The Il-2 role in Eastern Front

[Leon]

Stig
When I quoted about 18500 Sturmoviks lost for any reason till the begining of 1945 I meant not only in combat units. But also lost in flight-transport and in training and others. We can see that on 1.1.1945 more than 65% aircrafts were in non-combat (front line) units. The level of non combat losses in VVS during WWII was higher than 50% of all lost planes.

[Stormovik]

I also wonder the pix of the DAG-10 (Distance Air Granat), according interview with Yuri Khukrikov, said that, DAH-G-10 its good weapon, but I looking for pix is any?

[kolya1]

"Non combat" losses in the VVS included aircraft which were simply worn out or considered too old and scrapped, and this explains for a large part why the figures of non combat soviet losses are so high...

Here is an example, however incomplete of the way the losses were counted :

http://my.tele2.ee/airacesww2/airace...losses1944.htm

By the way, to judge correctly the level of Il-2 losses, it would be necessary to compare them with the number of sorties achieved : e.g. : AFAIK, the loss per sortie rate was (very) much higher in 1942 than in 1944 while overall losses were lower...

Hope this can help,

Kolya.

[Leon]

Kolya
I have one question about "weared" status. Were the planes badly damaged during sorties but able to return added to this status? I mean aircrafts damaged to the level which was not wothy to send it to repair works?
Regards
Marcin Leon Widomski

[Dénes Bernád]

Hi Marcin,

Nice to meet you here, too.

Based on the table posted on that Estonian site, http://my.tele2.ee/airacesww2/airace...losses1944.htm
it can be safely assumed that yes, the airplanes heavily damaged in combat which were not repaired were included in the 'weared' (worn out) category.

[Leon]

Hi Denes - nice to see you too. Thanks for answer.
Telling the truth I thought that some of "worn out" planes were lost due to damages taken in combat missions. So now so high non combat losses of Soviet planes ( specially ground attack planes wildely exposed to AAA) are more clear.

[Dénes Bernád]

Here is the statistics of Il-2 losses, according to Hans Seidl:

Year - Total Losses - To Enemy Action - % of Strength at Hand
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1941* - 1100 - 600 - 73.3%
1942 - 2600 - 1800 - 34.2%
1943 - 7200 - 3900 - 45.0%
1944 - 8900 - 4100 - 46.6%
1945** - 3800 - 2000 - 27.3%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 23600 12400 70.3%
* presumably from June 22 [D.B.]
** until May 10

Therefore, over 50% of losses [not counting the 'worn out' category] was due to enemy.

[kolya1]

I wouldn't be sure that aircraft heavily damaged by enemy action are included in the "weared" category...

Or if they are then this should not make a big part of these...

I cannot be sure because we lack elements to be fully affirmative but simply look at the losses in older aircraft types : very few were lost on combat missions or accidents, the enormous majority of the losses were "weared" aircrafts, which most probably means that the surviving I-16s, or early LaGG-3s were dumped because they were too old and not useful or safe to fly anymore (and not that e.g. : 500 were too damaged to be repaired while not a single one didn't return from mission..., which is quite unlikely).

BTW, don't you find that 12 400 combat losses is a number high enough ? I know the german claims were probably higher but still, if you compare it to the number of aircrafts in service this is a really heavy loss rate...


Kolya.


P.S. : Remember the issue of the number of gunners killed on the Il-2 during WWII, it was very often said there were some 7 to 10 gunners killed for each pilot (AFAIK, not a german claim), but when you try to check that claim, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it, that's simply wrong...

[Dénes Bernád]

Regarding the rear gunner issue, if he was killed - and it's known that some Axis fighter pilots attacking a two-seat Il-2 tried to finish off with the rear gunner first, to eliminate the rearward defense - the aircraft could still return to the base if the pilot was lucky enough. However, if the pilot was killed, the rear gunner died automatically, too - except for the rear occasions when he could bail out from the doomed airplane.
Therefore logic says that the number of rear gunners killed in action must be higher than the number of pilots. By how much? Unfortunately, I cannot tell. Perhaps someone else can.

[kolya1]

The overall numbers of pilots lost are in fact even higher than those of gunners because early in the war only single seat Il-2s were in service and therefore only pilots were lost...

Even later in the war you will find that the number of gunners lost, is no more than about 1.5 per pilot lost...

Just check in the history of any soviet assault regiment, this thing about gunner losses is simply part of post-war myths (probably inspired by cold war propaganda or something like that...).

BTW, I myself read it time and again, and believed it for some time (however incredible the difference may now seem (I mean : if these figures are to be believed about four men died for each Il-2 (1 or 2 crew) shot down, excluding prisonners and injureds, this is complete nonsense...), which just goes to show how much it is true that if you repeat something often enough it becomes true for most people, whatever the facts...