# USSR WW2 aircraft industry



## bodiebill (Mar 29, 2008)

Are there any statistics available on USSR aircraft production ijn WW2.
Some friends contend without Western aid the Soviets would not have won WW2. there is no question that our aid was vital, but not essential to victory.
I contend that they had a huge armorments industry including aircraft.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 29, 2008)

Well the U.S. helped a lot the U.S.S.R..I remember reading that if it wasn't for the U.S. trucks the soviets wouldn't have made it first to Berlin.Anyway the soviets had their own industry.By the end of 1945, over 57,000 T-34s had been built: 34,780 original T-34 tanks in 1940–44, and another 22,559 T-34-85s in 1944–45.Another good example its the Il2 Sturmovik, a total of 36,163 were built, making it the single most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation history as well as the third most produced aircraft in history behind the Cessna 172 and the Polikarpov Po-2.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 29, 2008)

USSR aircraft production for WWII

1939 - 10,382
1940 - 10,565
1941 - 15,735
1942 - 25.436
1943 - 34,900
1944 - 40,300
1945 - 20,900
TOTAL - 158,218


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 29, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> USSR aircraft production for WWII
> 
> 1939 - 10,382
> 1940 - 10,565
> ...



And yet their air force sucked bad...


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 29, 2008)

Ha. Probably had something to do with why the amount of kills for some German pilots were so high. 10,382 flying pieces of fodder.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 29, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Ha. Probably had something to do with why the amount of kills for some German pilots were so high. 10,382 flying pieces of fodder.



You got that right...my country's pilots had their slice of the soviet flying pie


----------



## Medvedya (Apr 6, 2008)

Hmm, the heaviest losses the VVS suffered were during the start of Barbarossa. 

Granted the I-16's and I-153's of the pre-war Red Air Force weren't a match for the Luftwaffe, but it became a very different story when the Yak series and Lavochkins begain to take to the skies a few years later.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2008)

I don't believe the VVS could ever proclaim to have gained superiority over the Luftwaffe when it came to ability. The Luftwaffe suffered over France and Germany more than on the Eastern Front. 

The Allies (not just the U.S.) supplied the Soviet Union with a lot of equipment; I have a list with lots of numbers at hand if anyone would like to know. The armour that was supplied was a god send in 1941 and 1942 but the Soviet industry was massive and by 1943 the Allied aid was not as important. Even the U.S.A trucks importance has been over-stated in the past 60 years; that's not to say it was in no way important. The vast increase in road transport that 550,000 wheel vehicles created was certainly not important to the Soviet's road to victory. 

Aircraft wise the VVS did receive Hurricane IIs and Spitfire Vs in relatively large numbers (approx. 3,000 Hurricane I II and 1,300 Spitfire Vs). There were also a few Spitfire IXs sent to the VVS which were used as home defence because of their superiority at high altitudes. I have heard somewhere that 18% of the VVS was Lend-Lease aircraft.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 12, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I don't believe the VVS could ever proclaim to have gained superiority over the Luftwaffe when it came to ability.


anyway, you can't mention ANY medium or big scale operation on the Eastern Front since late 1943, where the Soviets hadn't the superiority , with exeption of the early stage of the Berlin Operation in 1945.


> The Luftwaffe suffered over France and Germany more than on the Eastern Front.


define "suffering" then. When it comes to human casualities, the luftwaffe had more of them on the Eastern Front, than on Western.


----------



## Zarathos (Apr 12, 2008)

> I don't believe the VVS could ever proclaim to have gained superiority over the Luftwaffe when it came to ability.



Soviets were not following the western philosophy of air domination. Russians never tried to acheive air domination over the whole front. They were only acheiving air superirority over local theaters of fight. When an offensive started, Russians had the air superiority. Call it "tactical dominance in the air".



> The Luftwaffe suffered over France and Germany more than on the Eastern Front.



I think not. Germans lost about 55000 planes on the East and most of their best pilots and *instructors*. Both were lost mostly in the Stalingrad meat grinder. Germans needed every pilot to get the supplies for Paulus and Russians were killing those excelent pilots flying transport planes. 

Besides in the East most air fights was fought in the vinicity of front, so german pilots that were shot down had great chance to land on the wrong side of the front. In the west those fights were fought mostly over friendly areas (France and then Germany).


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2008)

I think that you gentlemen should look deeper into total warfare. First off, the Soviet Union aimed for local air superiority for the span of time that equalled that of the assault - we all know that. However, in terms of pilot ability and tactical finesse; the Luftwaffe remained superior throughout the entirety of the war. 

Secondly, the Luftwaffe suffered more on the Western front simply because the RAF and USAAF were the ones that damaged, disrupted and destroyed the Luftwaffe before it even got into the air. The VVS met the aircraft and pilots that managed to slip through the Western bombardment. And as the war dragged on more and more aircraft were being sent against the western bomber streams and tactical strike aircraft - which bombarded the Luftwaffe in the air and ground.

And Ramirezz, almost every single operation against the Germans was won through sheer brute force with numbers providing the majority of that beef. Whether it's in the air or on the ground, the Germans remained tactically superior to the Soviets every step of the way. And I do have to admit that certainly on the ground the Wehrmacht were always one step above the Western Allies too.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 14, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I think that you gentlemen should look deeper into total warfare. First off, the Soviet Union aimed for local air superiority for the span of time that equalled that of the assault - we all know that.
> However, in terms of pilot ability and tactical finesse; the Luftwaffe remained superior throughout the entirety of the war.


which tactical advantages exactly had the Luftwaffe over VVS in 1944? Which tactical skills had the Luftwaffe and which Russian units hadn't? From technical point of view, the organisation of the Luftwaffe and the VVS was virtually indentical by 1944.
as for pilot abilites, I beg to differ - while leading aces on both sides continued to score kills, the general level of the Luftwaffe pilots has dropped every month to all time low in early 1945 - but you can't really compare achievments of the aces on one side to achievments of the aces on the other side, let's compare the overall level of the airforces. 



> Secondly, the Luftwaffe suffered more on the Western front simply because the RAF and USAAF were the ones that damaged, disrupted and destroyed the Luftwaffe before it even got into the air. The VVS met the aircraft and pilots that managed to slip through the Western bombardment. And as the war dragged on more and more aircraft were being sent against the western bomber streams and tactical strike aircraft - which bombarded the Luftwaffe in the air and ground.


I think I didn't quite get this one  - until late 1943 the number of the Luftwaffe units deployed on Eastern or on Western front was roughly even. There were quite a lot of JGs and KGs, which were pretty decimated on the Eastern Front and sent to the Western. 



> And Ramirezz, almost every single operation against the Germans was won through sheer brute force with numbers providing the majority of that beef. Whether it's in the air or on the ground, the Germans remained tactically superior to the Soviets every step of the way.


No, they weren't. Not always, I mean, by far not always. 
Russians had the numerical superiority on the earlier stages of war - that didn't seem to help them a lot. Then again, as you know, the numerical superiority is the key element of every strategy, even the one of Germans - you can overwelm your enemy with 5 to 1, but at one important point the enemy will overrun you with 7 to 1, and that would be enough to achieve a victory.
I can name you at least six or eight major operations, almost all of them in 1944-1945, where the wehrmacht performed rather poor in strategical, operational _and_ tactical point of view. Generally speaking, the late german command beginning at regimental or divisional level was often characterised by slow reaction, unnecessary defending of the tactically unimportant points etc. etc. The quality of the german command , especially in infantry units, was by far not the as same as even in 1943.


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jun 22, 2008)

Ex RAF Bell Airocobras where sent to the Ussr VIa the Arctic Convoys.These planes were unloved by British pilots , but the Russians loved them put them to good use. During this phase of the war my father was in chargeof a section of personell ( Including many WAAFs), whose job it was to dismantle Airocobras prepare them for shipping to Russia. He said they were sent with bent broken fixtures fittings, Sheard off round headed nuts bolts phillips head screws.He told me it as a wonder the Russians evr managed to re assemble them.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

Soviet doctrine was not aimed at air superiority in the sense of the western front, or over germany. It was about swamping a sector of the front (read up on the strategy developed by Zhukov after Kursk. Once the Germans lost the initiative the Soviets would run up and down the front, hitting the germans with huge concentrations of armour men, guns and airpower). By doing this, the effect of the Luftwaffe was basically zero. If you are outnumbered 20:1 in the air, it doesnt really matter if your pilots are technically superior or not.

Soviet air operations were almost exclusively linked to close support, and in this they developed a unique and highly effective doctrine. The IL-2 has been castigated on this forum, but at zero feet, attacking in endless waves of 8-12, they were well nigh unstoppable. 

Lend Lease was critical to Soviet war effort. Enough foodstuffs were shipped to the SU to feed the Red Army for 2 years, 450000 trucks (more than the entire output of the germans for the entire war), huge numbers of trains and rolling stock, tanks, planes, machine tools, over 800 mobile radar sets, a battleship, destroyers, merchant ships, small arms, you name it, the aid was massive and crucial


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 23, 2008)

bodiebill said:


> Some friends contend without Western aid the Soviets would not have won WW2. there is no question that our aid was vital, but not essential to victory.
> I contend that they had a huge armorments industry including aircraft.



It is debatable whether or not western aid was critical to the Soviets - but it was a huge help. However the fact that the US and Britain could never have beaten Germany by invasion on their own is rarely talked about (And dont start talking about nukes over Europe  )


----------



## trackend (Jun 23, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> It is debatable whether or not western aid was critical to the Soviets - but it was a huge help. However the fact that the US and Britain could never have beaten Germany by invasion on their own is rarely talked about (And dont start talking about nukes over Europe  )



Conversly if the West had not held out and most importantly the British capitulated when the Soviet German packed was in place, once Babarossa started the USSR would have been over run in very quick time. 
With no threat in the West or middle East the Luftwaffe would not have been denuded at all in the B.O.B. The German war industry was never going to be under attack from the USSR it needed the west to strip out the German industial heart. 

As for the west beating Germany on its own I believe it could have but it would have taken many years more. The submarine threat was beaten without soviet aid, the surface raider threat was very limited and amounted to a few notable actions but Germany was never geared up for fleet actions. 
The Luftwaffe lost some of its ability to bring British industry people to its knees in the BOB, (without soviet aid), and with the introduction of the USA on the scene not only did the allied airpower leap to unknown dimensions rendering the Luftwaffe roll far more defensive that offensive. The industrial might of the US was unstoppable. 

eg the Sherman was not a very good tank but if you have 20 to your one Tiger whos for the chop you cant replace your Tiger as the RAF/RAAF/CAF etc is bombing the factory by night and the USAF is by day, while in the states another 15 Shermans roll unhindered from the factory to replace the 5 you lost getting the Tiger. The Japanese offence was turned to defence in a year without any Soviet assistance.
So could the West beat the Germans without the Russian front IMO undoubtedly yes, but the cost would have been horrific. 
Much of this cost ended up being borne by the ordinary Russian grunt on the Eastern front to them we owe a big debt of gratitude.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2008)

I dont think any single nation can lay claim to being the reason for the axis defeat. The secret of the the Allied victory was that it was a co-operative effort, a true form of coaltiion warfare to which each nation contributed vital pieces.

But to the british must go a special mention. Without their dogged determination from 1940 onwards, the determination never to give in, the grand alliance that was formed to defeat germany might never have happened. For this sacrifice, the british got virtually no spoils or thanks in the postwar carve up. It was a debt fully forgotten, and never repaid IMO


----------

