How good was the soviet air force?

[Dimlee]

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 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.

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.

Oleg Rastrenin - I can not recommend him highly enough in everything related to Il-2, Ilyushin in general and "shturmovik" aircraft of VVS in the 1930s-1940s. Ironically, he started his research of Il-2 as a true believer in the Soviet myths of "flying tank", "black death", etc. He changed his mind.
Full disclosure: I belong to the "Il-2 sceptics" club.

 

[GregP]

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

The P-39 WAS in combat against ground forces. That according to actual Russians who flew with the VVS in the 1970 /1980s. I believe them. They MOSTLY used the P-39s as escorts for Il-2s and other ground attack aircraft but, yes, they used them against ground targets, too. That particular mission was simply not the primary P-39 assignment.

If I am not mistaken, almost ALL WWII aircraft were sometimes tasked to do things normally "out of their wheelhouse;" it wasn't just the Soviet P-39s.

 

[GregP]

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.

In Soviet air doctrine, all aircraft had the primary task of supporting ground forces. Basically, it was how they employed airplanes.

 

[Denniss]

ground attack role vs target of opporunity on the ground. The P-39 was used as air superiority fighter for most of the time, by later 44/45 it may have been relegated to more secondary roles

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In Soviet air doctrine, all aircraft had the primary task of supporting ground forces. Basically, it was how they employed airplanes.

We firefighters supported our bombers in their missions. That doesn't mean we accomplished their missions.

 

[Dimlee]

The P-39 WAS in combat against ground forces. That according to actual Russians who flew with the VVS in the 1970 /1980s. I believe them. They MOSTLY used the P-39s as escorts for Il-2s and other ground attack aircraft but, yes, they used them against ground targets, too. That particular mission was simply not the primary P-39 assignment.

If I am not mistaken, almost ALL WWII aircraft were sometimes tasked to do things normally "out of their wheelhouse;" it wasn't just the Soviet P-39s.

P-39 was involved in ground attack missions mostly at the end of the war. Even in the antishipping missions.
Probably, it was used in the escort role occasionally, stranger things happened in VVS. However, escort was not a primary role for Soviet P-39s.

 

[Snautzer01]

In Soviet air doctrine, all aircraft had the primary task of supporting ground forces. Basically, it was how they employed airplanes.

But it was not that simple. Fighter would have taken on german fighters.
That was their role. And they did. One can argue but they did kill a lot of German fighters. If no luftwaffe then go kill anything on the ground.
The soviets were not stupid. They mastered the numbers game very well. I can imagine a panther tank costing x amount, crew x amount, transport x amount, and then an il2. With 2 crew.
Peanuts.

Numbers.

If you take humanity out, an il2 killing a tank and then got shot to pieces wins in the money game.
Thats how soviets fought. And now in the ukr.

You kill enemy capital in money faster then they can rebuild means war won.
Just do not look at the human cost, wich was never a problem in soviet empire untill start 1944. Look at the draft. I posted a few pictures depicting soviet combat troops at Torgau. A lot of them are well below 17.

 

[bf109xxl]

ground attack role vs target of opporunity on the ground. The P-39 was used as air superiority fighter for most of the time, by later 44/45 it may have been relegated to more secondary roles

Many Cobra pilots claimed that they were often engaged in escorting ILs and Pe-2s. It would be interesting to compare data from the combat logs of different Cobra regiments and calculate how the sorties were distributed by mission. I can very roughly estimate the distribution for several regiments, but my estimates cannot be considered as reliable. One thing is certain: ground attack was the least typical mission for the Cobras.

 

[bf109xxl]

The P-39 WAS in combat against ground forces. That according to actual Russians who flew with the VVS in the 1970 /1980s. I believe them.

I also spoke a lot with pilots of the Soviet Air Force from 1970-1980s, most of them piously believed in propaganda myths and were not very interested in history.

 

[GregP]

ground attack role vs target of opporunity on the ground. The P-39 was used as air superiority fighter for most of the time, by later 44/45 it may have been relegated to more secondary roles

I think it was a bit more than "targets of opportunity," but I basically agree with you.

 

[Dimlee]

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.

The first combat sortie of Il-10 was on 15th April 1945 according to Rastrenin.

 

[GregP]

P-39 was involved in ground attack missions mostly at the end of the war. Even in the antishipping missions.
Probably, it was used in the escort role occasionally, stranger things happened in VVS. However, escort was not a primary role for Soviet P-39s.

Kind of disagree. From what I've heard from Russians, the P-39 was used as a fighter and as an escort and as a ground-attack aircraft. Primarily, they WANTED to use it as a fighter but in reality, German ground and air attacks mostly determined where the "defense" needs were. If there was a big ground push, then attacks on troops were the order of the day. If there wasn't a big ground push, then they went with fighter unless the Il-2s and Su-2s required escort.

I was given to believe that most of the missions were dictated by German attacks when the Germans were invading, and were much more driven by Soviet objectives when the Germans were retreating. During the German retreat, the main Soviet objectives shifted to attacks on the retreating troops so they could never come back.

So, yes, they got in some fighter missions. But not as many as they wanted to fly.

 

[Dimlee]

Kind of disagree. From what I've heard from Russians, the P-39 was used as a fighter and as an escort and as a ground-attack aircraft. Primarily, they WANTED to use it as a fighter but in reality, German ground and air attacks mostly determined where the "defense" needs were. If there was a big ground push, then attacks on troops were the order of the day. If there wasn't a big ground push, then they went with fighter unless the Il-2s and Su-2s required escort.

I was given to believe that most of the missions were dictated by German attacks when the Germans were invading, and were much more driven by Soviet objectives when the Germans were retreating. During the German retreat, the main Soviet objectives shifted to attacks on the retreating troops so they could never come back.

So, yes, they got in some fighter missions. But not as many as they wanted to fly.

Well... I'm Russian as well and I'm telling a different story .
Yaks were typical escort fighters, especially at low altitudes. Of course, other types did that job but less effectvely.
I can not back up my opinion with the hard data now. But the general consensus in Russian-language post Soviet historical community was that P-39 excelled as an air superiority fighter and an interceptor (until LW bombers were a threat). End 1944/1945 was a different story, of course since there were less and less targets in the air.
I'll see if I can find some statistics.

 

[Juha3]

JS, thanks for your kind words!
I admit that I was surprised when I read about that incident first time, why they did not send up Spitfire LF IXs. But maybe the Russians did not expect German raiders above Leningrad anymore and kept only a few alarm pairs in readiness and at that time those were pairs from 103 GIAP (P-39s) and 11 GIAP (La-5s). The radar near Lake Peipus gave a warning of the approaching target well in advance, so there was plenty of time to get high enough.

 

[bf109xxl]

Kind of disagree. From what I've heard from Russians, the P-39 was used as a fighter and as an escort and as a ground-attack aircraft. Primarily, they WANTED to use it as a fighter but in reality, German ground and air attacks mostly determined where the "defense" needs were. If there was a big ground push, then attacks on troops were the order of the day. If there wasn't a big ground push, then they went with fighter unless the Il-2s and Su-2s required escort.

Less than a thousand Su-2s were produced. Their contribution is extremely small.

I was given to believe that most of the missions were dictated by German attacks when the Germans were invading, and were much more driven by Soviet objectives when the Germans were retreating. During the German retreat, the main Soviet objectives shifted to attacks on the retreating troops so they could never come back.

The main reason for using Cobras for ground attack was the absence of severe anti-aircraft fire from retreating German troops.

So, yes, they got in some fighter missions. But not as many as they wanted to fly.

Soviet P-39 carried neither bomb load, nor rockets. Thus, their role as ground attack aircraft was very limited. They WERE used for ground attack, but rather as an exception. I even know rare examples when a regiment claimed more aircraft destroyed on the ground than shot down in the air during a certain time period, but these figures are highly unreliable and not typical for Cobras combat activity. The number of Soviet aces on Cobras is completely disproportionate to the number of Cobras. In the USSR, the Cobras played the role of an almost pure fighter.

 

[GregP]

Well... I'm Russian as well and I'm telling a different story .
Yaks were typical escort fighters, especially at low altitudes. Of course, other types did that job but less effectvely.
I can not back up my opinion with the hard data now. But the general consensus in Russian-language post Soviet historical community was that P-39 excelled as an air superiority fighter and an interceptor (until LW bombers were a threat). End 1944/1945 was a different story, of course since there were less and less targets in the air.
I'll see if I can find some statistics.

Hi DImlee.

I understand it might be tough getting good statistics on Soviet WWII missions by aircraft type. We have a somewhat free exchange of information and it's tough to get U.S. records of same and come up with stats that describe MOST of a type's service. It has to be harder to uncover Soviet records, accumulate them, and then do an analysis.

For now, I'll say that yes, the Soviets tried to use them as fighters when they could. That does not tell me how much they were able to do as they liked. As I said above, I suspect they didn't get to do as they wanted when the Germans were on the offensive, but DID when the German were retreating. Again, not too sure what percent of missions were fighter, escort, or ground attack.

Since you're Russian, I think you could likely answer that better than I can, or get a better estimate, anyway.

Just FYI, the guys I spoke with flew MiGs in the 1970s and 1980s. Mostly MiG-17s with some time in MiG-21s. They were under the impression that, despite desires to the contrary, the fighter missions were no more than about 50% of missions, with the balance being ground attack and escort. They were semi-sure most of the ground attack happened during the German retreat, many times in poor winter weather.

Doesn't mean they were right, but they had that opinion.

Cheers!

 

[bf109xxl]

Just FYI, the guys I spoke with flew MiGs in the 1970s and 1980s. Mostly MiG-17s with some time in MiG-21s.

Actually, the MiG-17 was a rarity in the Soviet Air Force in the 1970s. After 1970 they were only in a single squadron of 472 IAP equipped with MiG-19s. I don't know why exactly MiG-17s were kept there, but you clearly have an absolutely unrepresentative sample of pilots from the Soviet Air Force. Even the MiG-21 was already being actively replaced by a new generation of fighters in the 1980s.
Pilots who did not graduate from military academies for senior officers rarely knew anything about WWII beyond the usual Soviet myths. And even academy graduates did not always have a serious knowledge of aviation history.

They were under the impression that, despite desires to the contrary, the fighter missions were no more than about 50% of missions, with the balance being ground attack and escort. They were semi-sure most of the ground attack happened during the German retreat, many times in poor winter

As it follows from books and interviews of Cobra pilots, ground attack was not a typical mission. It's a much more reliable source.

Doesn't mean they were right, but they had that opinion.

Their opinion has no value without citing sources.

 

[Andrew Arthy]

Some figures from Soviet records:

20 July 1944
11.IAK, 3.VA: 148 Airacobra sorties, 58 escort for 334.BAD (Tu-2s) and 332.ShAD (Il-2s), 66 cover for troops, 24 reconnaissance

15 December 1944
11.IAK, 3.VA: 138 Airacobra sorties, 124 escort for 1.GBAK (Pe-2s), 14 reconnaissance

24 April 1945
11.IAK, 3.VA: 280 Airacobra sorties, 52 bombing/strafing of Neutief airfield, two reconnaissance of Frische-Nehrung, 216 escort for 5.GBAK (Pe-2s), 3.GBAD (Pe-2s), 335.ShAD (Il-2s) and 6.GShAP (Il-2s).

Cheers,
Andrew A.

 

[bf109xxl]

11.IAK, 3.VA

Just FYI: 2 IAD (5th Guard, 190th) including 6 IAP (28th, 68th, 72nd Guard, 17th, 494th, 821st), all regiments on P-39s, total number of aircraft 200-240.

 

[Airborne2001]

I don't think the IL-2 was bad per se. It wasn't perfect (the maneuvering energy retention issue is proof enough), but it wasn't bad. The focus was on heavy armor, which was did result in a necessary sacrifice of loaded weight. It could take a lot of damage, but I think they key was viewing it from the ground. Planes could get it better when facing the less armored tail-end of the aircraft, but anti-air would have had it harder from the front. These are my two-cents.