VVS Vs. RAF

[plan_D]

14,200 Il-2s were claimed down in 1943-1944 alone.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...t/ilyushin.htm

[delcyros]

I do collect some material about soviet radar in ww2 and will present it in a few weeks. But some can be said first:
The VVS had Radar.
It´s first generation of radar doesn´t come from the western allies but from Germany in 1940 (basis for Rus-1 stationary ground radar). The soviets developed this to Rus-2 (prototype only) and later Rus-3 in late 1941. They got more advanced radar technology in 1942 by Britain.
The Meteor could barely rip the Il-2 (with ease) except if they reduce their speed to get close kills. This plane (could face the more armored Il-10) is highly advanced and a superior fighter but approximation is quite high and you can only fire fewer rounds on the Il-2/-10 or you choose to reduce the speed (leaving the Meteor a very easy prey for escort fighters and rear gunners: slow, BIG TARGET, clumsy, worse acceleration). The Typhoon/Tempest is the best RAF plane for this task: Good armed, with high acceleration and durable enough.
The I-250 of Mikoyan (first flown in march 1945) tops the Meteor III in almost every aspect, except for service sailing, durability and the equal armement: Top speed from low level to high altitude, Acceleration, turn rate, roll rate and climb. Just a note to be careful for generalizations.
The Hurricane and Typhoons are formidable fighters, but none of them could rip a Pz.IV onwards, resp. T-34, KV-1/-2, JS-1/-2, or the SU-artillerys. The ap-capabilities of the 20mm makes this highly unprobable. Bomb and rocket hits could do this but you need a (unprobable) direct hit to do so. The hit percentage at tactical sorties of the 2nd tactical RAF airforce during 1944 and 1945 was below 30% (a hit was considered if the bomb strikes somewhere in 1000 ft. distance to the target!). The Typhoon could not take out any Whermacht vehicle, regardles of qhat you think you have read. This question is discussed in other threads in detail. And there are lots of soviet tanks, without proper counter weapons, there is a big problem for the British ground forces.They are good for unarmored and light armored vehicles, where they can wreac havoc with ease, and this can be as important as knocking the tanks out. The IL-2 on the other hand can knock out any British ground target.
The Il-2 losses are very high, no doubt. But what I know from the reports is that no other single allied plane destroyed that much percentage of fighting Whermacht forces, and that´s the reason why it was produced in numbers. In this way Plan_D is right. The RAF on their theatres had no urgent need for such a plane, while the red army depends on it. It´s a question what kind of enemy you face in what quantities.

[Glider]

Delc
You can always pick and choose pilots, try Otto Bruno Kittel. 94 Il2's and NO spits but that is a dangerous game to play. In a conflict such as WW2 anyone can find examples to prove any point.

In 1941 the Spits carried 140 rpg so there is no difference.

Lets make it interesting. Pick a year and we can compare, your choice

[delcyros]

Otto Kittel was downed and killed in Action by an Il-2 reargunner...

[Glider]

Delc
Apologies I hadn't seen your last mail as it came up when I was typing. I agree with you re the Meteor, there is little doubt that the Tempest and Typhoon would have been better for getting amongst the IL2. I also agree re the destroying of the ground tanks. However we obviously had the weapons (40mm on Hurricane) and had push come to shove we would have found ways of fitting it on other aircraft. That said if the Ju87 with AT guns could survive in the air then I am sure that a Hurricane would have been better.

I also didn't thank you for the Aces site which looks a good one.

However, as I said pick a year and lets compare

[delcyros]

(Agreed, The Hurricane with 40 mm is a reasonable tank hunter, no doubt)
Umm, that´s difficult. I asume that the VVS equippment developed in a specific was to counter the Whermacht and not he RAF from 1941 on and if you turn on one wheel you can easily forget the other turning. I think 1941 would be the best year, since the RAF and VVS did not developed in an extremely specific way either. Both airforces have considerable combat experiences, the RAF undoubtely has more.
We have already discussed the Mig-3 and Spit V, the Hurricane should be discussed against Yak-1, Lagg-3 and I-16. And we have the Pe-2 and Welland, the SB-2 and Hampden...On the ground we have the excellent Matilda II and the KV-1 and KV-2. Could be really interesting. But I doubt that any nation could win a decisive victory in within a year. The SU is unbelieveable large and England is well protected by the Royal Navy and the Channel. I put in the year, maybe you should give a szenario for a specific campaign, Glider? Just a "What if", of course, but we need the circumstances to compare the airforces.
By the way, you should credit the site to arras, who posted it.

[Glider]

Arras, My mistake.
Delc, lets keep the scenario simple, switch Germans for British. Border to border, head to head.
Also we are copmparing airforces at a point in time. We are not trying to say that one side or the other will win a war in 12 months
Before I go any further I am going to think about it and probably come back tomorrow.
Anyone else reading this feel free to pitch in. It isn't a two way discussion.

[plan_D]

Do you want to put your money on the Typhoon being unable to destroy anything about Pz.Kpfw IV? The capabilities of the four Hispano Mk.II was discussed when the rounds bounced up under the Tiger. Everyone in that discussion agreed that a Typhoon could destroy a Tiger from above when rounds entered the vents on the top back of the Tiger chassis.
The Typhoon could have destroyed anything the Soviet Union fielded during World War 2. Maybe having difficulties with the ISU and SU SPGs.

The four 20mm on the Meteor made it an effective bomber destroyer. As they were all in the nose, it would have effectively destroyed Il-2s with no problem.

The Il-2 probably did destroy the most ground forces for any aircraft of the war but it paid the price and with that price comes the proof that the Il-2 wasn't indestructable and it was an easy target.

In 1941 the VVS and RAF had developed to their own doctrine. Britain was largely a defensive nation by the 1940s due to the fact that the empire was large, there was no need for expansion. The Soviet Union was an aggressive nation set for expansion, their military doctrine of Deep Battle stated mass armoured assaults with close air-support. Although Stalin had purged a vast majority of the staff and wiped Deep Battle from the doctrine, the designs, armour and air had already been produced.

1941 would pit Spitfire Vb and Hurricane IIA,B,C against I-16s, Yak-1s and MiG-3s. In the armour sector, the T-26 was in majority but few and far between were KV-1, KV-2 and T-34s...the British armour wouldn't have stood a chance with Matilda IIs, Valentines and Light Tank Mk.III.

[Glider]

Delc
VVS vs RAF 1941
Taking it in decent steps and the easiest first

The night belongs to the RAF. We have the Bombers, Halifax and Stirling to hit the Russians hard and with a force that the Germans ever did. There supply routes would suffer serious damage and delays would impact the availability rates of all Russian forces. Also in 1941 a number of the critical production facilities would not have been moved east and could have been attacked. Should the VVS have tried to reply in kind then we had the Beaufighter. The VVS only had the PE8 as a bomber and whilst I think this is a good plane it lacks the payload of the RAF bombers and there is no comparison to the Beau in the VVS.

Next are the fighters. This has been debated and I see the Spit V being able to take on anything that the VVS had. Even above 15000ft I believe that its easy handling and superior firepower over the Mig 3, being more than enough to deal with any threat.
The shear numbers of the I16 is a cause for concern and there is no denying that its agile and well armed. However there is no need for a Spit to get into a turning fight and if it did it isn’t a slouch in that area and with its extra speed, it could leave the combat at will. The Germans inflicted heavy losses on the VVS with the Me109 and there is no reason to believe that the Spitfire wouldn’t have had the same success.

Ground attack. Again we have debated this a number of times and the RAF would have used the Hurricane IIc. It has firepower and a bombload, is able to take on targets of opportunity both in the air and on the ground, as well as being able to defend itself against VVS fighters. It is more vulnerable to ground fire than some other planes but on balance that would be a reasonable price to pay.

Light bombers. Here I see this as an advantage to the VVS. The VVS had the SB2bis and we had the Blenhiem which was a draw, but the VVS had the PE2 one of (in my mind) the most underrated planes of the war. I am itching to say the RAF had the Boston which would be a good comparison, but being American built that wouldn’t be fair.

Medium bombers. Where the Germans used the He111, Do215, Ju88 we would be using the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden. Against Germany these were normally used at night, against the VVS I see the Whitley being used at night as it was so slow and poorly armed but it did have a decent range and payload. I would also see the Wellington being tried in daylight. Its better protected than the He111 with a higher performance and while I know that it’s a risk, with the lack of Radar in Russia and the lack of radios to direct the fighters once they are in the air, it’s a risk worth trying.
I would also try using Sterlings in daytime. This was done to a very small degree in Europe but the numbers were small, literally no more than a squadron at a time. I wouldn’t try to go without escort which would limit the range but I suspect it would work for the same reasons mentioned above.

Command and Control. The VVS in 1941 I believe, is only really able to cater for pre-planned missions, targets of opportunity and fairly short ranged interceptions. As mentioned in Medium bombers, this would have been a major weakness and is why I believe the defenders would be at such a huge disadvantage. It also probably explains why planes withdrawn from other areas of combat could be used in Russia. The lack of C&C plus the distances involved made interception difficult.

Specific Strike. The RAF would use the Beaufighter. Its fast for the time, heavily armed, could carry a good bombload and was tough. I don’t think the VVS had an alternative.

Plan D
Bouncing 20mm shells destroying T34 up? total fanasy, maybe a fluke but only a fluke.
Meteor destroying bombers? totally agree
Il2 probably right
RAF Defensive in 1940? only where we had to. A lot of bombers were lost in the BOB and they didn't do it by staying at home. In fact you may find we lost more bombers than fighters.
Russia being agressive. Totally wrong. Stalin would believe anything rather than launch a war on Germany.
British Armour against Soviet totally agree, we could handle the lighter tanks but the T34, KV1 would walk right over us

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you're pretty much right, the night would be totally ours, the russians had nothing to stop us at night (apart from AAA), and we'd fairly easily stop any russian bomber raid, even if they had escort, though use of our radars and the range advantage we'd have, if we launched a bomber raid by day over russia, the first sign they'd have of us coming would only be when we fly over their airfields.........

[plan_D]

Glider;

I never stated that bouncing 20mm shells would destroy a T-34. Re-read what I said, the only mention of bouncing shells was to direct del to the discussion of Tank Busters.
The Typhoon could easily destroy T-34s from above. The 20mm would smash it's way through the vents in the back of the T-34 either destroying it or, at least, crippling it.

There's no point in attempting your point on the RAF not being defensive. It was a defensive nation, the design specifications for aircraft were never long range. We didn't have an expansionist attitude in 1940. We certainly were on the defensive, the whole Battle of Britain was a defensive conflict for the RAF.

The Soviet Union was an expansionist state. They believed in Marxism which in turn that all should be converted to their ways, if so...by force. The Soviet Union was looking to expand it's terrority in East Europe, it invaded Poland on September 17th, 1939 and invaded Finland in 1940. What is this, if not an expansionist attitude?
Stalin was preparing the Soviet Union for war, he expected his forces to be ready by 1942. He didn't expect Germany to attack while they still had to defeat Britain. The Soviet Union were going to invade, Germany just beat them to it.

Luckily the T-34 and KV-1 were in low quantities, the KV-2 being in even lower quantities. The only real way of achieving victory over these tanks was disabling them then bringing in artillery or aircraft to knock them out completely.

[delcyros]

After all I read only fluke hits allow the 20mm to destroy a tank. If "open" you may kill crews or important parts even with 0.303, but if "closed" not even a 20mm has a chance. And remember, the soviet tanks are pretty easily constructed. The Luftwaffe developed for this task the MK-101 30mm gun with extra high velocity (920m/sec. for a 530 g /1.16 lbs grenade) and special Wolfram made shells. Later they found the MK-103 with the same shell and little lower velocity (but much more rate of fire) also suitable for this task.
The Night may belong to the RAF but the VVS had the Pe-3 (modified Pe-2) nightfighter with good speed, durability and firepower. It lacks an airborne radar and depends on ground direction and search lights. This tactics worked against the Luftwaffe over Moscow and I don´t see why it shouldn´t work against the RAF. Keep also in mind that you greatly overestimate the results of night bombings without radar aim in 1941. At these distances (you said that distances open some airspace, which is- in my view- right and allow bombers at night to attack) the payload is little and the structures to attack in Russia are pretty easy to repair. The Luftwaffe repeatedly striked the railway net in 1941 and soon found out that it almost had no impact, since the railwaysystem was repairable even under the worsest circumstances.
Stalin was an expansionist, but the expansionism of the SU isn´t originated in the marxism. I suggest to read the kom. Manifest first.
In the szenario we made, the RAF simply has not enough fighters to cover the whole border (we are talking about nearly 2000 miles) and home defense. In order to achieve air superiority some areas would have been pretty open for the VVS also, allowing them to engage UK forces there.
The big advantage of the Spit V in 1941 was that it was well suited for any altitude while the VVS had planes for specific purposes (mostly low altitudes) but the Yak-1 can outmaneuvre the Spit V at low altitude and comes close in speed and acceleration. In any way there wouldn´t be any superiority, esspeccially since the VVS had the numerical advantage.
The Luftwaffe inflicted heavy losses on the VVS because they relied on advanced tactics and experienced pilots as well as with numerical advantag e in 1941. The VVS had not the same capabilities (numbers of bomber sorties possible in a certain timeframe)) to strike all or most VVS airfields simultaneously as the Luftwaffe did and thus would leave the VVS in a far better position against the RAF.
I can agree in the GA and Light bombers, but keep in mind that the VVS also had very much light bombers (I-153 rocket equipped biplanes) to strike on it´s own initiative. The numerical advantage belongs to the VVS also.
Stirlings at daytime would be very interesting but as I pointed out, this bomber is not suited to attack mobile ground targets by means of level bombardment. Maybe the Warwicks and Stirlings and Wellington could take out a few aircraft factories in the european part of Russia. This would be in within both, range and possibilities.
C-C: Probable. However, even with the strikes of the Luftwaffe against airfields and specificly (including covered operations) Command strukture, the VVS was able to counter strikes on it´s own low level command strukture (and it repeatedly did but lost many planes doing so).
A last word to the Meteor-III: A Meteor against IL-2 would be nonsense. Just keep in mind that approximation speed is far to big to allow close engagements and precisely aiming (and this is necessary to deal with a Il-2) at high speed. Bad aiming would enforce the probability of rounds to glance off the armor of the Il2. At low level (the Il-2 exclusively flew at low level) the fuel consumption of the jet engines is extremely high and the range and endurance of the Meteor III is small. Unlike the Me-262 the Meteor would be catchable in such situations since it doesn´t have the superior speed (a Yak-3 or Yak-9 could esily catch a Meteor if it has an altitude advantage): 473 mp/h at best altitude and under 400 mp/h at sea level. A La-5 or Yak-3 needs around 3000 ft altitude advantage to chase effectively a Meteor-III.
And while it was agenerally well suited weapon platform it suffered from snaking and thus is making precisely aiming even more difficult. The Il-2 on the other hand is a low level, slow flying small and well armored plane. A difficult target to hit while the Meteor-III is an easy target to hit.

[plan_D]

I don't think you understand the vulnerability of tanks. Four Hispano Mk.II 20mm would rip up a tank from above, the vents of tanks are normally on the top/back of the chassis...these vents can hardly be armoured, they're vital points of the tank.
Even with a 'flukey' hit it PROVES that 20mm can destroy a tank from above.

The Meteor-III would and could destroy a Il-2. Four Mk.V Hispano 20mm would NOT just glance off the Il-2 armour.

[delcyros]

This question belongs to distance and angle. and from some distances or at certain angles, it canoot glance off, agreed. But you have to come both close and precisely and this is more a task for a Tiffy than for a Meteor-III. The Tiffy is really the better Il-2 hunter, I don´t know why you insist in the Meteor-III, she really has disadvantages in this purpose or you reduce the speed to aim correctly, but offering speed for more effective shooting would be a very unwisely choice in this jet....

[arras]

heh ...preatty optimistic you are

Luckily the T-34 and KV-1 were in low quantities, the KV-2 being in even lower quantities.

...from number of tanks Soviets had in 41 its true that T-34 and KV series were RELATIVELY few ...but what I dont understand is what makes you beleive there were few of them in ABSOLUTE way?? ...Especialy if you compare it to what Britain had in 41 ...Brithis tanks must have been pitiful in Soviets eyes ...both numericaly and technicaly.
Cruiser tanks which formed backbone of tank forces are comparable to BT-5 or BT-7 and that is wery favourable comparism since they were motoricaly ureliable. Matilda perhaps was protected good but underguned and undermotorised ...in fact it was "infantery tank" slow and short ranged, unsuited for deep penetrations.

Here is some comparism:

Matilda II:
Type: Infantery tank
Crew: 4
1 x 2 pounder Mark 9 Gun
1 x 7.92 mm Besa Machine gun
Maximum Armour: 78 mm
Minimum Armour: 20 mm
Specific power: 7 HP / ton
Speed: 24 kph

Valentine II:
Type: Infantery tank
Crew: 3
1 x 2 pounder Mark 9 Gun
1 x 7.92 mm Besa Machine gun
Maximum Armour: 65 mm
Minimum Armour: 10 mm
Specific power: 8 HP / ton
Speed: 24 kph
Range: 145 km

KV-1B:
Type: Heavy tank
Crew: 5
1 x 76.2 mm ZiS 5 Gun
3 x 7.62 mm Degtyarev MG Machine guns
Maximum Armour: 90 mm /sloped/
Minimum Armour: 40 mm
Specific power: 11 HP / ton
Speed: 35 kph
Range: 250 km

T-34/76 B
Type: Medium tank
Crew: 4
Armor & Armament
1 x 76.2 mm F-34 Gun
2 x 7.62 mm Degtyarev MG Machine guns
Maximum Armour: 52 mm /sloped/
Minimum Armour: 20 mm
Specific power: 18 HP / ton
Speed: 55 kph
Range: 300 km

Britain produced 25 115 tanks during whole war + received nearly 25 000 from US. Soviets produced more than 100 000 (+12 000 received from Alies).
When Germans attacked in 41, Russians had around 20 000 tanks. I dont know the same figure for Britain in 41 but in June of 1945, it had 2750 operational tanks in Europe and 4800 in reserve.

the night would be totally ours

...in 41???
...in 41 Britain lacked navigation devices and tactic to be efective in night (similar to Luftwaffe in BoB)

In general I see Britain of 41 having advantage in better fighters, been equal or slightly better in heavy bombers. I dont know hove many heavy bobmers Britain had in 41 but I ques not many since most of their raids against Germany were done by Welingtons. In medium bombers both were roughly equal. As for ground attack there is advantage on Soviet side, which would be even worse for Britain been totaly inferior in tanks.
Both would have huge dificulcies making any kind of strategic war due to lack of long range escort fighter and lack of navigation and targeting devices for night bombing.
Brithis would have big advantage in radar technologi and Soviets in numbers in most categories.

All in all none would be able to criple his oponent in air in 41.