Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet Navy's Airforce

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soviet Navy's Airforce

    One of the books I like most is "The Baltic Skies" , written by Nicolai Tsukosky. In this novel, you can see the action of Baltic Fleet's airforce during WW 2. In fact, many books have been written about the victories of Red Army airforce, but quite few about Fleet's. So, I want to discuss about the action of Soviet Navy airforce and PVO.
    Some problems are:
    1. In his memoirs, Marshal Zhukov wrote that in June 22nd, 1941 , the AAA of Black Fleet defeated the air-raid of Luftwaffe. No books else writes about this. So, what's about the truth?
    2. Can you tell me some bombing mission of Soviet Navy during WW2. I know that Navy's bomber used to attack Germany, Romanian and Finland airbase, industrial complex ... in night-bombing mission.
    3. There are a lot of different opinion of Lend-Lease aircraft. I know that these aircraft were used quite widely in Fleet's Airforce, especially Hurricanes and Airacobra. Is it true that these aircraft weren't very good, easily to catch fire and even worse than I-16 or I-153?
    So, have a good day.
    "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

  • #2
    I can answer some of your questions.

    Read the memoirs of Admiral Kuznetsov here:

    http://admiral.centro.ru/start_e.htm

    Here:

    http://admiral.centro.ru/book05.htm

    The Soviet Navy was ready for the attack since Admiral Kuznetsov had decided war was inevitable and ordered a state of readiness.

    As for the Lend-Lease planes, well the Hurricanes (mostly used) were not that favoured, even the armament was replaced. The Aircobras, even with some faults (CG off because of the rear placement of the engine leading to nasty spins if not careful) were very well liked and the Soviets gave a lot of input to the design and construction of the next versions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for reply.
      Maybe I need time to read all of them. They seem to be quite interesting.
      I asked about the Hurricanes because in this novel I had mentioned, the Hurricanes were very easily caught fire, even when be shot from quite far range (300m, if I remember exactly ). This seems to be quite difficult to understand. I've never heard about that in other sources. But I don't believe that the author made this story up.
      "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RGA View Post
        One of the books I like most is "The Baltic Skies" , written by Nicolai Tsukosky. In this novel, you can see the action of Baltic Fleet's airforce during WW 2. In fact, many books have been written about the victories of Red Army airforce, but quite few about Fleet's. So, I want to discuss about the action of Soviet Navy airforce and PVO.
        Some problems are:
        1. In his memoirs, Marshal Zhukov wrote that in June 22nd, 1941 , the AAA of Black Fleet defeated the air-raid of Luftwaffe. No books else writes about this. So, what's about the truth?
        Yes, on June 22 AA defense of Sevastopol sucessfully parried attempt of German Luftwaffe to set mines in Sevastopol harbor.

        2. Can you tell me some bombing mission of Soviet Navy during WW2. I know that Navy's bomber used to attack Germany, Romanian and Finland airbase, industrial complex ... in night-bombing mission.
        It's long story
        read for example here
        http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewt...ghlight=berlin


        3. There are a lot of different opinion of Lend-Lease aircraft. I know that these aircraft were used quite widely in Fleet's Airforce, especially Hurricanes and Airacobra. Is it true that these aircraft weren't very good, easily to catch fire and even worse than I-16 or I-153?
        So, have a good day.
        Hurricanes were not very good. Most of them were shabby enough.
        So at least they were not much better than I-16.
        I-153 in any case was worse because of too low speed
        Airacobras were enough good ant definitely better than both I-16 and I-153.
        but it had some bad features (mortal flat spin ability, for example).

        Regards,
        Alex
        If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RGA View Post
          One of the books I like most is "The Baltic Skies" , written by Nicolai Tsukosky. In this novel, you can see the action of Baltic Fleet's airforce during WW 2. In fact, many books have been written about the victories of Red Army airforce, but quite few about Fleet's. So, I want to discuss about the action of Soviet Navy airforce and PVO.
          Some problems are:
          1. In his memoirs, Marshal Zhukov wrote that in June 22nd, 1941 , the AAA of Black Fleet defeated the air-raid of Luftwaffe. No books else writes about this. So, what's about the truth?
          2. Can you tell me some bombing mission of Soviet Navy during WW2. I know that Navy's bomber used to attack Germany, Romanian and Finland airbase, industrial complex ... in night-bombing mission.
          3. There are a lot of different opinion of Lend-Lease aircraft. I know that these aircraft were used quite widely in Fleet's Airforce, especially Hurricanes and Airacobra. Is it true that these aircraft weren't very good, easily to catch fire and even worse than I-16 or I-153?
          So, have a good day.
          You should remember that 3 Soviet Fleets fought against the Axis - the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets.

          The situation was different in each.

          Yes, Admiral Kuznetsov, the Chief of the NAVY, ordered a combat alert in NAVY in the night from june, 21nd to 22nd (it was VERY dangerous to him as there was the policy to not to provoke the Germans) so NAVY losses were minimal - ships and flaks were ready to fight against air threat, fighters took off in time.

          The main bases of those fleets in June,1941 were Murmansk (?), Leningrad, Tallin, Sevastopol.

          The Soviet Navy aircraft operated in seas and miritime regions.

          About Lend-Lease planes...

          The mostly widely it was used in the Northern Fleet as it was close to Murmansk port.

          I never heard about Aircobras in Soviet NAVY.

          The main problem was that the Allies sent second-hand archaic planes to the USSR as lend-lease equipment. For example, the Soviet pilots of the Northern Fleet flew on second-hand Hurricanes and Kittyhawks (not in Spitfires). Those Western planes were worse than modern Soviet planes (MIG-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3) and Soviet pilots disliked it.

          If to remember the history of WWII Hurricanes couldn't fight effectively against Bf109 already during Battle of the Britain in summer of 1940. Of course, it was archaic in 1941-42. Spitfire was a good fighter that was equal to best Soviet and Germsan fighters but the Allies didn't give them to the USST..

          I heard that A-20 Boston were widely used in Soviet NAVY.
          Last edited by Andrey; 06 Mar 07, 12:56.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have just read a quite interesting article:
            http://phoneywar.cetanu.net/intellig...y_Golodnikov_1
            In this article, an ace of Northern Fleet, Golodnikov, described his career in detail. He flew, in order, I-16, Hurricane, P-40, P-39, and Yak. He said that P-39 is extremely dangerous, because of its 37mm nose-cannon. He even said that this cannon was strong enough to sink a big tanker with just a few shot.
            Some information about Lend-lease aircrafts of VMF:
            On 1944, the Soviet Navy began using P-47 in PVO and fast-bomber duties. Although P-47 wasn't better than Soviet's aircraft, especially in low attitude, its long-range and strong armament fit these mission well.
            Douglas A-20 was used in mixed squadron with B-25 and sometimes IL-4 as medium bomber.
            IL-2T was the main torpedo bomber. Its most famous victory was the raid to Kotka on 1943, sinking the AA cruiser "Niobe".
            Another problem: have you heard that an obsolete I-16 once shot the infamous FW-190 down in 1943. If I remember exactly, the I-16's pilot was a very famous ace: Golubev.
            And can anyone share me some information about the aces of Baltic Fleet such as Golubev , Kuzhnetsov and Tatarenko.
            Last edited by RGA; 07 Mar 07, 00:05.
            "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RGA View Post
              IL-2T was the main torpedo bomber. Its most famous victory was the raid to Kotka on 1943, sinking the AA cruiser "Niobe".
              No, IL-2T was non-serial field modification of IL-2 which was almost not used. Torpedo was too heavy for this plane.
              You mixed it with IL-4T

              Against "Niobe" were used Pe-2 and A-20 bombers

              Regards,
              Alex

              P.S. IL-2 if were used (can't remember exactly just now), were used ordinary airplanes agains AA defense of Kotka
              If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                You should remember that 3 Soviet Fleets fought against the Axis - the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets.

                The situation was different in each.

                Yes, Admiral Kuznetsov, the Chief of the NAVY, ordered a combat alert in NAVY in the night from june, 21nd to 22nd (it was VERY dangerous to him as there was the policy to not to provoke the Germans) so NAVY losses were minimal - ships and flaks were ready to fight against air threat, fighters took off in time.

                The main bases of those fleets in June,1941 were Murmansk (?), Leningrad, Tallin, Sevastopol.

                The Soviet Navy aircraft operated in seas and miritime regions.

                About Lend-Lease planes...

                The mostly widely it was used in the Northern Fleet as it was close to Murmansk port.

                I never heard about Aircobras in Soviet NAVY.

                The main problem was that the Allies sent second-hand archaic planes to the USSR as lend-lease equipment. For example, the Soviet pilots of the Northern Fleet flew on second-hand Hurricanes and Kittyhawks (not in Spitfires). Those Western planes were worse than modern Soviet planes (MIG-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3) and Soviet pilots disliked it.

                If to remember the history of WWII Hurricanes couldn't fight effectively against Bf109 already during Battle of the Britain in summer of 1940. Of course, it was archaic in 1941-42. Spitfire was a good fighter that was equal to best Soviet and Germsan fighters but the Allies didn't give them to the USST..

                I heard that A-20 Boston were widely used in Soviet NAVY.
                Tuh..tuh. 143 Spitfire VB and 1,188 Spitfire IX sent to Soviet Union. Many used in Moscow defence. Also, many Hurricanes converted into 2 seaters with a rear gunner position.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are a difference between the strategy of Soviet and Western Air force. The Western Strategy is attacking enemy deep behind the front line, eliminating as much as possible his logistic bases and war industries. The Soviet strategy is supporting front line's troops. The result is, many Western aircrafts have very high service celling, good at vertical maneuver. Soviet aircrafts , in other hand, are very dynamic, good at horizontal maneuver and fly at quite low attitude to supporting ground troops.
                  When Western aircraft went to Soviet's hand, the Soviet's opinion about it was very different. Some aircraft, notably P39, which was disliked by US and British pilots, became Soviet pilot's favorite. But some famous aircrafts , like Spitfire and P-47 , were used mainly in PVO duties, because they were not sufficient for using as front line fighter.
                  Due to strong armament, some Lend-lease aircrafts were also used in ground-attack missions, but it's proved that the Shturmoviks were much better.
                  The conditions of air war in Eastern and Western front are very different. So, it's hard to say which side had better aircrafts.
                  "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Barbarossa View Post
                    Tuh..tuh. 143 Spitfire VB and 1,188 Spitfire IX sent to Soviet Union. Many used in Moscow defence. Also, many Hurricanes converted into 2 seaters with a rear gunner position.
                    It is necessary to remember about THE TIME when they were sent to the USSR.

                    For example, Spitfire I was a modern good fighter during Battle of Britain in 1940. But in 1943 it was an obsolete fighter and Spitfire IX was a good modern fighter.

                    Here what I have about the using of Spitfire VB in the USSR...

                    "... The 143 second-hand Spitfires VB that the USSR got by Lend-Lease in very bad techical condition in the beginning of 1943 were not met with enthusiasim by Soviet pilots. By that time they probably exceeded by their techical performances only I-16...

                    During the Air Battle over Kuban a few Air Regiments of Anti-Air Defence Systenm were armed by those Spitfires. And it was already during their usage in combat conditions when one more of their imperfections was defined.... They were very like Bf109 so they often were under fire of Soviet flaks and fighters of other Air Regiments. Even the showing of a Spitifire before flak crews and the pilots of other regiments didn't stop such accidents. For example, A. Ivanov, a pilot of the 57th Guards Fighter Air Regiment, was shot down twice by Yaks but he could to to land on his airfield on the damaged plane. In June, 1943 the Spitfires were removed from first line units of the Soviet Air forces and were sent to rears... "

                    As I know Spifire VB began to arrive to British Air units in 1941. But in the USSR they were sent only in 1943, and those Sputfires were second hand ones. By that moment Spitfire VB was an obsolete fighter.

                    I don't know about Spitfire IX but I never heard it was used widely. It looks like it also arrived too late to be useful in frontline.

                    Only one type of Western planes was considered good by Soviet pilots - "Aircobra".

                    If to return to the Northern Fleet in 1942 so it didn't get any Spitfire (the best British fighter of that time), he got only second-hand Hurricanes and Kittyhawks.

                    If Spitfire VB arrived to the USSR in 1941-42 they could be useful. But they didn't...

                    Many used in Moscow defence... When nobody attacked Moscow. The German air offensive against Moscow was in July 1941 - Spring 1942. The forst Spitfires arrived to the USSR in 1943. Make conclusions yourself...

                    Hurricanes with 2 seats... It was not a fighter already. It looks like the Soviets didn;t know how to use them and decidedto change its type. Maybe it was used as a light bomber or ground attack plane.
                    Last edited by Andrey; 08 Mar 07, 10:21.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RGA View Post
                      There are a difference between the strategy of Soviet and Western Air force. The Western Strategy is attacking enemy deep behind the front line, eliminating as much as possible his logistic bases and war industries. The Soviet strategy is supporting front line's troops. The result is, many Western aircrafts have very high service celling, good at vertical maneuver. Soviet aircrafts , in other hand, are very dynamic, good at horizontal maneuver and fly at quite low attitude to supporting ground troops.
                      Disagree in large scale.

                      It is too easy (and ansolutely wrong) to try to describe the strategy and tactics of the Western Allies Air Forces in a few words.

                      It was different in different time periods and in different theaters of operations.

                      The same is about the Soviet strategy and tactics.

                      When Western aircraft went to Soviet's hand, the Soviet's opinion about it was very different. Some aircraft, notably P39, which was disliked by US and British pilots, became Soviet pilot's favorite.
                      Read my previous message.

                      But some famous aircrafts , like Spitfire and P-47 , were used mainly in PVO duties, because they were not sufficient for using as front line fighter.
                      Read my previous message.

                      Due to strong armament, some Lend-lease aircrafts were also used in ground-attack missions, but it's proved that the Shturmoviks were much better.
                      It was done due the fact that those Lend-Lease planes were too obsolete to be used as fighters...

                      The conditions of air war in Eastern and Western front are very different. So, it's hard to say which side had better aircrafts.
                      Nobody speaks whose side had better planes. The best planes of each country were approximately equal.

                      The problem with Lend-Lease fighters in Soviet Navy (it is initial theme of the thread) was that the Allies sent obsolete archaic planes to the Soviets and the Soviet pilots saw it but had to fight on them. Except A-20 Boston which were very good.
                      Last edited by Andrey; 08 Mar 07, 10:23.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What's about the Airacobra? This aircraft was consider as useless aircraft in England, and that's the reason why it was sent to USSR. But a lot of Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, such as Pokryshkin or Rechkalov. You should read the interview with Gen Golodnikov I mentioned. He said that the opinion of Soviet and Western about Lend-Lease aircraft are very different. So, I'm sure that the way they used Lend-Lease aircraft , generally speaking, was different.
                        Of course, a good aircraft is always a good aircraft, though it's used by Soviet or Western pilot. We can not say that the I-16 was better than the P-51, or the F-2A was better than the La-7. But, the way it was used decided it effectiveness.
                        Some personal opinions: the leading aces of Normandie-Nieman regiment (I don't remember his name exactly), who flew both Yak-3 and P-51, said that the Yak-3 was much better than P-51.
                        Last edited by RGA; 08 Mar 07, 20:48.
                        "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RGA View Post
                          What's about the Airacobra? This aircraft was consider as useless aircraft in England, and that's the reason why it was sent to USSR. But a lot of Soviet pilots became aces in this aircraft, such as Pokryshkin or Rechkalov. You should read the interview with Gen Golodnikov I mentioned.
                          I don't dispute.

                          He said that the opinion of Soviet and Western about Lend-Lease aircraft are very different.
                          Do you think somebody in West could call Hurricane a very good fighter in 1942???? May be Kittyhawk?

                          So, I'm sure that the way they used Lend-Lease aircraft , generally speaking, was different.
                          Sometimes, yes, but it was only a lack that an Aircobra was good for the Soviet-Front conditions.

                          Of course, a good aircraft is always a good aircraft, though it's used by Soviet or Western pilot. We can not say that the I-16 was better than the P-51, or the F-2A was better than the La-7. But, the way it was used decided it effectiveness.
                          Yes but I don't think second-hand Hurricanes and Kittyhawks could be used for the effective air struggle against Bf109 in the conditions of the Northern Fleet.

                          Some personal opinions: the leading aces of Normandie-Nieman regiment (I don't remember his name exactly), who flew both Yak-3 and P-51, said that the Yak-3 was much better than P-51.
                          Hmmm... Those were different types of planes. P-51 was an extremely lang-range high altitude fighter like the Soviet Yak-9T (or Yak-9D?).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hurricane isn't a bad aircraft at all. During the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane shot down the majority of the planes claimed by the RAF (1,593 out of 2,739 total claimed). Its main drawback is its speed. Actually, the Spitfire is faster, but the Hurricane is more maneuverability. Why the RAF rejected the Hurricane and developed the Spitfire is the Spitfire superior speed.
                            The P-40 isn't a high-speed fighter. Soviet pilot tried to improve its climb rate by removing 1 or even 2 pairs of wing guns ( That's also the thing they did with P-39). Without changed, the original P-40 wasn't sufficient for missions of Northern Fleet.
                            Another important reason: the Soviet pilots were used to using horizontal maneuver, and perhaps they flew horizontal aircraft with more ease.
                            Last edited by RGA; 09 Mar 07, 03:28.
                            "My only desire is that all of our Party and people, closely united in struggle, construct a peaceful, unified, independent, democratic and prosperous, and make a valiant contribution to the world Revolution" - Ho Chi Minh's will

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ugh, you keep going on about the Hurricane, it was not too bad in 1940 and yes did shoot down most German bombers. Because the Spitfire was better at fighting the Me-109s, but it was by no means still frontline in 1941-42 and as Andrey pointed out, old used planes were sent.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X