WW2 Soviet aviation ?

[Rich46yo]

Can any of you history buffs lay some Soviet aviation history on me from WW2?

Since retiring most of my study has been on the Pacific theater and I know little about Soviet aviation operations, make up, aircraft, its a weak spot in my study of WW2. Maybe recommend a few books?

Thanks. Do any of you model Soviet planes? picture's would be appreciated.

I know we've had pretty good students of the war in times past here.

[perdue3]

I have a few models of VVS airplanes. Recently, I have been diving hard into Bolt Action (tabletop game) and have a Red Army going. I will share pics one day of my work.

The most recent book I read on the VVS was "Red Phoenix Rising" by Hardesty and Grinberg. It did a great job of solidifying or challenging common theses on VVS operations initially delivered by American and German sources. It is fairly comprehensive, but not all that esoteric. A good general overview of recent scholarship.

[Devil 505]

I don't have any specific sources to recommend, but if you see any that claim that the P-39, or Yak-9T were meant for ground attack - throw them away!

They both used 37mm cannons with high explosive rounds meant for taking down aircraft.

[Vulcan]

I don't have any specific sources to recommend, but if you see any that claim that the P-39, or Yak-9T were meant for ground attack - throw them away!

They both used 37mm cannons with high explosive rounds meant for taking down aircraft.

Nope. Both could fire either HE or AP, though the M4 in the P39 was typically used with HE. The 9T in game uses AP, and I'm fairly sure the P-39 uses HE. In WW2 the 9T was used in the ground attack role (including against shipping).

The 9T in game can be quite effective against armour if you can master shots down through the top of the turret. The 9T offers and advantage over aircraft like the IL2 in that the gun is centerline which makes aiming easier, it has a better view, and you can quickly switch roles should enemy fighters show up.

[Devil 505]

I'm referring to their use historically, not in game.

Yes, they could be used for ground attack, but they were not designed with that mission in mind or typically used in that manner. That's my point.

Just trying to dispel the myth of the "T stand for Tank buster" you often see in reference to the Yak-9T before Rich inevitably finds that often stated claim.

[Arlo]

Various sources differ in opinion. As such, I try taking them all with a grain of salt. Never the less ... here's something:

[Vulcan]

Yes, they could be used for ground attack, but they were not designed with that mission in mind or typically used in that manner. That's my point.

From what I have read they were heavily used in the ground attack/anti-shipping role, this includes from interviews with Yak pilots.

[Devil 505]

Various sources differ in opinion. As such, I try taking them all with a grain of salt. Never the less ... here's something:

Sorry but that dude gets stuff wrong all the time. His choices of footage are especially laughable in some videos. I've actually told Youtube to not recommend anything from his channels.

[Vulcan]

^ yup, even the cover picture isn't a 9T, looks like a 3.

edit: Oh hell a little googling shows it's a modern rebuild Yak-3.

[perdue3]

Agreed, that channel sucks.

[Greebo]

I've read quite a few books relating to Soviet aviation for skinning research, but most of these relate to specific battles, aircraft types or manufacturers. The best overall history of the VVS in WW2 I have read is "Soviet Air Power in WW2" by Yefim Gordon. It covers Soviet air forces' unit organisation and history, as well as all the various home-produced and lend lease aircraft they flew. Yefim Gordon also co-wrote "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War". However this is much like the first book, just without the lend-lease and air force organisation stuff.

[Arlo]

Sorry but that dude gets stuff wrong all the time. His choices of footage are especially laughable in some videos. I've actually told Youtube to not recommend anything from his channels.

Agreed, that channel sucks.

Disclaimer by the author: As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.

All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwx8xyh6ZlDI5ZQpbIWKnUg/about

[perdue3]

We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas

This is a cop out. As a professional historian, I hear and read this all the time. What little research is done, is poor.

But, it is all good, you obviously adore the channel. And that is okay. I am just saying, it is a trash heap and that is my opinion.

[Arlo]

This is a cop out. As a professional historian, I hear and read this all the time. What little research is done, is poor.

But, it is all good, you obviously adore the channel. And that is okay. I am just saying, it is a trash heap and that is my opinion.

Projection of adoration indicates that your opinion, regarding my use of it in this case, has a degree of emotional drive. I indicated no such thing and merely offered it as an easily accessed source. As I've said various sources differ in opinion (and I'll be glad to add accuracy). As such, I try taking them all with a grain of salt. No attempt was made to bruise the professional sensibilities of a fellow historian. 

[Devil 505]

Disclaimer by the author: As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.

All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwx8xyh6ZlDI5ZQpbIWKnUg/about

Sorry, but that disclaimer is BS when he uses footage of a completely different aircraft than what's being discussed. I can overlook using a Yak-3 in the Yak-9 video since they're both Yaks that are similar looking, but I won't forgive using footage of totally unrelated material to the subject at hand. (I wish I could remember the specific instance that set me off a few months ago but it was essentially the equivalent of showing a P-51 on screen while the narration is going over the demands of landing on an aircraft carrier) Not even close to relevant. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject matter and a lack of care in producing a video of any educational value. If he misses the basic stuff, what else did he get wrong?