Russian CAS Discussion

[John Kettler]

In deference to Steve's request not to veer into side discussions in the CMRT AAR, I'm starting a new thread here. Let's start with the CAS missions defined by the Russian commander of the Pechenga-Kirkenes Operation.

Close Air Support (CAS)

o Assisting Soviet artillery during preparatory fire missions to break through German defences

o Disrupting enemy command and control

o Suppressing artillery and mortar batteries

o Accompany tanks and infantry during the battle and support their attacks"

Therefore, in CM terms, these translate as follows:

1. Prep fire which operates in much the same way as Turn 1 artillery bombardments

2. HQ attack, probably out of scope, since likely to be divisional HQ and up.

3. Again, a relatively deep target complex outside of CM scope.

4 Targets of opportunity, plus attacks ordered by Army level commander against strongpoints, not a problem child tank.

Tux,

P-39 Airacobra

I did some more digging, and I apparently got suckered by a prevalent western military myth. The P-39 was good for ground attack, but the gun wasn't suited for tank busting, per the statement of some guy named Pokryshkin (one of the top Russian aces of the war) to a T-34 unit commander: "Our guns can't penetrate tank armor." That might've had something to do with our not supplying AP, only HE! Even so, the gun was low velocity, not even in the same league as the high velocity BK-37. Troops, trucks, supply dumps, trains, barges--all good targets for P-39 attack. Very good writeup here. Not a link. Juicy site with tons of grog stuff.

Airacobra or Iron Dog? Patrick Masell

P-63 Kingcobra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra

The Russians weren't supposed to use the Kingcobra against the Germans, but it appears, per the P-63 Wiki, they did. I have no idea why the U.S. would require such an arrangement in the first place. By far the most useful thing in the Wiki, though is this:

"One of the enduring myths regarding the P-39/P-63 in Soviet use is that because of its armament, in particular the 37mm nose cannon, it excelled as a ground-attack aircraft, even a 'tank buster'. In translating and preparing this manuscript for publication, I have had the opportunity to peruse several Russian-language sources. Mentions of the employment of this aircraft in the ground-attack role are so rare in these sources as to be exceptional ... The 'tank buster' myth has its roots in the misunderstanding of the general wartime role of the Red Air Force and in the imprecise translation of specific Russian-Language terms that describe this role. The specific Russian-Language term most often used to describe the mission and role of the Airacobra-equipped Red Air Force fighter units, in this manuscript and other Russian-language sources , is prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk [coverage of ground forces]... Frequent misunderstanding in this country as to the combat role of the P-39 in Soviet use is based in part on imprecise translation of the term prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk to 'ground support'. The latter term as it is understood by many Western military historians and readers, suggests the attacking of ground targets in support of ground troops, also called 'close air support'. Did a Soviet Airacobra pilot ever strafe a German tank? Undoubtedly. But this was never a primary mission or strong suit for this aircraft."

—Soviet Army Colonel Dmitriy Loza

Am not sure where the quote came from, since whoever inserted it failed to footnote the quote, but Dmitry Loza is a Hero of the Soviet Union and the author of two excellent combat books, written with great attention to factual detail. Talking how many hand grenades in his Lend-Lease Matilda. When he says something, it's best to pay close attention.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

The Russians weren't supposed to use the Kingcobra against the Germans, but it appears, per the P-63 Wiki, they did. I have no idea why the U.S. would require such an arrangement in the first place.

I was unaware of this "requirement", but, like you, I find it bizarre in the extreme - firstly to make such a condition and secondly to think that it would actually be adhered to...

The specific Russian-Language term most often used to describe the mission and role of the Airacobra-equipped Red Air Force fighter units, in this manuscript and other Russian-language sources , is prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk [coverage of ground forces]... Frequent misunderstanding in this country as to the combat role of the P-39 in Soviet use is based in part on imprecise translation of the term prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk to 'ground support'.

Mistranslation seems to be the bane of military history - there appear to be several WWI misconceptions based on incorrect translation of German records too.

I'd imagine "coverage of ground forces" is more likely to mean "interdiction of enemy CAS" since the P39 was at its best when its speed was kept up - which would hamper targeting in ground attack.

[John Kettler]

Baneman,

The P-39 could carry a single bomb as big as 500 pounds, but, weirdly, doesn't seem to have had hard points fitted to the wings, so, no rockets. Note armor and other protective measures. First real production model model was P-39Q.

http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/bellp39.html

P-63

Am guessing that complaints from the users resulted in some significant changes made from the P-39 to the P-63: more armor and other protective measures and wing hard points points able to accommodate both weapons and fuel tanks. As a result, the P-63 had a rocket capability the P-39 didn't. 6 x HVAR.

http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/bellp63.html

As for botched translations in military history, it'd be hard to top this statement from a translation of Caesar's Commentaries " and the Roman soldiers hurled their piles at the enemy. You can guess what I thought of when I read "piles," right.

After first stunning me, I went into research mode and eventually found what was supposed to have been said. "Piles" was a bad corruption of "pila," the cleverly designed Roman heavy, nonreturnable spears. Singular plum. It was a desire to understand what was really being said that got me into studying Latin later in life.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tux]

The P-39's lack of wing hardpoints betrays it's design and, indeed, employment as a fighter. So, for that matter, does the HE load out for its nose cannon and the machine gun pods which were fitted under the wing in some models.

The impression I have gathered of the thing is that the Soviets quite liked it but virtually nobody else did (including my late grandfather, who flew it as a test pilot in WWII). Steve mentioned in another thread the way the US did very well to standardise their war material output and only build, for example, one type 1/4 ton truck. Well, they did the polar opposite with certain aircraft roles. I don't think any other nation would have persevered with the P-39 for as long as America did, given its outstanding failure to excel technically in any way and given that, at some point in time or another, it was competing with P-40, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F and F4U for the single-seat fighter/interceptor role, to mention only the most famous/successful.

P-63 was Bell trying to make P-39 excel. They built a bigger, heavier, faster version and the USAAF, to its credit, recognised its inferiority to the P-51 and rejected it. The Lend-Lease market with the Soviets was good to go though, so the Kingcobra was built and duly exported.

Regarding the agreement to only use in the East, I can't remember reading a definitive reason why the request was made by the US. I have always assumed that it was a tactic to force the USSR to at least appear to be leaning eastwards with a view to eventually joining the fight against Japan. A lineup of big, heavy, modern fighters in the Far East would at least look threatening to Japanese intelligence...

[Grisha]

The VVS loved the P-39. They had a number of aces who flew it. Their second highest ace, Pokryshkin, swore by it. They did rig it so that one button triggered all weapons though. It was used for ground support at times, but only to the extent that fighter aircraft are ever used in a ground support. The Soviets considered the P-39, first and foremost, a fighter aircraft.

The P-63 was not officially used in the European theater. It's employment was in the Manchurian theater against the Japanese. My understanding was that it was mainly a case of not receiving them in time for use in Europe. And, I don't believe the P-63 saw much use at all in WWII with the VVS.

The P-39's popularity with the Soviets partially arises from the fact that almost no Soviet aircraft flew much above 20k feet, and usually it was lower at around 16k feet. The sweet spot for combat air actions in the Russian front was anywhere from 10k feet on down. At these altitudes the Allison engine in the Bell fighter was more than adequate for the task.

[Grisha]

Also, no rockets on the P-39 likely because there were two 50s in nacelles on the wings.

[LukeFF]

The P-63 was not officially used in the European theater. It's employment was in the Manchurian theater against the Japanese. My understanding was that it was mainly a case of not receiving them in time for use in Europe. And, I don't believe the P-63 saw much use at all in WWII with the VVS.

"Officially" being the operative word there, because there are accounts that they were in fact encountered by the Germans. In one case a German flak leader was certain his battery encountered P-63s and not P-39s, because he was able to note the visual differences between the two types.

[Tux]

Yes, I think I've read the same account but I'm not sure I would take the guy at his word, as honest as he may be: the P-39 and P-63 look pretty similar. The only real difference to the profile is a taller, straighter fin and the planforms really aren't that dissimilar either. Also, this is a guy who has never seen the things before (P-63s) and who must be working off some sketchy intel update or other.

The cynic in me also supposes it might make a better story to have fought against the brand-new "Kingcobra" than to have popped off a few rounds at yet another flight of vanilla P-39s...

[LukeFF]

Yes, I think I've read the same account but I'm not sure I would take the guy at his word, as honest as he may be: the P-39 and P-63 look pretty similar. The only real difference to the profile is a taller, straighter fin and the planforms really aren't that dissimilar either. Also, this is a guy who has never seen the things before (P-63s) and who must be working off some sketchy intel update or other.

The cynic in me also supposes it might make a better story to have fought against the brand-new "Kingcobra" than to have popped off a few rounds at yet another flight of vanilla P-39s...

Perhaps, but apparently Pokryshkin also mentions flying the P-63 in his memoirs.

[Tux]

Pokryshkin's unit did, I think, convert to P-63s immediately post-war. That could have been with a view to sending them East again to fight Japan or it could have been intended that they operate in Europe. I don't know.

I keep thinking, also, that the VVS had total air superiority in Europe and P-63s were delivered via Alaska, so why would they bother getting them all the way to Europe to fight the defeated Luftwaffe? It's not as if they needed them, or didn't have better indigenous fighter designs in plentiful supply...

Incidentally I remember reading that several Far Eastern Soviet fighter units converted straight from Polikarpov I-16s to P-63s, which must have taken some getting used to!

[Grisha]

Incidentally I remember reading that several Far Eastern Soviet fighter units converted straight from Polikarpov I-16s to P-63s, which must have taken some getting used to!

I don't know, Tux. Going from pumping a level to get your wheels up or down to a push of a button must have been a joy. Not to mention the excellent radios in every KingCobra. Talk about amenities. The heater! All that space in the cockpit! I bet those poor pilots got used to them PDQ

[John Kettler]

Grisha,

Pretty much the same reaction the Russians had to the Sherman, which arrived fully stocked, right down to a Thompson and magazines. Whatever the seats were covered in was so tough the infantry would steal it to make excellent boots. The clinometer (for indirect fire) was removed straightaway and sent to the artillery. But that's not the real reason I'm posting. A few years ago, I was at Barnes and Noble with brother Ed. I looked out of the corner of my eye and thought I was hallucinating. A big color pic of an I-16 in flight! Front cover of a War Birds calendar. I had no idea there was a flying example anywhere.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Grisha]

Hi John, I think there are a few I-16s still flying around actually. And more than a few Yak-3s though they're powered by Allisons. Unfortunately, no La-5FNs. Those were nearly all wooden and none survived the war.

[Tux]

There are certainly some I-16s in a collection in New Zealand.

I've seen a Yak-3 fly a display at Duxford - it's a beautiful machine. The little scoop on the upper nose for the Allison engine does ruin its lines a little, though. I'd love to see/hear one with a Klimov VK-107 or VK-108!

[John Kettler]

Found some good stuff on the Russian method to prevent air support fratricide to frontline troops. Procedure was to fire flares from own entrenchments toward the German lines. All well and good until gutless wonder rear echelon types fired flares to their front as Il-2s come thundering overhead at very low level, resulting in strikes on Russian forward trenches. Kobylyanskiy, a battery commander for 76.2mm regimental guns, says, in his excellent From Stalingrad to Pillau (p. 180), that this happened to him twice and that he was lucky to survive. This man also had the misfortune to earlier undergo a Katyusha strike because some genius muffed the firing data, dropping an entire load 5 km short of the enemy and inside Russian lines.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Case Studies in the Development of Close Air Support, Office of Air Force History, U.S.A.F. 1990

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100924-035.pdf

Full of grog goodness on CAS, but look what Chapter 3's about!

Soviet Air-Ground Coordination 1941-1945, pp. 115-147

I read it through with fair concentration, and I regret to say that at the level of direct concern to us, there's precious little to work from, other than that most targets were pre-briefed, with typically a 4 x Il-2s (zveno) assigned per each. In 1943 STAVKA imposed unified antifratricide procedures, and late in the war, the Russians branched out into armed recon in pairs of Il-2s. This was only possible because by then the Luftwaffe had been smashed by the Russians.

There's also the astounding claim that the CEP for a Russian squadron that switched to dive bombing was 18m! I call that astounding because in the Marshalls, three SBD-5 Dauntless dive bomber squadrons, attacking Japanese targets as small as 15m diameter gun pits while under fire, averaged 53.4m! That's in Tillman, Corsair. There was also some information about tasking fighters for ground strike, after which they immediately reverted to air-to-air and strafing targets of opportunity.

How I wish we had the level of detail on Russian CAS/Air-Ground Coordination as we do for U.S. post D-Day CAS procedures (pp. 258-293 of same doc)! Airy references to "radio control measures" and ill-defined forward aviation CPs are no substitute for the nits and grits on the U.S. CAS system. I saw no evidence that anyone below the Russian ground division commander (likely Army commander) could call for air support and had the wherewithal to direct it if provided. Am not even certain that was the case. The U.S. system, with its Tactical Air Control Parties, went all the way down to Combat Commands.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

I've gone through Chapter 3 of the CAS study again, and I've learned a few more things. It appears as though CAS control arrangements may've gone as far down as Corps level, since the text talks in terms of tank and infantry formations as separate entities. This would correspond with the Tank Corps and Rifle Corps, since divisions generally only operated as subsets of the larger plan, but when something needs doing, the building blocks are the two corps types. Again, there are no real specifics on the CAS procedures, other than that I discovered there was a separate ground-support radio net and that targets for what we'd call CAS were 500-800 meters in front of Russian lines. My take is that pre-briefed strikes this close to friendlies must've been the case in the initial attack. After that, one of two cases would appear to obtain. First, CAS could be ordered up via radio from an airfield whose pure or mixed force would've been assigned to the ground unit it was already assigned to support. Second, it could come from supporting aircraft loitering over the battlefield.

According to the study, Il-2s, unlike CAS aircraft in the game, carried bombs AND rockets on their strikes. Initially, the rocket load was 8 x RS-32 (82mm rockets like those on the baby Katyusha). Later, the 82mm RS-32s were replaced by the much bigger and more potent RS-13s (unsure of quantity), the same basic rocket type (but not necessarily warhead) as fired by the BM-13 stock Katyusha.

Additionally, fighters were found to be good at CAS. They would bomb, then strafe, reserving some ammo in case of an air-to-air encounters. Some of the late model fighters had internal bomb bays, thus preserving more aircraft performance than would've been the case flying with a draggy external bomb. I don't recall whether the fighters could carry rockets as well while so configured, and this needs looking into. The study was clear that fighters, being much more maneuverable than Il-2s, were more survivable vs flak because they were harder to hit in the first place. Speaking of survivability, the study reports the Il-2 had 3/4 of a ton of armor, 15% of total aircraft weight! There is a brief discussion of tactics, both gross and minor. Returning for a moment to the ludicrous 18 meter CEP dive bombing claim in my prior post, the before dive bombing CEP for that entire Air Division was supposedly 200 meters.

Given that the Il-2s routinely carried gravity weapons (i.e, choice of big bomb, smaller bombs, PTAB) AND rockets, and the fighters may've been carrying a bomb AND rockets, may I suggest that BFC factor this discovery into pricing?

It's possible I may've missed other items despite two passes through Chapter 3, but I believe I've extracted most of the meat from the Russian CAS nut. Generally speaking, when the war got into the late stages (for sure by the Vistula-Oder Operation), most of the CAS sorties were of the armed recon variety against targets of opportunity, rather than vs pre-briefed targets. By then, the Luftwaffe was a minor concern.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DMS]

unsure of quantity

Also 8, 4 salvos. Plus 4x100kg bombs, or 2x250 in overload, on external mounts. And a lot of 23mm ammuntion. Missions with Il-2 will be easy for the red side!

What about fighters, a lot of them carried rockets at the start of the war, but I never read about La-5 or late Yaks with rockets.

[John Kettler]

DMS,

Appreciate the info. Yet again, we see why the Germans called it Schwarz Tot (Black Death). I thought the rocket load might be 8 x RS-13, but wasn't sure whether the plane was equal to that given the other known loads. What I find remarkable is how gigantic the overall Il-2 losses were relative to the immense Il-2 production run. I wonder whether the Germans changed their ammo types to AP of some sort in response to the extensive armoring of the Shturmovik? Rudel, in his book Stuka Pilot, reports watching 2 cm fire bounce off the bellies of Il-2s attacking the airfield he was transiting through. That sure got my attention when I read the book. Many years later I read the story of the ace German pilot assigned to the Eastern Front. He apparently expended all his ammo (got shot up, too) trying to down an Il-2M and was forced to give up and return to base. He was sounding off about his debacle and reportedly was told "Herr Major, one doesn't attempt to bite a porcupine in the a**." I also recall reading that the only vulnerable spot (on the underside) was the small, exposed oil cooler.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DMS]

What I find remarkable is how gigantic the overall Il-2 losses were relative to the immense Il-2 production run.

Slow speed, slow turn. (though better turn didn't help Stukas) Abscence of tail gunner till 1943, when pilot didn't see anything behind because of cocpit protection.

Armor was great for defence from AA fire, but when Bf109 blasts rudders on the tail or makes whole in the wing it doesn't help. With low speed of Ils germans could make as many tryes as they want.

+сannon pods and 30mm guns on late 109s.

And unexperienced pilots. Veterans could land a plane with huge wholes in the wing and sometimes kill uncautious fighter, but most pilots had few flight hours.

[John Kettler]

DMS,

Good points!

According to former U.S. Army ordnance sergeant Jim Steuard, then-publisher of the excellent armor mag AFV-G2, the Ju-87G-3 was so overloaded that, even with the armor and oxygen system stripped out, it couldn't jink properly, merely weave back and forth a bit. Steuard had all the relevant Luftwaffe ammo manuals, and the Hartkern/APCR/HVAP manual and ammo box for the BK 37 said "nur fur Gegen Panzer" ("only for use against tanks"). Any idea how many Il-2s were lost before the Il-2M replaced them?

Am familiar from my work in military aerospace with the relative lack of pilot stick time for Russian pilots, but I've recently discovered a lot of U.S. fighter pilots sent to England had fewer than 10 hours time in type. I believe one USAAF insider characterized it as murder. Obviously, flying a barge of a plane to begin with and overloaded to boot, back in the days of manual control, was a recipe for disaster, as seen in the near extinction of a plane built in greater quantities, 35K and change, than any other aircraft of the war. I think I need to go to IRemember.ru and see whether there are any Il-2 pilot accounts. I know a guy named Emmelianko wrote a book about his Il-2 experiences, but am not sure whether he goes into the specifics I want to know about.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LukeFF]

Slow speed, slow turn. (though better turn didn't help Stukas) Abscence of tail gunner till 1943, when pilot didn't see anything behind because of cocpit protection.

Actually, the provision for the tail gunner started showing up in the spring of 1942 via field modifications.

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/il-2/il2-camo/converted2seaters/transition.htm

[Tux]

Some of the late model fighters had internal bomb bays, thus preserving more aircraft performance than would've been the case flying with a draggy external bomb. I don't recall whether the fighters could carry rockets as well while so configured, and this needs looking into.

As I recall, this would be the Yak-9B. I think it had room for two small bombs stored vertically in the fuselage just behind the pilot but it couldn't carry rockets.

Even in the early war period when MiG-3s, LaGG-3s, I-16s, I-153s and Yak-1s and -7s did carry RS-82s I think they were mostly intended for air-to-air combat, attacking bomber formations and suchlike.

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

Thanks!

Tux,

If the bomb or bombs hung vertically, I have no idea how dive bombing could be done given such a release method. Am frankly surprised.

DMS,

Believe I just struck gold! Yurii Khukrikov piloted an Il-2, and once you get past his weird front end of the interview in which it seems as though he entered the war and then it was over, the parts after that verge on unbelievable in terms of richness.

http://english.iremember.ru/airmen/39-yurii-khukhrikov.html?q=%2Fairmen%2F39-yurii-khukhrikov.html

Ordnance loads and types, delivery altitudes, severity of German flak, penal unit gunners (10 missions with photo proof of mission success), but no penal pilots, gun camera and tail gunner handheld cameras for strike proof (pics included!).

He says the usual rockets were RS-82s and that as many as 16 could be carried, but that if RS-132s were aboard, only two could be carried and with a whopping hit on bomb carriage, only 200 kgs. He talks about the number of attack passes typically made, 4-6, but in the event of heavy defenses, the entire load was released at once. One and done!

He also talks about how the ground controller, a representative of the Air Division from which his Il-2 came, does the strike direction. The ground controller has his eyeballs on the target and is communicating in real time with the strike formation. Khukhrikov gives examples of the kind of information transmitted to the Il-2 formations working the targets. On balance, this is exactly the kind of material needed to really understand Russian CAS at our level.

For his regiment, which was in the war from the beginning, 105 pilots were killed and 50 gunners, but this was because initially the Il-2 had no tail gun. Remarkable is the fact that the Il-2 carried 10 antiaircraft para frag munitions. But the reason so few Il-2s got through the war is the grim stat that the average life of an Il-2 pilot was 7-8 sorties, typically followed by death for the entire crew.

Sometimes, I catch a break. Ivan Konalov (in the war from the beginning; bombed by He-111s) covers lots of things Yurii Khrukikov doesn't, to include the useful piece of info on TO&E, part of which is that 3 x Assault Aviation Squadrons = Assault Aviation Regiment, all operating from one airfield. That means an Air Assault Division occupies several airfields.

http://english.iremember.ru/airmen/38-ivan-konovalov.html

He describes attacking pre-briefed targets, describes attack procedures in detail and the severe consequences of screwing them up, saying not a word about ground controllers. He talks about missions flown and award criteria, the complete lack of promotion, a stint in a penal battalion in the very same 65th Army under Batov in which the author of Penalty Strike also served. He was in an Independent Penal Company before getting to Il-2 combat duty as a result of being caught out in a false sickness document signed by his mother to cover reporting late (delayed while visiting his mom) and barely survived his infantry stint before being reinstated and sent off to Assault Aviation. That said, he found Il-2 duty even worse than the Penal Company!

Summing up

On balance, I feel we're making great progress in understanding Russian CAS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tux]

Yes, I would imagine Yak-9B load outs were dropped from level flight or a shallow dive. I'm not actually sure how many 9Bs were even built. I'll have a look around.