How good was the soviet air force?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Problem is that the Germans had started using 30mm side and rear armor on the MK III and MK IV tanks in 1940. It varied a bit.
The light stuff was vulnerable but then it was vulnerable to the 12.7mm Soviet MG ammo too.
The 20mm Shvak cannon was actually a pretty poor hole puncher.
The 20mm didn't bring much to the table as a hole puncher which is not surprising considered that they just necked up the 12.7mm X 108mm machine gun case and cut off 9mm to get the overall length down to fit the mechanism. About the same space for the gun powder. A 20mm Shvak is delivering about 60% of the energy to armor plate as a 20mm Hispano near the muzzle and the Hispano doesn't fall off quite as much with range. If 20mm Hispano's won't do the job then the 20mm Shvak needs a lot of wishful thinking.
Explains why the Soviets went for 23mm gun. It had over 2 1/2 times the energy of the Shvak and about 56% times the energy of the Hispano while trying to blow a hole about 32% bigger (in area).
The 12.7mm machine gun actually delivered more energy per sq mm of hole area. A 20mm is trying to blow a hole about 2 1/2 times the area of the 12.7mm (again area). Increasing the energy of the projectile by 66% doesn't work.

Now getting the hits was also not easy. Perhaps a bit easier in some areas of Russia? fewer pesky telephone wires or trees next to the roads
Guns were much easier to hit with than rockets.
 
Shortround6 said:
Problem is that the Germans had started using 30mm side and rear armor on the MK III and MK IV tanks in 1940. It varied a bit.
The light stuff was vulnerable but then it was vulnerable to the 12.7mm Soviet MG ammo too.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both counts. Ironically it was the Pz Mk III which had the best all around armor, up to 50mm I think. But a medium tank force shorn of it's support in terms of infantry, reconnaissance, AA, field / assault guns, and artillery is going to swiftly become much more vulnerable. There is a reason the Germans brought along all that other kit, and it wasn't just to look pretty.

And needless to say, the Il-2 also had the bombs, rockets, and much ballyhooed bomblets to take out larger tanks with.


It's not so much that the ShVAK had such great penetration, I agree it didn't, but it's more than halftracks and light armored cars just weren't that well protected. An HMG could destroy them. The 23mm just gives them a bit higher margin of error.

Shortround6 said:
Now getting the hits was also not easy. Perhaps a bit easier in some areas of Russia? fewer pesky telephone wires or trees next to the roads
Guns were much easier to hit with than rockets.
Click to expand...

Again, agreed on both counts.
 

I don't think it's a valid comparison at all, as one is a twin-engined fast bomber, the other is a single-engined, decidedly NOT fast bomber.

But Ok, let's compare them. Maybe the issue will be clarified thereby.

Aircraft --- Wingspan - Length - Wing area - Weight Empty - Weight Max - Wing Loading - Max Speed ------------ range* --------------- Ceiling

Ju-87B-1------ 13.8 -------- 11.1 ----- 31.9 -------- 2710 kg --------- 4250 kg ------- 136 kg / m2 --- 383 km/h (237 mph) -790 km (490 miles)-- 8000m
Ju-97D-1------ 13.8 -------- 11.5 ----- 31.9 -------- 3900 kg --------- 6600 kg ------- 207 kg / m2 --- 410 km/h (254 mph)-790 km (490 miles)**- 7500m
Ju-88A-4------ 20 ---------- 14.4 ----- 54.5 -------- 9860 kg -------- 12105 kg ------- 220 kg / m2 ---470 km/h (292 mph)- 1790 km (1112 miles)-8200m
Pe-2 (1941)--- 17.13 ------- 12.66 ---- 40.5 -------- 5875 kg --------- 8500 kg -------186 kg / m2 --- 540 km/h (335 mph)-1300 km (807 miles)---8800m
Pe-2 (1942)--- 17.13 ------- 12.66 ---- 40.5 -------- 6020 kg --------- 8715 kg -------190 kg / m2 ----515 km/h (320 mph)-1250 km (776 miles)---8000m
Pe-2 FT ------- 17.13 ------- 12.66 -----40.5 ------- 6100 kg --------- 8805 kg -------217 kg / m2 ----527 km/h (327 mph)-1220 km (758 miles)---8200m
Tu-2 (1942)--- 18.8 -------- 13.8 ------ 48.5 -------- 7600 kg -------- 10538 kg ------ 220 kg / m2 ----528 km/h (328 mph)-2020 km (1260 miles)-9500m

* range is with normal bomb load
** 1535 km (953 miles) with lightened bomb load and extra internal fuel

Aircraft -- Bomb Load Normal-- Bomb Load Max - Rockets ---- Fwd Guns ----- Def Guns ---------------- Crew-----Engines
Ju 87B-1 ----- 700 kg ---------------- 1000 kg-----------------------2 x 7.62mm--------1 x 7.62mm --------------- 2 --------- 1
Ju 87D-1 ----- 1000 kg ---------------3000 kg ----------------------2 x 20mm ---------1 x 7.62mm ---------------- 2 --------- 1
Ju-88A-4 ----- 900 kg ----------------3000 kg ------------------------------------------5 x 7.62mm -----------------4---------- 2
Pe-2 (1941) -- 600 kg --------------- 1000 kg ---------------------- 2 x 7.62mm ShKAS -- 2 x 7.62mm -------------3 -------- 2
Pe-2 (1942) -- 600 kg --------------- 1000 kg-----------------------1 x 7.62 / 1 x 12.7mm- 1 x 7.62 /2 x 12.7mm -- 3 -------- 2
Pe-2 FT ------- 600 kg --------------- 1000 kg -----------------------1 x7.62 / 1 x 12.7mm- 1 x 7.62 /2 x 12.7mm -- 3 -------- 2
Tu-2--------- 1,000 kg-----------------3000 kg --------10 x RS 82 --2 x 20mm ShVAK ----- 3 x 7.62 or 12.7mm --- 4 -------- 2

bf109xxl said:
The speed was less important than maneuverability in this case. Tu-2 could not dive (it had troubles with propellers and engines) - you can exclude it from the list.
Click to expand...

I think you will find it is an "outlier position" to assert that speed doesn't matter when trying to avoid being shot down by AAA or enemy fighters. Which was the significant issue for the eventual obsolescence of the Ju-87, and the persistence of the Pe-2.

bf109xxl said:
Nope. It could be compared to the Tu-2, not to the Pe-2.

That is an additional reason, not to compare the Pe-2 and the Ju 88.
Click to expand...

I think your categorical assertion that the Ju-88 is completely uncomparable with the Pe-2, but the Ju-87 is, does not hold water.

Pe-2 is considerably bigger (and faster, and higher flying) than the Ju 87. It's a bit smaller than the Ju 88, but it's clear that it's closer in size to the latter.

bf109xxl said:
I do not ask about the opportunities to attack. I ask about the opportunities to attack only in COMPARABLE conditions.
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you, it's a blatantly disingenuous demand, since the Soviets did not engage in very much maritime anything during the war, certainly nothing compared to the Mediterranean.

bf109xxl said:
But it definitely exceeds the Pe-2 by accuracy at level bombing, which was the major usage of Pe-2s throughout the war.
Click to expand...

Please provide a list of Pe-2 units that never did any dive bombing or removed the dive brakes

bf109xxl said:
Thanks, but for the Soviets even destroyer was already a capital ship. In any case, it's not crucially important.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm it seems like a mistake on your part, no?


The Soviets had other medium bombers, for example the Illuyshin DB-3 (bomb load 2,500 kg, range 2600 km) and Il-4 (bomb load 2,700 kg, range 2500 km), and the US B-25, though the latter, while appreciated for it's ease of flying and relatively heavy bomb load, was deemed too slow for daylight operations, unlike the Pe-2.

Ultimately, I suspect the Pe-2 was the most useful bomber in the Soviet arsenal because accuracy, such as delivered by dive bombers, often turned out to be more important than bomb load, depending on the type of target.


We share an assessment, I find your posts very selective, implausible, and clearly biased, not to mention full of constant insults and grandiose claims, so I am glad to avoid further discussions with you. Enjoy the rest of your life.
 
TU-2 was almost vaporware in 1942. Some accounts are conflicting. 3 planes used troop trials (combat) in the summer of 1942? Nov 1942(?) saw 17 in the 3rd air army. 80th aircraft left factory in Jan 1943 and production stopped. Decision to restart was not taken until June 17th 1943 (?) 16 TU-2s completed by the end of 1943.
Soviet accounts must be read carefully.
"By the beginning of June 1944 the Tu-2 was in service in large numbers and the 334th Bomber Air Division.................was fully equipped with the type"

"When, at the beginning of June 1944, it was decided to conduct service trials of the TU-2, the 334th Red Banner Bomber Air Division had 87 of them, of which 74 were air worthy. The Tupolevs were only used for level bombing in daylight."

As of the beginning of 1945 they had a total of 278 Tupolev bombers serving with 3 units, 264 air worthy. By the end of the war they had built 1,013 Tu-2s.
Basically the TU-2 was a rather minor player in WW II.

I fear the Pe-2 is somewhat over rated. The internal bomb load was rather restricted. Six 100kg bombs, four in the fuselage and one in each engine nacelle. It was impossible to fit larger bombs inside the fuselage bomb bay. They never fitted bulged doors, anyway. There were mounts for external racks. But much like the German bombers, that means the speed and range both take a large hit. Helps the P2-2s get away, assuming they can make it to the target.

The Ilyushin DB-3 should have only been used at night.


Performance as per Wiki is truly phenomenal, considering it was powered with a pair of licensed/copied/modified Gnome-Rhone 14K engines which even in the IL-4s never got over 1100hp. More realistic is 2204lbs over 2227miles at 211mph. Cutting the speed to 155mph was supposed to give 2650 miles.
 

This was a very interesting read and it's a wonderful website with modern pilots reviews / analysis of many different Warbirds and experimental 20th C aircraft.

It sounds like the Il-2 was very challenging to fly, to be honest. And the visibility problems would make it more vulnerable.
 
Dear colleagues! You do not have enough information on the aviation of the Soviet Union throughout the history of World War 2. Those publications that you have read, they are, as Wild_Bill_Kelso correctly pointed out here, very one-sided... It's clear, everyone pulls the blanket in their own direction ...) The Union was in the process of rearmament when the war began. Many writers don't even mention it or keep silent about it. Wild_Bill_Kelso said correctly, many of the planes were outdated. But the pilots also performed tasks on them. On the second or third day of the war, one captain on the I-16 shot down 8 enemy aircraft in a day. I-16 and I-15 went to ground troops a lot. And the above-mentioned MiG-3 was not intended for maneuverable combat. The order was for a high-speed high-altitude interceptor. Which was built. But do not forget that he also showed himself very well as a fighter. After all, Pokryshkin began his military career on it in 41. And before receiving the P-38, he had already had many downed aircraft. You are wrong about the Su-2. It was not an outdated aircraft. He had just started enlisting in the army before the start of the war. It was a light melee bomber. Although it has been used many times as an attack aircraft. And I know that there is confirmed evidence that he shot down the messers. These cases were in the north, Murmansk or Arkhangelsk. Also about heavy aircraft... Few people know, or are silent, that in the autumn of 1941, Pe-8 bombed Berlin and other targets in Germany many times.
 
The leadership of the Soviet Union believed that the war would not be started by Germany at 41. Although all this is just speculation... The fact is that in the spring of 41, repair work began to improve the airfields. They were supposed to have a concrete surface, an enlarged runway and an increased fleet of aircraft. And therefore, all aircraft, both bomber and fighter aircraft, were relocated to the largest airfields. And repair work has begun on the small ones. And the big ones were just too crowded. That's where the war found them... Therefore, you can see in many photos and newsreels how many aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Of course, it was very easy for Luftwaffe aviation to destroy these planes standing in a row, crowded in one place on the ground. Keep in mind that many planes were without gasoline. And many pilots were on vacation...Well, what kind of resistance can there be? Hence, perhaps, the great victories recorded by the Luftwaffe in the early days of the war. It was a colossal mistake by both the strategic and tactical leadership of the Air Force. I know that 2 or 3 generals from the Air Force shot themselves on the 2nd or 3rd day of the war.
They had nothing to command.
If anyone is interested, I can continue... Don't judge me harshly, but you are mistaken in many ways.
 

We can debate the victory claims totals, and many will (some people will deny that the Soviets shot down any German planes!) but one thing is irrefutable - that guys like Pokryshkin survived multiple years on the front line, fighting against the supposedly invincible uber-men of the Luftwaffe and the Heer. It stands to reason that they had something in their favor.

After all, as I keep pointing out, the Germans didn't win the war in the East, which may come as shocking news to some...
 
Before Stalingrad, aviation was on the sidelines. There were few aircraft and pilots. The pilots who survived the initial period of the war, by Stalingrad, were already veterans. They already had a lot of downed planes, they knew the tactics of the enemy. Here's Pilot Safonov. A total of 234 battles before the summer of 1942. 13 shot down alone and 6 in a group... As you can see, the main work is to repel air attacks and ground attack forces. He fought in the North on I-16, then switched to Kittyhawk. The same Pokryshkin. By the time he fought in the Kuban, he already had his own tactics of fighting. There were many downed. But most importantly, he taught young pilots. And that was the main thing.
Then there was Kursk. A lot of Luftwaffe pilots were knocked out there. Both aces and young pilots were transferred from Germany to replace them. The same Hartmann. As noted, the Luftwaffe had erroneous tactics. The bombers were flying without fighter cover. The fighters waged their war in the air. But after huge losses, they changed their tactics. But even that didn't help much. Pokryshkin's regiment introduced layered tactics. One link covered the attack aircraft or bombers, the second hung above the formation and could immediately help if necessary. As we can see from the regiment's track record, the planes flew most of all to escort attack aircraft or bombers. After all, the main battle of the war was on earth. And the downed ones appeared if there was an attack on the assault group. It was later, after the Kuban and the Dnieper, that the fighters flew on a free hunt. They were already ready to face the enemy.
I must apologize for the slight inaccuracy. It was not the Pe-8 that began bombing Berlin, but the DB-3F aircraft. A total of 9 night sorties were made. 3 groups of 15 aircraft. The Pe-8 was continued, but already from Belarus. Just as the front was moving eastward. I read that a German general, I don't remember who wrote that the battle of Moscow was lost due to severe frost. Were the Russians in hothouse conditions?
 
Texnuk said:
I read that a German general, I don't remember who wrote that the battle of Moscow was lost due to severe frost. Were the Russians in hothouse conditions?
Click to expand...

Can that comment bring us a single bit closer to find out the truth wrt. how good was the Soviet air force?
 
Colleagues, we are already moving into the political plane...This is me on the post of Just Schmidt.
It is not necessary to put Hitler and Stalin on the same plane. One had in mind only the conquest and expansion of the Reich to the east. The whole of Europe is in his fist, with its technical and economic potential. The other had bigger problems, economically. What a conquest this is... I read that Russia was supposed to attack Germany. It's just stupid and illiterate. With what technique? With I-16 and 15? With TB-3? With outdated tanks?
How good was Soviet aviation? Well, imagine starting a war with outdated technology in 41 and ending up on the border with Belgium, Switzerland, Italy in 45. That means something.
 
Texnuk said:
How good was Soviet aviation? Well, imagine starting a war with outdated technology in 41 and ending up on the border with Belgium, Switzerland, Italy in 45. That means something.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Soviet Army ended up on the border of Belgium, Switzerland and Italy?
And that happened just because Soviet aviation was how good - the best?
 

I agree it took a (rather bafflingly) long time to get the Tu-2 into action in large numbers. They did have some flying fairly early, more or less as operational testing units, but I never fully understood why it took so long for the type to reach large scale production, which in fact it never really did until postwar, by which time it was obsolete.


These are fair points, but I think in spite of all that, (such as being restricted to carrying usable ordinance on external racks rather than an internal bomb bay, limited training by some aircrews) the Pe-2 still looks like an extraordinarily effective weapon to me.

It could dive bomb accurately - that alone was rare in WW2 planes, especially anything that could fly faster than 250 mph*
It could carry a reasonably heavy bomb load (especially given that it could dive-bomb accurately) compared to many other dive bombers and fast bombers in WW2.
It had reasonable range, compared to other land-based dive bombers (though inferior to the Ju 88).
It could in fact fly better than 300 mph, probably around 320-330 mph. Faster than a Ju 88, much faster than a Ju 87.
It had good handling and acceleration, and a low wing loading compared to other fast bombers (better power / mass and wing loading than the A-20 for example).
It was reliable and could operate successfully in very rough field conditions.
It could be operated in the Winter in Russia, unlike a lot of Western made designs
It had a fairly good rate of survival in combat against the very, very dangerous German air defenses and fighters, especially in the hands of skilled pilots, and in spite of intermittent fighter escort.

* There were quite a few biplanes and very slow fixed undercarriage aircraft that could dive bomb, but when it came to higher performance warplanes this ability became extremely rare. Whether or not all pilots were sufficiently trained to execute dive bombing is another matter. The Pe-2 was probably a better dive bomber than a Ju 88 and was certainly used longer in that role.


Well, that is a guess as far as performance, but I think the SB-2, DB-3 and Il-4 all suffered excessive losses during the day and were eventually relegated to night time missions.

DB-3 had a quite good range though, and could be compared to say, a Wellington which though largely relegated to night and / or deep maritime missions, still proved useful late into the war.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to offend anyone, but you have problems with the history of World War 2 ...) But isn't Germany bordered by Belgium and Switzerland. Does Yugoslavia border Italy? And it was not the Soviet aviation that was the best, but the entire Soviet army. Including aviation. This has been proven by the war. Berlin was taken by the Soviets.
 
Well, to be completely precise, the Soviets left the lands that were in the Yalta Conference agreement. They ceded these lands, which the Allies did not reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Question about 8Th air force WW2
Replies
5
Views
1K
criannick
C
11th Air Force
Replies
7
Views
519
GreenKnight121
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
D
8Th Air Force Fighter Groups
Replies
3
Views
983
pbehn
P
Menu
Log in
Register