How good was the soviet air force? (1 Viewer)

[bf109xxl]

Sorry, with maybe 20 friends and acquaintances from the former Soviet VVS, I just don't believe you.

And I don't believe in god. I find it boring to discuss issues of faith. I have to repeat: it is not my fantasy, it has been written in books/documents. In particular, the story about Yaks in 1946 you can find in the book by N.Yakubovich (he is not the best Russian historian, but he deals with archive documents, at least). It is much more valuable than all the opinions of all your Russian friends.
Only one of us has an opinion. I prefer to be rather well informed than just to have an opinion.
PS. Please don't teach me statistics. I swear, I have already studied it well. May be, even better than you can imagine.

 

[bf109xxl]

In fact, they made 4,848 Yak-3s and 16,769 Yak-9s. That's maybe 21,000 Yaks of the same general variety.

In fact they made 8673 Yak-1 and 6428 Yak-7 as well. Now you can practice in arithmetic to find out the total number of Yaks produced. But all these facts cannot in any way refute the fact of low quality of the wartime Yak-3. Have you tried to answer the question why the Yak-3 disappeared so quickly from the post-war Soviet Air Force, and only the Yak-9 with all-metal wings served for a noticeable time?

 

[Vincenzo]

was not that both yak-3&9 were put out of service in 1950? but the production of -3 was stopped in '46 and -0 in '48?

 

[SaparotRob]

.......

It says a lot when the best fighter in Soviet service, for a good chunk of ww2, was the P-39.

Didn't see that coming!

 

[GregP]

In fact they made 8673 Yak-1 and 6428 Yak-7 as well. Now you can practice in arithmetic to find out the total number of Yaks produced. But all these facts cannot in any way refute the fact of low quality of the wartime Yak-3. Have you tried to answer the question why the Yak-3 disappeared so quickly from the post-war Soviet Air Force, and only the Yak-9 with all-metal wings served for a noticeable time?

You don't want to start that crap with me, guy, And I don't want to escalate beyond here since I have no dog in your hunt.

I don't have any stake in what you believe about WWII aircraft and, from your posts, you clearly don't care what anyone else thinks.

That's the way it seems to go today.

So, let it go and move on to someone who will bite on your comments.

I won't.

Cheers.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In fact they made 8673 Yak-1 and 6428 Yak-7 as well. Now you can practice in arithmetic to find out the total number of Yaks produced. But all these facts cannot in any way refute the fact of low quality of the wartime Yak-3. Have you tried to answer the question why the Yak-3 disappeared so quickly from the post-war Soviet Air Force, and only the Yak-9 with all-metal wings served for a noticeable time?

Maybe the answer to that would be: Because they were no longer fighting a tank and infantry ground war across a vast front, and were no longer going to be facing Bf 109s, since they had completely crushed the Luftwaffe and German armed forces.

The Yak-3 was a very short ranged frontal aviation fighter, specialized annihilate Bf 109s and Fw 190s, something it was very good at. After 1945 there were no longer any Bf 109s (unless you count a few Spanish and Czech made copies) and all the German pilots were in graves or POW camps. The Yak-3 was not designed as a medium range, or higher altitude fighter, which some variants of the (slightly larger) Yak-9 were.

The role previously played by the Yak 9 would be taken by the MiG-15 in 1949.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How many of them changed from "aircobra" to Soviet fighters?

Quite a few did. That would happen even if the P-39 was better. If you really had an in depth knowledge of the war as you claim to do, you would know this.

How many of them changed from A-20 to Soviet bombers?

There were no Soviet bombers with the same capabilities as an A-20, but some which were better in many respects - Pe-2, Tu-2. I have not read the accounts of many bomber pilots, though there are some available.

Could you please get at least one example of the pilot of "aircobra" who preferred Soviet fighters?

If I do this for you, will you admit you are wrong? I am not going to hold my breath.

Do you know the story of Alexander Pokryshkin, one of the most famous soviet aces? He denied consequently both Yaks and La despite of direct request from Yakovlev.

Needless to say I am familiar with his story. Here is the thing though: He was not the only pilot in the Soviet union.

"Hurricanes" and P-40s were never considered as adequate in the USSR, the quality of radio equipment was the most significant advantage of these planes. However P-40 were successfully used in the Soviet Navy as skip-bomber.

You are demonstrating your ignorance, which does not mix well with the levels of certainty and palpable arrogance in your posts. The Hurricane was indeed fairly unpopular with most Soviet pilots, it seems. Anyway I haven't yet found one that praised it. But there were numerous aces, and double and triple etc. aces who flew the P-40 in Russia and liked it pretty well.

This is Nikolai Golodnikov on the Kittyhawk in one of those "actual interviews with Soviet pilots" that we have been talking about.

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.
Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.
As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.
When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."

Here is double HSU Nikolai Kuznetsov with 24 individual kills in a Kittyhawk.

There is also documentation of numerous engagements in which they shot down Bf 109s etc.

Really?! What a surprise... And how many Soviet wartime radios do you know? Unfortunately ANY U.S. radio equipment was better than the Soviet one at that time. I guess, the situation was improved only after the copying of the B-29 accompanied with a total re-organization of aircraft and radio industry.

This is actually your opinion, not fact. You seem to struggle to tell the difference.

The quality was so miserable that some pilots said it would be better not to have it at all! I know an example when the pilot preferred MiG without radio equipment just because it was lighter. But ok, here it is: link. Use translators if necessary. Summary: a functioning Soviet radio equipment appeared at the end of 1943.
One more. But I really doubt that you read even a dozen of pilot interviews. Otherwise I cannot explain your statements. Now please tell me the names of pilots who considered the quality of Soviet radio equipment as satisfactory.

I never claimed such a specific statement, but I can find plenty of interviews in which Soviet pilots refer quite routinely to talking to other pilots, to unit commanders, and to ground base on the radio.

The topic is not "British pilots in the Middle East".

That is a point of reference. What are you comparing the Soviets too, only the Germans?

I'd like to see pilot names who flew P-39 but preferred Soviet fighters first.

Ok "Bf 109", I will call your bluff. How about vladimir-mikhailovich-mukhmediarov, pilot with 14 GVIAP?

Golodnikov also stated that "the Yaks and Lavochkins were not less capable than the Cobra." on the same site.

There are others but I'll wait and see how you react to these before I spend time hunting them down.

I think you are only imagining it.

You don't think on the basis of facts, it seems.

 

[Stig1207]

Here is the blurb from the upcoming book I linked to in #76

The Soviet history of the Second World War, written under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, reflected all its features, with the result that it includes solid sets of patriotic fables that have no connection with reality. Many of the events of the war were distorted beyond recognition or even made up from beginning to end.

Archives containing original documents were available only to selected, specially verified KGB 'historians' who presented only the version of the war that was acceptable to the Soviet regime. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the process of declassifying archives and gaining wide access to information gradually began to reveal the terrible truth of the crimes of the Soviet regime. One of which, of course, was the incompetent leadership of the Red Army, which led to massive loss of life across the military and civilians alike.

However, the consequences of decades of Soviet propaganda had a strong impact on both Russian and world historical science. Because of this, not only Russian, but, unfortunately, many European and American historians found themselves repeating the Soviet myths they had been fed.

The history of Soviet fighter aircraft did not escape this fate. The tale of Stalin's so-called 'Falcons', who allegedly shot down dozens and even hundreds of Luftwaffe aircraft, was persistently drummed into the heads of many generations of Russian people. These heroes, supposedly, flew Soviet fighters whose technical characteristics were many times superior to their German counterparts, with the result that Luftwaffe aces were reportedly afraid of meeting them in the air. These primitive propaganda clichés became a model for describing the actions of Stalin's fighter aircraft.

In this stunning exposé, Stalin's Falcons reveals the stark and dark truth of the terrible losses suffered by Soviet flyers, the inferiority of the Russian aircraft and the almost slave-like conditions in which those aircraft were made.

 

[bf109xxl]

Quite a few did. That would happen even if the P-39 was better. If you really had an in depth knowledge of the war as you claim to do, you would know this.

I am still waiting for proofs.

There were no Soviet bombers with the same capabilities as an A-20, but some which were better in many respects - Pe-2, Tu-2. I have not read the accounts of many bomber pilots, though there are some available.

In which respect Pe-2 was better? I have personally heard from a Soviet A-20 pilot raving about that airplane and very unflattering comments about the Soviet ones. The A-20 remained in service after the war for a long time in the Soviet Navy and were replaced only by the Il-28.

If I do this for you, will you admit you are wrong? I am not going to hold my breath.

You don't know facts trying to manipulate with irrelevant references. So, I estimate the probability of this event as negligible.

Needless to say I am familiar with his story. Herre is the thing though: He was not the only pilot in the Soviet union.

But he was a regimental (and then division) commander, an ace with one of the highest victory counts! His opinion is more valuable than that of many hundreds of other pilots. He finally rejected the La after the death on the La-7 of Klubov, who was one of the best aces of the 16th GVIAP. Thus, Pokryshkin's decision was quite reasonable.

You are demonstrating your ignorance, which does not mix well with the levels of certainty and palpable arrogance in your posts.

You are demonstrating a tendency to violate forum rules by discussing my personality instead of having a substantive discussion.

The Hurricane was indeed fairly unpopular with most Soviet pilots, it seems. Anyway I haven't yet found one that praised it. But there were numerous aces, and double and triple etc. aces who flew the P-40 in Russia and liked it pretty well.

They liked pretty well only the quality of manufacturing - especially the radio equipment and firepower. Golodnikov fought in the North, which was a secondary section of the front with the outdated Bf.109 models, so he considers the P-40 sufficient for an experienced pilot. And on the southern sections of the Eastern Front 109G-2s appeared already in 1942.

This is Nikolai Golodnikov on the Kittyhawk in one of those "actual interviews with Soviet pilots" that we have been talking about.

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.
Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.
As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.
When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."

View attachment 755410
Here is double HSU Nikolai Kuznetsov with 24 individual kills in a Kittyhawk.

There is also documentation of numerous engagements in which they shot down Bf 109s etc.

Golodnikov was an ace, masterful with the airplane and he emphasized that only "experienced pilot could fight an equal fight". Many other pilots - including Mukhamediarov - rated the P-40 much lower. I can cite memories of I-16 aces who successfully fought on it in 1943. But it will not improve the opinion about I-16 capabilities in 1943.

This is actually your opinion, not fact. You seem to struggle to tell the difference.

You seem to be fighting the facts trying to downgrade them to mere opinion.

I never claimed such a specific statement, but I can find plenty of interviews in which Soviet pilots refer quite routinely to talking to other pilots, to unit commanders, and to ground base on the radio.

And - surprise! - many of them (disproportionately!) fought on lend-lease aircraft. And - one more surprise - all this talks were in 1943 or later. But the _quality_ remained unsatisfying even in 1944. ALL RUSSIAN sources (since the beginning of 1990th) agree with the statement that the quality of the Soviet wartime radio equipment was unsatisfactory. Moreover I know exactly the differences between the capabilities of RSI-3/-3M and -4, you not.

That is a point of reference. What are you comparing the Soviets too, only the Germans?

Because it doesn't characterize either side in any way and doesn't provide any information for conclusion

Ok "Bf 109", I will call your bluff. How about vladimir-mikhailovich-mukhmediarov, pilot with 14 GVIAP?

Is it all what you have found? You should be more accurate. He never fought on cobra! He just _trained_ on it, 14th GVIAP was equipped with Yaks only. So, your reference is not relevant at all. Moreover his evaluation of P-40 is quite different comparing to Golodnikov. Try to analyze your sources prior to posting an irrelevant reference.

Golodnikov also stated that "the Yaks and Lavochkins were not less capable than the Cobra." on the same site.

Golodnikov did not fight on cobra. His opinion regarding cobra is less valuable.

There are others but I'll wait and see how you react to these before I spend time hunting them down.

Please tell me the names. At least one - who _fought_ on cobra and preferred Soviet fighters.

You don't think on the basis of facts, it seems.

You don't know "basic facts". You just have an opinion.

 

[bf109xxl]

You don't want to start that crap with me, guy, And I don't want to escalate beyond here since I have no dog in your hunt.

I don't have any stake in what you believe about WWII aircraft and, from your posts, you clearly don't care what anyone else thinks.

That's the way it seems to go today.

So, let it go and move on to someone who will bite on your comments.

I won't.

I'm not interested in unsubstantiated opinions. And you offer no other, Mr. Six-Sigma-Better-Than-Anyone-in-Statistics.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Enough!

bf109xxl Wild_Bill_Kelso

Knock it off with the snide comments and childish insults. Debate in a civil manner or not at all.

Like a fricken Kindergarten in here. I swear my 7 year old is capable of civil debate, why is it so hard here?

 

[bf109xxl]

Maybe the answer to that would be: Because they were no longer fighting a tank and infantry ground war across a vast front, and were no longer going to be facing Bf 109s, since they had completely crushed the Luftwaffe and German armed forces.

The Yak-3 was a very short ranged frontal aviation fighter, specialized annihilate Bf 109s and Fw 190s, something it was very good at. After 1945 there were no longer any Bf 109s (unless you count a few Spanish and Czech made copies) and all the German pilots were in graves or POW camps. The Yak-3 was not designed as a medium range, or higher altitude fighter, which some variants of the (slightly larger) Yak-9 were.

The role previously played by the Yak 9 would be taken by the MiG-15 in 1949.

The answer is totally wrong. Yak-3M-107A demonstrated a better performance than Yak-9P including range. Yak-9P was neither high-altitude interceptor nor medium-range fighter.
One more fact: 2267(!!!!) Yak-9U M-107A were not allowed to fly in 1946 due to design and production defects.
These are known facts, I can cite references.
I am not even mentioning the arrest of Commissar of Aircraft Industry Shakhurin after the war because of the supply of low-quality airplanes.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Fervent beliefs in their opinions, fanboy-ism and it breaking down into a bickering match. I see enough of that on the gun and motorsports boards I go on. I have my opinions, but I'm also here to learn and to learn, you need to have an open mind. Being so virulent in one's beliefs, and being so closed minded and resorting to childish insults hinders, not helps, discussion.

 

[bf109xxl]

was not that both yak-3&9 were put out of service in 1950? but the production of -3 was stopped in '46 and -0 in '48?

In fact, the "more wooden" Yak-3s were decommissioned in the late 1940s, and all-metal ones were not produced due to the impossibility of satisfactory cooling for optimal condition of the M-107A on WEP on this aircraft (the major problem along with numerous manufacturing defects). The all-metal Yak-9s lasted much longer in service.
There were exceptions, of course: General Zakharov (a famous Soviet ace) used a personal Yak-3, which was maintained much more carefully than conventional aircraft, so it was used in the early 50s.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It is not news to anyone in this forum that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime, who for most of the first half of the war had generally very bad leadership, squandered the lives of millions of their men, terrorized their own population, blundered technologically, and with regard to aviation, literally put guns to the heads of many of their aircraft designers, who were forced to create some quite important aircraft from prison design bureaus.

It's also well known that Germany, Japan, and Italy were also totalitarian regimes, as were some of the other smaller Axis nations, and that they too made terrible blunders and mistakes, terrorized their own people, and wasted the lives of their armies and civilians in a losing war.

Dislike of a particular regime can however be taken to the point that you cannot intelligently discuss or understand what they did or didn't do, conversely, it's easy to get caught up in the propaganda of not just the Soviets, but in particular the Nazis because their ideas and many of their lies unfortunately still have resonance today.

We also know pretty well around here who won WW2, and in the East, which army and air force prevailed. Some people seem to have lost sight of that basic fact.

I resent being lumped in with "Bf 109" - my comments were accurate, as was the data I posted which he predictably dismissed and spun. I'll leave the rest of you to enjoy dealing with him.

 

[Shortround6]

I will make a few notes and comments here, people can take them as the wish. Info is from page 162 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the second world war".

1st comment from me. It is important to read a lot of the book as often details show up in different chapters. Like this description of the state trials of the Yak-1M (prototype Yak-3) being done in Oct 1943.
" ........, An improvement in engine temperatures had been achieved by a more effective radiator bath installation, modification of the intake duct profiles, and increasing the angle of air-duct flap defection.
The Yak-1M became the first Yakovlev fighter capable of performing long duration level speed flight at maximum speed, as well as climbing at the maximum climb rate with an engine operating at a nominal revolutions of 2,700rpm."
2nd comment, I don't know what "long duration level speed" was, like in minutes. This problem is rarely mentioned or only hinted at in the descriptions/sections on the other Yak fighters. I have no idea if later (1944?) Yak-9s got the better radiator bath?

next "quote"
"Thorough wiring and screening increased the radio reception range to 56 miles (90km), a noteworthy achievement for Soviet fighters of the time."
Comment 3. I don't know if that means reception of radio signals from other aircraft or from ground station or even if they mean other radios could receive the signals of the Yak-1M at that distance.
Comment 4. It does show that the actual installation of the radio and the wiring of the plane can make a significant difference to performance of the actual radio. ( a common to Japanese fighters and actually to many other fighters, like early P-47s).
Mechanic changing sparkplugs and plug harness wires can render the radio unusable without ever touching the radio or radio system.

Comment 5, Radios themselves changed considerably during WW II so it is important that we try to compare like to like (like actual years at least) rather than use blanket statements like "all nation XXX radios were garbage" without putting at least a year or range of years. And maybe one or more nations were behind the other nations, but nobodies 1944 radios performed like their own 1940 radios.

 

[bf109xxl]

This problem is rarely mentioned or only hinted at in the descriptions/sections on the other Yak fighters.

In fact, this problem of early Yaks is well known to those who were interested in Yakovlev's fighters.
In the early 90s, a book by Stepanets ("Yak fighters of the Great Patriotic War period", 1992), who was one of Yakovlev's leading engineers, was published, and then it was used by almost all authors on the subject. Its translations are not known to me, unfortunately.
Gordon wrote another book separately on Yakovlev's piston-engined fighters, there you can find more detailed explanations.
I will try to simplistically describe the essence of the problem. It occurred when the boost pressure on the M-105PF was increased to 1050mmHg. As a result, if outside air temperature exceeded 18°C water and oil temperatures exceeded the allowed limits after two minutes of flight with closed radiator flaps. Continuous climb with the boosted engine was impossible even with the radiators fully open.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is not news to anyone in this forum that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime, who for most of the first half of the war had generally very bad leadership, squandered the lives of millions of their men, terrorized their own population, blundered technologically, and with regard to aviation, literally put guns to the heads of many of their aircraft designers, who were forced to create some quite important aircraft from prison design bureaus.

It's also well known that Germany, Japan, and Italy were also totalitarian regimes, as were some of the other smaller Axis nations, and that they too made terrible blunders and mistakes, terrorized their own people, and wasted the lives of their armies and civilians in a losing war.

Dislike of a particular regime can however be taken to the point that you cannot intelligently discuss or understand what they did or didn't do, conversely, it's easy to get caught up in the propaganda of not just the Soviets, but in particular the Nazis because their ideas and many of their lies unfortunately still have resonance today.

We also know pretty well around here who won WW2, and in the East, which army and air force prevailed. Some people seem to have lost sight of that basic fact.

I resent being lumped in with "Bf 109" - my comments were accurate, as was the data I posted which he predictably dismissed and spun. I'll leave the rest of you to enjoy dealing with him.

As moderator it is my job to not take sides. There were two parties involved. You and bf109xxl. Correct?

Both of you need to debate in a civil manner, and not detract with childish insults and snide comments. It's not hard.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

As moderator it is my job to not take sides. There were two parties involved. You and bf109xxl. Correct?

Both of you need to debate in a civil manner, and not detract with childish insults and snide comments. It's not hard.

I understand the job of moderator, and can see this from your point of view as well, but from my point of view this guy is displaying the same kind of attitude toward multiple people in this thread. I guess time will tell if it's a "mutual affray" type situation or something else. I'm not a fanboy or a nationalist, and I don't exaggerate or make up facts. That is the part I objected to. Sometimes if you dispute with certain people on the internet you can end up appearing to be the same, but that isn't necessarily the case.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My point and request have not changed…