How good was the soviet air force? (1 Viewer)

[Venomstick121]

When I think of WW2 air combat i think of the US with the mustangs, the British with the Spitfires, the Germans with 109s and 190s, the Japanese with Zeros, and the Italians with the RE.2001. I almost never hear of soviet air to air. I have heard of the Il-2 and IL-10 which are both ground attack. I have heard other forum users refer to the "Yaks". I know they are made by Yakovlev but I don't think that the official designation was Yak. Was it? Was there also other companys making soviet fighters. I know ilyushin made the IL series but from what I know they are primarily ground attackers.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer this. Sorry if it was a stupid question.

 

[GTX]

A start: List of aircraft of the Red Army Air Forces - Wikipedia

You can start digging into individual type details/histories from there and then look up plenty of books etc on the types.

 

[GTX]

Examples of publications that are useful:

 

[Venomstick121]

Thank you : )

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think while we have finally kind of caught up to the basic histories of the individual aircraft types, (including, during the brief détente between Russia and the West back in the 90s, some pretty good overviews of the roles, efficacy and overall importance of a lot of the Lend-Lease or donated Western aircraft types used by the Soviets) an accurate view of the overall history of the Soviet air forces, VVS, PVO etc. during WW2, has really not filtered down into the understanding of US aviation enthusiasts, even in places like this.

I think the reasons are pretty simple. I'd list three main ones.

1) Most people into aviation learn about and penetrate the mysteries of the air forces of their own nations, and those of their allies, and to a lesser extent, those of the forces their nations were at war with. The Soviet aviation buffs haven't really been part of the conversation in the West post WW2, and the pilots are all dead now, the first generation or two of Soviet aviation enthusiasts are also dying out already. There wasn't much dialogue.

2) We are also influenced a lot by the Cold War and our perception of the 'commies' as the supposedly bumbling, not very sophisticated, Boris Badenov enemy; and by the very popular 1950s-60s era memoirs of Luftwaffe pilots whose somewhat propaganda tinged accounts give, I think, a rather slanted impression. Some of them were of course incredibly successful, and to be fair to them, most pilots memoirs from any nation emphasize the glory of their own side rather than that of their opponents.

But there is a little 'extra' propaganda edge to many of these accounts. And I think a lot of the (stupendous) German success in air combat in the East was in the early part of the war when the Soviets were ill prepared. Very much like the heavy losses of US and British Commonwealth pilots to the Japanese in the East in Java, the Philippines, Malaya, Burma etc.

3) The Soviet Air war specifically was fought in a very different way from our own. While the US and British focused heavily on the Strategic bombing campaign, the Soviets emphasized much more the tactical air war over the battlefield. Many US and British aviation enthusiasts and historians assume that the Anglo-American approach was the correct one, and that the Soviets were wrong, but that is highly debatable.

Just as we in the Anglophone world got some nasty surprises in the Cold War era from the Soviets in say, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, I think there is no escaping the fact that the mighty German war machine was mostly defeated by the ultimately even mightier Soviet war machine. Very, very decisively. And Soviet air power was clearly a big part of that.

In my opinion the Soviet Air forces went through three phases during the war.

The first, from June to September or October 1941, "Collapse". A ton of outdated, 1930s era Soviet warplanes, I-15s, I-153s, I-16s, SU-2, SB, and TB-3 bombers and so on, as well as some newer but as yet, still very buggy or limited types like MiG-3, LaGG-3, and Yak-1, were wiped the hell out by a stupendous hammer blow from the Luftwaffe. Soviet losses were on the order of 10-1 or 20-1 in some cases. This is the part of the war that many of the German aces loved to write about, and many Axis supremacy oriented aviation fans tend to emphasize. There is no doubt that the Luftwaffe was like an eagle among the doves for the first several months of the war, though they did also take some losses which tends to be overlooked.

Then in the fall and winter of 1941, there began "The Hardening" of Soviet resistance, which gradually firmed up and lasted into the fall of 1942. This took pace as the Germans were feeling the effects of their first Russian winter, which both their troops, and their aircraft were ill prepared for (for a variety of reasons, like the need to drain all fluids from aircraft overnight). This coincided with their approach to Leningrad, Moscow, and Sevastopol. In this period, the Soviets were moving factories across the Urals, frantically working out the bugs in both their newer aircraft designs (with designers sometimes literally having guns to their head), and their abysmally chaotic manufacturing processes (greatly complicated by having to move the factories). During this period, the Soviets were relying heavily on a lot of Lend-Lease and donated aircraft. Hand-me-down (often clapped out) Hurricanes, Tomahawks and early model Kittyhawks were still better against Bf 109s than I-153s and MiG-3s. Very fast Boston bombers and DC-3 transports also proved helpful. This period was still a disaster for the Soviets, but not quite at the same nightmare-slaughterhouse rate, and the Germans losses sharply increased from their heyday in the first few months. Based on Bergstrom etc., Soviet air to air combat losses are at a ratio of around 3-1 to 5-1 by roughly mid 1942, depending where and when exactly. Soviet aircraft are just starting to have an effect on the ground war, but it's not decisive.

Phase three, "The Pivot", starts some time in 1942. You could say it started after the Siege of Moscow was lifted (January) or much later at Stalingrad (August / September). It was a gradual and uneven shift. As it became apparent that the Soviets might actually win, and could certainly kill some Germans which the Anglo-Americans would therefore not have to face, the British and Americans started sending them more modern and less worn out aircraft - including some Spitfire V and then later Spitfire IX, later model P-40s (mostly P-40K and M) and then P-39s, B-25s, and later-model Bostons.

The better Soviet made types also started hitting the front lines in greater numbers with much better (though still inconsistent) manufacturing standards - Il-2, Il-4, Pe-2 bombers, and Yak 1b, Yak -7, and Yak 9 fighters were all flying in some numbers by the end of 1942. The LaGG-3 was somewhat improved, and the radial engined La 5 would appear in spring of 1943 (literally saving the life of Semyon Lavochkin). Soviets are still losing at a rate of about 2-1 or 3-1, but even that was too much for the Luftwaffe. Soviet pilot training and tactics were improving, more units were starting to get radios in their aircraft, and these were working a bit better. They were already making wide use of air to ground rockets. German aircraft attrition was high both from combat but also just because of the conditions, while the Soviet aircraft were designed for the harsh local conditions, and some of the Western types like the P-39 seemed to be highly adaptable to them. Germans were starting to have serious fuel problems.

By mid-1943 larger numbers of US made P-39s, Soviet La 5 and then La 5FN fighters came into the fight, more improved Yak-1B, Yak-7B, and Yak-9 fighters, Pe-2 dive bombers, and Il-2 attack planes were swarming all over the Eastern Front. The pivot was shifting at an accelerating rate. German fighter pilots were still probably ahead in the kill / loss ratio, but German ground forces, with already strained supply lines, were starting to suffer increasingly frequent rocket attacks and strafing from the air. Accurate Pe-2 and later some Tu-2 dive bombers were hitting German operational targets with increasingly deadly precision. The Luftwaffe couldn't protect the whole battlefield. It's highly debated to this day how much ground attack and light / dive / attack / fighter bomber aircraft (both Soviet and Western) were able to affect tanks (personally I think there was an over-correction and this is now underestimated), but it's clear that German logistics, artillery, and light combat vehicles such as halftracks, and clearly also some tanks were being destroyed.

This last phase just kept accelerating through the war. I'd say by 1944 there is absolutely no doubt that the Soviet air forces were having a telling affect on the ground war. The Germans, in turn were increasingly blunted. Their best ground attack aircraft, the Stuka, was finally sidelined by Soviet fighters, and it's replacement was basically the Fw 190. Very good as we know, but expensive to produce and not available in enough numbers, and by 1944 no longer so far ahead of say, La 5FN or Yak-3 as to be able to operate with the kind of near impunity that the Sturzkampfgeschwader enjoyed in 1941-1942. The Fw 190 was also just not as accurate as a bomber as a Ju-87.

We know the Germans didn't win a lot of major battles after Stalingrad. The question is, to what extent their repeated defeats were due to Soviet aircraft, to what extent to Soviet tanks and rockets and so on. Everything improved. The early Soviet tanks the German "tank aces" were rolling over in 1941 looked like this

By 1944 you had stuff like this

plus multiple-122mm 'Katyusha' rocket launchers, lots and lots and lots of artillery, burp guns, Generals like Zukhov, etc. etc. So it's hard to be sure which elements mattered most. But it seems clear that the VVS played a significant role.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One other important factor to keep in mind. The best Western, and to some extent Japanese and German aircraft, were designed somewhat for universal combat environments. With some exceptions, they could fight high or low, they could fly escort or air superiority missions, and could contend with enemy fighters, strike aircraft, or heavy bombers - the latter requiring very heavy armament

Soviet aircraft in general, and their fighters in particular, were not designed for universal conditions. They were designed specifically for the battlefield in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. They were designed to endure very rough field conditions, to withstand truly extreme cold, (and considerable heat during the summer in the southern part of the Theater). They were made in full knowledge of the conditions of the war - the high loss rate. They carried relatively few guns, often just one or two (though usually at least one autocannon, and their cannon were very good). Their guns were in the nose and their doctrine advocated shooting from short range. They didn't carry a lot of ammunition. They did not have two stage or multi-speed superchargers, so most of their planes did not perform well above 12-15,000 ft. This limited their top speed.

But for the Soviets, since they were not doing or contending with much Strategic bombing, (and that mostly at night), and did not have to deal with real heavy bombers ala B-17, they were not interested in high top speed at 25,000 ft. They wanted planes that were fast at 5,000 and 10,000 feet, to cover the front. That is what the VVS means - frontal aviation. Their job was to shoot down German fighters and Stukas, and Ju-88s and various other light and medium bombers. To strafe enemy ground troops and shoot rockets at them.

They were highly tailored to this role. They were (mostly) made of laminated plywood of ubiquitous birch, extremely plentiful in Russia. They used a minimum of metals in their construction, though they did have armor. They were fast and agile down low, small and low-drag (assuming the manufacturing problems were sufficiently sorted out, and the pilot kept the windscreen on). Smaller planes make smaller targets and are harder to spot.

Many around here judge Soviet aircraft by Western standards. A Yak-3, the argument goes, is inferior to a P-47, because it can't fight at 35,000 ft, and it only has three guns, and it has short range. The Soviets, notably, were offered the P-47, but they almost laughed at it. Thought it was an interesting and well made aircraft, but that it was "not a fighter". They could have had as many P-47s as they wanted. Theirs were better for their own role. Even the Spitfire was relegated to air defense (PVO) units, as it didn't do very well on the front line battlefield.

The Soviet aircraft were optimized for the environment. They were cheaply made, almost to the point of being disposable, which many of them were. The Soviets lost 46,000 combat aircraft in WW2. At that rate, they could not afford to put leather seats in each one. The Germans lost somewhere around 10 -25,000 planes on the Eastern front too (the exact figure is still debated). The German planes were a lot better made, with more features. More instruments on the control panel, better engines. More guns. And also much more expensive in terms of work hours to build them, and strategic materials like aluminum and steel. Their pilots and aircrew were more "expensive" to train as well.

 

[Capt. Vick]

The simple answer: good enough.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah, that too...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I guess that is the simple answer for the entire Allied war effort, East and West. For the history of humanity to date, even. Merry Christmas.

 

[GTX]

The simple answer: good enough.

And they had their fair share of pilots who knew their stuff:

List of World War II aces from the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[33k in the air]

In terms of the air war over the Eastern Front, the following multi-volume series might be of interest: Black Cross Red Star — Air War Over the Eastern Front by Christer Bergström and Andrey Mikhailov.

There is also the following book from Osprey, but it only looks at the last year of the war: Eastern Front 1945 — Triumph of the Soviet Air Force

 

[MikeMeech]

When I think of WW2 air combat i think of the US with the mustangs, the British with the Spitfires, the Germans with 109s and 190s, the Japanese with Zeros, and the Italians with the RE.2001. I almost never hear of soviet air to air. I have heard of the Il-2 and IL-10 which are both ground attack. I have heard other forum users refer to the "Yaks". I know they are made by Yakovlev but I don't think that the official designation was Yak. Was it? Was there also other companys making soviet fighters. I know ilyushin made the IL series but from what I know they are primarily ground attackers.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer this. Sorry if it was a stupid question.

Hi

There are quite a few books on the Soviet Air Force during WW2 in English, including:
'Red Phoenix Rising, The Soviet Air Force in World War II' by Von Hardesty & Ilya Grinberg, Kansas 2012. (probably best overview of Soviet Air Force).
'Soviet Air Power in World War 2' by Yefim Gordon, Midland 2008.
'Air War Over Russia' by Andrew Brookes, Ian Allan 2003.
Christer Bergstom's four volume series: 'Barbarossa - The Air Battle: July-December 1941', 'Stalingrad - The Air Battle: 1942 through January 1943', 'Kursk - The Air Battle: July 1943' and 'Bagration to Berlin - The Final Air Battles in the East: 1944-1945'.

There are others but all a bit late for Christmas, I hope that is of use.

Mike

 

[MikeMeech]

When I think of WW2 air combat i think of the US with the mustangs, the British with the Spitfires, the Germans with 109s and 190s, the Japanese with Zeros, and the Italians with the RE.2001. I almost never hear of soviet air to air. I have heard of the Il-2 and IL-10 which are both ground attack. I have heard other forum users refer to the "Yaks". I know they are made by Yakovlev but I don't think that the official designation was Yak. Was it? Was there also other companys making soviet fighters. I know ilyushin made the IL series but from what I know they are primarily ground attackers.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer this. Sorry if it was a stupid question.

Hi
In continuation to my previous, the actual 'Soviet view' during the Cold War is contained in the USAF's Soviet Military Thought series, which translated official Soviet Military books. The most relevant are:
No. 17, 'The Command and Staff of the Soviet Army Air Force in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45' author was M. N. Kozhevnikov.
No. 15, 'Long-Range Missile-Equipped' originally by Major General of Aviation B. A. Yasil'yev. Despite its title the majority of the work is about the ADD (Long-Range Aviation) during the GPW.

Other books that may be of interest, depending the detail you wish to go into and how much money you want to spend, are:
'Soviet Air Force Theory 1918-1945' by James Sterrett, Routledge 2007.
'The Soviet Air Force since 1918' by Alexander Boyd, again broader than GPW but most of content relates to it.

Essay books on Soviet Air Power, again lots of GPW content, include:
'Soviet Aviation and Air Power, A Historical View' edited by Robin Higham & Jacob W Kipp.
'Russian Aviation and Air Power in the Twentieth Century' edited by Robin Higham, John T Greenwood and Von Hardesty.

On Soviet Aces:
'Stalin's Falcons, The Aces of the Red Star', A tribute to the notable fighter pilots of the Soviet Air Forces 1918-1953, by Tomas Polak with Christopher Shores.
'Soviet Aces of World War 2' by Hugh Morgan, Osprey Aircraft of the Aces - 15.

For pre-GPW activity against the Japanese there is: 'In the Skies of Nomonhan, Japan versus Russia May-September 1939' by Dimitar Nedialkov.

More specialist books include:
'Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945' by Erik Pilawskii.
'Russian Piston Engines' by Vladimir Kotelnikov.
'Soviet Aircraft Industry' by Peter G Dancey.

And of course many books (my lists are not fully inclusive) on the actual aircraft, individual types, company books, by role or generic Soviet/Russian aircraft.

There is no shortage of books in English on Soviet Air Power during WW2/GPW its a matter of finding the most suitable at a acceptable price, but there should be something in the lists I have given and for one book I would suggest 'Red Phoenix Rising' by Hardesty/Grinberg, or if you want more colour then 'Soviet Air Power in World War 2' by Gordon.

Mike

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I would say this website also has a lot of very useful articles, specifically regarding the Soviet use of Lend Lease and donated aircraft

Articles – Lend-Lease

 

[pbehn]

The eastern front was different war with different metrics. The LW can claim huge successes in kills and kill ratios, but from 1943 did thy stop Soviet ground forces doing what they wanted. Th Soviet air force suffered large losses, but the LW lost much of its transport and bomber fleet at Stalingrad. The LW did quit well where and when they operated but the front was huge so there were many places where the Soviets had a free rein. Winning in the air while your airfields are captured means that you lose.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey 'Stick, just keep in mind that just as important as equipment are the personnel behind them. An airplane is only as good as its pilot, who is only as good as his ground crew, training, etc.

 

[SaparotRob]

Unless the plane is the Groundhog.

 

[pbehn]

Unless the plane is the Groundhog.

In this season of goodwill even the groundhog gets redemption.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The eastern front was different war with different metrics. The LW can claim huge successes in kills and kill ratios, but from 1943 did thy stop Soviet ground forces doing what they wanted. Th Soviet air force suffered large losses, but the LW lost much of its transport and bomber fleet at Stalingrad. The LW did quit well where and when they operated but the front was huge so there were many places where the Soviets had a free rein. Winning in the air while your airfields are captured means that you lose.

The thing is, after a certain point, it doesn't look like they were really winning the air war anymore.

The Luftwaffe had a fetish for racking up high kill scores. But the war between aircraft is secondary to what the aircraft can do to targets on the ground. The German pilots had a field day in the first year or two on the Russian front, but it clearly didn't last.

 

[pbehn]

The thing is, after a certain point, it doesn't look like they were really winning the air war anymore.

The Luftwaffe had a fetish for racking up high kill scores. But the war between aircraft is secondary to what the aircraft can do to targets on the ground. The German pilots had a field day in the first year or two on the Russian front, but it clearly didn't last.

In Western Europe there were air wars as in the BoB and Malta and the allied bombing campaign against Germany. In N Africa the war was on the ground, while the LW had successes in the air it had little effect on the ground war, Marseilles and his squadron (s) didnt shoot down bombers. Same in the BoB, eventually raids became Jabo raids by S/E Bf 109s loosing off bombs at 20-30,000ft over London. The loss of an aircraft was far in excess of the damage they did. Same for the tip and run Fw 190 raids on UK. This set a precedent. In the east, using jabo fighters against tanks and ground positions was a fools errand, the LW planes were far more valuable than the targets they were attacking and Russia had tens of thousands of them, just as in the west the allies had tens of thousands of military vehicles.