How good was the soviet air force?

[Venomstick121]

Wow, I did not realize my second post on the forum would cause this much controversy and end up getting someone banned

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wow, I did not realize my second post on the forum would cause this much controversy and end up getting someone banned

Your post did not get anyone banned. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior/actions.

 

[bf109xxl]

1. I will find a photo of the pilot captain

You have to do it before you made any statement about him. You must then provide proof of aerial victories, only claims cannot be considered as sufficient. Thus, Emil Lang claimed 18 shot down on November, 3, 1943, but only 2 or 3 of them can be undoubtedly confirmed by Soviet documents. At the same time almost all victories of some of Lang's colleagues were confirmed by the Soviets - the same period, the same conditions, the same opponent. The average overclaim rate for Germans during the Battle of Kiev was about 3.5, whereas the Soviets overclaim was significantly higher (6 to 10 according to the same source). I assume, that two of eight claims could be real victories, not more (and it should be considered as an outstanding result!).

2. Yes, it is indeed a typo. The P-38 was never supplied under lend-lease.

I am not sure, that it was just a typo.

3. I did not write that the Air Force was the best in World War II. But you know, chickens are counted in autumn...who survived, and who died.

Evidently, Russian is your native language. You just follow an old Russian tradition: "never analyse the reason of your own losses if you won the war!"

4. Did I generalize that no one has a clue about the war on the eastern front? You seem to take my posts very personally. Wild_Bill_Kelso was right when he wrote that 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...

Seems, that the loss ratio would be a surprise to you.
The Germans did not win the war in the East simply because they were fighting not just the USSR alone, but a coalition of allies. Without American gasoline and high-octane components, Soviet aviation could not operate at all in the most critical moments of the war. Try to find annual figures of oil production and aviation gasoline production at least in Baku (where the main production facilities were concentrated) during the war. And then try to compare it with the figures of the total production of aviation gasoline in the USSR. I suppose you will be greatly surprised. Thanks to massive Allied raids, the Luftwaffe was forced to transfer the most fighters to the West, which allowed the USSR to achieve a vast numerical superiority in the East. But even under these conditions, the Soviet air force's actions were not effective enough.

I'm trying to write like a historian,

You are trying to write like a typical propagandist.

And each participant has his own opinion about certain facts in history.

Your opinion is worthless if not supported by reliable sources, preferably documents (monographs will do as well). So far you demonstrate complete ignorance of even modern Russian-language literature on the subject. And why am I not surprised?

Many people, including me, may have their own opinions and their own misconceptions.

If you are not sure of your opinion, ask a question prior to assert anything.

In almost all my posts, I didn't put pressure on anyone. I've only given you what I know. And I know that someone might not like it.

Some participants dislike any unsupported opinion formed solely by propaganda.

The book is called "Bug on fire."

This is a typical GlavPUR (Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Soviet Navy) production containing pure propaganda.

.."In total, on the first day of the war, the division's pilots shot down 30 enemy aircraft. 4 of them were shot down by Major Surin; 9 — Captain Savchenko (died in Pinsk), 5 — senior political officer Sirotin, 3 — Lieutenant Sakhno, 2 planes were shot down by Captain Mozhaev; Lieutenant Zhidov (now Hero of the Soviet Union, colonel in reserve).
Our pilots flew outdated aircraft, but still inflicted sensitive blows on the enemy who invaded our territory." There are also photos.
I made a mistake, not 8, but 9 planes.

Savchenko himself claimed only two victories on June 23, 1941. Exactly as I guessed.

P.S. I can comment with references every statement in your posts, unfortunately I don't have time to write lengthy replies - I'm completely overwhelmed working on several projects. But someday I will pay all debts - with charts, links to documents, etc.
P.P.S. The photo:

Capt. M.V.Savchenko. The photo caption in the source states that he shot down 9 enemy planes in the first days (not on the same day!) of the war. No further details are given in the book.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You have to do it before you made any statement about him. You must then provide proof of aerial victories, only claims cannot be considered as sufficient. Thus, Emil Lang claimed 18 shot down on November, 3, 1943, but only 2 or 3 of them can be undoubtedly confirmed by Soviet documents. At the same time almost all victories of some of Lang's colleagues were confirmed by the Soviets - the same period, the same conditions, the same opponent. The average overclaim rate for Germans during the Battle of Kiev was about 3.5, whereas the Soviets overclaim was significantly higher (6 to 10 according to the same source). I assume, that two of eight claims could be real victories, not more (and it should be considered as an outstanding result!).

I am not sure, that it was just a typo.

Evidently, Russian is your native language. You just follow an old Russian tradition: "never analyse the reason of your own losses if you won the war!"

Seems, that the loss ratio would be a surprise to you.
The Germans did not win the war in the East simply because they were fighting not just the USSR alone, but a coalition of allies. Without American gasoline and high-octane components, Soviet aviation could not operate at all in the most critical moments of the war. Try to find annual figures of oil production and aviation gasoline production at least in Baku (where the main production facilities were concentrated) during the war. And then try to compare it with the figures of the total production of aviation gasoline in the USSR. I suppose you will be greatly surprised. Thanks to massive Allied raids, the Luftwaffe was forced to transfer the most fighters to the West, which allowed the USSR to achieve a vast numerical superiority in the East. But even under these conditions, the Soviet air force's actions were not effective enough.

You trying to write like a typical propagandist.

Your opinion is worthless if not supported by reliable sources, preferably documents (monographs will do as well). So far you demonstrate complete ignorance of even modern Russian-language literature on the subject. And why am I not surprised?

If you are not sure of your opinion, ask a question prior to assert anything.

Some participants dislike any unsupported opinion formed solely by propaganda.

This is a typical GlavPUR (Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Soviet Navy) production containing pure propaganda.

Savchenko himself claimed only two victories on June 23, 1941. Exactly as I guessed.

P.S. I can comment with references every statement in your posts, unfortunately I don't have time to write lengthy replies - I'm completely overwhelmed working on several projects. But someday I will pay all debts - with charts, links to documents, etc.

And you can also present your response in a less arrogant and more constructive manner that only fuels the flames. Otherwise your response is no more worthwhile than his you call worthless.

My point is simply, lets not make things worse than they are please.

 

[bf109xxl]

Otherwise your response is no more worthwhile than his you call worthless.

I totally disagree.
I found and flipped through the book referred to by the opponent - I can point to the page containing the quoted information. I found further information about Savchenko in other sources and gave a relevant example of German overclaim so that the opponent would realize how big the differences between claims and actual victories can be. I explained why the overall victory does not mean high performance of the Air Force in particular. It seems to me that any roughness in the form of the statement would not reduce the informative value of my post to zero.
You can see yourself that my responses are always adequate to the opponent's behavior. If the opponent offers an honest and polite discussion, he can always expect a polite and informative reply from my side. But when I am forced to listen to the propaganda, I allow myself a slightly harsher tone. Nobody is perfect...

P.S. I promise this was my last posting in response to the mod's comments. It is unlikely that I will be able to add anything to it in the future. And it's just a waste of time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

 

[bf109xxl]

Dear colleague, You forget one thing, that this is a pure stormtrooper. So what is a stormtrooper? It is an aircraft belonging to assault aviation and designed for direct support of ground forces and naval forces, as well as for targeted destruction of various land and sea targets.It is to storm the enemy's fortifications at LOW altitude. And therefore it should be moderately protected. Why would a stormtrooper pilot look back?

There is an arrow to cover the tail.

A mighty magic arrow, I guess? And then you post two photos of a single-seat version without a gunner! Try to read books by Oleg Rastrenin, he is the most prominent Russian historian writing on Soviet ground-attack aircraft.

There were armor plates on the left and right. which protected the pilot from small arms. So the review was good for the pilot. Forward and sideways.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your post did not get anyone banned. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior/actions.

I hope Bill comes to his senses. For all he can be hard to take at times, I like a lot of his contributions, and learn a lot.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I hope Bill comes to his senses. For all he can be hard to take at times, I like his a lot of his contributions, and learn a lot.

I enjoyed his contributions as well.

The last thing I want is only one side of things being heard. Healthy debate and discussion is what is best for everyone.

 

[Texnuk]

This is not categorical, this is anger at the fact that someone has, IMPERMISSIBLY has, a different opinion. Why such anger towards a stranger? What kind of fly has bitten you? I wrote from memory, I did not engage in propaganda. Everything that I have learned in my 64 years, I have outlined. All that I have learned from your post, we still have to measure our members. You insulted me, called me a propagandist, maybe I'm also a Cheka agent? And after all, do I have to report to you? You didn't have a discussion, you, as it was mildly noted here, fucked it up. Do you really think that there is only one opinion? And this is your opinion?
I will not write here anymore. I'm a busy person too...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And this is why we cannot have nice things around here…

Disclaimer: I'm not pointing fingers at one side here. All are to blame for this silliness.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Texnuk,

re

Why would a stormtrooper pilot look back?

If he is given the option? If it would do any good? Would being able to look back help him survive if he chose to evade?

I do not know enough about the loss rates of the Il-2 before and after the addition of the armour plate - or before and after the addition of the gunner's position - to say what was effective or ineffective. The link below is to a VVS dedicated website. I do not know how accurate the historical commentary is, but it seems to imply the lack of rearward view was a problem - whether the lack of rearward view was more of a problem than not having the armour in place is maybe open to question?

"Ilyushin Il-2 transition to two-seater"

 

[Snautzer01]

Oh dear. Not again.

 

[bf109xxl]

I do not know enough about the loss rates of the Il-2 before and after the addition of the armour plate - or before and after the addition of the gunner's position - to say what was effective or ineffective.

This is a very complex question with no straightforward answer. The number of sorties per loss increased during the war (from 8-9 in the first months of the war to 80-90 in 1945), but the contribution of the rear gunner was rather very low (my estimates are around 10%). The Il-2 got a rear gunner's position too late, besides, the design of the airplane was also changed (swept wing section was introduced to increase the stability), piloting became easier, which possibly had a greater impact on the final result. The training of young pilots did not increase noticeably, moreover, it decreased (!) in 1944, but the probability of encountering a German fighter decreased even more strongly, and the number of cover fighters increased dramatically. For the Il-10, the rear gunner was considered to be unnecessary ballast. Some analysis can be found in books and articles by Oleg Rastrenin, my conclusions are based on data from these sources.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

3. I did not write that the Air Force was the best in World War II. But you know, chickens are counted in autumn...who survived, and who died.

Maybe not that way. Only in this way:

And it was not the Soviet aviation that was the best, but the entire Soviet army. Including aviation.

BTW, I'm not offended by you in any way, just by some of your generic statements about the greatness of the VVS in the GPW. The VVS had many advantages over the LW and ceartainly played a big part in the defeat of Germany but it was by no mean the only one that munched the LW. Demands in other theathers divert quite a few planes.

I have no problem with the P-39. Quite the opposite, specially for its use by the USSR, which manage to get oil from a plane ill regarded by the western air forces.

BTW, the USAAF didn't refused it (it was the RAF) nor purchased very few (in round numbers, 50% went to the USSR, some handfuls to the RAF, free french and italian cobeligerant and guess who grab the rest of them. Hint, wasn't the chinese)

Great plane! It's a beautiful car. Only the US Army refused it. Well, I did not refuse, but there were very few purchases.

If you are trying to write as an historian don't forget that reliable sources are paramount to that. Memories are great and I enjoyed them a lot but people memories are falible and shouldn't be taken as verbatim unless backed by facts.myself have misconceptions. The P-39 been one of them and in this forum learned by some love it and others depissed it.

And the last thing...I'm not writing vaguely, I'm trying to write like a historian, you asked me for the name of the Russian captain, and I'll find him.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is not categorical, this is anger at the fact that someone has, IMPERMISSIBLY has, a different opinion. Why such anger towards a stranger? What kind of fly has bitten you? I wrote from memory, I did not engage in propaganda. Everything that I have learned in my 64 years, I have outlined. All that I have learned from your post, we still have to measure our members. You insulted me, called me a propagandist, maybe I'm also a Cheka agent? And after all, do I have to report to you? You didn't have a discussion, you, as it was mildly noted here, fucked it up. Do you really think that there is only one opinion? And this is your opinion?
I will not write here anymore. I'm a busy person too...

Yo, the only criticism I had of you was the hypocrisy of telling the membership here they didn't know WWII history, and then going and pulling a couple of major boners yourself. Get off that high horse if you're going to make such basic mistakes as claiming the Western Allies didn't liberate Belgium and Western Germany.

Being corrected is a gift, not an insult.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yo, the only criticism I had of you was the hypocrisy of telling the membership here they didn't know WWII history, and then going and pulling a couple of major boners yourself. Get off that high horse if you're going to make such basic mistakes as claiming the Western Allies didn't liberate Belgium and Western Germany.

Being corrected is a gift, not an insult.

Let's also not forget that Eisenhower ordered the Allies in the west to not advance on Berlin. The western could have likely reached Berlin sooner had they opted for it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's also not forget that Eisenhower ordered the Allies in the west to not advance on Berlin. The western could have likely reached Berlin sooner had they opted for it.

Nor that Patton was well into Czechoslovakia, before 3rd Army was ordered pulled back to cede it to the Russians.

If one is going to be supercilious, it's best to be accurate too.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Interesting thread.

Lots of information here, both good and bad, being late to the party, I'll only say what I've always said and that is if things had gotten out of hand in the summer/fall of 1945, the Soviets, and especially the red air force would have been in for a very RUDE awakening.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I hope Bill comes to his senses. For all he can be hard to take at times, I like a lot of his contributions, and learn a lot.

Agreed, a couple of times I considered reporting him but a healthy discussion or debate is a good thing I feel, and I don't want to hang out in an echo chamber you know? I did take issue about being made fun of but let it pass as it wasn't that egregious. Like you say, he has a lot of good information that he shares, sometimes almost too much

Now that DerAdlerIstGelandet guy... what an a$$hole...