Minimising air losses

[Tisifoni12]

Playing as the USSR I find that by June / July 1941 I have far less than the around 8,000 aircraft the USSR had historically; 2,800 - 3,000 fighters, a few hundred CAS, a few hundred TAC, a few dozen Strat.

Even with production over 50 lines of fighters in 1943, 1944 the USSR's losses exceed production. What is best prioritise fighter production before the war or restrict fighters to interception until numbers have built up ?

 

[Jays298]

Limiting them to interception and to not use them much until you reach parity is what you used to have to do.

I haven't played USSR in BBA but I would think it would hold true for them as well as others that better planes matter. Air defense and efficiency matters.

I also build AA in the regions I intend to hold such as Ukraine for instance and around Moscow and Leningrad.

50 lines on fighters seems excessive.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Limiting them to interception and to not use them much until you reach parity is what you used to have to do.

I haven't played USSR in BBA but I would think it would hold true for them as well as others that better planes matter. Air defense and efficiency matters.

I also build AA in the regions I intend to hold such as Ukraine for instance and around Moscow and Leningrad.

50 lines on fighters seems excessive.

56 . . .

 

[stormsand9]

You won't reach the historic numbers before Germany attacks
Before BBA I used air xp from the spanish civil war to give my fighters max agility, and as I approached June 1941 I ramped up my fighter production to around 40-50 mills and I always crushed the germans in the air.
Haven't played post BBA yet, I would either make sure I have support AA in every single division, even the holding ones, and maybe even set my planes to interception, or ramp up my aircraft mills once I can grab total mobilization.
Before BBA I never touched the air focus path, maybe now in BBA I'll have to make getting rid of those penalties top priority. My army can hold by themselves since I usually have 4 million manpower in the field before barb

 

[HmJ_JP]

Be mindful that in BBA 1.12.2 till 1.12.4 your planes was "nearly" indestructible, while since 1.12.5 the losses are more realistic, on both sides.
Now, honestly speaking, I prefer the BBA way: building less planes of higher quality is so much better to manage. I had zero problems running world conquest, but feel I do have a better control of my air force.

 

[Steel_Viking]

I’ll note that by 1941 if I’m going for world domination as USSR I usually have 70+ mils on air production. Otherwise you will fall badly behind AI Britain with their obsessive air production.

 

[HmJ_JP]

I’ll note that by 1941 if I’m going for world domination as USSR I usually have 70+ mils on air production. Otherwise you will fall badly behind AI Britain with their obsessive air production.

Is that still accurate with BBA? I haven't had major challenge when attacking them, including after 1940 (as France, Italy...).

 

[Jays298]

Is that still accurate with BBA? I haven't had major challenge when attacking them, including after 1940 (as France, Italy...).

I don't think AI Britain can be taken seriously as far as air anymore. As Germany I might have had 5 lines on fighters and never had an issue until the USA joins. It's not about reaching parity but scaring them off.

I don't think the AI is as aggressive as it once was.

 

[Fulmen]

Playing as the USSR I find that by June / July 1941 I have far less than the around 8,000 aircraft the USSR had historically; 2,800 - 3,000 fighters, a few hundred CAS, a few hundred TAC, a few dozen Strat.

8,000? The USSR had at least 32,100 aircraft in June 1941 (Krivosheev), including a few thousand trainers, thousands of which were pressed into frontline combat service during the second half of 1941.

I don't have an "inclusive" breakdown for Russian aircraft numbers on 1.6.41, but I do have one for 25.9.40, though I'm not entirely sure if this includes absolutely everything. It does at least include everything both in Army and Naval Aviation, but the Russians also had aircraft in the NKVD and Osoaviakhim (OAH) (and PVO, DBA and GVF, but IIRC those are included). The OAH had thousands of the trainers which were transferred to the VVS in the summer-to-fall of 1941 and pressed into combat, so it'd be interesting to know if they're included. I suspect they are.

At any rate, the following tables that I've translated from Russian primary sources and put into Excel format, may be of interest to you:

The number of aircraft in the Soviet Air Force on September 25, 1940

Sheet1 Red Army,Navy,All together Operational,Inoperable,Total,Operational,Inoperable,Total Bombers TB-3,337,184,521,19,9,28,549 TB-7 (Pe-8),9,1,10,0,0,0,10 DB-3,966,190,1,156,104,29,133,1,289 DB-3F (Il-4),430,133,563,84,4,88,651 SB,3,849,737,4,586,269,47,316,4,902 BB-22 (Yak-2),51,19,70,0,0,0,7...

docs.google.com

This one excludes aircraft assigned to Naval Aviation:

VVS (no VMF) c. 25.9.40 and MDs

Sheet1 AIRCRAFT TOTAL,Including In units,At training facilities, courses and proving grounds,At central and district warehouses,Operational,Non-operational Fighters,8,636,6,679,1,353,604,6,876,1,760 Bombers,6,413,5,249,864,300,5,299,1,114 Heavy bombers,531,464,65,2,346,185 Reconnaissance and gro...

docs.google.com

EDIT: Colour-coded the first table and cleaned both up a bit to better fit digitisation.

 

[Tisifoni12]

8,000? The USSR had at least 32,100 aircraft in June 1941 (Krivosheev), including a few thousand trainers, thousands of which were pressed into frontline combat service during the second half of 1941.

Impressive. I just took a rough mid point in the range suggested on Wikipedia.

However if you look at the 1940 list and take out the 'inoperable', you get 5,645 bombers, 6,876 fighters and I'm not sure which of the others are CAS.
Inoperable may mean 'retained as source of spare parts'.

 

[Fulmen]

Impressive. I just took a rough mid point in the range suggested on Wikipedia.

However if you look at the 1940 list and take out the 'inoperable', you get 5,645 bombers, 6,876 fighters and I'm not sure which of the others are CAS.
Inoperable may mean 'retained as source of spare parts'.

The actual Russian term in the original documents translates as "malfunctioning", so these are aircraft that just needed some repairs to be operational again. Of course that's not to say some of them couldn't have later been stripped down for parts instead of getting repaired, but the overwhelming majority was meant to be repaired.

According to Nigel Askey, on the eve of Barbarossa, 8,800 combat aircraft were in frontline units in the Western MDs, including PVO & VMF, of which 7,575 (86%) were serviceable, 2,479 in training units, reserves and other in the Western MDs, of which 2,132 (86%) were serviceable, for a total of 11,279 non-DBA combat aircraft in the Western MDs. On top of that there were 2,311 combat aircraft assigned to the DBA, of which 1,865 (81%) were serviceable, of which most were in the Western USSR and flew operations against the Axis and their co-belligerent forces from the outset of the war. Additionally the VVS-SF (Aviation of the Northern Fleet) is not included in the aforementioned numbers. Altogether on 22.6.41 the USSR had some 13,000-14,000 combat aircraft in the Western Military Districts + the DBA in the Western USSR.

You mentioned the 8,000 figure coming from Wikipedia. These decades-old figures, that either came into existence as propaganda numbers the Kremlin made up, or as underestimations by Western scholars, sadly still permeate places like Wikipedia in a lot of articles.

 

[Tisifoni12]

It was middle of a range quoted based on different sources, like between 6,500 to 9,500.
Re-srarted and looks like I could have around 3,600 fighters and maybe approaching 600 each of TAC and CAS.
Probably at cost of underequipped infantry and armour divisions.

 

[stormsand9]

I don't think AI Britain can be taken seriously as far as air anymore. As Germany I might have had 5 lines on fighters and never had an issue until the USA joins. It's not about reaching parity but scaring them off.

I don't think the AI is as aggressive as it once was.

Maybe, maybe not. Currently in a Japan save 1945. Took the U.S as Japan and i'm now rushing through the middle east to Turkey to link up with Germany and save them from the western allies who are literally right next to Berlin, and the Soviet Juggernaut is approaching fast from the east as well. I sent EVERY single one of my fighters to Germany after the U.S was done to help them out, but the British still have 7K fighters and I only have 5K.
I did a tag switch, and they have 114 mills on fighters, while I currently have about 140. Even though they have a 70% resource penalty to those fighters and are only making 9 a day to my 25, its still taking a long while lol

 

[Tisifoni12]

I'm still at this, having gone back to 1936 a couple of times.

It's late 1944 and despite success in holding the Germans on the former USSR / Polish border and one successful offensive that gained four tiles mounting an offensive seems pointless because of air cover.

Typically have around 2,000 fighters on intercept in Belarus and Ukraine (2,000 between them) and 2,000 on training. Find I'm fighting with mostly Lagg and some Yak against a mixed bag of all sorts of fighters, many / most out of date, and losing more than I'm shooting down.

Now mount an offensive, 4,000 fighters over Eastern Poland and lose 78 in a day to a loss of 8.

Offensive will have to be abandoned after a few days ?

 

[The Colonel]

Can you post the fighter designs you're using? If you're not upgrading frames and using decent modules you will struggle esp. as the AI does upgrade to new techs over time.

 

[Cavalry]

The historical correct way of Soviet air use (and Germany too) is Air force should devote to land operation. No air superiority without bombing the enemy ground troops. And no need to bomb enemy ground troop if you don't attack. So save the air force for the begining of attack, use the CAS with maximize ground attack and the middle air doctrine. You can turn off air force in other time to save planes.

Remember again, air force is not about killing other air force. Airforce is about bombing enemy troops to make it easy for encirclement. You can capture Berlin while the German air force is still superior. As long as you can drop bomb to assist ground attack, you can accept far bigger loss than enemy air.

 

[Tisifoni12]

@Cavalry
Thank you for the most helpful post I've had on this

 

[CrasherZZ]

I've won a few times as the SU , but pre-BBA. I could never keep up with German fighter production until 1943, by which time I already defeated them. As Cavalry pointed out, the focus should be on CAS anyway because it's basically airborne artillery that aids every battle in the zone. I would still produce enough fighters to be able to gain temporary local superiority but would switch them to interception or another air zone if I started taking too many losses.

After defeating Germany, I would take on the Allies and they would always have air superiority. I would still defeat them eventually by focusing on CAS, TAC, and NAV and using fighters for temporary local superiority where I was mounting a major offensive. Another way to look at it is that although air superiority is definitely nice to have, it's usually very expensive and doesn't guarantee that your ground forces will win.

Enemy fighters can't harm your ground units, and if you have AAA in every division then their CAS is limited too. AAA units are a lot cheaper than fighters I believe.

 

[Findell_HOI]

If you limit your planes to interception and put on those buffs for interception ( the air to air radar ) and then do things like adding armor plates or self sealing fuel tanks to make it so that your air defense is higher then the german's air attack you can not lose too many planes so you dont have to produce too many.

 

[Tisifoni12]

What sort of ratio of CAS and Tac to fighters. I've gone for 1 CAS : 1 Tac : 6 fighter ?