659 IAP KOLDUNOV

[HGabor]

Hi Paul,

Yes, you are right that the majority of the La-5 losses were combat losses. During the Battle of Budapest only the 295 IAD lost about 25 planes in January, early February, 1945. Konrad I-II-III, then Spring Awakening panzer offensive all claimed several planes. But: these numbers are only snapshots on the first days of the months. Planes were lost and new planes came at the same time, so these numbers are just the actual summary of the changes. It is true that the losses were gradually replaced by newer La-5FNs, which -in March, 1945- changed for more modern La-7s of the Gorky factory. (30 La-7FNs) Fighter cover problems did not disappear with the new models completely, since sometimes still the Bostons 'escorted' their own fighter cover, leading the way ;-)))

Regards,

Gabor

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by HGabor

Hi Paul,

Yes, you are right that the majority of the La-5 losses were combat losses. During the Battle of Budapest only the 295 IAD lost about 25 planes in January, early February, 1945. Konrad I-II-III, then Spring Awakening panzer offensive all claimed several planes. But: these numbers are only snapshots on the first days of the months. Planes were lost and new planes came at the same time, so these numbers are just the actual summary of the changes. It is true that the losses were gradually replaced by newer La-5FNs, which -in March, 1945- changed for more modern La-7s of the Gorky factory. (30 La-7FNs) Fighter cover problems did not disappear with the new models completely, since sometimes still the Bostons 'escorted' their own fighter cover, leading the way ;-)))

Regards,

Gabor

Hello Gabor,

While I understand that the La-5FN superseded the previous type, the figures reflect a decline in numbers of both aircraft, a sign of combat losses. The 25 losses of 295 IAD would have been about a third of of its strength, am I right?

Did the La-7 arrive in time for the Balaton offensive? It could have helped in escort missions, both because of its higher performance and better navigation aids. I assume the Boston crews had much better navigation equipment and training than the fighters assigned to protecting them, hence they led the whole formation.

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[HGabor]

Well, 17 VA La-7s did not make a big difference during the Balaton campaign, because they arrived only in late March, when the battle was basically over. They had bigger role over Austria (Vienna campaign) with minimal losses (eg. л-т Михалев Федор Сергеевич (KIA) on April 16, 1945 at Vienna-W in 164 IAP La-7FN S/n: 45212337, engine: 82134519, - yellow '37'). Ironically 17 VA had only a single La-7 since 1944: Maj. Nikolai Romanov's (295 IAD HQ.) personal, 'experimental' La-7, which was borrowed by eg. 31 IAP top scorer ace, Capt. Skomorokhov as well. This Lavochkin La-7 was from Zavod 381., S/n: 3811716, white '16'. The 30 new La-7FN fighters in March, 1945 were from Gorky factory No. 21., S/n: 4521XXXX.

Other thing is that 17 VA Bostons were usually escorted by 288 IAD Yaks, - not Lavochkins. 5 VA Bostons were mainly escorted by Lavochkins, especially 179 GvIAP La-7s since 1944, which can explain why 5 VA, 218 BAD lost much less Bostons in air combat than 17 VA, 244 BAD. 179 GvIAP had 20 new La-7s on January 1, 1945, 19 on February 1 and 24 on March 1, 1945. They were protecting the A-20G Bostons very often with much better result than the Yaks.

Generally speaking the Soviet fighters were great in free-hunting with smaller formations, with quick ambush (scoring several victories), but they were not the best at bomber or IL-2 escort.

Gabor

[Paul Thompson]

Thank you for that explanation, Gabor!

The rather late delivery of the La-7 shows that the southern sector was something of a backwater. I notice you use the designation “La-7FN”, which I have never seen before. Is this how the Soviet documents refer to the standard La-7, or is this the version armed with 3 B-20 cannon?

It’s intriguing to see the difference in escort results achieved by the 179 GvIAP, even though it wasn’t at full strength, as you figures show. Possibly that regiment also had higher quality pilots than the 288 IAD Yak units, since Guards status tended to help in getting better-trained replacements.

On the subject of free-hunt sweeps, it’s interesting to note the official totals, which indicate that 5 and 17 VA did not fly many such sorties. The totals for 1945 are as follows, from the statistical digest:
Missions 5VA 17 VA
Free-hunt 631 923
Intercept 73 78
Escort 9900 7809

On the other hand, 17 VA did fly 8100 reconnaisance sorties, some of which may have been sweeps in disguise.

Here’s some more data picked out of the 2009 book about Balaton:

1. 17 VA strength on 1 January 1945 (serviceable/unserviceable)
La-5 – 79/15
Yak-3, 9 – 202/13
Il-2 – 345/27
B-3 (A-20 Boston) – 98/13
Po-2 – 94/3
Pe-2 reconnaisance – 12/2
Yak-9 reconnaisance – 2/6
Il-2 artillery spotting – 17/4
Yak-9 artillery spotting – 12/0
Total serviceable 861

2. Only the total for the 5 VA is given for 1 January – 642 serviceable aircraft

3. On 4th January 1945 the 18th Tank Corps lost 5 ISU-122 to air attack at Bajna, south of the Danube – this is highlighted as a record loss of such heavy vehicles. In the same area, 15 T-34 were destroyed by artillery fire over the course of two days. The 110th Tank Brigade and 363rd Self-Propelled Regiment had 15 T-34 and 8 ISU-122 remaining on the morning of 5th January, down from 37 T-34 and 19 ISU-122 on the 1st.

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[HGabor]

Paul,

In our records the 17 VA, 244 BAD had 117 A-20 Bostons on January 1, 1945 which is six more than the figure 98+13= 111 in the statistics in your comment. Different records say different numbers. Our number is based on the 1st quarterly mechanical report of the 244 BAD in 1945, listing every single planes at their command by SERIAL NUMBERS! Since this document lists all planes by S/N, therefore we use this as our primary source of the planes regardless of any other statistics or books.
I firmly believe that no other book or statistics can be more accurate than the division mechanical report, listing their planes by S/N. Only problem is that they did not mention their combat status and their physical condition. But they list the serial numbers, which –according to the official American factory terminology, looked like this:

5 UA-20 trainers (119623, 119627, etc.)
31 A-20B (12724, 12758, etc.)
6 A-20C-10 …….
4 A-20G-1 ……
5 A-20G-10
2 A-20G-15
13 A-20G-20
7 A-20G-25
8 A-20G-30
12 A-20G-35
21 A-20G-40
1 A-20G-45
2 A-20J-20/25

This is 117 Bostons altogether, not 111.

If you do not count the 5 trainer versions (which did not participate in combat), the difference is only one plane, - which is not bad at all!

17 VA flew several 2-8 fighter recce. missions, which usually ended up in strafing event, or dogfight. During these quick ambushes they scored most of their victories.

La-7FN is mentioned in some papers, but not in all. Note, that different units’ field mechanical papers did not necessarily follow the official factory terminology, sometimes they made up their ‘own’ plane-names and terminology, just like ‘Yak-11’ in the Axis reports, which, of course was NOT a real Yak-11, maybe an unusually fast Yak-3 or Yak-9U.

January 4, 1945 was another catastrophic day for the 17 VA indeed, since eg. the 210 ShAP alone lost 8 IL-2s (No.10967, 10987, 304836, 18853106, etc.) in the battles around Bajna!!!!! This was the highest one-day-loss for this unit. Cheers,

Gabor

[Paul Thompson]

Gabor,

Thank you yet again, those mechanical reports are a wonderful source! I agree with you completely, they must be the most authoritative sources on the subject and they do match quite closely with the overall statistics. The 244 BAD seems to have had every conceivable sub-type of Boston in Soviet service. So much for serviceability!

The aerial recconaisance in force is an interesting way of getting around the official reluctance to authorise fighter sweeps. Given the scale of this phenomenon, do you know if it was 17 VA policy?

Given the way that you compared La-7FN to the Yak-11 mis-designation and the fact that this designation has never been noted in a published source, I’m inclined to think that it’s just a result of confusion among users of the La-5FN.

8 Il-2s from one regiment, those are heavy losses! Do you know the overall Soviet loss figures for the day? The Soviet ground forces were apparently in great disarray on this precise date, considering large-scale withdrawal from the entire area.

More from the book:

1. 17 VA strength on 17 January 1945 (serviceable/unserviceable), note plenty of interesting changes, including disappearing Il-2s:
La-5 – 148/40
Yak-3, 9 – 154/30
Il-2 – 265/33
B-3 (A-20 Boston) – 97/10
Po-2 – 94/2
Pe-2 reconnaisance – 18/2
Yak-9 reconnaisance – 8/1
Il-2 artillery spotting – 15/1
Yak-9 artillery spotting – 9/3
Total serviceable 808

2. Il-2 successes in supporting 5th Guars Cavalry Corps on 25 January 1945:
58 Il-2 of 10 ShAK flew 164 sorties, lost 1 Il-2 to AAA. They received a commendation from the cavalry commander for breaking “the decisive German tank attack”.

Regards,

Paul Thompson

[HGabor]

Hi Paul,

Regardless of the similarities, maintenance of so many subtypes of the Boston must have been an extremely challenging job for the ground-crews. No wonder, they applied several home-made solutions to keep the planes in the air. Rough number of lost 17 VA planes on January 4, 1945 was:

17 IL-2
1 Boston
1 La-5F
3 La-5FN
1 Yak-1b
1 Pe-2
2 Yak-9D
1 Yak-9T

Sent private message too. Regards,

Gabor