How good was the soviet air force? (4 Viewers)

[Snautzer01]

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on a local TV and radio company - about a trip to Moscow for the 80th anniversary of Victory:

- Do you have any information about who, besides you, of the European leaders, will go to Moscow in May?

- I'm not one of those monkeys who thinks about whether someone will go or not. I'm not worried about whether someone will go or not. This is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory over fascism.

- Aren't you worried about being there alone?

- Mr. Editor, what respect do we show these people? Where did this freedom come from in Slovakia? Did she come from Norway? Or from Africa? Or did she come from the West? After all, freedom came to Slovakia clearly from the east, and all the peoples who were part of the Red Army suffered incredibly.

- What kind of signal does this send to our society?

- I am sending a signal that I understand who played a decisive role in the Second World War. Without the former Soviet Union, Hitler would never have been defeated. This is the first one. And secondly, the Red Army played a decisive role in the liberation of the whole of Czechoslovakia. So why didn't you scream when I was at the Normandy anniversary? I went there and why didn't you ask me that question then? Why didn't you tell me then, Fico, what you were doing there? Well, of course, it's completely different for you.

Liberation of France took 2 years. The liberation of Czechoslovakia took until 1992. You do not seem to remember how it was there.

I was there before the wall went.

And please do not forget land lease again ( the basics as in plains train trucks fuel aluminium intelligentes etc etc etc) for wich without the panzers would have been parked on Красная площадь.
Our Russions friends make a habit of that.
It is true the soviets ( that is quite a bit more peoples then Russians) destroyed a good part of the beast.
It was never the plan that liberation came from the East.
Oh and why forgetting yank tanks and infanterie and airplanes in said territory...liberating stuff...


Dont know what you reasons are but historical they are not.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Mr. Fico should also remember that without the West and Lend Lease the Soviet forces may not have faired so well. Additionally without the Mediterranean and Western Front in 1943 and 1944, the German's could have concentrated many more forces and resources to the Eastern Front.

The defeat of Germany was a complete Allied effort, let's not forget that.

 

[SaparotRob]

Mr. Fico should also remember that without the West and Lend Lease the Soviet forces may not have faired so well. Additionally without the Mediterranean and Western Front in 1943 and 1944, the German's could have concentrated many more forces and resources to the Eastern Front.

The defeat of Germany was a complete Allied effort, let's not forget that.

If he said that, Fico wouldn't have received his payola.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mr. Fico should also remember that without the West and Lend Lease the Soviet forces may not have faired so well. Additionally without the Mediterranean and Western Front in 1943 and 1944, the German's could have concentrated many more forces and resources to the Eastern Front.

The defeat of Germany was a complete Allied effort, let's not forget that.

Not sure how many T-34s would have been built without American steel for the armor or American aluminum for the engine-blocks. Nor 15 million pair of boots to shoe their army, nor deuce-and-a-halfs to truck them across Eastern Europe.

Don't get me wrong, the Soviets killed more Germans than the Brits and Americans. But they couldn't have done that without direct and material aid.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed. I will never minimize the effort or sacrifice of the Red Army. The Soviets played a massive part. But all in all it took an "Allied Effort" to win the war.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. I will never minimize the effort or sacrifice of the Red Army. The Soviets played a massive part. But all in all it took an "Allied Effort" to win the war.

The Soviets soldiers undertook hardships not only from their enemy, but also from their command structure.

Pretty sure they were happy for the boots and tires and gasoline all the same.

 

[bf109xxl]

I'm curious, since when did the Slovak president's [anti-]historical views become a topic in a thread about Soviet aviation?

 

[ThomasP]

Possibly it could be moved to the World News and Events thread? Probably in the News thread?

 

[bf109xxl]

Possibly it could be moved...

...or simply deleted as an attempt of Russian political propaganda here.

 

[ThomasP]

I cannot say whether it was intended as Russian propaganda or not on the part of Texnuk (or on the part of Fico for that matter), but (I think) it is a newsworthy event.

Also, although I can see where the replies are coming from, we should not forget that the Soviets did destroy the majority of the German army and air force (I have seen many different numbers but they usually seem to hover around 70%) while taking huge losses (again the numbers vary a lot, but probably a minimum of around 8M-9M military personnel killed?) - said losses suffered by the US/UK/French in the ETO&MTO (~750,000 total military personnel killed?) seeming small in comparison.

I say all of the above in spite of the fact that I would cheerfully help with the removal of Putin (and any other parties responsible for the invasion of Ukraine) from this reality.

 

[bf109xxl]

I cannot say whether it was intended as Russian propaganda or not on the part of Texnuk (or on the part of Fico for that matter),

Certainly. It is a typical way of modern Russian propaganda to refer to the words of any weird West politicians (usually sponsored by Putin). What made Fico think anyone would forget something? Who gave him the right to insult European leaders? Moreover, many people still remember very well on whose side the Slovaks fought before 1943 (or even 1944) - as well as the Tiso laws under which Jews in Slovakia were sent to death camps.

but (I think) it is a newsworthy event.

May be.

Also, although I can see where the replies are coming from, we should not forget that the Soviets did destroy the majority of the German army and air force

Wehrmacht, not Luftwaffe.

(I have seen many different numbers but they usually seem to hover around 70%) while taking huge losses (again the numbers vary a lot, but probably a minimum of around 8M-9M military personnel?) - said losses suffered by the US/UK/French in the ETO&MTO (~750,000 total military personnel?) seeming small in comparison.

This is well known - at least, in Europe. It should be mentioned that the high Soviet casualties were partly due to abysmal command at all levels.

I say all of the above in spite of the fact that I would cheerfully help with the removal of Putin (and any other parties responsible for the invasion of Ukraine) from this reality.

Sometimes I think that any attempts to be impartial and objective only serve to infiltrate the most disgusting Russian propaganda.

 

[ThomasP]

re

Sometimes I think that any attempts to be impartial and objective only serve to infiltrate the most disgusting Russian propaganda.

To a degree I agree , but to ignore the Soviet sacrifice in WWII is to demean that sacrifice to some extent, which is (I think) wrong - regardless of the current situation. The fact that some militaries were/are ineptly led (or even inept as individuals) does not change their level of sacrifice in the overall sense - or what point in the level of competence vs number of military personnel killed does it become proper to honor their sacrifice?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

re


To a degree I agree , but to ignore the Soviet sacrifice in WWII is to demean that sacrifice to some extent, which is (I think) wrong - regardless of the current situation. The fact that some militaries were/are ineptly led (or even inept as individuals) does not change their level of sacrifice in the overall sense - or what point in the level of competence vs number of military personnel killed does it become proper to honor their sacrifice?

I don't think anyone should disparage the Soviet soldier. They were as shit-bound as Japanese or USMC troops and in many cases just as hellbound.

 

[BiffF15]

I don't think anyone should disparage the Soviet soldier. They were as shit-bound as Japanese or USMC troops and in many cases just as hellbound.

Thump,
I don't disparage any of them. The common soldier has no choice about going to war. That is unfortunately done by someone who usually has never had skin in that game.
Cheers,
Biff

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump,
I don't disparage any of them. The common soldier has no choice about going to war. That is unfortunately done by someone who usually has never had skin in that game.
Cheers,
Biff

Right. Further to that, Soviet soldiers were noted for their fighting ability, by the Germans, no less.

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45

Even with massive numerical advantage and newer fighter types, the exchange rate for the Soviets against the Luftwaffe was not much better in 1943-44, than it was in 1941.

I'm from Russia, I'm new here. Hello. I agree with your words, but in 1941 the advantage of the size of the Soviet AF was even greater than in 1944. But it is worth comparing the known number of combat flight of pilots and aircraft.

My position: Stalin's regime is based on lies. We were told here a powerful Soviet myth that was developed for half a century. The knowledge of "pripiski" is equally strong in the USSR. It is difficult for a citizen of a democracy, whom I was for a short time, to make this feel.

Therefore, it is easier to start with framed facts. For example: the many mentioned Ju 87s flew until May 1945, but exclusively over Soviet troops. There was no need to use Me 262, Ar 234, V-1 and V-2. From here we can start discussing the Red Air Force, which managed to suffer losses even in Finland.

 

[HP52]

When I think of WW2 air combat i think of the US with the mustangs, the British with the Spitfires, the Germans with 109s and 190s, the Japanese with Zeros, and the Italians with the RE.2001. I almost never hear of soviet air to air. I have heard of the Il-2 and IL-10 which are both ground attack. I have heard other forum users refer to the "Yaks". I know they are made by Yakovlev but I don't think that the official designation was Yak. Was it? Was there also other companys making soviet fighters. I know ilyushin made the IL series but from what I know they are primarily ground attackers.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer this. Sorry if it was a stupid question.

Not a stupid question - but also think Kittyhawk. While my Dad was at Vaenga they had some P40's shipped in (PQ-18 or before). One did a wheels up. The Russians lifted it up and rested it on 3, 44 Gallon drums. Cut out and replaced bent longerons, dressed up the bent panels and had it back in action that afternoon!

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

You don't quite understand correctly.

The Yak-3 is a new-built fuselage mated to original Yak-3 wings taken from a Yak-11 that had itself been converted to a Yak-11 from from a damages Yak-3. It was damaged in a taxi accident and the original wings were undamaged and saved. Their workmanship is quite reasonable and not very many repairs were needed for "hangar rash" from storage type damage. They were not built badly originally.

I have some experience with other Soviet and Soviet bloc aircraft and they are not badly built in general. A good friend of mine had a MiG-15 UTI and a regular MiG-15 bis. Both were well-built. Another acquaintance had a PZL TS-11 Iskra. It, too was well-built. The Planes of Fame operates still another MiG-15 bis that is also well-built and reliable.

You seem to believe Soviet hardware is junk. Perhaps I mistake that. The flying examples of it I have been up close and personal with are not junk. They may not have quite the same sophistication as western military aircraft, true ... but they are well built, robust, and seem reliable enough to have been operating for years without major issues. Not having the same electronic capabilities as the west is not the same as "bad airplane." All it means is they may not see you coming until after you do your damage in aerial combat.

I worked for several years on a Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon restoration. It is basically a Bf 109G-2 with a Merlin on the front and a 4-blade propeller. I saw as many or more design issues on it as I did on the Soviet aircraft I worked on. In fact, we made a reliability modification to it by moving the hydraulic pump from the engine bay (the only source of high heat in the airplane) to behind the cockpit and balancing it by moving the battery from behind the cockpit to the engine compartment and making a battery box. A a result, that particular Ha.1112 will never have a hydraulic fire since the only thing that was hydraulic is the landing gear retraction. The flaps were manual, operated by a wheel in the cockpit to the pilot's left, concentric with the stab trim wheel. It was together and running but is now back apart as the engine is being overhauled.

Overall, I am not very impressed with the Bf 109 as a design after working on one for several years. The glaring deficiencies are too easy to correct for it to be consider by me as a great airplane. Serviceable? yes. Decent? likely. Better than decent? No.

We also fly a Flugwerk Fw 190A-8/N. It isn't a real Fw 190 and uses a P&W R-2800, but is considerably better as a design than the Bf 109. The Flugwerk airplanes do not have the upper cowling cannon mounts, so they lack the engine mount structural strength imparted by the stressed cannon mounts. As a result, they are basically 4.4-g airplanes due to engine mount strength. Otherwise, they fly fine.

As a colleague has already correctly written, you are writing about the post-war production. In 1945, literally all fighters began to be quickly scrapping. With the huge and ongoing production after the war, by 1946 the Air Force found a shortage of aircraft, although many pilots were demobilized. The basis was Lend-Lease fighters. P-63, for example, in the air defense of the USSR until 1953. Here I note that the USSR did not pay for their delivery, although it had to pay or return them under the contract.
The Iskra and Delfine you mentioned was built in Poland, at nazi factories. The rapid improvement in technology is due to the fact that factories were moved from the east of the Reich, where they were not so bombed. Often together with workers and technologists in the USSR. German has become the main foreign language in schools. The same Yak-3U and -9U are post-war, with the replacement of many wooden parts with metal ones. Also La-9 and La-11.
In particular, the USSR was slow to realize the importance of sustainability. The fame of the maneuverability of those fighters is largely due to their rear alignment, instability. Although this error was discovered in 1941, it was not corrected in some places by 1945. It was difficult to fly on Soviet planes. The glorious Il-2 suffered from this until 1944, when the sweep of the wing consoles was increased. On an unstable aircraft, the shooter's place was attached right at the airfields, shifting the gravity back. The precision of production, the quality of the forest (ALL Soviet fighters are wooden), the quality of the canvas, varnish... For example, a LaGG is designed from wood impregnated with phenolic resin under pressure. But that resin was purchased until the spring of 1941 in Germany! Therefore, in the summer it had to be converted to an ordinary tree, which took a long time to dry. And the main timber harvesting was carried out in the Baltic States. Aircraft factories began to be built there, not beyond the Urals, in 1941.
But all this is not written everywhere, of course. It is much easier to quote articles from Soviet magazines for young scale modelers. However, before Barbarossa, the USSR bought the Me 109E, He 111 etc. According to Soviet reports, they are worse than the Soviet ones.
And there were thousands of bombers in the USSR, which "for some reason" are unworthy of mention. The mentioned Pe-2 and Tu-2 did not dive. After the war: a pair of hundred were built from the spring of 1944. He didn't dive either, though. By the way, the Pe-2 was a metal and very expensive, complex aircraft. With hard pilotage.

 

[HP52]

One other important factor to keep in mind. The best Western, and to some extent Japanese and German aircraft, were designed somewhat for universal combat environments. With some exceptions, they could fight high or low, they could fly escort or air superiority missions, and could contend with enemy fighters, strike aircraft, or heavy bombers - the latter requiring very heavy armament

Soviet aircraft in general, and their fighters in particular, were not designed for universal conditions. They were designed specifically for the battlefield in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. They were designed to endure very rough field conditions, to withstand truly extreme cold, (and considerable heat during the summer in the southern part of the Theater). They were made in full knowledge of the conditions of the war - the high loss rate. They carried relatively few guns, often just one or two (though usually at least one autocannon, and their cannon were very good). Their guns were in the nose and their doctrine advocated shooting from short range. They didn't carry a lot of ammunition. They did not have two stage or multi-speed superchargers, so most of their planes did not perform well above 12-15,000 ft. This limited their top speed.

But for the Soviets, since they were not doing or contending with much Strategic bombing, (and that mostly at night), and did not have to deal with real heavy bombers ala B-17, they were not interested in high top speed at 25,000 ft. They wanted planes that were fast at 5,000 and 10,000 feet, to cover the front. That is what the VVS means - frontal aviation. Their job was to shoot down German fighters and Stukas, and Ju-88s and various other light and medium bombers. To strafe enemy ground troops and shoot rockets at them.

They were highly tailored to this role. They were (mostly) made of laminated plywood of ubiquitous birch, extremely plentiful in Russia. They used a minimum of metals in their construction, though they did have armor. They were fast and agile down low, small and low-drag (assuming the manufacturing problems were sufficiently sorted out, and the pilot kept the windscreen on). Smaller planes make smaller targets and are harder to spot.

Many around here judge Soviet aircraft by Western standards. A Yak-3, the argument goes, is inferior to a P-47, because it can't fight at 35,000 ft, and it only has three guns, and it has short range. The Soviets, notably, were offered the P-47, but they almost laughed at it. Thought it was an interesting and well made aircraft, but that it was "not a fighter". They could have had as many P-47s as they wanted. Theirs were better for their own role. Even the Spitfire was relegated to air defense (PVO) units, as it didn't do very well on the front line battlefield.

The Soviet aircraft were optimized for the environment. They were cheaply made, almost to the point of being disposable, which many of them were. The Soviets lost 46,000 combat aircraft in WW2. At that rate, they could not afford to put leather seats in each one. The Germans lost somewhere around 10 -25,000 planes on the Eastern front too (the exact figure is still debated). The German planes were a lot better made, with more features. More instruments on the control panel, better engines. More guns. And also much more expensive in terms of work hours to build them, and strategic materials like aluminum and steel. Their pilots and aircrew were more "expensive" to train as well.

I did like the contemporary quote "The pilot could take evasive action by running around inside the fuselage. G

 

[Ernest (Russia)]

Just one question - how many Russian-language sources have you studied? Especially interesting, how much of the pilots' memories did you take into account? For my part, I can say that I have familiarized myself with dozens of interviews of Soviet pilots and the situation with the quality of radio communication they PRACTICALLY ALL describe in the same way. Those of them who fought on Lend-Lease aircraft were unequivocally satisfied with the radio communication. But those who fought with RSI-3/-4 very rarely used positive expressions to describe them. American radios were installed on the Yak-9DD because it was necessary to provide a longer range of radio communication - Soviet radios did not allow it.
And many pilots expressed the opinion that the quality of radio communications was often more important than flight performance.

Oh, yeah? Where was the fighter vs. fighter war? The Soviets prioritized escorting bombers and attack aircraft - the Yaks were ideal for that. They tried to use La and Cobras more often for free hunting, but they also had to escort and suffer losses due to suboptimal tactics.
But this situation remained almost unchanged during the war. However, the balance of forces changed very significantly. And even the Soviets could not use their huge superiority in numbers, making gross errors in the use of the air force.

I will support you again. Not only radio communication (say, headphones. in which something can be heard), but also the visibility, range, landing speed... They wrote here that they say Soviet aircraft are adapted to Soviet airfields. But how? Hurricane was ordered before 1944, because they have a MUCH lower speed. And a cooling system for VERY different weather conditions. And the review! And the guns! And the number of rounds!
Still, they understand that the review will be achieved mainly by reducing the speed and range in the flight spec, which is so loved by the laymen. In the USSR, its importance was understood, but the designers were asked not the visibility, but the speed.There were no dump tanks either. And there is no navigation equipment. Then we are amazed that the Yak is so light. Hence the non-combat losses of even experienced pilots. And the pilot's experience is the main resource. If a German ace reached the score of 100, he became immortal, as it were, until his plane or colleagues let him down.
The maintainability of Soviet equipment is poor. There was even a belief that planes, tanks, guns, and trucks were disposable. Yes, if they are Soviet.
Even the descriptions of foreign planes are better than the Soviet ones. After the war and in the USSR, for some time they tried to hold on to foreign samples in descriptions and manuals, but it was not enough for a long time.
Describe such important things as tires, glazing, ventilation and heating, oxygen equipment. You can look for heaters on Soviet aircraft of that time. But they also fought in the Black Sea steppes in the summer.
Finally, the well-known thesis is that in the east they flew low. But because the side with the numerical advantage could not use the height for long-range strikes. If the Air Force is flying low, then they are losing. All the others increased the altitude and range of raids. To attack at low altitude, but to fly there - at high altitude.