You know guys I'll rewrite this discussion in different more AH compatible terms.
A: The command wants to retire IL-2s! We can't let them do it... we need an armored, survivable aircraft that has great canon to hit the enemy armor. We on the ground respect it very much.
B: But you have Typhoons and P-47 Thunderbolts. They carry as much ammunition as IL-2 but they also can defend themselves. It is true that P-47 and Typhoons isn't as survivable but at least they can defend themselves. There are also Mosquitos that are very fast, dual engine and can do great damage.
A: But we on the ground know better what is the effect of the good anti-tank gun and how efficient this aircraft is.
B: But we have budget limitations we need to get rid of some stuff. There are aircraft that can replace IL-2 in different terms and they are as effective.
A: But they aren't flying tank and don't have a canon that can kill light armored vehicles or shoot tanks from behind.
I think now it is much more clear
Also IL-2 is very unpopular in AH, in reality it was one of the major combat aircraft in WW2 and other types of aircraft could perform its duties.
One more stuff I want to add to discussion. Keeping 50 airframes flying does not cost 1/4 of 200 airframes but much more. There huge infrastructure to keep, engines and aircraft workshops, training facilities, overhull facilities and much more. It takes much more to keep aircraft flying than putting it in a hangar with few technicians.
It is significant consideration - much more than airframe durability.
I remember when IAF had to do significant budget cuts. What was done? AH-1 cobras and F-16A/Bs were retired. It is much cost effective with less damaging to capabilities to retire an aircraft type rather than lets say reduce flight hours generally or reduce number of aircraft in service keeping similar types flying.
