Russian CAS Discussion

[DMS]

LukeFF,

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!

Hm... May be it was that regiment tactic? In all sources is said about 8x82 or 8x132 as full load. +400 kg bombs or 600 in overload. There were field modifications for 8x82 + 8x132 and even 24x82 loads, but speed decreased too much and this modifications weren't used massively.

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/anur/rs82-132.html

Huge casualties are partly explained to accidents. Up to 50% on the average during the war.

By the way:

A.D. Have you ever encountered enemy aircraft?

I've never had to participate in a dogfight, but the rear gunner didn't sit without work -- after pulling out from an attack he fired at ground targets.

Would be nice feature!

Intersting, that Khukhrikov never was attacked by fighter. He was flying since 43.

[Grisha]

One russian source is issue #8, 1986 of the Soviet Military History Journal. It goes into some detail of how Soviet airpower was used in relation to front mobile groups in WWII. In 1944 one tank army had 800 combat aircraft assigned to it. An air corps commander typically was stationed with the tank army command post. Out in the field air division commanders were stationed with tank corps under a tank army. Air guidance officer were assigned to battle formations down to first echelon tank brigades and to forward detachments.

[John Kettler]

DMS,

Looks great, but site needs an English translation button! 50% losses to accidents? Am surprised SMERSH didn't shoot the lot. While over at the grotesquely incorrect (nearly every Il-2 pilot an HSU winnner) MilitaryFactory Il-2 writeup. I learned the Il-2 had underwing weapon blisters, miniature bomb bays for small bombs or a total of 200 (sounds awfully high) PTABs, the latter apparently loaded directly into the blisters with no dispenser canister involved at all. It listed RS-132 configuration as four and as many as 32 RS-82s.

Okay. I'm wrong. The PTAB count could go higher, but I don't know enough about the Il-2 to really understand what's being said in the PTAB Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB

"The bomb itself was 2.5kg with 1.5 kg of explosives. The Il-2 was capable of carrying 280 2.5 kg bombs immediately on the bomb-bay folds, or 4x48 in four cassettes. The PTAB 2.5 was capable of penetrating 60 to 70 millimeter tank armor, sufficient at the time even for the top-armor of heavy tanks."

"PTABs were widely deployed from Il-2 Ground Attack Aircraft[1] and also, due to the bomb's very low weight, from Yak-9 fighters, specifically from the internal weapon bay in the Yak-9b (Fighter-Bomber) modification. The Po-2 was also capable of carrying and deploying PTABs. The use of PTABs was mostly from the Il-2, which accounted for a large part of the tanks destroyed by the PTAB. The weapon was first used in 1943.

The number of PTABs dropped in a given time period steadily increased thereafter. By the end of 1943, Soviet records show that 1,171,340 PTABs were dropped. In 1944, the number dropped was 5,024,822. In the first four months of 1945, a further 3,242,701 PTAB were used.[2]"

There is also an Il-2 PTAB Wiki thing. I believe it's for a wargame, but real research appears to have gone into it. For one, some comments I saw elsewhere on acute Russian rocket inaccuracy are addressed in detail here, and there appears to be an immense delta between HVARs in CMBN and RS-82s and RS-132s in CMRT. If this isn't reflected in the Beta, then I think it needs to be, once the requisite properly cited info is to hand.

http://spring1944.net/wiki/index.php?title=Il-2_PTAB

"RS rockets suffered from poor accuracy. Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m, a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and only 3.7% hit a column of tanks. RS-132 accuracy was even worse with no hits scored in 134 firings during one test. Combat accuracy was even worse since the rockets were typically fired from even greater distances. To further complicate the matters, RS-82 required a direct hit to disable light German armor with near-misses causing no damage. RS-132 could defeat medium German armor with a direct hit but caused almost no damage to light or medium armor with a near-miss."

Conventional Il-2 with 220 PTAB anti-tank bomblets in the internal weapon bays or 192 PTAB in four external dispensers. The PTAB-2.5-1.5 has 1.5kg of explosive and could penetrate from 60mm to 70mm, which was enough to destroy any tank of the WWII even the heavier ones because it falls generally straight to the top of tanks. The amount of bombs dropped ensured high probability of hits against enemy tanks even when they were in open formation. The usual maneuver needed to use the PTAB was a dive bombing from 70 to 100m altitude and the footprint of bombs dropped by a single aircraft could cover 2 or 3 tanks spaced 60-75m apart.

First used on July 2 1943, group of eight Il-2 (Captain M.I.Smilskij, 1st Guard Assault Division) performed five runs over about 70 German tanks poised for attack, dropping no less than 1200 PTABs. Fifteen machines were set afire.

Pilots of 266th ShAD, 1st ShAK destroyed or damaged 10 panzers and 10 vehicles during an attack (led by Matikov of the 673rd ShAP) of stationary tanks near Yakovlevo and Pogorelovo. 491 PTABs were used.

The claims by pilots using the bombs were so extensive that they were often doubted by superior officers. Staffs officer and commanders started flying combat missions to monitor the result of air strikes in person, and finally stated : "the enemy losses statistics cited were correct"

"the encrypted message sent by Col Gen Vorozheykin to Stalin on 11 July 1943 says that Soviet ground troops deployed on Hill 255.1 saw six IL-2 attack 15 Tiger tanks, settings six of them on fire. A large panzer force was detected on a hill cast of Kashary on 10 July. Soviet attack aircraft delivered a pin-point air strike, killing 30 enemy tanks and settings 14 on fire, while the rest of the panzer group dispersed and started a chaotic retreat northwards"

The PTAB had indeed made an impressive debut, as a result the Soviet command chose to employ the PTAB on large scale. In other hand, production of the NS-37 variant of the IL2 stopped. Recovering from the initial shock of the PTAB, Germans tanks soon adopted open formations as a reaction, undermining their morale, speed of deployment, command and control efficiency but reducing the effectiveness of IL2 strikes."

Absent proof from the German side, I find the Tiger tank kills listed via PTAB to be highly questionable. At best. Six Il-2s kill 6 Tiger 1s out of 15? Am pretty sure had the Germans lost six Tigers to AT bomblets that would've shown up in the Kursk accounts. The figures for other Panzers destroyed and set ablaze seems ridiculous, too.

Why am I raising a ruckus? In the mid 1980s, using A-10s armed with Maverick missiles and CBUs and operating in a European environment, we weren't getting even an average of 1 tank kill per sortie, based on highly detailed tests and analyses. Therefore, for 6 Il-2s to outright kill 6 Tiger 1s of 15 attacked is better than we could manage in the mid 1980s!

Also, to get the sorts of kill numbers cited against the lesser tanks required SFW (Sensor-Fuzed Weapons). These dispense smart, SFF (Self-Forging Fragment) submunitions. My understanding is that we made SFW strikes (don't know how many used) on an Iraqi tank battalion at Khafji in the first Gulf War and pretty much obliterated that unit. The mass Panzer destruction claim is impossible to evaluate from a weapon effectiveness standpoint, since no unit ID or Il-2 quantity is listed.

What I think of far greater interest is that PTAB strikes had release altitudes of 70-100 meters! Talk about being in the ground fire envelope! The enormous numbers of PTABs used in combat would suggest lots of Il-2s came down that low. Apparently, too, per the PTAB 2.5 piece on journalist C.J. Chivers's site The Gun, if it didn't hit a tank, it ate infantry just fine when it detonated on the ground. Would therefore bet that most PTABs weren't used against tanks.

There is an enormous amount of material here on the Il-2, its combat history and tactics as a function of target being attacked, as well as some claims re ground controllers.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avil2.html

Sadly, this wealth of material, isn't sourced, other than some quotes which, unlike the very sober accounts of the two Il-2 pilots I first cited, seem to be dubious and highly propagandistic. I mean the sort of things which would make you think Frontal Aviation killed so many Panzers who needs tanks and antitank guns?

Axis History Forum, in the post Il-2s vs Panzers (translation of Russian only article on Battlefield.ru) goes into quite a bit of detail on the PTAB, including who built it and the fact that the ground footprint for the pattern was 15m W x 190-210 long. Penetration reported there is 60mm at 30 degrees. Again, I find the battle accounts and their armor kill claims to be incredible, In the original sense of the word. Not believable. Anyone here believe that Totenkopf sustained 270 tank, SP and other AFV losses, with over 2000 hits, at Bolshiye Mayachki at the Battle of Kursk, yet we don't know about it? Really? Do I believe that an entire Air Army could put the hurts on Totenkopf, especially in assembly areas? Of course.

Grisha,

Good stuff! Two of our members used to run a site loaded with translated ViZh issues. A loss keenly felt, more so with CMRT coming out!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

All good stuff.

If I may digress to the game representation -

I'm curious ( if BFC have progressed this far ) as to how AA is represented to the player in CMRT - ie. your AA fires upwards - presumably at an enemy air target.

Do you know if/when you've driven it off / damaged / shot it down ?

Or is it simply "AA stops firing upwards = hopefully it's gone" ?

Also, will we have an idea of our AA effectiveness ? ie. is a quad-20mm better than a single 37mm except vs an IL2 sort of fing ?

And - sure to cause screaming fits in players of course - is there a chance for misidentification ? ie. your flak drives off your own air support ?

[John Kettler]

Baneman,

The material I've seen so far indicates that a 2cm Flakvierling is a highly credible threat to an Il-2 (via multiple hits), while a 3.7cm Flak could generally kill an Il-2 with one hit. These said, I have no idea how BFC is handling actual AAA modeling.

Glad you find the Russian CAS stuff worthwhile!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Grisha]

Hi John,

I used to have a site called Red Army Studies back in 2003. It listed a large number of VIZh issues from the 1980s in pdf format. Our staff was comprised of Scott Boston, Andreas Biermann, Douglas Frank and myself. The site (and url) is long gone but I still have the files on CD.

[John Kettler]

DMS,

Learned some very groggy things over at an Il-2 (game) forum. It appears I was right in my assessment of PTAB use vs non AFV targets. Seems it was fitted with a frag sleeve! The thread, for which I dare not post a link, has Russian language ordnance drawings of all the PTAB models, together with supporting text. There are also renderings of the inside and outside of the bomblet, together with translated captions. This should find it quickly.

Aces High Bulletin Board > General Forums > Aircraft and Vehicles > PTAP in IL2

Almost forgot! In the above and elsewhere, possibly source parroting involved, there is mention of PTAB dispenser tubes behind the pilot in a Yak-9D.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DMS]

What about overclaiming German losses.

1) When you read "Tiger" mind anything. It could be Pz IV or Pz III with side screens.

2) Probably damage from PTABs was not much - enough to kill crew member, knock out a tank but not to destroy it.

Also there were ROFS-132, rockets with enhanced accuracy. Massively used since spring 1943.

PTABs were perfect for killing tank columns, in the game level they would be not so effective, I think. Attacking single tanks - not Il-2 task.

[LukeFF]

Also, will we have an idea of our AA effectiveness ? ie. is a quad-20mm better than a single 37mm except vs an IL2 sort of fing ?

In general, a single 37mm would better, due to the time it would take to reload it as compared to reloading 4-20mm cannons.

[JonS]

Are you sure? I'd have thought that more bullets in the air would be better, even if they're smaller. A hit with the 37mm is going to do more damage, of course, but you're four-to-five times more likely to get a hit with a quad 20mm. The 20mm may not bring the a/c down, but the pilot won't be bothering you for the rest of the day.

Practical ROF for the 20mm Quad is given as ~800rpm

Practical ROF for the 37mm is given as ~150rpm

[Baneman]

Are you sure? I'd have thought that more bullets in the air would be better, even if they're smaller. A hit with the 37mm is going to do more damage, of course, but you're four-to-five times more likely to get a hit with a quad 20mm. The 20mm may not bring the a/c down, but the pilot won't be bothering you for the rest of the day.

Practical ROF for the 20mm Quad is given as ~800rpm

Practical ROF for the 37mm is given as ~150rpm

I agree I'd go with the quad-20 myself, but my question was more in hope to find out from BFC what effectiveness ( and even how it's handled ) they're ascribing to flak in CMRT. ( if they've gotten that far ).

I'm certainly looking forward to the implementation.

[Bastables]

Are you sure? I'd have thought that more bullets in the air would be better, even if they're smaller. A hit with the 37mm is going to do more damage, of course, but you're four-to-five times more likely to get a hit with a quad 20mm. The 20mm may not bring the a/c down, but the pilot won't be bothering you for the rest of the day.

Practical ROF for the 20mm Quad is given as ~800rpm

Practical ROF for the 37mm is given as ~150rpm

The single barrel 2cm was 120-180, about the same as a single barrel 3,7cm. The issue as I understand it was; single strikes we're not damaging enough so they quad mounted the 2cm to get the same lethality vs planes as the new "one strike and your down" 3,7cm guns. It's not so much increasing the chance to hit but increasing the chance to hit multiple times.

[LukeFF]

The single barrel 2cm was 120-180, about the same as a single barrel 3,7cm. The issue as I understand it was; single strikes we're not damaging enough so they quad mounted the 2cm to get the same lethality vs planes as the new "one strike and your down" 3,7cm guns. It's not so much increasing the chance to hit but increasing the chance to hit multiple times.

True, though another reason the Germans liked the single 37mm better is that it had a better effective range than the 20mm gun, in whatever form it was used.

[dsf]

"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.

There are many cases of airmen claiming to shoot down aircraft that were not in theatre. One of the most famous is Finnish ace Oiva Tuominen, who claimed to have shot down a Soviet Spitfire when there wasn't a Spitfire within a thousand miles.

P-63s were kept in reserve until spring 1945, when they were assigned to VVS-PVO (Anti-aircraft Defense) regiments, along with Spitfire Mk.IXe and the La-7. Like the Soviet Spitfires delivered in 1944, they never saw combat. The first unit to receive them was 28 IAP VVs-PVO stationed at Vnukovo, outside Moscow. Other units to receive the aircraft were 39 IAP, 17 IAP and 21 IAP, all PVO units. Apart from that, they were used to reequip the 12 Air Army in the Far East, based at Choibalsan and later Ulan-Ude. The only combat recorded was on August 15, when two aircraft of the 117 IAP (190 IAD) downed a Ki.27 and Ki.43.

Talk of the P-63 being "secretly" used against the Germans is just that --- talk. There are no "secrets" anymore. Such use could not be conducted without the sanction of VVS headquarters, which means a paper trail, nor could it continue without logistics, which would involve another paper trail. There is no paper trail. The archives have been open for twenty years. In that period, numerous researchers have been through the files and so far have not mentioned any such use. The circumstances are unusual enough that if it had happened, it would be known and written up loudly in recent Russian publication. So far, nothing.

P-63 units: 17, 21, 28, 39, 781, 821, 888, 940 IAP VVS-PVO and 6 IAP VVS-VMF (Pacific Fleet).

Regards

Scott Fraser

[dsf]

AFAIK, the best single (English) source on the VVS is still Von Hardesty's Red Phoenix (Smithsonian, 1982), which has recently been updated and reprinted as Red Phoenix Rising (Uof Kansas). I haven't read it in a while, but there is some information in there on the development of VVS close-support tactics.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Phoenix-Rising-Soviet-Studies/dp/0700618287

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Vark]

Another reason why the Soviet losses were so heavy was the tactic of making multiple passes over a target, until all air to ground ordnance had been expended. A relative interviewed a female IL-2 pilot, who was shot down in the Summer of 44, on her third pass over the target, which she said was quite usual.

[Battlefront.com]

AFAIK, the best single (English) source on the VVS is still Von Hardesty's Red Phoenix (Smithsonian, 1982), which has recently been updated and reprinted as Red Phoenix Rising (Uof Kansas). I haven't read it in a while, but there is some information in there on the development of VVS close-support tactics.

I have an original printing of this book and I can heartedly recommend it even though it's been probably 12 years since I last read it. Fantastic view into an otherwise under documented part of the war.

Just so you guys know, whatever is being discussed here is for "entertainment purposes only" in the sense that the game's behavior is set in stone and nothing written here will have an impact on it.

In short, both Soviets and Germans no longer have control over air strikes. Aircraft arrives on it's own, choses it's own targets, and attacks based on the type of aircraft and the ordinance it carries. Ground fire can dissuade or stop an attack given the right sorts of AA weapons and some luck.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Understood. My real concern, in doing this research, was to find out how the Russians handled air support for ground forces, in terms of our understanding of CAS. Once I understood how things were done in actual period warfare, I wanted to make sure we didn't wind up with historically incorrect Western style CAS in the East. From the perspective of actual Russian employment of Assault Aviation, the CMRT modeling corresponds most closely with armed reconnaissance by a zveno.

Since the core behavior of air support, in terms of its autonomy, is already coded, I'm wondering whether what we've dug up, on varieties of aircraft used, ordnance loads, attack profiles, multiple delivery passes and such, has any utility in terms of game inputs?

Regards,

John Kettler

[poesel]

In short, both Soviets and Germans no longer have control over air strikes. Aircraft arrives on it's own, choses it's own targets, and attacks based on the type of aircraft and the ordinance it carries. Ground fire can dissuade or stop an attack given the right sorts of AA weapons and some luck.

Will v3 bring these changes to the other theatres and nations, too?

[LukeFF]

There are many cases of airmen claiming to shoot down aircraft that were not in theatre. One of the most famous is Finnish ace Oiva Tuominen, who claimed to have shot down a Soviet Spitfire when there wasn't a Spitfire within a thousand miles.

P-63s were kept in reserve until spring 1945, when they were assigned to VVS-PVO (Anti-aircraft Defense) regiments, along with Spitfire Mk.IXe and the La-7. Like the Soviet Spitfires delivered in 1944, they never saw combat. The first unit to receive them was 28 IAP VVs-PVO stationed at Vnukovo, outside Moscow. Other units to receive the aircraft were 39 IAP, 17 IAP and 21 IAP, all PVO units. Apart from that, they were used to reequip the 12 Air Army in the Far East, based at Choibalsan and later Ulan-Ude. The only combat recorded was on August 15, when two aircraft of the 117 IAP (190 IAD) downed a Ki.27 and Ki.43.

Talk of the P-63 being "secretly" used against the Germans is just that --- talk. There are no "secrets" anymore. Such use could not be conducted without the sanction of VVS headquarters, which means a paper trail, nor could it continue without logistics, which would involve another paper trail. There is no paper trail. The archives have been open for twenty years. In that period, numerous researchers have been through the files and so far have not mentioned any such use. The circumstances are unusual enough that if it had happened, it would be known and written up loudly in recent Russian publication. So far, nothing.

Fair enough, but one thing I've learned about Soviet military history is that some things aren't set in stone. From personal experience, for instance, I've seen countless so-called facts about the Mosin-Nagant and SVT firearms turned upside down in recent years. It wouldn't surprise me, then, to see something about P-63 usage in the West show up somewhere down the road.

That, and the Russian archives may be open, but the access isn't entirely unfettered.

[dsf]

Fair enough, but one thing I've learned about Soviet military history is that some things aren't set in stone. From personal experience, for instance, I've seen countless so-called facts about the Mosin-Nagant and SVT firearms turned upside down in recent years. It wouldn't surprise me, then, to see something about P-63 usage in the West show up somewhere down the road.

I think it unlikely. I know from working alongside them that the Soviets were meticulous in maintaining their paperwork, something deeply rooted in their system. At this point, there has been enough time for their records to be thoroughly investigated, as is the case with the ground forces. My own area of interest is Soviet armour, so I haven't kept up with the literature regarding aviation, but from what I have seen, VVS archives have been explored as thoroughly as have those of the Active Army. Anything as controversial as the clandestine use of P-63s would be public now. There have been more embarrassing revelations.

That, and the Russian archives may be open, but the access isn't entirely unfettered.

No, but that's deliberate. Not just anyone gets to go into government archives anywhere. It's the same with Kubinka, which is a museum but also an active military base. There is a process, but legitimate researchers can get through the red tape.

Regards

Scott Fraser

[Fizou]

Will v3 bring these changes to the other theatres and nations, too?

From what I have read so far It sounds like it. Will be very interesting to know if this will be part of the v3 upgrade for FI and BN (and if its same for all or some nations will be treated in different ways).

I liked the CMx1 ways of handling it so I think its good. All I want now is the "shadow" to be brought in as well

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Back in my tactical military analysis days at Hughes, our studies showed that, against Cold War Russian air defenses of the late '70s and early 80s, the only survivable low level ordnance delivery approach was single pass only. After that first pass, the enemy reaction time dropped to a small fraction of what it was for the first pass, and the now fully alert air defenses simply devoured the hapless CAS aircraft. It's therefore no surprise that Il-2 losses were as bad as they were, given that I now know that multiple passes were the exception, rather than the rule, and that PTAB deliveries were at ridiculously low altitude, lower than any strike aircraft I know of other than those crazy British Jaguar pilots in the Gulf War. The real nut there flew at 20 feet! His saner buddies? 50.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

...PTAB deliveries were at ridiculously low altitude, lower than any strike aircraft I know of other than those crazy British Jaguar pilots in the Gulf War.

Who suffered heavier than expected losses, as I recall.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

British Jaguar losses against heavily defended Iraqi airfields were the highest, by aircraft type and absolutely, of the war. So high were they that NATO went into a kind of shock, since JP-233 runway busting strikes were planned to be conducted much the same way. Yet again, someone slept through the lessons of (military) history, causing the latest unfortunate students to pay in blood. While we can excuse the lack of knowledge regarding Il-2 strikes on the Eastern Front, there's no excuse for ignoring the savaging the Luftwaffe took from ground fire in executing Operation Bodenplatte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte

Regards,

John Kettler