Why was the USSR airforce in WW2 so pathetic?

It's somewhat understandable to get absolutely dabbed on by BF-109s and FW-190s, even with the Allies providing you with decent anglo aircraft like the P-40 Warhawk to supplement your russian shitheaps. What isn't understandable is how they got mogged super hard in air combat by Finland as well.
>Brewster F2A Buffalo, even slower than the F4F, made in 1937
>26:1 kill ratio for Finland
>Fiat G.50 Freccia, pretty weak armamnet, also made in 1937
>33:1 kill ratio for Finland
Explain. Not a fucking ukraine thread, the USSR is dead.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >soviets rapidly expanded their airforce but could not train a ton of pilots fast enough
    >soviet doctrine prioritized pushing through casualties to hit the target rather than on getting back home
    >soviet production run mostly consisted of ground-attack planes like the IL-2 rather than fighters
    >soviets simply did not prioritize air power like western powers did and saw it as an auxillary arm for their ground forces
    soviets actually had excellent aeronautical engineers, they just lacked the pilots, doctrine, or understanding from the brass to utilize them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Planes are dumb. Just send more bodies at the problem. Imagine caring about planes when you can bury anything with enough disposable ground troops lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Planes are cool, and aerial warfare is the most beautiful and honorable form of warfare. International disputes should be settled by an aristocratic class of air-knights duking it out in warbirds or gen 1 jet fighters, guns only.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That was dope, thanks for sharing!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I usually hate weaabshit but this is fucking cool

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Unfathomably based. After that we should move on to mechas. Each country has it's champion and they settle their metters with mech duels.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            t. Aleksandr Kerensky

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              NICHOLAS Kerensky, you utterly dezgra freebirth

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                didnt ask trashborn

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                reave you, motherhaver

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Aleksander was a legitimate hero whose only flaw was being unwilling to use force to usurp power and fix shit. Retarded Nicky was the one obsessed with mech communism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Planes are cool, and aerial warfare is the most beautiful and honorable form of warfare. International disputes should be settled by an aristocratic class of air-knights duking it out in warbirds or gen 1 jet fighters, guns only.

            Unfathomably absed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Requesting someone to post the Robot Jox flash to /f/

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'd agree if the romance of dogfights weren't essentially dead, and if the writing weren't on the wall for manned combat aircraft period.

          Unfathomably based. After that we should move on to mechas. Each country has it's champion and they settle their metters with mech duels.

          Nevertheless, this is by far the most cultured take.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >mogs your most honourable gun combat

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Defiant really could have been effective if the RAF worked out some proper tactics for it. As it is, it produced a number of aces.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Night fighting bombers would have been okay if they attached a fuck you bright spotlight to the gun. Just fly under your target and open up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Funny enough, most of the RAF night fighter aces early on were Defiant crews. In the daytime, It could have been something along the lines of Spitfires and Hurricanes go for the fighters while the Defiants attack after the bombers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Luftwaffe did it without spotlights. Or a full turret.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                bro please, the time and situation is completely different.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No shit: They had radar by then

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That radar provided only approximate location, not good for targeting. Final target search was done by naked eye.
                Idea was that from below on the sky background bomber was better visisble than night fighter on dark earth background. Usually night fighter not only could see bomber but also creep on bomber undetected. So shooting was easy because bomber didn't shoot back or made evasive maneuvers.

                British secret counter (yes it was classified) was hole in the glass of the rear and low turrets. Glass blocks some light and greatly reduces night vision by eye. When gunner looked outside without any glass between his eye and target he could spot targets much better in the night. Also gunners were recruited from people scored better on night vision tests and were force fed carrots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                im pretty sure he meant that those aircraft had upward facing radar that would automatically fire the guns when under a target. also the carrots thing was a lie made up by the RAF to cover up their own use of radar early in the war and to encourage people to grow carrots to help ease rationing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >im pretty sure he meant that those aircraft had upward facing radar that would automatically fire the guns when under a target
                It was not.
                Schraege Musik was targeted by using standard Revi collimating gunsight. It was just installed on the upper part of the canopy facing up and zeroed to shoot upward.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You WILL fight the Nazis
                >You WILL man the bomber turret
                >And you WILL eat the carrots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ate carrots
                Holy shit what a retard, something tells me rest of is bullshit too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No shit: They had radar by then

                Schrage Musik didn't work so well because it was a fixed mount, and obviously it was not easy to aim a gun radically off-axis from your line of travel. Imagine instead of having a turret gunner, you try to aim like picrel

                That radar provided only approximate location, not good for targeting. Final target search was done by naked eye.
                Idea was that from below on the sky background bomber was better visisble than night fighter on dark earth background. Usually night fighter not only could see bomber but also creep on bomber undetected. So shooting was easy because bomber didn't shoot back or made evasive maneuvers.

                British secret counter (yes it was classified) was hole in the glass of the rear and low turrets. Glass blocks some light and greatly reduces night vision by eye. When gunner looked outside without any glass between his eye and target he could spot targets much better in the night. Also gunners were recruited from people scored better on night vision tests and were force fed carrots

                >you have to eat all the carrots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >didn't work so well

                It was by all accounts pretty damn effective, though. To the point of becoming the most successful method of attack for german night fighters. The Allies never fully realised how it worked, and kept losing bombers to it all the way to the end of the war.

                Also tbf it wasn't quite as difficult as your pic makes it out to be - the pilot had a gunsight that used a system of mirrors to allow him to essentially aim down the upward-firing barrels.

                im pretty sure he meant that those aircraft had upward facing radar that would automatically fire the guns when under a target. also the carrots thing was a lie made up by the RAF to cover up their own use of radar early in the war and to encourage people to grow carrots to help ease rationing.

                They didn't. They had a search radar, used by the operator to guide them in. Final approach and firing the gun was done by the pilot using optics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine instead of having a turret gunner, you try to aim like picrel
                Yes it is more difficult to aim like that but was more than enough compensated by bomber flying in straight line.
                Main point of that tactics was approaching undetected and shooting from close range at bomber flying in straight line. If bomber detected fighter and started dodging and/ shooting back fighters never employed Schraege Musik, instead they used usual forward facing gun battery or disengaged from attack. It's "stalk from the back and slice throat tactics"

                my mistake then, maybe I read early-postwar accounts which didn't credit the system that much

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine instead of having a turret gunner, you try to aim like picrel
                Yes it is more difficult to aim like that but was more than enough compensated by bomber flying in straight line.
                Main point of that tactics was approaching undetected and shooting from close range at bomber flying in straight line. If bomber detected fighter and started dodging and/ shooting back fighters never employed Schraege Musik, instead they used usual forward facing gun battery or disengaged from attack. It's "stalk from the back and slice throat tactics"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Schrage Musik didn't work so well
                It worked extremely well,you retard.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i agree

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          fighting your enemy by dropping a bomb on him from 30,000' and never having to look him in the eyes has got to be the least honorable form of warfare ever devised. Dogfights have gone the same route with BVR missiles and such. The days of red barons and Erich Hartmanns are long over.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You see them, K'lmair. Those dogs, those bastards, those El'him over there. They built walls for their cities to guard it and get this. They use slings and bows to attack us from a distance. They use horses too to attack us and run away and to harass us wherever we go.
            >Yes, them bow users are the most dishonorable form of warfare. Warfare is where you meet your enemy eye to eye to kill each other. They are cowards for using such tactics to win against slow foot soldiers and to kill us from afar.

            Some shit never changes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hartmann used to just dive on formations of IL-2 without escorts with a massive energy advantage, I'm not sure how that's any more honourable than a BVR Missile

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Most Hartman kills were Soviet fighters.
              Nothing was stopping them from killing Hartman in air combat (*loud laugh*).

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Women

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviet Airforce single handedly destroyed the Luftwaffe, you moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Soviet Airforce single handedly destroyed the Luftwaffe, you moron.

      OP is full of shit and so are you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >vatnik always claims that the soviets did all the work because they killed the most germans
      >but when 75% of all german pilots were killed on the western front, suddenly they are pulling out excuses

      why are they like this?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sauce? I'd like to check out the rest.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          RIP cant find the book its from
          there is a second graph though
          >soviets keep bragging about how more planes were shot down during barbarossa than during the BoB
          >forget about the mediterrenean with intense aerial warfare

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Med saw next to no fighting.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              More planes were lost over north africa than in operation citadel
              After operation torch started, losses over the med exceeded losses in the east

              In fact, pilots losses dropped in the east whenever fighting flared up in the west as the air war there was prioritised and pilots quickly moved out to fight there, leaving only recon and bomber pilots in the east

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That sounds like post-war NATO cope.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That sounds like post-war NATO cope.

              It's amazing how ignorant people continue to draw breath.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That graph is nowhere near good enough for me to accept it and not give a fuck

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What happened July 1943?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Operation Citadel. Gargantuan battle that basically decided the eastern front.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Soviet Airforce single handedly
      gave Luftwaffe pilots all their insane kill scores, you mean.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is literally the most retarded and historically illiterate thing I have ever read

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >American wants to lecture others on their education
        You can't even find the country you're sending billions of dollars to on a map.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I would give better odds on him than you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Third worlder wants to lecture Americans on their education

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I read a book about the defense of the Reich recently and the author states numerous times that Luftwaffe pilots who were seal clubbing IL2s on the eastern front were very quickly killed when they were transferred to the western front and had to go up against P-51s and B-17s.
      Bomber interception was by far the most dangerous job in the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force never had a decisive victory against the Luftwaffe.
      The human wave Soviet infantry was more effective than the VVS, let that sink in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Japanese pilots had that problem too. It took them a pretty long time to realize that a B17 has no blind spots. It’s got ten pairs of eyes looking in every direction; you simply can’t sneak up on them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Soviet infantry was the most effective fighting force ever produced, so yes, it was more effective than the VVS

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Soviet infantry was the most effective fighting force ever produced
          Lol. Lmao.
          The only reason the Soviet military scraped a win out of their asses was because of Lend Lease and how the Allied high command was running laps around it's German counterpart in every other theatre in the fucking war.
          The only country with higher military casualties was China, and they had the excuse of a previous civil war and nearly a decade's more worth of fighting. What is the Soviet excuse?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and they had the excuse of a previous civil war and nearly a decade's more worth of fighting
            to be fair, so did the Soviet Union.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Completely wrong. There was no lend lease to anyone but the UK.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              See

              https://i.imgur.com/2oTdkGt.jpg

              A reminder that America and the UK literally gave Russia half the equipment they used to beat the Germans back and Russia would have fallen to the Nazi's if the Allies hadn't stepped in. The only resource Russia provided was bodies that they couldn't even afford to feed themselves.

              Also a reminder that the USSR NEVER returned the favor nor helped the other Allies by sharing their own military hardware and paid us back by basically declaring war on us at the end of the war.

              How does it feel to be this stupid?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >no source NATO propaganda
                If you read actual Russian sources in the original Russia, there is zero mention of any form of American or British economic aid. The Soviet Union was entirely self-sufficient.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >russian sources
                >from the soviet union
                >these are totally reliable
                lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >primary sources
                >unreliable
                This is that lead poisoning that Americans suffer from, isn't it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao imagine thinking that Soviet sources are accurate or reliable

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And the West's sources somehow magically are?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No I’m saying there aren’t any accurate sources you moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The amount of stuff shipped overseas is pretty accurate
                Especially as it agrees with soviet records, the discrepancy between them easily matches up with shipments being sunk

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They did get free shit. They even got some free Reisings which they dismissed for being bad. Thompsons saw action though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He’s just going to call the propaganda or ignore it entirely

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I’d say ignored it or just killed himself in shame.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Of course Russia makes no mention of it. Literally every other country acknowledges lend lease except the country whose leader, Stalin, stood to lose a lot of credit as he loved to preach about how it was the Soviet hordes who defeated the evil Nazi's all by themselves and how he never acknowledged the support given to him by the West. Russia lies about anything and everything and they always have, straight back to the 1700s. And probably before that too, but right now my knowledge of Russian history only extends back to that 18th century.

                >you guys did all the fighting and killed 75% of the German army but hey you couldnt of done it without our trains and bullets haaha

                Ok,

                I don't even know what this is supposed to be flexing.

                The point is that it doesn't matter how many troops you have to throw at an enemy if you can't equip them or feed them. We see that shit in Ukraine now as Russia was going in there with barely any provisions initially and there were videos of troops ransacking grocery and convenience stores for food. Russia would have 100% fallen if not for Western aid. Although Germany did overextend, that alone was not enough for Russia to win. Russia needed the Allies to be keeping half the German army occupied in the West and needed their massive production output to be able to equip his troops. Without that, although Russia would have certainly been able to regain a lot of ground after the Germans extended, they would not have been able to get close to Berlin.

                …huh? The German command noted that they had until the winter of 1941 to win and would be defeated if they couldn’t knock out the USSR before then. Why? How did Lend-Lease effect this thinking? I don’t get it, explain.

                Because they knew Western aid was coming. Originally Russia had a pact with Germany to divvy up Europe in WW2 until Germany stabbed Russia in the back. And even the Germans knew that once the full might of the West was brought to bare they would have no chance at winning.

                >The only resource Russia provided was bodies that they couldn't even afford to feed themselves.
                >Also a reminder that the USSR NEVER returned the favor nor helped the other Allies by sharing their own military hardware and paid us back by basically declaring war on us at the end of the war.

                You're the same guy as the other Lend-Lease idiots, though I stand by that it was vital for the Soviet Effort, specially logistics and the early 1942-43 years, you're a fucking moron who has just saved that image and not ever even dug deep into Lend-Lease itself.

                The Soviets DID RETURN THE FAVOR with much needed natural resources that the US was looking for alongside others that could aid further production for the Allied War Effort, you fucking retard

                Fuck off they literally didn't. They refuse to even acknowledge Lend-Lease, let alone have done any overt repayments.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              See

              https://i.imgur.com/2oTdkGt.jpg

              A reminder that America and the UK literally gave Russia half the equipment they used to beat the Germans back and Russia would have fallen to the Nazi's if the Allies hadn't stepped in. The only resource Russia provided was bodies that they couldn't even afford to feed themselves.

              Also a reminder that the USSR NEVER returned the favor nor helped the other Allies by sharing their own military hardware and paid us back by basically declaring war on us at the end of the war.

              >"Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks and by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.[43] Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941–45).[35] Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But…how did fuel, trucks, rail links, radios, etc, give the Soviets the win? Weren’t they pure trash? Also how did they stop the Germans in just a few months by the end of 1941 — by which time almost no Lend-Lease had yet arrived? What’s going on? Explain?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Also how did they stop the Germans in just a few months by the end of 1941 — by which time almost no Lend-Lease had yet arrived? What’s going on? Explain?
              Look up the number of British made tanks used in the battle for Moscow.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >how did fuel, trucks, rail links, radios, etc, give the Soviets the win?
              >What is logistics?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >frog poster about logistics
                And so? Do Soviets become above pure trash because they have supplies at the front? Was that all it takes to elevate them into the superior army? Did the Germans commit suicide and run from battle because the Soviets could supply themselves? That’s ridiculous right? Explain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do Soviets become above pure trash because they have supplies at the front? Was that all it takes to elevate them into the superior army?

                Yes. Having more trucks than your enemy is more important than having more tanks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Alright. The Germans lost to the Soviets because the Soviets had the superior logistics?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay. So the Luftwaffe lost due to being outnumbered? Now we’re getting somewhere. How much did the Soviets outnumber them? 10-to-1? 100-to-1?

                why are you asking retarded questions, vatmoron? nobody's going to make your argument for you

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I’m trying to understand your argument, not make my own. According to you the Soviets were hopeless, worthless trash, and I’m trying to reconcile that with the fact they won the war. It doesn’t make sense to me so I’m asking you clarify this point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                moron, the soviet air force sucked. The krauts were still running ground attack sorties against the russians as they approached Berlin, ffs. If the Germans had 80% of their air force in the east, it could have possibly turned the tide, or at least made winning a lot fucking harder for the soviets. There was a stuka pilot who basically destroyed an entire red army armored division by himself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                because when 100% of your armored transports and 33% of your trucks are imported, then you start to see how imported equipment turned soviet logistics from "terrible" to "passable"
                to say nothing of the quality discrepancy, the most common soviet truck was the GAZ-MM, a 20-year old design with a bigger engine shoved in, that was 2-wheel drive (good think russia had such good roads) and a pitiful 1.5 ton capacity (the US 1.5ton truck had 4-wheel drive)

                not including high-explosives, soviets never had a well-developed chemical industry and used a lot of imported TNT to make their shells
                and high-tech equipment like radios, which the soviets were chronically short-of even late war

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So, they won the war thanks to "passable" logistics? What state was the German logistics in, then? They were stopped in the winter of 1941-1942, just months after starting the invasion — what happened to their logistics during that time?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They were stopped in the winter of 1941-1942, just months after starting the invasion
                lol, you tankie trash are always so full of shit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They were stopped in the winter of 1941-1942, just months after starting the invasion — what happened to their logistics during that time?
                german logistics at the time was stretched too thin, negating the soviets own terrible supply chain
                also helped by the fact that they were fighting close to their own railheads

                The Luftwaffe lost 25k aircraft in the East. This was not a significant factor to the outcome of the war? Why did either side try so hard in the air?

                >This was not a significant factor to the outcome of the war?
                luftwaffe was mostly sending recon and light-bombers to the east, stuff that couldnt survive in the west
                german air power and, more importantly, their pilots were largely destroyed in the west

                even at kursk, supposedly the day the VVS finally got its act together, fewer german planes were lost than over the skies of italy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its not a reasonable idea to try and pinpoint a single cause for Soviet Union winning in WW2. Some of the factors had nothing to do with the Soviet Union and others are hard to gauge how much of a difference they made.

                >Instead, the Germs and Japs let newbies just fly or die.
                You know that notorious Erich Hartman was newbies at some point of his carrier? Only he was baby seals clubbing Sovies from the day one.
                There are common misconceptions about Axis pilots training. Like they trained too little pilots, or thet trained pilots not enough in end of the ear
                Thing is Axis like soviets were heavily gated by aviation fuel production. They tranied little numbers because they simply had no fuel to train properly more and provide fuel for combat sorties of larger air force. In end of the war Germans and Japanese tried to cut training hours and mass produce poorly trained pilots... it didn't work out obviously. Also fun fact: japanese Kamikaze pilots had twice more training hours than Soviet pilots, let it sink in for while...

                He was trained and didn't have a carrier.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The Germans lost to the Soviets because the Soviets had the superior logistics?
                Unironilcaly yes.
                Germans went on foot and dragged their cannons usung horse carts
                Soviets run circles around them using Studebaker trucks.
                This is how famous Deep Battle Doctrine was born.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                soviets were actually less motorized than the germans per-capita, the sheer size of the soviet army meant the lend-lease vehicles were spread too thin

                what they did do was concentrate their good equipment in their maneuver units to make short dashes and then wait for the slower horse-equipped armies catch up
                so even if they werent as uniformly mobile as the germans, they were able to leverage the mobility they did have very well

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But to curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes. And when you yourself have reached this state of mind, it becomes that much more difficult to have to drive every pilot of the Geschwader, right down to the youngest and lowliest NCO, to do the same.”
        Hans Philipp

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Luftwaffe pilots who were seal clubbing IL2s on the eastern front were very quickly killed when they were transferred to the western front and had to go up against P-51s and B-17s.
        Skills weren't transferable in many ways and getting used to Russians gets you killed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The human wave Soviet infantry was more effective than the VVS, let that sink in
        Soviet inf was respected and managed a tough job.
        Soviet Air Force was garbage due to doctrine and difficulties inherent in creating an entirely new combat arm during an attritional war, while using and abusing said arm all the while.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The human wave Soviet infantry was more effective than the VVS, let that sink in.
        I will repeat point again.
        Soviets were tried to make human waves in the air but miscalculated resources. They produced not much of the high octane gas needed for period combat aircrafts (about 1.5 mil tons per year, about same as Germans produced). On the ground Soviets could spam human and tank waves, they had recources. In the air they didn't. They tried but failed even more ending with no numbers and no trained pilots, total shitfest.

        And I should add that factor of air fuel supply is very rarely considered when WWII air war is analyzed while it was primary factor gating period air force numbers and training.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The ultimate Russian cope, you fucks got slaughtered by the German Airforce.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Soviet Airforce singlehandedly created most of the worlds aces (just not on their side)

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Soviet Airforce
      was almost entirely destroyed on June 22nd 1941

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That was convenient lie spread by commies to cope with them losing air force
        >we were caught by surprise! all air force were destroyed on the ground because of that! Blame our idiot leader Stalin, who said that there would be no war with Germany!
        In reality soviets lost about 1200 of 15000 combat aircrafts during 22 June 1941. Not even close to all. After airfield strikes lost most of their effect. Truth is Soviet airforce were systematically decimated in air combat. German aces on Eastern Front had 200 even 300 hundred kills records. Numbers unheard anywhere else. Record that would stay first forever.
        Record that makes vatniks seeth forever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But, they won. How? How did a decimated air force end up winning against amazing aces?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Attrition that no other people would accept but asiatics.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              (wasted)
              Any idea why Germans and the Japanese had pilots with such high kill-counts? Because they never rotated their pilots out. The US, the British, and even the Soviets to some degree did this. They pulled back experienced pilots and had them train and lead newer ones, utilizing accumulated experience to bolster fresher and therefore more vulnerable pilots. By doing so, newer pilots learned more than from just books and had a better chance to survive and gain actual experience.
              Instead, the Germs and Japs let newbies just fly or die. Those that were naturals, that had the knack got far. Which is where the numbers came from. But for every Marseille there were ten mediocre pilots that never survived to learn from their mistakes, that never got over that first hump.
              THAT'S attrition. Burning away the best of your generation, when all they needed was just a little polish. A wasteful way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Literal attrition, although provided internally by their own grand Reich Air Marshal.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Instead, the Germs and Japs let newbies just fly or die.
                You know that notorious Erich Hartman was newbies at some point of his carrier? Only he was baby seals clubbing Sovies from the day one.
                There are common misconceptions about Axis pilots training. Like they trained too little pilots, or thet trained pilots not enough in end of the ear
                Thing is Axis like soviets were heavily gated by aviation fuel production. They tranied little numbers because they simply had no fuel to train properly more and provide fuel for combat sorties of larger air force. In end of the war Germans and Japanese tried to cut training hours and mass produce poorly trained pilots... it didn't work out obviously. Also fun fact: japanese Kamikaze pilots had twice more training hours than Soviet pilots, let it sink in for while...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is like someone claiming the Chinese singlehandedly destroyed the Imperial Japanese Army. Fucking phenomenal lack of brain cells to even think to say such a thing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >thinks the IJA and IJN are the same thing
        The only retard here is you.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >decent anglo aircraft like the P-40 Warhawk

    LMAO, Warhawks were barely acceptable against 109Es, perhaps 109Fs. 190s and 109Gs and up just laughed at those old crates.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Warhawks acceptable against 109Es,109Fs.
      Fixed that for you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When the Brits deployed P-40s in the desert, the Germans pulled their 109Es out because they were getting btfo by the P-40s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >in the desert

        More like they pulled 'em out because the 109E was by then on its last legs and being replaced by the Friedrich wholesale.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >air combat is warthunder stallfighting
      negative

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    to play devil's advocate where the Soviet air force did well in non-WW2 wars.
    >border war against Japan in Khalkyn Gol
    >162 Jap planes shot down and 210 Soviets
    >Spanish Civil War
    >Soviet I-16s are very successful in the small number they were employed but are gradually outnumbered by German 109s
    there's also the fact that a ton of Soviet Air Force's experienced and older generals who were purged by Stalin, moron that he was.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Korean war was pretty successful for them.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why was the USSR airforce in WW2 so pathetic?
    Russia finished its bitter civilw ar in 1921. It has no organised schools and civilians had been murdered in every place, ESPECIALLY the more literate educated upper and upper middle class adults (and children).All notions of individuality or unique or talented people is eliminated by policy, Communism. All nationalism all Religion is eliminated. 18 years later there is a war machines that require good numeracy and education cannot find pilots which in other nations are drawn from the most intelligent, talented and individualistic military personnel from the middle and upper middle classes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      had been murdered in every place, ESPECIALLY the more literate educated upper and upper middle class adults (and children)

      the greatest irony of both germany and soviet union airforce is the fact the mustang was designed by a german and the thunderbolt by a pair of russians.

      the german airforce would have loved the merlin mustang.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem was definitely their planes. It really says something when the P-39 which was considered a mediocre if not bad aircraft in US and UK service was one of the best fighters in soviet inventory.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >one of the best fighters in soviet inventory.
      Better than the Spitfire IX

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Only because the Soviets were getting Spitfire IXs in like '45 or some shit, when they really couldn't keep up with their Griffon-engine counterparts anymore, and when the IX was still top dog in the skies the Soviets were getting V's.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i think Soviet aircraft are a little better than people give them credit for but still generally inferior to German and Western allied aircraft. the LA-5 was described by more than one German ace as a "great plane" and by all accounts it was.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the LA-5 was described by more than one German ace as a "great plane" and by all accounts it was.
        when it wasn't actively gassing its pilots mid flight with the canopy locked up, that is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Better than what? Worst planes in the western world.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The guy who also tested captured planes said he really liked the Yak 3 too, was his favorite plane iirc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i think Soviet aircraft are a little better than people give them credit for but still generally inferior to German and Western allied aircraft. the LA-5 was described by more than one German ace as a "great plane" and by all accounts it was.

      Soviet aircraft doctrine was oriented around the tactical ground support role - this meant aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes in support of battles on the ground. Keep in mind most of the claims (and thus kill ratios) wouldn't be strictly fighter-on-fighter; these claim/loss ratios would reflect attacks on all aircraft.

      This compounded the loss rate for a number of reasons:
      -the wide breadth of the front meant there was great temptation to commit to relatively small tactical formations attacking front-line targets in piecemeal attacks
      -said targets would usually be heavily defended by flak and fighters
      -due to the lack of precision weapons at the time, strike aircraft would have to fly low and slow, compounding their vulnerability to being picked off piecemeal.
      "Low-and-slow" aircraft like Stukas and IL-2s capture the popular imagination, but their survivability is absolutely atrocious. Attacking a squadron of 16 IL-2s slowly circling a battlefield at 5000-10000 feet is very different compared to attacking a late 1944 combat box of 80+ B-17s in layered formations.
      A great deal of these deficiencies were aggravated by other circumstances early on. Officer purges by Stalin had hollowed out both competence and morale, and the German blitz also killed off a great many experienced pilots and destroyed a lot of combat aircraft and captured a lot of infrastructure. Even if the Soviets had wanted, the exigencies of the situation made it difficult to actually mass attacks in a way that would have reduced casualties.

      These disadvantages and deficiencies definitely were overcome, especially later in 1943 - the air battles to achieve superiority over the Kuban demonstrated far better performance.

      North Africa and the Mediterranean were brought up as other examples and the Western Allied Desert Air Force likewise suffered similarly atrocious casualties in piecemeal attacks early on until some level of discipline was imposed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >North Africa and the Mediterranean were brought up as other examples and the Western Allied Desert Air Force likewise suffered similarly atrocious casualties in piecemeal attacks early on until some level of discipline was imposed.
        allies never reached the same level of massive losses for few gains that the soviets did, though
        they did manage to hold their own against luftwaffe planes even with only older P-40s and early-model P-38s

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You need to take the specific timeframe of losses into account. A ton of the Soviet airforce was lost in the opening stages of Barbarossa, and even superb performance later won't do much to move the needle if you're looking at total loss rates across the whole war. Secondly, looking at strict combat losses misses the bigger picture that in an industrial full-scale air war the main factor is constant attrition on airframes and engines. Losses due to accident or wear-and-tear are not necessarily represented in combat statistics - and while you might make the argument that this means one side was better "in combat" - a lack of sustainment will still lose you the war.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even late war, and disregarding operational losses, german pilots were only taking 1/4 the losses in the east compared to the west, and improved fighter variants like the FW were prioritised to the west
            Even looking at tiny slices of action when the soviet air force should have improved, they are inflicting way less damage compared to their size

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_pziH3tI9o&t=3s

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't talk shit about my waifu

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It looks like a good plane. Was it really that shit?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At one point, Soviet aircraft didn't even have gunsights; pilots hand-painted a circle on the canopy and aimed with that. Not sure if they didn't have the tech, or it was due to manufacturing bottlenecks.

    Given that material state, one doubts their pilot air combat training was of much worth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Manufacturing issues. The Soviet Union had the tech, but not the industrial capacity to build the large number of sights needed at the beginning of the war.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Human wave attacks are the ONLY "strategy" russians have ever been capable of since the 18th century.
    By trying to understand their air tactics and technology you are already way overestimating USSRs line of thinking.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Better than the famous Allied "Bomb French civilians" strategy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, I'm not saying it didn't work, it clearly and often did, russia has always had more than enough bodys to throw away and still win with a 0.01 K/D ratio in multiple important conflicts back to the war against Napoleon (in which they managed to win even though they were so incompetent that moscow already burned down).
        I'm just saying Russia has never been a country to look to for anything intelligent or refined when it comes to its military.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Russia should be intelligent and refined like the countries that lost to Russia

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Look up the lives of an average russian conscript, regardless in which conflict, then ask yourself if you wouldn't still prefer to fight on the losing side.
            Also intelligent and refined countries much much smaller kicked russia teeth in on multiple occasions exactly for that reason.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That shit never gets old

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Wonder who won that war

              That was convenient lie spread by commies to cope with them losing air force
              >we were caught by surprise! all air force were destroyed on the ground because of that! Blame our idiot leader Stalin, who said that there would be no war with Germany!
              In reality soviets lost about 1200 of 15000 combat aircrafts during 22 June 1941. Not even close to all. After airfield strikes lost most of their effect. Truth is Soviet airforce were systematically decimated in air combat. German aces on Eastern Front had 200 even 300 hundred kills records. Numbers unheard anywhere else. Record that would stay first forever.
              Record that makes vatniks seeth forever.

              moron, the soviet air force sucked. The krauts were still running ground attack sorties against the russians as they approached Berlin, ffs. If the Germans had 80% of their air force in the east, it could have possibly turned the tide, or at least made winning a lot fucking harder for the soviets. There was a stuka pilot who basically destroyed an entire red army armored division by himself

              Individual nazi pilots having great records is largely due to the fact that, unlike America, Germany didn’t send successful pilots back to school to train new pilots. This probably worsened the quality of the average pilot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thing is Germans had not so great records against Americans on the Western front.
                Take Notorious German ace Erich Hartman whose name makes vatniks tremble with fear, ace who scored absolute record of 300 kills against lol Soveit Air force.
                When he was sent to defend Romanian oil fields against American bombings he scored only one kill against escort P-51, in the next air combat he was forced down. Command immediately pulled him from Romania and send him back to clubbing Soviet baby seals, so 3rd Reich hero wouldn't die to American hands, bad for PR.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Still a factor
                Also,
                >Muh anecdote

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, like Britain, France, Japan, Poland, etc

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >butwhatabout other thing
        vatniks are like a broken record

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          russian ability to polish the turd is second to none

          >unable to mount a proper air campaign
          >"your army is so bad it would have failed if it wasnt for the air force"
          >"not like the proper soviets who dont need any air superiority, they can take massive casualties and still attack"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What happens when you live next to a potential target?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aviation youtubers always say russians had decent designs and they had high octane fuel from lend lease. Hard to think that they performed so abysmally but I guess flying a plane or manning a ship is a lot harder than holding a rifle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the Soviets were retarded when it came to airpower. But that was mostly because Stalin was such a fucking schizo that he liquidated something like 75% of the air force's officers and pilots. It's a lot more difficult to rebuild an air force than it is to rebuild an army. Long story short, Soviets were stupid and short sighted but most of that can be blamed on Stalin being a gay

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Their decent designs didn't come until near the end of the war, and even then, by far the majority of the Soviet air forces were either IL-2s or leftover I-16s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >leftover I-16s
        You are one fucking idiot.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finnish pilots were highly trained, always have been.

    Russian pilots were not and this showed. I don't think it's just that, I think they had orders to follow and, in a classical russian way, would or could not improvise tactically. It's like the current war, except in air.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All the branches of the Soviet military were pathetic. Their fleet was probably the worst since they got fucked by literally everyone. In the Black Sea for example the Soviets had like 4x the fleet numbers the Axis did and they still lost decisively at sea and couldn't use their fleet for anything.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    During the Winter War and the Continuation War, most of the Soviet air service's aircraft would still have been I-16s and similar. You didn't really start getting the good shit or even decent shit until later in the war. Once the Lend-Lease Spitfire IX's and P-39s came in, and the better Soviet aircraft like the La-5 and later Yak-9s came online, the situation in air-to-air combat basically flipped and it was Soviet pilots who started scoring disproportionate victories. But this turn came too late in the war to offset the earlier losses from when the Soviet air services were basically WWI-era.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Corruption, bad quality control. Still tho, I gotta love how the Soviets handled their planes. Pic related is the Lavochkin 5FN, an improvement of the normal La 5. Notice that huge ass glass block on the front? Pure kino approach.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Main problem was huge strategic mistake in air force building. Mistake multiplied by general shiteness of everything Soviet.
    Big mistake was that soviets choose to employ human waves tactics in the sky and set goal of 100000 aircrafts air force. Mistake here was Soviets had not even close supply of high octane gasoline to support such immense air force. So they ended with absolutely pathetic levels of pilots training, 20 flight hours (average American pilot had 150 hours prior to deployment) AND low generated sortie rates. Having many times more numerous air force Soviets did about the same numbers of sorties as Germans on eastern front. Soviets simply had no gasoline to fuel their planes, on average Soviet pilots had 1-2 combat flight per month (!). Other days they couldn't fly because they had not fuel quota left.

    So soviets had absolutely pathetic horrendous pilots skills lowest among all WWII participants AND NO numbers to compensate that. So to speak with their 100000 aircraft numbers they bit 10 times more than they could chew.
    That was Soviet Big Mistake.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ….and yet the won? You people who shit on the Soviets all day always — ALWAYS — fail to address that point. They won. The Soviet Air Force was victorious. Explain.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The Soviet Air Force was victorious.

        Most of the Luftwaffe was destroyed by the western allies.

        In fact, an often overlooked benefit of the allied strategic bombing campaigns was the massive amount of German resources that had to be deployed on the homefront for air defense that would have otherwise been sent to the fronts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This. Despite how much people love to villify the strategic bombing campaign, I would argue it was more effective than anything the Soviets did except Stalingrad

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ….what? Were the Allies flying over the East? If German pilots were taking casualties in the West how does that translate into the Soviet air force winning? How did they lose 25k aircraft to the Soviets?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            LET ME BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU.

            MORE ALLIED PLANES MEANS MORE GERMAN PLANES IN THE WEST.

            MORE GERMAN PLANES IN THE WEST MEAN LESS PLANES IN THE EAST

            LESS PLANES IN THE EAST MEANS THE SOVIETS HAVE AN EASIER TIME FIGHTING THE GERMANS AIRFORCE

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Okay. So the Luftwaffe lost due to being outnumbered? Now we’re getting somewhere. How much did the Soviets outnumber them? 10-to-1? 100-to-1?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            luftwaffe was seal clubbing soviet air force until they had to pull their forces towards the western front to deal with allied bombers, then soviets could kind of struggle through

            60% of luftwaffe was fighting on the western front, 20% on the east and 20% in the other theaters

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But Soviets never won air war. Their airfirce continued to be lame horse to the end of war
        Soviet infantry human waves with infantry and tanks won war. Thier air force just participated.
        On Western front Germans pulled out Ju-87 Stuka from combat force in 1942 as horribly outdated. On Eastern Front Rudel continued to fly his tank busting Ju-87 even in 1945 (until he finally got heavily bwounded by AA machingun of the IS-2 tank). Soviet fighters? What is it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Luftwaffe lost 25k aircraft in the East. This was not a significant factor to the outcome of the war? Why did either side try so hard in the air?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            goalpost status - moved

            lmao choke and die tankie

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They should make more movies about the creation of these planes. That's why "the wind rises" is such a kino flick. It also gives a perspective on how intimidated japs were about western military tech, and what it took them to achieve the zero, wich was finally aplane on par with western fighter planes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >"the wind rises" is such a kino flick
      I could not give half a shit if not for the doomed love story

      plot was thin and, absent the love story, consisted mainly of the guy sperging about planes. definitely lacked the polish of earlier Miyazakis.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I could not give half a shit if not for the doomed love story
        Yeah, that love story was cringe and unnecessary. Far from what happened on real life.
        >consisted mainly of the guy sperging about planes
        That's why I liked it though. What else do you want from a story about the motherfucker that made the zero?
        The other good character was his best friend. He had an autistic determination about suprassing the german tech, wich probably represents how japan had an inferiority complex towards the west and put their best minds into making huge leaps to be on par with them and then even suprassing them for a couple of years with the zero.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Wind Rises is a great film about the sins of those who pursue beauty and the human nature that is aware of these sins, but cannot help but regard beauty as beauty.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I choose a world with pyramids.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You misread me; I preferred the love story (though yes I know it wasn't real) over the multiple forced dream sequences devoid of anything creative other than LOOK! PLANE! ITALIAN GUY TALKING LIKE A METAPHYSICAL JAP MONK! I expected fantasy versions of modern aircraft, even spacecraft, detailed soaring vistas of prospering cities, a fantasy what-if-Japan-modernised, and of course the flipside destitute and destroyed Japan... but what we got was long monologues over basic green fields blue skies and planefuls of generic background sprites.

          >The other good character was his best friend
          Indeed. He was a good straight man for protag to bounce off of, way more down-to-earth, but underused. Excepting one or two scenes, Dream-Caproni should have been replaced by the kraut agent and the bestie, as his shoulder angel and demon respectively.

          The Wind Rises is a great film about the sins of those who pursue beauty and the human nature that is aware of these sins, but cannot help but regard beauty as beauty.

          It is. But it could have been done so much better.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A reminder that America and the UK literally gave Russia half the equipment they used to beat the Germans back and Russia would have fallen to the Nazi's if the Allies hadn't stepped in. The only resource Russia provided was bodies that they couldn't even afford to feed themselves.

    Also a reminder that the USSR NEVER returned the favor nor helped the other Allies by sharing their own military hardware and paid us back by basically declaring war on us at the end of the war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you guys did all the fighting and killed 75% of the German army but hey you couldnt of done it without our trains and bullets haaha

      Ok,

      I don't even know what this is supposed to be flexing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >killed 75% of the German army
        more like 80%
        but the Allies took 80% of the POWs

        contrary to (yet more) Soviet propaganda, the combined casualty counts, KIA and POW, are fairly evenly divided between the Western Allies and the USSR

        it's just that the Soviets being the usual morons they are killed the majority of their enemies, while the Western Allies took more prisoners

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      …huh? The German command noted that they had until the winter of 1941 to win and would be defeated if they couldn’t knock out the USSR before then. Why? How did Lend-Lease effect this thinking? I don’t get it, explain.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The only resource Russia provided was bodies that they couldn't even afford to feed themselves.
      >Also a reminder that the USSR NEVER returned the favor nor helped the other Allies by sharing their own military hardware and paid us back by basically declaring war on us at the end of the war.

      You're the same guy as the other Lend-Lease idiots, though I stand by that it was vital for the Soviet Effort, specially logistics and the early 1942-43 years, you're a fucking moron who has just saved that image and not ever even dug deep into Lend-Lease itself.

      The Soviets DID RETURN THE FAVOR with much needed natural resources that the US was looking for alongside others that could aid further production for the Allied War Effort, you fucking retard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        soviets barely paid 2% of the lend lease amount given to them, total, and only because they were starving and really wanted US grain shipments

        soviets lie and steal as they breathe, and they should have lend leased a dozen of nukes over moscow and their other cities

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Half? More like 5% to 10% after the decisive battles of the war had been fought

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ok vatmoron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ok actual moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            an actual moron's pea brain would still be better than the absolutely rotten and deluded husk that replaces the head of a communist locust

            I’m trying to understand your argument, not make my own. According to you the Soviets were hopeless, worthless trash, and I’m trying to reconcile that with the fact they won the war. It doesn’t make sense to me so I’m asking you clarify this point.

            it's not my argument, you're just a butthurt slavmoron shilling for your failed loser state

            also the claim that they won the war is yours, ungrateful slavaboo bitches make it all the time

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ….the Soviets literally flew the USSR flag atop the ruins of the Reichstag while Hitler committed suicide after writing his final will. What is the basis for your suggestion that the Soviets didn’t win? Furthermore how did the Germans get defeated in the USSR and then fail to halt the Soviet advanced into Germany?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the Soviets literally flew the USSR flag atop the ruins of the Reichstag

                The western allies allowed the USSR to take Berlin

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                soviets would have been stomped long before that and those that didn't would starve to death without allied help

                also, the photo of soviets putting a flag had to be edited to remove multiple watches that maraudering "liberators" borrowed from civilians

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Communists are stupid, for example Albert Einstein was known for being a retard
              >If Russians don’t pretend that they couldn’t have defeated Nazi Germany without help then they are ingrates

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh lord look at this retard

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, I see you, now what

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I’m going to laugh at you now for being retarded. I’m glad I got your attention.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                look at this loser and laugh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >All them communists leftists n democrats are fat consumerist retards with mental disorders
                >No, I’m not projecting

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gem

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      .jpg
      Same pic, every time. And every time it seems a little more degraded. And nobody's still bothered to clean the fake-PNG texture from "Specialized cars".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Indeed. If not for the US, the Soviets would have signed a cease fire with the Germans.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The tone and info in the OP makes the thread not worth a genuine reply. You're not interested in a real discussion on the matter,

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    SHITTY PLANES

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Garbage training, shitty doctrine, incompetent brass.
    Technology wise they were behind but that made a lot less of a difference than the other factors.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OH NO NO VATNIKBROS, I THOUGHT WE SAY K/D RATIO DON'T MATTER?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is an iconic Soviet war movie about fighter pilots - "Only old men go to battle". It built around notion that flying school graduates circa 1943 are kids 18-19 years old, trained to take off and land, essentially, accidents on landings are common, land crews old mechanics looks on them with grief on a first meetings - "You're my number 5". Regiment commander bans them from flying sorties and focus on training, only "old men" - 19-20 y.o. kids are fighting and dying gradually with new kids replacing them. Year later we see that few survivors are "old men" know, meeting knew graduates and cycle continues.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So which Ruskie prop fighter would you use? The La-5fn, Yak-9, or P-39?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Lel you fuckers really are mentally still children

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    While Yak-9, Yak-3 and La-5 have had good low level speed, turn and roll performance, they lacked in many other areas to save weight.

    -ShVAK was a rather early 20mm cannon. It is not bad, but German fighters had lots of weight in armor and other protection features.

    -Wood is indeed worse than aluminum. The German 20mm was excelled at shattering apart small aircraft. The light plywood surfaces suffered more from these rounds than heavier build Western fighters with aluminium surfaces. It is also stated that too much lacquer could make the plane ignite from single hit.

    -Very low dive speed limit. They couldn't escape that easily from any higher altitude engagement or go after the diving Germans.

    -Massproducing electrics is difficult. Aircraft radios were still high tech equipment. Soviets weren't the onlyg nation having difficulty at producing them.

    -Difficult of use. Many of engine and cooling controls were manually operated in Soviet aircraft. Germany had a clear headstart in this department. Fw 190 pilot only needed to use the throttle lever in combat, while a Yak pilot had to follow many gauges and adjust half a dozen things to keep up optimal performance.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Brewster F2A Buffalo, even slower than the F4F, made in 1937

    interestingly the leading buffalo ace Hans Wind thought Hurricane and P-40 to be the 2 worst enemy fighters

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why is the USSR and Russia so pathetic?
    because they're Russians.
    Lend Lease was a mistake.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finns were fighting for their nation. Soviets were fighting because they were afraid their commissars would kill them. Brave men with the courage of their convictions usually trump cowards being driven by a prod.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know about real life but the Yak-1 is pretty good in IL2, just gotta adjust to german fighters being a bit faster than you and play to your strengths.

Your email address will not be published.