unlike the P-51H, the Il-10 made combat against the Germans ... so it does not resemble a red herring OR the P-51H Mustang and F8F Bearcat that made the show but missed combat in WWII.

Were the early ones debugged and great airplane? No. But they were there and saw combat.

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. They weren't too good above 15,000 feet, for sure. But many an Axis pilot was quite surprised to discover himself being shot down by an "inferior" fighter that he thought he could ignore. T'was not the wisest course to trifle with a well-flown P-39 down low.

 

[Denniss]

Il-10 was not in combat by 1944, purely in training until early 45, units barely entered combat to fight against the germans.
The P-39 was not in the ground attack role, they liked the big gun to take out bombers

 

[bf109xxl]

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.

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 IL-10 was a serious mistake by the Air Force officials. In pursuit of better flight performance, they sacrificed the aircraft's striking power and made it more vulnerable. By the end of 1944, there were too few German fighters on the Eastern Front to justify the presence of an air gunner - he was just ballast. According to Soviet documents, the probability of ILs to encounter German fighters in the last year of the war was only 15%. At the same time, Ils were usually escorted by fighters. The Il-10 carried less bomb load than the Il-2, while its pilot had less time to aim due to a higher speed, that resulted in lower overall efficiency.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

It's not like the Germans weren't retreating on the ground and losing their airfields along the way. I don't think it was the VVS doing the driving -- literally. I think the Red Army appreciated the help, all the same.

 

[Juha3]

On P-39, first of all, it was not used by ground-attack units but fighter and interceptor units. Three of the five top Soviet aces (Grigori Rechkalov, Nikolai Gulaev and Dmitri Glinka) got most of their kills while flying P-39s and Rechkalov and D. Glinka ended the war in May 1945 still flying P-39s with Guards units operating inside Germany. Gulaev was badly wounded in Aug 44, still flying P-39 with 129 GIAP. And at least still in March 1945 Airacobras operated with Leningrad area PVO with Guards interceptor units (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.) So guard units used P-39s to the end of the war in Europe in air superiority and interceptor roles. In May 1945 the Soviet inventory incl. 3078 Airacobras of which approx. 700 in the PVO (the Air Defence) and some 480 in the Naval Air Forces, the rest were in the VVS KA (Army AF).

 

[pinehilljoe]

Were there any sightings of Lend Lease P-39s of P-63s in Korea?

 

[bf109xxl]

The obsolete P-39/-63s did not participate in the Korean War, but on November 8, 1950, a pair of P-80Cs successfully attacked a Soviet airfield (on Soviet territory near Vladivostok) with several dozen P-63s of the 821st Fighter Regiment (IAP), 190th Fighter Division (IAD) /54th Air Army (VA), destroying and damaging about 10 aircraft (officially one destroyed and six damaged).

 

[Just Schmidt]

(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.)

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.
Good to have you posting here again, Juha.