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

 

[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.

 

[yulzari]

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.

Equally the VVS did not want to do what the RAF and USAAC/F did and chose accordingly. The obvious example is their love of the P39 and its successor the P63. It did not fit well to the RAF and USAAC requirements but did fit the requirements of the VVS and the P63 remained the core of the Soviet Far East air defence well into the jet age.

The Wallies maintained strategic air assaults as a separate force from ground operations as a huge part of their efforts whilst the Soviets were an army adjunct with the choices going to whether the aeroplane could either support Soviet troops on the ground or protect said aeroplanes.

The RAF differed from the USAAF in that it placed an absolute priority on UK Air Defence even at the expense of active theatres of war whilst the USAAF rated home defence at a very low priority. Both placed strategic bombing at a high priority whilst the Soviets had little interest in strategic bombing.

Of course this is simplified almost to absurdity but it does illustrate that a comparison of the effectiveness of the principal allied air forces easily descends into comparisons of apples with oranges. The measure should be how effective was the Soviet Air Forces at the task it chose.

 

[tomo pauk]

Equally the VVS did not want to do what the RAF and USAAC/F did and chose accordingly.

Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.

The obvious example is their love of the P39 and its successor the P63. It did not fit well to the RAF and USAAC requirements but did fit the requirements of the VVS and the P63 remained the core of the Soviet Far East air defence well into the jet age.

The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.
That neither of these was category 1 fighter, and was still regarded as equal if not better than the Soviet fighters says a lot about the Soviet fighters. Need to use gifted 5 foreign fighters' types and 3 foreign bomber types also says a lot.

Of course this is simplified almost to absurdity but it does illustrate that a comparison of the effectiveness of the principal allied air forces easily descends into comparisons of apples with oranges. The measure should be how effective was the Soviet Air Forces at the task it chose.

Were the Soviets efficient?

 

[GregP]

The Planes of Fame has a Yak-3 in Normandie-Niemen colors and we have heard from families of people who were there that they DID, in fact, choose the Yak over anything else. Ours is powered by an Allison and runs great.

Not exactly sure if the stories are true, but a few people and families of people who operated the actual Yaks say thay really liked them. For whatever that may be worth. Our Allison-powered Yak flies quite nicely and is well-liked by anyone who flies it.

 

[yulzari]

Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.


The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.
That neither of these was category 1 fighter, and was still regarded as equal if not better than the Soviet fighters says a lot about the Soviet fighters. Need to use gifted 5 foreign fighters' types and 3 foreign bomber types also says a lot.


Were the Soviets efficient?

I must go back over my posts to see where I said the Soviets were efficient at their task and as good as the RAF and Americans because I do not recall having said either. I do not know enough about the Soviet air forces to comment authoritatively on either matter but my point was merely that it is not a straight like for like comparison.

This is always an issue and needs refining into good at what? Just as the perennial which (insert preferred aeroplanes) was 'best' never defines 'best' at what and when?

 

[tomo pauk]

I must go back over my posts to see where I said the Soviets were efficient at their task and as good as the RAF and Americans because I do not recall having said either. I do not know enough about the Soviet air forces to comment authoritatively on either matter but my point was merely that it is not a straight like for like comparison.

I've asked a simple question, that, granted, is bound to have a complicated answer.

This is always an issue and needs refining into good at what? Just as the perennial which (insert preferred aeroplanes) was 'best' never defines 'best' at what and when?

We can do a thought excercise, perhaps in a sepatare thread? Say, VVS, with it's gear, manpower and leadership is moved to the UK & 'the east', and tasked to do what the RAF was being tasked to do, while in the same time, RAF as the whole is moved to the SU and must stem the Germans and others. Perhaps take a slice of time, say a few 6 months periods, and see who ends up as being a better contributor to defeating the Axis.

 

[GregP]

Len't not pretend that VVS was just as good as the RAF and the Americans, but that they chosen to do their job differently.


The P-39 and P-63 fell short of the RAF and AAF requirements. That was a bug, not a feature.
That neither of these was category 1 fighter, and was still regarded as equal if not better than the Soviet fighters says a lot about the Soviet fighters. Need to use gifted 5 foreign fighters' types and 3 foreign bomber types also says a lot.


Were the Soviets efficient?

The P-63 was a good fighter and could give a P-51 all it could handle. It was about 15 mph slower top speed at best height (if that matters .... mostly not) and didn't have the range of a P-51. But, if they were in the same airspace, the P-63 was not going to be easy meat for anyone.

It could have done just fine as a main fighter for the U.S.A., except the P-51 was already in serice, and so the P-63, though good, was not a "step forward" from the P-51. They made the right decision for the U.S.A.A.F. to use the P-51, but there was little wrong with the P-63 except for not enough range and an already-existing aircraft that was as good or better, with an in-place logistics chain and already-trained mechanices in the field.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-63 was a good fighter and could give a P-51 all it could handle. It was about 15 mph slower top speed at best height (if that matters .... mostly not) and didn't have the range of a P-51. But, if they were in the same airspace, the P-63 was not going to be easy meat for anyone.

It could have done just fine as a main fighter for the U.S.A., except the P-51 was already in serice, and so the P-63, though good, was not a "step forward" from the P-51. They made the right decision for the U.S.A.A.F. to use the P-51, but there was little wrong with the P-63 except for not enough range and an already-existing aircraft that was as good or better, with an in-place logistics chain and already-trained mechanices in the field.

It mattered that the P-51B was 30-40 mph faster than the P-63A, and that it have had double the range. It also mattered that the P-51B was earlier than the P-63A by several months.
The P-63 was a step backward vs. the P-51.

 

[marathag]

It mattered that the P-51B was 30-40 mph faster than the P-63A, and that it have had double the range. It also mattered that the P-51B was earlier than the P-63A by several months.
The P-63 was a step backward vs. the P-51.

at low altitudes, under 5000 feet, the P-61 was about 10mph faster than the P-51B

Yeah, the P-61 would suck as an escort. But the VVS wasn't using it as that.

Need to match available Hardware with the Doctrine at play

 

[tyrodtom]

The Planes of Fame has a Yak-3 in Normandie-Niemen colors and we have heard from families of people who were there that they DID, in fact, choose the Yak over anything else. Ours is powered by an Allison and runs great.

Not exactly sure if the stories are true, but a few people and families of people who operated the actual Yaks say thay really liked them. For whatever that may be worth. Our Allison-powered Yak flies quite nicely and is well-liked by anyone who flies it.

No big surprise that they chose a aircraft they had already been flying and was familiar with.
They took them back to France when they were disbanded, whatever became of those aircraft?
Isn't the Planes of Fame Yak-3 a modern construction ?
Is that fair to say it's got maybe a little better quality than that of an aircraft constructed in the middle of WW2, in Russia.

 

[GregP]

It mattered that the P-51B was 30-40 mph faster than the P-63A, and that it have had double the range. It also mattered that the P-51B was earlier than the P-63A by several months.
The P-63 was a step backward vs. the P-51.

Don't think it was that much faster but, in any case, the P-63 was a pretty decent aircraft. It just wasn't better thahn the P-51 that was already in service.

 

[tomo pauk]

at low altitudes, under 5000 feet, the P-61 was about 10mph faster than the P-51B
Yeah, the P-61 would suck as an escort. But the VVS wasn't using it as that.
Need to match available Hardware with the Doctrine at play

You probably mean P-63, not P-61?
Trick was that the P-51B was capable to fight any aircraft that the P-63 could, and trash a lot of them at any give altitude, while the vice-versa was not the case. Especially if the fight was to happen 500-600 miles away from the base.
P-63A came close to the P-51B under 20000 ft if the 1st have had installed the water-alcohol injection. If the P-51B was using 150 grade fuel, it was still coming up ahead by a good margin. Ditto for the P-51D.