How good was the soviet air force?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This thread is turning into 90% politics. Meh.

As long as it remains within a WW2 historical context its ok.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

What's your favorite airplane? Mine is the B-17, all variants.

Wright's Flyer B. But why here?
+ My points are: prehistory of aviation and astronautics, aviapioneers before and during the Great War (technology, reco and bombing without aces), innovations of the 1920s in the US, France, UK, USSR aviation near 1941, turbo-jet and supersonic pioneers, XX century wars. I want to learn more about the history of French aviation.

 

[tomo pauk]

As long as it remains within a WW2 historical context its ok.

Okay.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wright's Flyer B. But why here?
+ My points are: prehistory of aviation and astronautics, aviapioneers before and during the Great War (technology, reco and bombing without aces), innovations of the 1920s in the US, France, UK, USSR aviation near 1941, turbo-jet and supersonic pioneers, XX century wars. I want to learn more about the history of French aviation.

You asked for a tough aviation question.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

You asked for a tough aviation question.

About the subject.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's as tough as I get.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

On this topic, a self ad break. This is an article that I wrote about a General Aviadesigner (in the USSR, this is a very high), I have been searching for his portrait for a couple of years. Aviation experts don't usually know that the pre- and post-war Pashinin - successor of Lavochkin - are one person, and that he is General. He was also an official spy in the UK and a participant in the well-known kidnap of the Derwent and Nene.
Look at the tables. I inserted out of hooligan motives. Post-Soviet aviation historians usually don't rely on these data, some give them without analysis or conclusions. Also, let's take a look at the locations of new aircraft factories, since geography in the USSR is not clear to you. In my opinion, these lists are indicative in context.
Defects: (1) I wrote the article in bad difficult Russian. (2) It is very difficult to provide photos for a wikipedia. Wiki-supervisor from the USA seriously demanded that I provide permission to a photographer from the Cheka, who photographed the colonel during the war for personal file. Such are the cruel mores, if anyone does not know. (3) The article should be neutral writing about the mass sacrifices of my immediate grandparents. I've learned.
Google helps us.
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пашинин,_Михаил_Михайлович

 

[Snautzer01]

I can offer a comparison of the quality that was made by the experts of the USSR at that time. In 1946, almost all fighters were scrapped. You will not find traces of tens of thousands of aircraft in the post-war world. In 1947, the USSR continued production after a pause to review their designs and technology. The famous La-7, for example, was immediately replaced by La-9. Yak-9 became known as Yak-9U. Read about it. But foreign fighters remained in service until 1953. The USSR produced many MiG-15s, but kept the P-63 at advanced airfields.

Maybe the pre-war production is high-quality? There were also records. But again, tens of thousands of aircraft had already disappeared in the summer of 1941, after two months of war. Isn't it interesting where? There were more planes than in the whole world at once. Including the USA and Japan. In August, the first British combat aircraft arrived in the USSR (Barbarossa - July). Let me remind you that the British had fought off LW by that time, and soon they would launch an air offensive to Germany in the spring of 1942, when the record holders from the USSR would concentrate so as not to run away.
Find an opinion that not the best Lend-Lease aircraft in the West are worse than the Soviet ones by quality. I know that Stalin personally said that the Hurricane was not suitable in 1942... And he demanded more Hurricanes to 1944.

And then it would be good to have statistics with a single measurement methodology. Right? You were asked to look for the good among the bad, you demand statistics. Look for the good ones.
The USA, UK, Germany, Japan did not stoop to replacing one kind of tree with another worse and without drying. They did not consider it possible to produce airplanes without radio sets, etc. Before statistical, it is worth conducting at least some kind of qualitative analysis.
Until then, you have an opinion not based in mathematical probability. That opinion might be right or might be wrong, but it is hardly a representative valid quality opinion.

So ask about the facts, and don't repeat your opinion. I'm asking you, I'm giving you new arguments. Repetition is well for propaganda.

1. Another country participated in the Great War. The Communists thoroughly destroyed, first of all, its culture. Sikorsky is notable in tsarist Russia, he became a great US engineer. However, the USA, UK, and France are full of the greatest.
2. Records are not an criteria. Italy and France have a lot of records back then. And?
The USSR started a war with the largest air forces in the world. In 5 months, he lost the entire army and most of the country's population. He lost the pre-war AF completely.
3. Korea and Vietnam, Sputnik and Gagarin later. And he didn't show anything good in the air war. Actually, after Korea, it was decided that the Soviet AF should not dominate the air. Because they never dominated, no matter how.
4. We know that the USSR occupied advanced Eastern Europe and part of Germany. I can argue about the cosmonautics of the USSR in detail, but not here. If you want, I can describe my opinion in three long sentences. It is rare, I warn you. But I will not defend it.
In the USSR, engineers recognized Western technology and quality back then. My father is a Soviet rocket engineer, graduated from Voenmekh in the early 1950s. His opinion is more important than yours, not only for me. Something is wrong with your criteria and methods. Your conclusions do not agree with the facts.
5. In particular, the USSR is not the winner in the war, but the people are the victim. Like the China did not win either, but participated on the side of the winners. From here I can start discussing the quality of Soviet factories, which I have studied for a long time.
My hobby: the urgent fighter program in the USSR 1940-1941. About records: the number of projects for SINGLE-seat fighters alone that year is a 27 very different projects have been started! But only 5 of them are usually discussed: MiG-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3, I-180, and 185. More than 27 possible. Stalin personally supervised this mess. This is the year when, say, Typhoon, Mustang, Corsair flew.

I gues i know why most of war time and close post time were scrapped.
How many ton of high grade air industry worth grade alloyes went to soviet union beyond 1945?
And how many ton did they make themselves? In war....
Yes the came up short by quite a margin.
Lend lease stopped.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

Some observations about the aircraft rockets mentioned here:
1. I think it is obvious that nations can not overwork themselves with weapons until there is a war. After the WW2, this norm was perversed. We just have to get back to normal in this part.
2. Bazooka was based on Goddard's research for the U.S. Army in 1918. Goddard also determine the modern balance configure of rockets. Only for note.
3. Soviet missiles were successfully used BEFORE the War against Japan. In 1941 little is known about their successes. In 1942 they were exhausted. Powder factories in Ukraine.
4. The production of ballistite was ordered in the USA, torn between the desire to receive it and the unwillingness to give up the secret, as they write in the USA. Thus, the use of aviation rockets by the USA and USSR was synchronised. British RP were used.
5. After the war, a miracle: ALL countries adopted rockets, descendants of the German R4M Orkan! Even the famous Grad or, say, Sidewinder. RS, RP, M8 did not leave offspring. Der Wunderwaffe, not Me 262 and V-2. It's a little late.
6. In Russia, Stalinists are sure that the bad grouping shot of Katyushas is brilliant. I'm serious.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

I gues i know why most of war time and close post time were scrapped.
How many ton of high grade air industry worth grade alloyes went to soviet union beyond 1945?
And how many ton did they make themselves? In war....
Yes the came up short by quite a margin.
Lend lease stopped.

You're relying on common sense. It's an inappropriate in this discussion. The end of the war did not lead to a reduction in the production of weapons: - Dad, vodka has become expensive. Will you drink less? - No, son, you will eat less. Literally so.
And there is a lot of scrap metal in Eastern Europe. For example, the centers of some German cities were dismantled for bricks, which were moved to the USSR.

 

[Snautzer01]

You're relying on common sense. It's an inappropriate in this discussion. The end of the war did not lead to a reduction in the production of weapons: - Dad, vodka has become expensive. Will you drink less? - No, son, you will eat less. Literally so.
And there is a lot of scrap metal in Eastern Europe. For example, the centers of some German cities were dismantled for bricks, which were moved to the USSR.

It is not un common sense. High grade aluminium was shipped in. Land lease wise. In fact with out that the would be an awfull lot less of Soviet airplanes. Besides the airplanes straight out of usa via Alaska. A lot.
Countless planes trains and automobiles trucks guns arti shells...

It is very far from inappropriate in this discussion.

End of war.. yes they made airplanes but not as much and powered in the beginning with pirated hardware like the Nene or a stolen B-29.

So no. It is not common sence.

Facts. They are.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

Good post, Ernest. Just a small correction: Pe-2 could dive - if piloted by a skilled crew. There were not many.

To the same extent exactly as the P-47 is a dive bomber. The dive angles set by the management are equal, like. The Pe-2 has a limit, not a recommendation, of 70 deg. And required skill. A bomb sight is less needed here.
Famously, dozens of Pe-2s bombed the cruiser Niobe (1898) in 1944. It can also be compared with real dive bombers of the USA, Japan, Nazi, UK. Even when they were operated by fast trained pilots.
One minute retro video (I note a very brave operator - he not only shot the explosions of zenith shells, but also a purify miss):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1CuHqWDAxQ

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

It is not un common sense. High grade aluminium was shipped in. Land lease wise. In fact with out that the would be an awfull lot less of Soviet airplanes. Besides the airplanes straight out of usa via Alaska. A lot.
Countless planes trains and automobiles trucks guns arti shells...

It is very far from inappropriate in this discussion.

End of war.. yes they made airplanes but not as much and powered in the beginning with pirated hardware like the Nene or a stolen B-29.

So no. It is not common sence.

Facts. They are.

No. Still produced. And more difficult, expensive, especially aluminum aircraft.
+ Update
Amendments after a quick search for sources on the production of combat aircraft:
1945: task 20814, fact 20900
1946: task 1303, fact 1086
Further, the rise in production rates from a new low base. I'll clarify which one soon. I was wrong here. But I repeat, there was enough scrap metal. Soon the war: Berlin blockade, Korea.
From Ivan Rodionov's Chronology of Soviet Aviation
Rodionov's Chronology
Separately, the indicative Yak-9 production dynamics.

Plant	1942	1943	1944	1945 год (I half)	1945 год (II half)	1946	1947	1948	Σ​
№ 153 (Новосибирск)	59	1761	5858	2867	692	353	697	249	12 536
№ 166 (Омск)	-	732	1600	926	158	-	-	-	3416
№ 82 (Москва)	-	-	373	403	41	-	-	-	817
Σ ​	59	2493	7831	4196	891	353	697	249	16 769

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

​

Such a summary. The number of Yak-9s in it is greatly lowered, at least. In 1946 there were 72 Yak-9s, and according to another detailed source 353, in 1947 - 522 and 697. That's the kind of contradiction I have to deal with. La-9 and La-11 are less contradictory. Check everything! And especially yourself. But you can even check me. For my glad.

Brand	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953
Ил-4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Ил-10	1008	871	155	178	367	994	726	104
Ил-28	-	-	-	-	156	421	772	1298
И-250	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
МиГ-9	10	292	302	-	-	-	-	-
МиГ-15	-	-	-	729	1913	3971	3231	68
МиГ-17	-	-	-	-	-	-	1286	2801
Ту-2	191	376	419	273	4	19	6	-
Ту-4	-	-	17	161	312	321	368	16
Ту-14	-	-	-	-	-	42	89	16
Ту-16	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Ла-7	53	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Ла-9	15	858	806	203	-	-	-	-
Ла-11	-	100	650	150	100	182	-	-
Ла-15	-	-	-	235	-	-	-	-
Як-3	288	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Як-9	72	522	249	-	-	-	-	-
Як-15	19	261	-	-	-	-	-	-
Як-17	-	-	279	151	-	-	-	-
Як-23	-	-	-	59	212	42
Бе-6	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	24
Σ	1668	3280	2877	2139	3064	5992	5486	4329

+ This is probably a report for Soviet AF, not for the Allies. Yaks (with jets) were supplied to many countries. I need to check it out.

 

[nuuumannn]

I haven't read the entire thread, I certainly don't want to get political either, but I believe that like in Nazi Germany, the Soviet aircraft designers were clever and enterprising, taking advantage of technology and ideas gleaned from other countries to advance their own abilities (I hate the constant accusations of "copying" levelled at the Soviets - and the Chinese today. If someone has a good idea that might help your industry, why not try and do the same, otherwise how do you expect to progress beyond the technological status quo?), but they suffered under a brutal and inflexible regime during a time of war.

The Soviet system of distribution of design and work among centres of excellence was not a terrible one, in fact having various institutes and industrial bases that specialised in different disciplines is a terrific idea and the sharing of accumulated knowledge around the industry at large as standards has lots of merit, especially during wartime. The reality is, all the major powers did this in some way or another with varying degrees of individual control of course; the US, the Brits and the Germans. The problem the Soviets had was not the quality of their engineers, but the regime they laboured under, like the Germans. It stifled these guys in terrible ways and by doing so actively went against the very aim they were all working toward, victory against the enemy.

 

[Luft.4]

I gues i know why most of war time and close post time were scrapped.
How many ton of high grade air industry worth grade alloyes went to soviet union beyond 1945?
And how many ton did they make themselves? In war....
Yes the came up short by quite a margin.
Lend lease stopped.

In addition, rather than returning Lend-lease tanks as part of the signed agreement (which did happen in the beginning but when the Soviets realized that the Allies were simply dumping the tanks off ships into the sea they stopped in horror), the Soviets withheld the tanks and modified them to be put into use in the civilian sectors (ex: forestry). I suppose their POV was use the equipment rather than expend capital for new equipment.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

I haven't read the entire thread, I certainly don't want to get political either, but I believe that like in Nazi Germany, the Soviet aircraft designers were clever and enterprising, taking advantage of technology and ideas gleaned from other countries to advance their own abilities (I hate the constant accusations of "copying" levelled at the Soviets - and the Chinese today. If someone has a good idea that might help your industry, why not try and do the same, otherwise how do you expect to progress beyond the technological status quo?), but they suffered under a brutal and inflexible regime during a time of war.

The Soviet system of distribution of design and work among centres of excellence was not a terrible one, in fact having various institutes and industrial bases that specialised in different disciplines is a terrific idea and the sharing of accumulated knowledge around the industry at large as standards has lots of merit, especially during wartime. The reality is, all the major powers did this in some way or another with varying degrees of individual control of course; the US, the Brits and the Germans. The problem the Soviets had was not the quality of their engineers, but the regime they laboured under, like the Germans. It stifled these guys in terrible ways and by doing so actively went against the very aim they were all working toward, victory against the enemy.

You will obviously have to endure a bit of accusations of copying. By the way, you claim that they are copying, but for some reason you blame EVERYONE for that. Can I be offended here? Is there a justification? Should I share my hatred with you?
Next, you first suggest agreeing that the USSR has a great system. Then you describe it as suffocating, sudden, brutal and terrible. A good attempt to reach an agreement. Yes, terrible. And not like a normal one. The system is good, it eats children for dinner.
I am a Russian engineer and a cosmic smart. Thank you. Did you report this? The power do what I'm doing or me? I didn't copy. but studied. Not powers studied.
Let's discuss not confidence, but the history. A good reason to introduce us here with examples of copying from the USSR and PRC. Not all examples, but one for "the US, the Brits and the Germans".
And in which country under discussion did you find a lack of institutions, comparing with the USSR? What do you know about their competition and even enmity?
Copying is sin. Profanuses and profanus-bosses love copying. It's easier to tell us engineers to "do the same", only big. Choice to menu by finger tap. The right system does not suppress the imagination. Let's attention to the fact that according to one specification, engineers give a dozen VERY different aircraft. Unless they are in a terrible stiffed system and their opinion isn't asked. In the USSR, they also offered different, but much more often they chose to copy. It didn't work out well. It is better then to licensed, which was done many, many times before the war in the USSR. The PRC flowering when they stopped copying, but began to buy. You'd be surprised how many licenses they bought. But their system is still does not allow creative. Slovaks can, but Chinese not.
Finally, you don't know about the motives of the people you're protecting. You don't know their exclusive living conditions. You don't know the biographies. Because they are not well-known. I wrote two biography on wikipedia, I know I don't know. But you will teach us indiscriminately.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

Of course, it was more complex than it was possible to cover in one sentence.
I haven't read updates on this topic since the 2010s, what I remember from the earlier period is that there were no good statistics of the diving attacks in total. Probably, less than 10% throughout the war. Probably, 82 GBAP (321 BAP) excelled in that since 1943. There was a consensus on Polbin as (allegedly) the most active proponent of the diving tactics. However, as it happened in the USSR, Polbin could be just a nice public figure who was chosen by the press and GlavPUR to represent "innovation". You always need to "read between the lines" in Soviet history, don't you...

Polbin is not only the head of the bomber aviation corps (3 divisions), but also the deputy inspector of the Air Force. Simply put, he is responsible for training.
He has flown 157 combat missions in three years (1000 days). Is it a lot for someone?
The list of operations of his military unit is known. Their accuracy is unknown to me. It's not like that with the Germans.
I prefer to watch the number of combat missions. The Guards division from the Reserve of Main Command (3 regiments - 60-90+ Pe-2) during the glorious operation, for which unit was awarded a special name, made 411 combat missions per month. But in December. 14 missions per day for 60+ Pe-2 - a lot?
Precision is especially important for naval bombers. There has been no success there for almost the entire war. And there were a lot of Pe-2s. There are no exact descriptions, there are praises for General Polbin, who died in the 158th mission. Besides him, no one Stalinist calls name other pilot master. This is not my subject, not until 1942. I don't know.
+ Update
I found the dive novator. 139 missions in 2.5 years, 87 with a dive. Examples of accuracy are not given in the obituary. Here is the text of the obituary:

Мамай Николай Васильевич

He went missing, that is, he lost his formation already in mid-April 1945. By the way, I did not in memoirs, but a couple of diaries of pilots (it is strong forbidden). They mention the difficulty of keeping in formation the most. He flew off in formation - happiness.

So Polbin died. You can see elements of tactics. Also the very end of the war:

http://allaces.ru/p/episode.php?id=647

 

[bf109xxl]

Add: LaGG's wood isn't an old junk, not forced by misery. In general, in the USSR, they invested heavily and early in aviametals, they built from dural and steel, that is, with steel, for example, skin with spot welding. The country of Modern and Permanent Revolution (not so many brilliant). Say, in the development of alu for mass production, they were clearly ahead of the UK. Then they asked for metal planes in the UK.

The LaGG owes its birth only to the acute shortage of aluminum in the USSR before the war - aluminum production in the USSR was several times less than in Germany or in the US/UK+Canada. And Stalin's personal mistrust of Polikarpov. "Delta-wood" (as major LaGG construction material) or hot-pressed birch veneer impregnated with resin glue had no real advantages over metal. The use of wood was less technologically advanced, and repairing wooden airplanes was more difficult and time-consuming than metal airplanes.
Experiments with steel as the main structural material remained experiments.
The only serial all-metal airplane in 1930s in the USSR with more or less acceptable efficiency was the SB. The rest were either produced in too small numbers (ANT-42), or created rather for the sake of propaganda (practically all metal airplanes of Tupolev), or extremely inefficient and quickly outdated (TB-3).

In the USSR, the racing DH Comet was studied a lot (Grigorovich's reduced "Girl Plane" was built) and the famous Clark's "plastic" plane in the USA (they negotiated, get something; Soviet article 1939 below).

All these experiments did not result in any advanced technologies for mass production of military aircraft.

Lavochkin (La in LaGG) is from the "Ministry of Aviation", he was lucky to travel to the USA to study the latest vogue. In those MONTHS, the USSR openly talked about the superiority of US aircraft.

Lavochkin never visited the United States or worked for Lisunov. A delegation led by Tupolev and Kharlamov (director of TsAGI) visited the USA in 1936; Petlyakov was one of the members of this delegation, but not Lavochkin.

Lavochkin participated in the development of the Douglas experience (DC-3 — Li-2).

Please provide a reference.

Although the idea of the wooden LaGG of the chieff of this group Gorbunov. Gorbunov was promoted: he became the director (CEO) of a new aircraft factory in Estonia (!) after its occupation in 1940. The director at that time was above the chief designer, gave him orders, "the nomenclature". VIAM's research has shown that plastic wood is superior to alu alloys. The LaGG prototypes were smooth as a grand piano, they were nicknamed that. The Soviet Mosquito.

LaGG had nothing to do with the Mosquito. The Mosquito used a composite material that included a balsa layer. This material did have certain advantages over metal, but the LAGG material did not. The figures can be found in the book by Jakubovich.

The war immediately canceled this bold implementation. The resin was purchased in Germany!

IIRC, the resin was produced in Orekhovo-Zuyevo and at the Okhta gunpowder plant..

New radial M-82 motor could appear on the LaGG in the autumn of 1941.

The Gu-82 was tested on October 1, 1941 (note that the I-185M-82 was already tested on July 21!). But even with the M-82, the LaGG had a huge number of shortcomings and was actually completed sometime by the fall of 1943. The production of LaGGs and MiGs was a huge mistake of the Soviet leadership.

The engines were produced in a storage, because there were no planes for them.

There was actually a Su-2, but it was produced in very small numbers. The question is, why did they prefer the M-81(M-82) at all, and not the M-71, which was awaited by both Polikarpov and Sukhoi? Both engines had equal chances to be completed (even the long stroke of the M-71 was not a serious obstacle). So far, this oddity has not been well explained.

That is, the Soviet bombers TB and SB are somewhat past.

The SB at the time of its creation was quite a modern all-metal bomber.

In the USSR, "real" alu aircraft began with the DC-3 and Vultee 11, not the Ju 13 and K30.

These airplanes were primarily interesting because of the technology used to build them, not the materials used.

2. I do not include the Pe-3 in the list of Soviet fighters.

And quite in vain. It was the only Soviet all-metal fighter during the war.

 

[Texnuk]

Excerpt from a telegram from U.S. President Roosevelt to General MacArthur on May 6, 1942:
" From the point of view of grand strategy, it is difficult to get away from the obvious fact that Russian armies destroy more enemy soldiers and weapons than all 25 United Nations states combined."

Excerpt from the speech of British Prime Minister Churchill 1943-1944:
1. "The monstrous machine of the fascist government was broken by the superiority of Russian maneuver, Russian valor, Soviet military science and the excellent leadership of Soviet generals.
2. Apart from the Soviet army, there was no such force that could break the backbone of Hitler's military machine"