Military Review

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

36

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.

36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gurzuf
    gurzuf April 25 2021 13: 24
    +16
    One of the most massive Soviet fighters of the war era was the single-engine Yak-9, not the Yak-3.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 25 2021 13: 59
      +1
      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.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 25 2021 14: 09
        +8
        Quote: Stroporez
        A total of 16 aircraft were built.

        Unlike 4111 Yak-3 ...
        And the same La-5 was built over 10
        1. gurzuf
          gurzuf April 25 2021 14: 32
          +2
          La-5 (La-5F, La-5FN) something like this.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 25 2021 15: 02
            0
            Quote: gurzuf
            La-5 (La-5F, La-5FN) something like this.

            Yak-3 was also modernized during production, albeit not so dramatically, but nevertheless
            1. dauria
              dauria April 26 2021 12: 45
              +4
              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"
        2. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter April 25 2021 15: 13
          +4
          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.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 25 2021 15: 18
            +2
            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
            1. Sling cutter
              Sling cutter April 25 2021 16: 11
              +4
              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.
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 25 2021 16: 13
                +1
                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
                1. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 25 2021 16: 29
                  +2
                  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".
                  1. Ryazan87
                    Ryazan87 April 26 2021 18: 50
                    0
                    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.
              2. Ryazan87
                Ryazan87 April 26 2021 18: 49
                0
                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.
          2. Mooh
            Mooh April 25 2021 17: 37
            +5
            I remember Drapkin

            Why are you doing this with DraBkin. One letter is confused, but the meaning is immediately offensive. repeat
            And then he will write something about the VO reader - Zhoporez and off we go :)))
            1. Sling cutter
              Sling cutter April 25 2021 18: 27
              +3
              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. hi
  2. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov April 25 2021 13: 42
    +6
    "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 ??
  3. Free wind
    Free wind April 25 2021 14: 04
    +1
    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.
    1. Torins
      Torins April 25 2021 14: 25
      +7
      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.
      1. Anatole Klim
        Anatole Klim April 25 2021 15: 11
        +2
        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.
        1. Avior
          Avior April 25 2021 23: 29
          +2
          Anything happened in Stalingrad
          During the two months of defense of the Pavlov House, out of 31 defenders, three people were killed.
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 16: 02
      +2
      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.
      1. Avior
        Avior April 25 2021 23: 25
        0
        Casualties and combat losses are not the same
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 03: 19
          0
          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.
          1. Ryazan87
            Ryazan87 April 26 2021 18: 59
            +2
            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)
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U April 27 2021 03: 51
              +1
              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.
          2. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk April 27 2021 12: 48
            0
            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.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U April 27 2021 12: 57
              0
              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?
              1. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk April 27 2021 17: 13
                -1
                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.
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U April 27 2021 17: 58
                  0
                  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
      2. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 April 26 2021 18: 55
        +1
        You add to them the losses of air defense aviation, navy and long-range aviation.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 27 2021 03: 52
          0
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          You add to them the losses of air defense aviation, navy and long-range aviation.

          Yes, I'll take note, thanks.
    3. mat-vey
      mat-vey April 27 2021 15: 02
      0
      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."
  4. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 16: 04
    0
    As a historian like Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich! And the middle name is suitable.
  5. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx April 25 2021 18: 35
    +2
    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.
  6. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 26 2021 04: 10
    +2
    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) ..
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. place
    place 27 May 2021 15: 05
    0
    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."