How good was the soviet air force?

[tomo pauk]

The Soviet Air Force was, by the latter part of the war, good at being the Soviet Air Force. Rubbish at being the Royal Air Force or the US air force as they were at being the Soviet Air Force. The test has to be if it was fit for purpose. It's purpose not other air force's purposes.

The US airforce would've been great as the Soviet airforce. RAF would've also been more than just fine.
We can recall that the best aircraft the Soviets had were with Western genes.

The Soviet AF would've been a bad replacement for both the RAF and for the USAAF.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

The US airforce would've been great as the Soviet airforce. RAF would've also been more than just fine.
We can recall that the best aircraft the Soviets had were with Western genes.

The Soviet AF would've been a bad replacement for both the RAF and for the USAAF.

But I would like it to be formulated for us what the VVS is good for. Huge numbers vs range, accuracy and power of strikes? Maybe they conducted better reco and close support? Where was it expressed? And why were these huge VVS not sufficient, like the UK and US AF?
So far, I've read one argument in this discussion that I should discuss somehow, because I have a different opinion.: The Air Force allegedly lost fewer personnel than the Allies. I want to do this separately. To begin with, the total losses of the USSR are unprecedented, unthinkable. And the number of missions carried out by the Air Force is unexpectedly small compared to their numbers.
With the opinion that all AF are equally greatly... Formulate it a little more precisely.
Of course, I am ready to answer any counter-questions about detail. I'll be glad to. Maybe I can understand what you wrote from your questions. Or are you writing about politeness?

 

[tomo pauk]

But I would like it to be formulated for us what the VVS is good for. Huge numbers vs range, accuracy and power of strikes?

Western AFs were also pretty huge (while the geographical area they operated above was probably incomprehensible for many people of the day).
Even more when we account for bomb- and rocket-carrying capacity, individual and aggregate firepower of the fighters in use - both the guns' firepower and ability to lug bombs and rockets -; abilities to operate during the night (both offensively and defensively), at high/very high altitudes, and over long/very long ranges.

Maybe they conducted better reco and close support? Where was it expressed?

WAFs were with superior recon assets and assessment. Close support - not the strong suit of the WAFs, but probably still contributing to the war effort big time.

To begin with, the total losses of the USSR are unprecedented, unthinkable. And the number of missions carried out by the Air Force is unexpectedly small compared to their numbers.

Agreed.

With the opinion that all AF are equally greatly... Formulate it a little more precisely.

I don't share the opinion that all AFs are equally great.

Or are you writing about politeness?

That never crossed my mind