How good was the soviet air force?

[bf109xxl]

That is highly debatable. Soviet fighter aircraft like Yak-3 and La 5FN were not inferior to German types at the altitudes where they were fighting.

They were inferior indeed - not too much. La-5FN was equal (more or less) to 109G-2 (while further Bf.109 models were already used on the front). But just try to fight in a cockpit where the temperature exceed 40°C (indeed - 50°C, even 55°C during the tests!!!)...
The Yak-3 had superior flight performance but a terrible survivability (as all the Yak models). The Yak-9U suffered from engine overheating, etc.

 

[bf109xxl]

Yak 3 was generally superior to all German fighter types below 5,000 meters. Rate of climb, acceleration, turn time, roll, it was better in almost every respect. And faster at the lower altitudes than all but the rarest fighter variants (or say, the jets which were not around much).

Yak 9 and La 5FN / La 7 were at least equivalent, depending on subtypes.

You are seriously exaggerating issues with the canopy. Crews were not typically flying La 5 with open canopies, that was something that happened with LaGG-3 and early Yak-1 etc. in the first year of the war. Same for issues with overheating etc. All aircraft had some issues, including all of the German aircraft.

During the frontline tests the La-5 crews flew ONLY with open canopies. I can quote the memories of pilots who claim to have flown the La with the open canopy ALL through the war.

 

[Shortround6]

Yak 3 was generally superior to all German fighter types below 5,000 meters.

Yak 3 was introduced in the Summer of 1944.
"Yak-3 service tests were conducted by the 91st fighter regiment of the 2nd Air Army, commanded by Lt Colonel Kovalev, in June-July 1944"
Page 162 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" Volume one. Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov.

The Yak 3 may very well have been superior to all German types below 5,000 meters

How important the Yak-3 was to overall course of the war?
The 2nd 12.7mm machine gun was not reintroduced until the 13th construction batch in the Autumn of 1944.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Yak 3 may very well have been superior to all German types below 5,000 meters

In mass production, flight performance was inevitably and severely degraded. Thus, the maximum speed was 30-40 kph lower. The Yak-3 undoubtedly had better performance than its predecessors. But many of their drawbacks were transferred to the Yak-3 unchanged, in particular the ugly radio communications, which had been a headache for the Soviet Air Force throughout the war.
ALL factors need to be considered for a valid comparison, not just flight characteristics.

 

[NevadaK]

Yak 3 was introduced in the Summer of 1944.
"Yak-3 service tests were conducted by the 91st fighter regiment of the 2nd Air Army, commanded by Lt Colonel Kovalev, in June-July 1944"
Page 162 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" Volume one. Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov.

The Yak 3 may very well have been superior to all German types below 5,000 meters
View attachment 755135
How important the Yak-3 was to overall course of the war?
The 2nd 12.7mm machine gun was not reintroduced until the 13th construction batch in the Autumn of 1944.

Less important than the contemporary LA-7. Which, by the way Eric Brown flew and had the following thoughts:

"The British test pilot, Eric Brown, was given the chance to fly an La-7 at the former Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz Luftwaffe aircraft test station on the Baltic coast, shortly after the German surrender in May 1945. He described the handling and performance as quite superb, but the armament and sights were below par, the wooden construction would have withstood little combat punishment and the instrumentation was appallingly basic.[17]"

To me, it's easy to get caught up in things like the sophistication of instruments, or that the cockpit got hot and ignoring how it flew against its opponent or doing its specific tasks. Yes, Soviet built aircraft were considered to be more disposable than western aircraft. That's not a detriment, it's a reflection of the state Soviet manufacturing and the type of air combat in the East. The eastern front was largely a low level ground attack environment and AAA takes a heavy toll on attacking aircraft. IIRC ground attack aircraft had a significantly shorter lifespan in all theaters.

 

[bf109xxl]

Less important than the contemporary LA-7.

2236 La-7 vs. 2180 Yak-3 in 1944. Absolutely the same importance. Just compare with 7830 Yak-9 and 3800 La-5F(N)...

That's not a detriment, it's a reflection of the state Soviet manufacturing and the type of air combat in the East.

The reflection of the Soviet manufacturing was the inferiority of Soviet aircraft.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

During the frontline tests the La-5 crews flew ONLY with open canopies. I can quote the memories of pilots who claim to have flown the La with the open canopy ALL through the war.

Let me ask you a question. Do you put schnapps in your cereal?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In mass production, flight performance was inevitably and severely degraded. Thus, the maximum speed was 30-40 kph lower. The Yak-3 undoubtedly had better performance than its predecessors. But many of their drawbacks were transferred to the Yak-3 unchanged, in particular the ugly radio communications, which had been a headache for the Soviet Air Force throughout the war.
ALL factors need to be considered for a valid comparison, not just flight characteristics.

Radio communication was a problem for every side in WW2. Methinks you have your thumb on the scale.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

2236 La-7 vs. 2180 Yak-3 in 1944. Absolutely the same importance. Just compare with 7830 Yak-9 and 3800 La-5F(N)...

The reflection of the Soviet manufacturing was the inferiority of Soviet aircraft.

Both of which shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft

 

[SaparotRob]

Let me ask you a question. Do you put schnapps in your cereal?

It makes my Lucky Charms taste Christmas-ier.

 

[Shortround6]

I will note that the Yak 3 showed up within a couple of weeks of the P-51D.

The Yak 3 contributed to the German defeat, it was not the reason for the German defeat.
And it had a few problems. Like the early ones having a mission duration of about 40 minutes.

 

[bf109xxl]

Both of which shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft

And what? Yak-9s shot down even larger numbers.

 

[bf109xxl]

Let me ask you a question. Do you put schnapps in your cereal?

I guess, you never read neither Soviet reports nor interviews with the Soviet pilots. You have no impression on the development of the Soviet airplanes and their real performance/efficiency. The Soviets suffered heavy losses even in 1944, which could not be explained by poor pilot training only.

 

[bf109xxl]

Radio communication was a problem for every side in WW2. Methinks you have your thumb on the scale.

Just read the pilot interviews. The quality of radio equipment on lend-lease planes was not comparable with the Soviet one. Many Soviet pilots describe their radios as useless ballast.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I will note that the Yak 3 showed up within a couple of weeks of the P-51D.

The Yak 3 contributed to the German defeat, it was not the reason for the German defeat.
And it had a few problems. Like the early ones having a mission duration of about 40 minutes.

They were fighting over the front line, 10 minutes from their airfield. They were not escorting B-17s to Berlin.

They were designed to do the job they were intended to do, and not the jobs of other planes. This is one of the main reasons we continued to underestimate the Soviet war machine, both during and after WW2.

A Yak 3 was better for fighting over the Russian front than a P-51D or a P-47D, for a wide range of reasons. They could have had them via Lend Lease if they had wanted them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It makes my Lucky Charms taste Christmas-ier.

Does it make them über charms?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I guess, you never read neither Soviet reports nor interviews with the Soviet pilots. You have no impression on the development of the Soviet airplanes and their real performance/efficiency. The Soviets suffered heavy losses even in 1944, which could not be explained by poor pilot training only.

You know who else suffered very heavy losses, and one shattering defeat after the other in 1944 on the Eastern Front? The German armed forces .

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Just read the pilot interviews. The quality of radio equipment on lend-lease planes was not comparable with the Soviet one. Many Soviet pilots describe their radios as useless ballast.

What makes you think I haven't read interviews with Soviet pilots? I have also read of very serious problems with Western Allied (British and American made) radios which rendered them nearly useless in many circumstances as well, even though they were generally better than the Soviet. Getting the radios to work properly was a tricky business, it depended a lot on the specific type of radio, (HF, VF, etc.) the configuration and maintenance status of the individual aircraft (were there shorts? was the wire properly shielded?)

You are taking incidents and specific problems of individuals and particular squadrons and elevating it to the entire Russian front mister BF 109. And that ain't history, it's fantasy.

 

[bf109xxl]

What makes you think I haven't read interviews with Soviet pilots? I have also read of very serious problems with Western Allied (British and American made) radios which rendered them nearly useless in many circumstances as well, even though they were generally better than the Soviet. Getting the radios to work properly was a tricky business, it depended a lot on the specific type of radio, (HF, VF, etc.) the configuration and maintenance status of the individual aircraft (were there shorts? was the wire properly shielded?)

You are taking incidents and specific problems of individuals and particular squadrons and elevating it to the entire Russian front mister BF 109. And that ain't history, it's fantasy.

Your statements just reveals that you know nothing about the realities of the Eastern Front. Try to learn about them at least from the mentioned book by Gordon and Khazanov. It is unlikely that you have access to modern Russian-language sources.

 

[bf109xxl]

You know who else suffered very heavy losses, and one shattering defeat after the other in 1944 on the Eastern Front? The German armed forces .

Try to take some more details into consideration. The Luftwaffe was far OUTNUMBERED by the Soviets but was still able to inflict very sensitive losses on the latter.