VVS Vs. RAF

[Chocks away!]

1941. Yes you are right, fair enough

[plan_D]

del, show how you came to that figure on the T-34 armour. Anyone can just throw at figures and calculations.

Stalin was expansionist but his Red Army was not prepared to deal with Germany and he knew it. The Red Army was being expanded and modernised and it was set to be ready by the spring of 1942. He was going to attack Germany when he was ready.
Stalin hardly ever believed the Western nations throughout the entirety of World War 2. He believed that the Western nations had something against his Communist regime. In fact, it was only Churchill that had any sense to realise that the Soviet Union was more of a threat than Germany.
After all, Britain was willing to go to war with the Soviet Union and Germany in 1939. Luckily for us we were defeated in Norway due to a complete lack of heavy equipment, this stopped us from sending troops to Finland and starting a war with the Soviet Union.

I would like to remind everyone that during World War 2 Britain was all over the place. Our largest army was in Burma, the 14th Army. We had the 8th and 2nd Army in North Africa, then the 8th moved to Italy and the 2nd to North-West Europe. We had massive amounts of Commonwealth troops, over 2,000,000 in the CBI, which never saw European battlefields.
The CBI troops were trained for modern mobile warfare, they were defeated in 1941 by the Japanese because the jungle had been left out in training. We had to adapt to the situation.

You move all those troops from around the world into Europe in 1941 and you have numbers reaching 4-5 million at least. The Red Army only had 5.4 million on June 22nd, 1941.

Just an addition on the numbers, I did say two million but it was much more than that. The Indian Army alone had 2,499,909 militants, 8,000,000 working on defence, 6,000,000 in war industry. All this was for the CBI and that's only India!

Just to give an idea of the size and diversity of the 14th Army, it contained Burmans, Chins, Kachins, Shans, Mons, Nagas and Karens. Men from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, South Africans. From Africa, Hausas, Yorubas and Ibos from Nigeria; Kanjarga, Dagartis and Ashantis from Ghana; Mandis and Timinis from Sierra Leone; Mandingos from Gambia; Nyasas and Yaos from Malawi; Manyamwezi and Manyema from Tanzania; Akamba, Nandi and Kavirondo from Kenya; Beganda and Achole from Uganda; Somalis from Somaliland; Awamb and Angoni from Zambia. Finally, from India; Rajputs, Dogras, Sikhs, Jats, Punjabis, Garwhalis, Biharis, Ahirs, Amirs, Chamars, Rawats, Minas, Mahars, Coorgs, Assamese, Adibasis, Kumaonis, Pathans, Brahuis, Mers, Tamils, Telegus, Paraiyahs, Brahmans, Hindustani, Mussulmans,Punjabi Mussulmans, Madrassi Mussulmans and Gurkhas from Nepal.
This would include a larger RAF to come up to terms with the massive numbers in the VVS

All those cultures marching under the British flag, would all march under the British flag against the Soviet Union as they did against Japan. I think many people underestimate the size, scope and influence of the British empire.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No I dont think you are reading what I am saying.

Originally Posted by Udet

So you disagree with me when I say a box of B-17s, each bomber with at least 10 .50 cal defensive machine guns could get slaughtered by German interceptors?

Perhaps I am not getting something, but what would lead you to think the IL-2s fitted with a sole rear defensive gun stood better chances when intercepted than the USAAF heavies in the west?

Did I say this anywhere? I dont think I posted anything about USAAF heavies in my post? Please show me.

[delcyros]

I agree that it would be terrible in 1939 to start war against the SU.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth was powerful but we are considering the RAF, only. Even if you take Commonwealth forces into account (for ground ops, as it would be necessary in 1941), they could hardly match SU numbers. If you take the soviet far eastern armies also into account the situation would be more worrisome.
The figures I draw from computerbased calculations. If you run Nathan Okun + armor penetration on Google you may find variuos sources, some of them are for the ship´s analysis but there is also a programm to calculate penetration abilities at different impact angles/speed on different sized armor/quality for specific AP rounds. While these programm originally was made to simulate face hardened and not homogenous armor, I estimate that the difference is not that big. The scaling effects of T-34 armor is even less worrisome than face hardened would be.
In your mind, what tactics would the RAF use? A strategic day-or nighttime bomber campaign or focus on tactical sorties (nice idea with the Defiant, Glider!)? Would the RAF and the British ground forces be able to sustain high loss rates for a long time (remember, the official Luftwaffe losses in 1941 were impressive)? A combination of hi cover flying Mig-3 and low alt flying Yak-1, Lagg-3 and I-16 is a worrisome thread to Wellingtons or tactical Hurricane and covering Spitfires. And the Pe-2 was probably the best light bomber in the world (with better top speed than the Hurricane and even competing to the Spitfire) in this timeframe. What makes you feel that the RAF could win against the VVS in 1941? Because the Luftwaffe dominated that much over the VVS? This is misleading, the RAF in 1941 has not enough operational bomber to inflict a comperable initial blow.

[plan_D]

Give me the link, and since it's not based on tank armour then I don't think it can be used as a certainty.

Anyway, on the numbers, the Commonwealth provides more people than the Soviet Union could provide. As I already stated, the Red Army had 5.4 million people in 1941. The Commonwealth could beat that number of combatants.

And yes, we're talking RAF only, the Commonwealth served in the RAF ~ Indians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians plus many others all served with the RAF.
All the nations of the Commonwealth would be producing arms for Britain. By being at war with Britain, the Soviet Union would be at war with her Empire too.

The British forces adapt to the situation. A night strategic bomber campaign, with a day defensive attitude. The VVS had nothing capable of hampering the night bombers, the Luftwaffe with everything they had never stopped it so what makes you think the VVS could?

[Glider]

Delc
As ever I would go for a combination.
Nighttime as previously described with the Whitley and the Halifax at goods yards, factory complex's.
Daylight (escorted) at high value targets Sterlings, Hampden and Wellingtons.
Precision strike HQ's and similar with the Beuafighter.
GA with the Hurricane. Personally I also doubt the ability to knock out tanks with the 20's. Pz II's may be achievable but the supply trucks and half tracks would be more effective. Hit the tankers and engineering support and everything stops.
By the way I forgot the Whirlwind, pretty good at GA and very difficult to catch.

I am with planD when it comes to numbers the Russians will have an advantage but not by that much and our better C&C would more than make up the difference.

Mig3's don't really worry me as they are no good at below approx 15,000ft and even above it they lack firepower. As I have mentioned before, trying to shoot down a large bomber with 1xHMG and 2xLMG is a tall order.
Yak1's were I recall nicknamed the varnished coffins by Russian pilots would doesn't bode well for them and the first Laggs were disappointing so I am not unduely concerned.
The PE2's would be difficult to counter due to their high cruising speed but good as they are, they cannot make up for the other failings.

To concentrate on one tactic would be a mistake. The RAF have options, not to use them would be criminal.

How do you see the Russians approaching it?

[arras]

Yak1's were I recall nicknamed the varnished coffins by Russian pilots would doesn't bode well for them and the first Laggs were disappointing so I am not unduely concerned.

It was LaGG which was called Guaranteed Varnished Coffin. Yak-1 was considered the best of new Soviet fighters at the start of war.

by delcyros: From what I read, the HS 20 mm with AP MK IIZ rounds could pierce at best some 27 mm of armor at 0 degrees impact angle and 200 yards distance. This reduces to 19 mm at 40 degrees impact angle. The more common AP Mk IZ has 24mm at 0 and 15 mm at 40 degrees.
Such an equipped Hurricane may rip a T-26 but even a T-34 is more than unprobable. It could hurt, however.

T-34 had 20mm armor on the top. Anyway to destroy any tank would require many 20mm AP rounds geting through armor and having sill enough energy to make some damage.
I have photo of Rudel shoving best tactic to attack T-34 at small paper model. On that picture he clearly points from rear down at motor section, where vents are.

by the lancaster kicks ass: ok that's with 20mm, what about twin 40mm??

Larger caliber doesnt mean automaticly better piercing ability ...weight wersus speed does (which is energy) Anyway, when hitting tank at it's vents it doesnt matter.

Udet >> any rearguner is big step towards better protection, you simply cant attack ANY aircraft with reargunner in the same way as one without. You have to be more cautious, which means les effective.

Nobody say that B-17 and B-24 was bad plane because it wasnt invicible, so why Il-2 is?

Hove fast was HuricaneII loaded with 500 or 800kg bombload? ...slow moving, unprotected, unmaneurable target it was. So why somebody consider it better than Il-2 I don't understand.

by CTO: Rall states that Il-2 was difficult to shot down and only by experts. In 1941 whole swarms of german fighters shoot her whole ammo at Il-2 and still flying.

E. Hartman stated the same. Those were 2 best fighter pilots Lufftwafe had on E. front.

DerAdlerIstGelandet>> look at profiles of Lufftwafe acces (athttp://www.luftwaffe.cz for example) and you find out that Yaks, LaGGs and Migs are much common shot down planes on the lists than Il-2 ...except 2-3 pilots, but those are exeptions.
Just for example Gerhard Barkhorn (301 kills)
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/barkhorn.html:

1. Yak -1-7-9-3 (109 kills)
2. LaGG-3, La-5 (89 kills)
3. Il-2 (32 kills)
4. P-39 (21 kills)
5. P-40 (8 kills)
6. Pe-2 (6 kills)
7. Hurricane (5 kills)

Il-2 was most produced aircraft of ww2 ...so what makes anybody think it was easy to shot down??? ...for somebody with no real experience, sitting in front of the computer game it is crap and easy shot. Aparently for second highest scoring Lufftwafe pilot it wasn't!

[cheddar cheese]

Well look at the categoraisation...The Yaks come under one category, but they are 4 different aircraft.

[plan_D]

He has a valid point. Also, why only take the accounts of German aces? The Il-2 was slaughtered by green and veteran Luftwaffe pilots alike. There may have been a green Luftwaffe pilot who got 3 Il-2s then got shot down; he would have a 100% Il-2 kill count!

The Il-2 was the most produced plane of the war, it was also one of the most shot down. It was not invincible and German pilots enjoyed any oppurtunity to shoot them down.

Ever thought that the two top scoring German aces liked to cover their friends by attacking the fighters, while their friends took out the bombers. Ever thought that, just maybe, those two weren't sent to intercept many Il-2s?

The Il-2 couldn't operate successfully in a zone without at least local air superiority. The same applies to the Ju-87G-1 and the Hurricane IID. The Hurricane IID provided invaluble service in North Africa and even served with the VVS. Research the plane a bit more before you try and knock it.

[arras]

cheddar cheese >> Il-2 was also produced in several variants. But that is not realy important in this, there were more Il-2 (including all variants) than any other aircraft with its wariants in ww2 produced.
So why aircraft which was most common on the skies of E. front is not the one to be shot the most? And that was relatively slow bomber. They are even not close to be the most common to be shot down on the lists.

So why? ...becouse all top German acces (except 3) were bussy protecting novices from red fighters while shoting Il-2 in numbers? ...good try plan_D but you gona have hard time prowing that

The Il-2 couldn't operate successfully in a zone without at least local air superiority. The same applies to the Ju-87G-1 and the Hurricane IID. The Hurricane IID provided invaluble service...

Exactly, but than I don't understant why is Il-2 worst than say HurricaneII?

HurricaneII was fighter adapted to ground suport with all disadvantages coming out of the proces:
1. Cripled performance afther instaling heavier canoons or bombload (40mm guns were mounted under wings) and loosing main advantage fighter have over bomber -speed and maneurability.
2. Relatively small bombload only 113 kg of A model and 2x250 lb of B comparet to 660kg of Il-2
3. no rear gunner
4. no protection except armored plate at the back of pilot seat

Il-2 on the other hand was build specialy for ground attack with most important parts been inside armored tube, while armor is organic part of construction not only extra neat thing. Rear gunner and big load. They were even used to cary torpedos.

So where is advantage? I dont say huricane was a bad plane and I accept its performance at Africa. But what I dont understand is your underestimation for Il-2 at the other hand.

Please say why do you think Huricane is better and why. Facts would be welcomed -I expect you were researching it well

[cheddar cheese]

cheddar cheese >> Il-2 was also produced in several variants. But that is not realy important in this, there were more Il-2 (including all variants) than any other aircraft with its wariants in ww2 produced.
So why aircraft which was most common on the skies of E. front is not the one to be shot the most? And that was relatively slow bomber. They are even not close to be the most common to be shot down on the lists.

Yes - IL-2 3M etc. But for Yak it says Yak-1-7-3-9. They are 4 seperate planes! Then you have the varients, Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9UT, Yak-9D, Yak-3P etc etc....

[arras]

Yak-7 was just 2 seat trainer variant of Yak-1, Yak-7B just Yak-7 with second seat removed, reinstaled armament and retractable landing gear. You are true that becouse of Soviet designation it seems that Yak-3 is diferent aircraft than Yak-1. But diference is as big as between Spitfire II and Spitfire IX for example. In fact it is the same aircraft refited with diferent engine and redesigned aerodinamics.

Diference between Yak-1 an Yak-3 is rougly comparable to say Il-2M and Il-2m3.

Regardles of designation, there were more Il-2 and its succesors build than Yak-1 and its succesors.

[arras]

I looked for production numbers of Yak and Il-2 aircrafts at http://users.belgacom.ne to make it clear once for all:

Yak -36 732 produced total of all wariants
Il-2 -36 134 produced untill end of 1944

[cheddar cheese]

Yes - Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-4, Yak-7, Yak-9, UT-1, UT-2, etc...And thats just some of the models. Yak (Yakovlev) is a manufacturer where as IL-2 is a model. For that to be a fair comparison it needs to be all Ilyushin aircraft as they manufactured the IL-2...as well as the IL-4/DB-3, IL-10 etc...

[delcyros]

If we compare Hurricane with Il-2 I would go for the Il-2. It is more specialized on the GA role and it bears excellent AA armor protection with a better punch. It is not that vulnarable to air defense at low altitudes. Both planes are vulnarable to air interceptions to a different degree and need fighter cover. The Hurricane could do much damage by knocking out those soft targets like trucks and ammo-/fuelsupply, the Il-2 could hurt the tanks also.
Specialization of the british forces would result in an effective battlemode, but I doubt that it fits to the realities of the eastern front.
The impact at nighttime bombings on production, command strukture and transportation is greatly overestimated, esspeccially in 1941 with Wellands and Warwicks. For the needed distances the payload is tiny, the precision very low and the target struktures in Russia not that much centralized plus easy to repair. Key targets are well protected (not ensuring a total defense, but ensuring a higher loss rate) by radar, dense AA, search lights and nightfighters of the PWO. Protected zones are relatively small in the SU, allowing a strategic nightime campaign by use of the wideness of the russian airspace.
Mig´s are not the best bomber interceptors, but they can provide top cover for own planes (some Pe-2 attacks with Yak-1 as close escorts and Mig-3 as top cover would be hard to deal by the means of RAF, they are to fast for the Hurricanes and the Spitfire would have a hard time with the Mig´s at hi alt and the Yak-s at low alt. Esspeccially since they would need to concentrate on the bombers)
I am not sure if the Mig-3 is not that good at below 15.000ft. It is at least equal to the Spit V, the Spit has advantages at sea level and low alt, at medium alt both planes are comparable while the Mig is untouchable at hi alt. The next problem would be the daylight campaign: What escort plane in 1941 has the range to escort Hampdens at strikes deep into russia? None. The best VVS interceptor for bombers would be either the Pe-3 (with speed, armement and protection) or the Yak-2/Yak-4 but they could not hope to deal with spitfires. At least those RAF fighters have not the range to provide escort for the heavier planes. In the defensive, the Spitfires could achieve probably an impressive kill record, in the way, the Bf-109 did. The Hurricane as a fighter would be needed to deal with the Il2 (better gunplatform and not that vulnarable, compared to the Spit), but they need own protection, too. All the I-16, I-153 and DB-3 could do some damage to the, probably retreating (?) british ground forces or front close airfields of the bomberforces (the distances are the main problem) and the RAF lacks enough fighter planes to deal with all:
-escort bombers for close range duties
-fighter sweeps
-interceptions of Pe-2/DB-4-runs
-escort for Hurricane at the GA-role
Not to speak of the tremendeous need of the british ground forces for air-support! A defensive attitude alone would set the VVS in an offensive position and this is very dangerous. As long as the RAF could ensure an active role, the chances are not bad to hurt the VVS on a larger scale.
The possibilities of the soviets to upbuild new factories beyond RAF striking distance is not to underestimate.
precision strikes in 1941 are not common, esspeccially for the RAF.