Aviation and aviation industry of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War

One of the components of the Great Victory was undoubtedly work in the rear. Selfless labor in factories and factories, in the fields and in design bureaus, hours-long shifts at machine tools and drawing tablets. This is what made it possible to provide both the front and the rear with the necessary.

The first place, naturally, was the question of equipping the Red Army. Thousands of guns tanks, planes left the assembly lines of Soviet factories, millions of ammunition went to the front.

A special role in this case can be assigned to the creators of the Soviet military aviation, which played an incredible role in its importance and significance in the approach of the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Tactic Media channel's "Archival Revolution" features a narrative by the historian Mikhail Mukhin, dedicated to Soviet aircraft and the entire Soviet aviation industry during the war. The historian in this program focuses on the aircraft of the period 1942-1945.

One of the most massive Soviet fighters of the war era was the single-engine Yak-3. It made its first flight in the middle of the war, in February 1943, and began operating the USSR air fleet in April 1944. At the same time, its operation was not limited to the period of the Great Patriotic War. It lasted until 1952. The aircraft had more than a dozen different modifications.

About the planes and aviation industry during the Second World War - in the story on the aforementioned YouTube channel.

Comments

[gurzuf]

One of the most massive Soviet fighters of the war era was the single-engine Yak-9, not the Yak-3.

[Sling cutter]

Quote: gurzuf

One of the most massive Soviet fighters of the war era was the single-engine Yak-9, not the Yak-3.

Quite right! He is just one of the world's top five in terms of mass. A total of 16 aircraft were built.

[svp67]

Quote: Stroporez

A total of 16 aircraft were built.

Unlike 4111 Yak-3 ...
And the same La-5 was built over 10

[gurzuf]

La-5 (La-5F, La-5FN) something like this.

[svp67]

Quote: gurzuf

La-5 (La-5F, La-5FN) something like this.

Yak-3 was also modernized during production, albeit not so dramatically, but nevertheless

[dauria]

Yak-3 was also modernized during production, albeit not so dramatically, but nevertheless

the difference between BF.109 from B to E and from F to K is colossal. Much more than all yaks. However, the number of all messengers is considered to be one plane. We actually had two lines from I-26 to Yak-1, Yak-3 at the main Saratov plant. And the second more numerous line grew from its two-seat version UTI-26 to Yak7 and further to Yak-9 of the Novosibirsk main plant. The number of modifications of the cockpit canopy alone and the empty space behind it is such that only a fan can tell the difference from a bunch of other small details.
So the dispute "who is more" is equal to the dispute "and who is more, Messer G2 or K"

[Sling cutter]

Quote: svp67

Unlike 4111 Yak-3 ...
And the same La-5 was built over 10

I remember Drapkin in one of the memoirs of the pilot of the uch. a regiment about training air combat on the La-5 and Yak-9 (which many perceive as the Yak-3), not literally, but "spun as best he could, but the Lavochkin went in his tail three times."
in this sense, it is interesting to recall the article by Roman about Polikarpov's fighter.
In terms of characteristics, the car was very interesting and with potential.

[svp67]

Quote: Stroporez

I remember Drapkin in one of the memoirs of the pilot of the uch. a regiment about training air combat on the La-5 and Yak-9 (which many perceive as the Yak-3), not literally, but "spun as best he could, but the Lavochkin went in his tail three times."

Much depended on the pilots. And on what heights the battle was going on. The yak was more low-rise

[Sling cutter]

Quote: svp67

Much depended on the pilots. And on what heights the battle was going on. The yak was more low-rise

Taking into account the fact that all air battles on our front took place at heights of up to 5 thousand meters, the "lavochkin" look more serious In general, I have long been thinking that it was necessary at that terrible time, just to saturate the front by aviation, first of all, quantitatively, and tactics were already secondary at that time, although it was she who came to the fore by the beginning of 44.
Learned to fight.

[svp67]

Quote: Stroporez

Taking into account the fact that all air battles on our front took place at heights of up to 5 thousand meters, the "lavochkin" look more serious

One of the main tasks of the fighters was to escort and cover strike aircraft. And here Jacob is better, for this, especially in conjunction with attack aircraft, there was nothing

[Sling cutter]

Quote: svp67

One of the main tasks of the fighters was to escort and cover strike aircraft. And here Jacob is better, for this, especially stormtroopers, there was nothing

Duc in the charters it was spelled out that the main task of fighter aviation was the task of preserving the assault and bomber aviation.
Again, from memories, for avoiding escort or loss in attack aircraft and bombers from enemy fighters, one could be subjected not only to disciplinary sanctions, but up to a tribunal. Therefore, the combat pilots did not have so many high-profile victories. But when the "whatnot" tactics came along, the ratio of losses immediately changed. But that was after the Battle of Kursk. I was even scared to read "Tanks are coming in a diamond".

[Ryazan87]

The main task of fighter aircraft is to seize air supremacy. This is also the best means of preserving strike aircraft, and not at all covering with a "dense box" with a loss of speed and maneuvering capabilities.

[Ryazan87]

just saturate the front with aviation, first of all, quantitatively, and tactics were already secondary at that time

Then we begin to wonder at the kilometer-long scores of German aerial victories. "Saturation" for the quality of aircraft and the level of training of pilots could not give anything else. And only when by the 44th a solid layer of surviving pilots and commanders had formed, thinking about tactics, and the Germans were waging an air war on 4 fronts .. something began to turn out sane.

[Mooh]

I remember Drapkin

Why are you doing this with DraBkin. One letter is confused, but the meaning is immediately offensive.
And then he will write something about the VO reader - Zhoporez and off we go :)))

[Sling cutter]

Quote: MooH

Why are you doing this with DraBkin. One letter is confused, but the meaning is immediately offensive.

The misprint, for which I repent, does not change the meaning of the above.

[Sergey Valov]

"To exploit the air fleet of the USSR it began" - okay, the author who wrote THIS is illiterate, but why is this not being edited on the site ??

[Free wind]

The loss of our pilots is about 36 thousand people. In total, about 8 million soldiers died. Infantry on itself and dragged through the entire war.

[Torins]

It is foolish to compare losses in infantry and aviation, and even more so to draw a conclusion from this who "dragged" how much ... Aviation without infantry does not make sense - this is an axiom, but the difference in losses in itself does not say anything.

[Anatole Klim]

Quote: Torins

but the difference in losses in itself does not say anything.

That's right, everyone fought, both infantry and tankmen, artillerymen, sappers, pilots, sailors, military doctors and railway workers, partisans ...
The outstanding sniper Vasily Zaitsev noted in his memoirs that the average life expectancy of a Soviet soldier in Stalingrad was no more than a day. At the same time, in half an hour of the attacking battle, an entire company of infantry perished.
As for the tankers, according to experts, during the attack, the tank crew lived on average for 7 minutes. When going on the defensive, this figure doubled.
One fighter was enough for 2.5 sorties, and a bomber only for 1. Of course, the destruction of a car does not always mean the death of the pilot.

[Avior]

Anything happened in Stalingrad
During the two months of defense of the Pavlov House, out of 31 defenders, three people were killed.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Free Wind

The loss of our pilots is about 36 thousand people,

Combat losses of spacecraft Air Force pilots during the war amounted to 27 people, including 600 attack pilots, 7837 fighters, 11 bombers, 874 reconnaissance aircraft, 6613 auxiliary aviation.

[Avior]

Casualties and combat losses are not the same

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Avior

Casualties and combat losses are not the same

Yeah, only in our country, unlike the Germans, they tried to record non-combat losses as combat losses as much as possible, there was such a manner of eyewash.

[Ryazan87]

Here is from the report of the 9th Gshad:
... IL-2 No. 1873078 arrived at the division in January 1943 (!), One of the first vehicles, not a military series, but of serial production, was decommissioned on June 10, 1945. During this time, it flew 274 sorties, was damaged 68 times by enemy fire and made three forced landings in the field (of which apparently two with the landing gear retracted). Three engines and fuselage were replaced.
I wonder how many times he was listed as shot down in Soviet statistics or in German?
... IL-2 No. 1874577 arrived at the division in February 1943, was decommissioned on June 10, 1945. During this time, it flew 314 sorties and was damaged 72 times by enemy fire. Survived two landings with retracted landing gear, was replaced three engines and fuselage.

"... For a full-fledged reduction to a common denominator with the Luftwaffe. Nobody wants to tell, replacing the fuselage is how many% of damage?" (from)

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ryazanets87

Nobody wants to tell you, fuselage replacement is how much damage%?

The fuselage is still not a body, its stupidly resource for takeoffs and landings could end, and even taking into account the damage, but the motors were just consumables.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yeah, only in our country, unlike the Germans, they tried to record non-combat losses as combat losses as much as possible, there was such a manner of eyewash.

And you know everything. They were not otherwise a witness.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

And you know everything. They were not otherwise a witness.

This is described in many memoirs and studies, but I will add, among the Germans, on the contrary, they tried to take combat losses to non-combat ones, including human ones. Are you going to be ironic about this too?

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Are you going to be ironic about this too?

Will. Let's take our commander of an air regiment, a division. What good is it to him to write down non-combat losses as combat ones? If you lost your car for technical reasons, then on the contrary, point out this, meaning the claim against aircraft manufacturers. If for the reason of the pilot, then again the claim to the flight schools. What good is it to him to hide? After all, it is not his fault.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

Will. Let's take our commander of an air regiment, a division. What good is it to him to write down non-combat losses as combat ones? If you lost your car for technical reasons, then on the contrary, point out this, meaning the claim against aircraft manufacturers. If for the reason of the pilot, then again the claim to the flight schools. What good is it to him to hide? After all, it is not his fault.

The motives of your regiment commander are understandable, but I think they would be very different from his own motives in wartime, and even under pressure from the command:

Shimanov: “Instead of reporting to the People's Commissar that the planes were falling apart in the air, we sat at meetings and wrote schedules for eliminating defects on the planes. Novikov and Repin pursued persons who signaled that unusable aircraft were entering the army. For example, Colonel Katz suffered. "

Seleznev: "A lot of motors were out of order. I take the blame, that the military representatives handed over to the units formally "suitable", but in fact defective aircraft. "

Novikov: "He commanded the Air Force from April 1942 to March 1946. The flawed system of aircraft acceptance existed before me. There was a shortage of aircraft at the fronts, and this circumstance I was forced not to respond to various kinds of defects... Besides, I am not an engineer, which is why I simply underestimated a number of technical issues. "

This is the famous Novikov-Shakhurin case, it is obvious that being afraid of the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force and being forced to cover the high accident rate of the regiment commander would have to write down the aircraft lost due to malfunction in combat losses. I do not want to offend specifically your friend-colleague, I just show very likely motives. This is by technique.
Now about the personnel. It is not the school that is responsible for the combat training of personnel, but the unit commander, and for high losses for non-combat reasons, they will ask and have asked from the commander. There is no need to invent something about the school's guilt; it is the commander who will complete the training and run it in.

According to the Military Historical Report on the military operations of the DCBF Air Force in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945, part three, 1946,

as a result of non-combat losses, 625 airplanes are irretrievably lost
did not return from task 364
crashed on landing from combat damage 353
shot down by fighter aircraft 558
shot down by anti-aircraft artillery 308
Total: 2208

It can be assumed with a high degree of certainty that of the 364 who did not return from half of the mission can be attributed to non-combat losses.
Out of 353 crashed on board according to war veterans, at least every third, or even second, was lost not at all due to combat damage, but was simply broken because of the common mistakes of pilots in piloting technique.

Victor Sokerin, Honored Military Pilot of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant-General of the Reserve, Commander of the Air Force and Air Defense of the BF in 2000-2004
https://topwar.ru/14182-neboevye-poteri.html

[Ryazan87]

You add to them the losses of air defense aviation, navy and long-range aviation.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ryazanets87

You add to them the losses of air defense aviation, navy and long-range aviation.

Yes, I'll take note, thanks.

[mat-vey]

Quote: Free Wind

The loss of our pilots is about 36 thousand people. In total, about 8 million soldiers died.

So there weren't millions of pilots ... there weren't even hundreds of thousands ...
"Suffice it to say that the flight schools of the country of the Soviets graduated 44 pilots during the war, of which 093 (27%) people died in battles."

[Vladimir_2U]

As a historian like Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich! And the middle name is suitable.

[Al_lexx]

One of the components of the Great Victory was undoubtedly work in the rear. Selfless labor in factories and factories, in the fields and in design bureaus, hours-long shifts at machine tools and drawing tablets. This is what made it possible to provide both the front and the rear with the necessary.

This is what I tried to convey here a few days ago, but for some reason the local couch "generals" politely minus me.))
There would not have been any Victory if they had not been able to take out the production facilities of their Western USSR in time for the Urals. This is an obvious fact. And to argue, which is more important, military operations or production, in a war of this magnitude, is nothing more than militant amateurism.
I think so.

[Pavel57]

When comparing individual aircraft models, it must be borne in mind that the USSR had three new aircraft before the War - Lagg, Mig and Yak, which eventually gave the basis for 2 families of La and Yak fighters. (MiG - in mass production went out of the way). The Lavochkin family is represented by a development line, which, having gone from Lagg-1/3 - La-5 - to La-7, was essentially a logical development of one project.

The same can be said about the Yak family of aircraft with two branches - Yak1-Yak-3 and Yak-7 - Yak-9, which grew out of the Yak-1.

If we take an analogy, then a similar development can be seen in the English Spyfire with Merlin from Mk1-Mk5-Mk to the latest modifications from Mk XiV and further with Griffon. (Albeit without air-cooled motors) ..

[place]

Much depended on the pilots, but no less depended on the aircraft industry.
During the war years, the USSR produced about 200 aircraft of all types, and Germany about 000.
In tanks and small arms there was also superiority "at times". (KV tank - more than 3000 units, IS-2 more than 3000 units, Tiger tank - 1400 units)
Here it is - the reason for the victory! In the war of the 20th century, the winner is the country that has more cheap raw materials, is able to mobilize industry and does not suffer from the stranglehold of market prices. Here, by the way - remember the words of Charles Montesquieu: "The market supports the state as much as a rope is hanged."