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

[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

 

[Just Schmidt]

A lot can be said, and has been said, about the Soviet airforce and societies shortcomings. Some were directly political, others were more geographical and demographic. When all is said and done, there are remarkable similarities between Tzarist Russia, the USSR and Russia of today. This is a statement meant to contextualize my opinions about the VVS, I do not wish to expand on it, as this would be a political discussion. There are of course also many differences.
'Russia' (as it was the dominant state in the USSR) in different incarnations have frequently been throwing it's weight around and in the process helped to shape important bits of European history. The operative word here is weight, it has often most been without too much finesse and at excessive cost to Russian society. But Russia has more often than not been able to shed some weight and keep going. In WW2 it faced other states whose efficiency on many points were less than optimal. Still they had achieved remarkable results early on also against the western allies, nobody is perfect.
The VVS did make a difference, and it did possess a few good designs. Maybe even a few well build examples of them, somebody please chime in if the fact about Normandie-Niemen preferring the Yak-3 above all other indeginous and available western fighters (the last in practice probably not including anything better than the latest P-39.) has been convincingly proven to be nothing but propaganda.
I am aware of and interested in the discussion about the effectiveness and soundness of the Il-2. Still sheer numbers did make an impact, and being resilient against rifle calibre fire have some merit for a ground attacker.
Proof of the efficiency of the Soviet airforce is that Germany to the end kept some fighters on the eastern front, and did not move all AAA away either. Heck, the Finns found it worth their while to salvage whatever they were able to from the junk yards of aviation (Russian types included).
I am in no doubt that better results in theory were possible and, in a perfect world, should have been achieved. But in a perfect world w would not have had two world wars. Plodding on, the Soviet airforce was in some sense good enough.
It did get help, and Soviet pilots filled cockpits that the USA either would have difficulties filling or were otherwise not inclined to fill. And which they hadn't already supplied to any of the other nations that benefitted from lend lease.
Stalin was a pri**, but for all its absurd horrors the USSR (from summer 1941) made winning the war easier for the other allies involved. And even though the Soviet airforce was 'good enough', we should always strive do do better than just good enough.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

I concur, the USAAF and the RAF could have easily done (and did) what the VVS did, the VVS however, was NOT capable of doing what the USAAF and RAF did.