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

[bf109xxl]

The armor did not provide the IL-2 a reliable protection against neither large-caliber bullets nor anti-aircraft artillery shells. The only advantage of armor was better pilot survivability during emergency landings.
The distribution of armor thickness was not optimal, there were areas where there were no hits at all and vice versa, areas with a high percentage of hits had insufficient armor. Nearly every penetration of the cowl armor resulted in engine damage. Only the lower cowl armor provided sufficient protection.
In general, the IL-2 concept was very controversial - it was a bad idea to use a liquid-cooled engine on an attack aircraft. The result was a heavy, poorly maneuverable and rather vulnerable aircraft. I have to repeat: under the same conditions, obsolete fighters without armor used for ground attack suffered many times fewer losses. Yes, they were not as well armed as the Il, but nevertheless they could be very effective (for example, the I-207, which was not built in series, was highly appreciated). They also did not use the high-octane gasoline that the IL-2 required. There were other alternatives, starting with the very promising Vultee A-11.
The whole story of Soviet attack aircraft development is a clear illustration of the total inefficiency of the Soviet system.

 

[Airborne2001]

The armor did not provide the IL-2 a reliable protection against neither large-caliber bullets nor anti-aircraft artillery shells. The only advantage of armor was better pilot survivability during emergency landings.
The distribution of armor thickness was not optimal, there were areas where there were no hits at all and vice versa, areas with a high percentage of hits had insufficient armor. Nearly every penetration of the cowl armor resulted in engine damage. Only the lower cowl armor provided sufficient protection.
In general, the IL-2 concept was very controversial - it was a bad idea to use a liquid-cooled engine on an attack aircraft. The result was a heavy, poorly maneuverable and rather vulnerable aircraft. I have to repeat: under the same conditions, obsolete fighters without armor used for ground attack suffered many times fewer losses. Yes, they were not as well armed as the Il, but nevertheless they could be very effective (for example, the I-207, which was not built in series, was highly appreciated). They also did not use the high-octane gasoline that the IL-2 required. There were other alternatives, starting with the very promising Vultee A-11.
The whole story of Soviet attack aircraft development is a clear illustration of the total inefficiency of the Soviet system.

Interesting. I have read that the Su-2 could have been a good plane. IIRC it had the lowest loss rate per average missions. (IL-2, Su-2, Pe-2/3)
It's from Wikipedia, I know, but it does come from a source "Soviet combat aircraft of the Second World War".

Sukhoi Su-2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's ~halfway down the page.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Su-2 was, in general, a quite successful versatile airplane. It was mainly used during the initial period of the war, when Soviet aviation was in crisis after the shock of the first days of the war. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the Su-2 was quite high. There were several reasons for this. The Su-2 was simple to operate and easily mastered by the crews. This increased the pilots' chances of gaining sufficient combat experience. The airplane was robust and was able to resist enemy hits. The Su-2 was conceived as a pure bomber and had no cannons - this, in fact, was its main disadvantage compared to the Il-2. But it could lift up to 600 kg of bomb load (up to 700 kg on tests) - the same amount was usually lifted by the twin-engined Pe-2! The Su-2 could not bomb from dive, however the Pe-2 was also used mainly as a level bomber until mid-1943 at least. In addition, a significant number of Su-2s were located on the southern sector of the front, where the activity of enemy fighters was lower, and the operating conditions corresponded exactly to the ideas according to which the airplane was designed. In 1942 Su-2 regiments had on average more experienced pilots than Il-2 and Pe-2 regiments, apparently this is the main reason for the lower losses, both combat and non-combat. In the same air division, Su-2 losses could be many times lower than Pe-2 losses (see the book by Dmitry Khazanov, unfortunately, only in Russian). This does not mean that the Su-2 had any outstanding qualities and could replace the Pe-2, but rather that the Pe-2 was insufficiently effective.
Although the regiment commanders and Su-2 crews were against the termination of serial production of the aircraft in 1942, the plant was decided to transfer to the production of the Il-2 M-82 despite the poor performance of the latter. Stalin did not like Pavel Sukhoi. The Soviet system in action...
Before the war, Sukhoi designed a very promising ShB (attack bomber) with four wing-mounted ShKAS and 600 kg of bomb load. If two ShKAS were replaced by 23-mm VYa, the installation of the M-82 allowed to get an airplane with the same armament as IL-2, but very probably with much better flight performance. The question of the necessity of armor for an aircraft with an air-cooled engine remains open. From my point of view, armor only deteriorated flight performance, providing no real protection for the crew. It is necessary to analyze statistical data - in particular, they are mentioned by Rastrenin in his books.

PS. The topic has been already discussed earlier (IL-2 doesn't suck as bad as the SU-2). I generally agree with Dimlee's opinion - seems that we read the same books about the Il-2 and Su-2.

 

[HP52]

When I think of WW2 air combat i think of the US with the mustangs, the British with the Spitfires, the Germans with 109s and 190s, the Japanese with Zeros, and the Italians with the RE.2001. I almost never hear of soviet air to air. I have heard of the Il-2 and IL-10 which are both ground attack. I have heard other forum users refer to the "Yaks". I know they are made by Yakovlev but I don't think that the official designation was Yak. Was it? Was there also other companys making soviet fighters. I know ilyushin made the IL series but from what I know they are primarily ground attackers.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer this. Sorry if it was a stupid question.

Don't forget the Polikarpov - still active as a second line fighter in 1942, they acted as hornets protecting parachuting airmen. When the Old Man was in Severomorsk with the RAAF, there was an Yak on standing patrol - he was jumped by a Bf109. The Russian did a violent loop and came out of it with guns blazing and got the 109. Separately the Australians coached the Ruskis to maintain a standing patrol overhead. A raid started and up went the AA. The Yak on patrol immediately had its tail shot of by "Friendly AA; the pilot abandoned and the Yak did a vertical dive going through the roof of the Australian barracks - through 4 floors and ended up in the basement. A few parts of that Yak are in Australia.

 

[Yew Staff]

The armor did not provide the IL-2 a reliable protection against neither large-caliber bullets nor anti-aircraft artillery shells. The only advantage of armor was better pilot survivability during emergency landings.

and the germans with their mineshell design concentrated more on destroying the airframe itself and make the plane unflyable in that sense circumventing armour.

regarding success of the IL-2 when opposition was relatively low:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td1jRKKGvNw&ab_channel=Milit%C3%A4r.Technik.Geschichte.-JensWehner