USSR, Germany great. USA dumb.
How good was the soviet air force?
- Thread starter Venomstick121
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Please, do tell.
Interesting.
Any independent analysis of his books?
I own 4 of "Yefim Gordon's" (whoever that is) books.
Typical Yefim Gordon book format, let's assume a particular aircraft type.
1. The design bureau was given a task to counter a threat from a Western aircraft to either the USSR/Russia or an ally
2. EMPHASIZE that there were constant interference by say Stalin and no resources to work with to compete with new Western threat
3. EMPHASIZE that even with no resources, the bureau produced a better Aircraft & components than the Western counterpart
4. If it saw combat EMPHASIZE that the untrained pilots defeated the unskilled, cowardly America pilots
5. If it didn't see combat, EMPHASIZE that the aircraft/components are superior to its counterpart
Enough of that.
Bergstrom from what I've read here & there is big on the real air war was in Russia. Better planes & pilots than what was in the West.
That is a bit harsh on Bergstrom; he may cherry pick some Soviet successes to highlight that the air war on the Eastern Front wasn't entirely one sided, but otherwise provides a balanced account. He does stretch it a bit when comparing Jg 26 on the Eastern Front versus Western Front, harder in the east than the west.
"Exposing the Myth of Soviet Aerial Superiority Over the Luftwaffe in WW2"
I never knew that that was ever a 'myth' I always thought the the Soviet air force were only ever able to gain any kind of "air superiority" over the Luftwaffe in the last 12 months of the war?
Were there any other so-called myths exposed in the book?
Last edited:
Actually, according to Soviet mythology, air superiority was already achieved in 1943 over the Kuban.
The main myth is about the high efficiency of management of the Soviet aviation industry and the development of the Soviet Air Force. Secondary, for example, about the superiority of the I-16 over the Ki-27 in the Nomonhan conflict (Khalkhin-Gol).
But overall, I have to admit that I overrated the book. A careful reading revealed factual errors, author's judgments are often controversial, and I cannot agree with some of them in principle. Nevertheless, for those who have no idea at all about the relationship between the government, designers, the Air Force and industry in the USSR, the book may be somewhat useful.
Well, there might have been some reduction in Luftwaffe strength from around that period of time (midsummer 1943), but that could be explained by many of the Luftwaffe's fighters being redirected to the western front to deal with the growing USAAF strategic bomber offensive. There might be some truth in it.
Last edited:
A particular example would be greatly appreciated.
Over the Kuban (in the spring of 1943 - the transfer of Luftwaffe fighters to the Reich had not yet begun en masse), the Soviets at best achieved a better (possibly - much better) loss ratio with the Luftwaffe. The air campaign at the Battle of Kursk demonstrated that even with a large numerical superiority, the efficiency of the Soviet Air Force remained low while the losses were high.
Any one of his books.
A lefty Euro author with opinions
Please provide the title of the specific book and the exact page.
I have:
Soviet Tactical Aviation
Flankers: The New Generation Vol 2
MIG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History (Warbird History)
Sukhoi S-37 and Mikoyan MFI: Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter Demonstrators - Red Star Vol. 1
You're welcome to purchase & see for yourself
Reviews
While a fairly good overview of these 2 aircraft, the evaluation of their capabilities is more than a little "soviet" sounding. In other words these 2 development projects are described as the greatest things since sliced bread. A more objective and blunt account of their drawbacks would have made this a great book. With the extremely limited funding available and the isolated nature of these aircraft as weapons systems (as compared to the F22 which will be a fully integrated theatre weapon and probably the last US manned air superiority fighter) the compromises made by the Russian manufacturers are major and would be interesting to read about.
While a fairly good overview of these 2 aircraft, the evaluation of their capabilities is more than a little "soviet" sounding. In other words these 2 development projects are described as the greatest things since sliced bread. A more objective and blunt account of their drawbacks would have made this a great book. With the extremely limited funding available and the isolated nature of these aircraft as weapons systems (as compared to the F22 which will be a fully integrated theatre weapon and probably the last US manned air superiority fighter) the compromises made by the Russian manufacturers are major and would be interesting to read about.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Thank you.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Would have any other nation have built and utilized the IL-2 in such numbers?
I think not.
I think not.
Indeed they would not. Very overrated aircraft, design-wise, but over 30,000 were produced during the war, which helped it to make some sort of difference in the fighting.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
According to a book I have on anti-tank aircraft they attacked in large numbers, line abreast, salvoing those inaccurate rockets. I suppose quantity does have a quality of its own.
GregP
Major
I don't think it was overrated at all. It was VERY difficult to shoot down from below and was almost solely intended for ground support missions, which is why the German troops were under so much constant pressure (well, in addition to the weather, anyway) and were almost always short of supplies since the Il-2s were attacking the supply chain as it moved along the ground.
The Il-2 was a major reason why the Germans didn't succeed in their invasion of the USSR.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
From my reading, they'd orbit and take turns.
