VVS Vs. RAF

[Glider]

Aras Your right about the Yak 1 being the best of the early Russian fighters and I obviously got the planes mixed up.
There is however one problem with including the Yak 1 in 1941, in that it didn't enter production until June 1941 and it would be in a minority.
Timeline wise its almost the same as the Typhoon which solves the RAF GA problem. Also of course, if a Typhoon didn't want to get caught then a Yak would be hard pressed to catch it.
I would consider the Hurrie IIC to be a better than an IL2 simply because it is more flexible. It is harder to intercept than an Il2 and should the two meet in combat, the IL2 will be on the defensive plus of course the 4x20 are quite capable of shooting the IL2 down. In the GA role the IL2 is harder to shoot down which is a plus but the Hurricane harder to hit which would balance things off to a degree.
The problem is that we are comparing apples and pears. The tactical approach for the two planes couldn't be more different if you tried. The IL2 accepts that your going to get hit but may live. The Hurrie II doesn't accept that should accept damage.

I am not a fan of the Hurrie 2D with the 40's and believe that the 4x20 was far more suitable for most situations. If caught by a Russian fighter you are in a slow plane loaded with weight carrying the 40's. The 2C can drop the bombs and take on all comers. However I will remind everyone that the Typhoon also went into full production in 1941 which was a quantum leap in performance and payload over the Hurrie II.

Delc
I hear what you say about the effect of bombing but a question first You keep saying the Warwick and the Welland. The Warwick never really entered service as a bomber and I confess to not knowing what a Welland is. My argument is that we would have had a greater impact than anything the germans could do. Any damage sufferred at the hands of the Germans would be magnified by a significant factor.
for example
The He 111 could carry around 4000Lb around 750 Miles.
The Sterling which was by no means our best four engined bomber could carry 14,000Lb 600miles dropping to 3,500lb over 2000 miles.
The Halifax 13,000lb over 1000 miles

The difference is simply huge when compared to the German capability. Russia would suffer considerable damage in daylight raids that are within range of our escort. On a previous note I admitted that navigation at night would be a problem but with the aids that came available during 1941 some of the raids would work.
As for range of the escort the spit had a range sufficient for most daylight raids of around 1000 miles. It isn't a P51 but its enough.

One comment that might cause a reaction is that you are assuming that the British are defensive and the Russians offensive. This I question. Russian command and control was/is based on the set piece battle. Where everyone is told exactly what to do and is expected to do it. Any deviation for whatever reason and you are in serious trouble. British command and control is based on being flexible. Russia will attack, but only when its ready to do so and after a lot of planning. Throw them off and you can win. A russian soldier will not do anything without a written order or authority. By default their armies are much better at defending than attacking.
With our excellent PR ability I would expect us to be able to prepare fpr the big set piece attack.

To a degree I saw this myself in 1974 off Cyprus. A number of the civilians were Russian from the embassy and they couldn't believe the lack of officers in the Royal Navy compared to the number of the crew and the decisions that were made by ordinary crewmen. It became quite a joke.

[plan_D]

arras, where did I state that the Hurricane IID was superior to the Il-2 in the ground attack role? No where.

The fact is they're both on an equal playing ground because both were in need of air superiority to act effectively. The armour on the Il-2 didn't stop it getting shot up and shot down. It wasn't invincible.
You base your whole argument off the scores of three German aces. That's a nice collection to back up your argument. There were more than three German pilots in the Luftwaffe.

del, the MiG-3 would have no chance against the Spitfire V below 15,000 feet. The MiG-3 was a specialised high altitude (+16,000 feet) fighter, anywhere below that and it's abilities are nothing even worth mentioning. The Spitfire V would have an easy time with it.

[arras]

cheddar cheese >> yes thats exactly what I am pointing out, there were more Il-2 produced than all Yaks together. On the other hand if you check kill lists of german acces, you find out that they shot Yaks and Il-2 in proportion 10 / 3 aproximately. That can mean that german acces for some strange reason avoided attacking Il-2 and prefered Yaks or that Il-2 was much harder to shot down. Both negate opinion that Il-2 was crap and easy prey for any german fighter.

plan_D >> I don't want to search back through whole discusion, I had impresion that you speak about Huricane as exelent and Il-2 as crap ...I appologize if I was wrong.

I dont base my argument on scores of 3 acces, I base it on scores of all except 3. I was posting one example here but I wrote that you should go and look yourself at other profiles and you will find the same: Il-2 wasn't most common type there ...its even far to be the most common. If you take in mind also production numbers of planes on the lists, diference is even more obvious.

+ there is Hartman statin that Il-2 was tough and dificult to shot down. I can post book where I was reading that.

[plan_D]

Hartmann stating that the Il-2 was hard to shoot down doesn't mean anything. If you asked every German pilot who went up against formations of USAAF bombers if it those bombers were easy targets, they would all say no. However, we all know that the bombers were sitting ducks.

The mass amount of Il-2s in the skies is the whole overwhelming doctrine of the Soviet Union during World War 2. Safety in numbers. They got shot down in numbers too.
The amount of Il-2s shot down shows not that the Il-2 was a poor aircraft; it shows that the VVS wasn't capable of defending them effectively.

The DAF in North Africa were capable of covering their Hurricane IID and IV, that is why they had an excellent kill:loss ratio against Axis armour. I think the Il-2 was the best tank buster but I'd much rather be in a Typhoon.

[arras]

plan_D >> I agrre with you, except that while B17 or 24 were "sitting ducks" doesnt mean they were bad bobmers.

Also RAF enjoied numerical advantage in Africa not unsimilar to those of VVS.

[plan_D]

The USAAF heavies being sitting ducks certainly does not mean they were bad bombers and the same applies to the Il-2. It was a sitting duck but it wasn't a bad aircraft.

The DAF had a numercial advantage in North Africa and they used it wisely to provide good support for their Hurricane IID and IVs. The VVS seemed to lack the ability of protection for their Il-2s, hence the large loss rate of them.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by plan_D

we all know that the bombers were sitting ducks.

When B17s, B24s and B29s were flying in formation in daylight, they were heavily armed sitting ducks.

And a rear gunner is not good news. The top scoring FW190 pilot, Otto Kittel, seems to have been shot down by an Il2
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/kittel.htm

"Flying at a distance of about 100 metres from Oblt. Kittel I saw him dive beneath and behind an Il-2 and attack it. Behind us two other Il-2s pulled up sharply. In the next moment an explosion was seen in his cockpit and the aircraft started to descend".

[plan_D]

They might have been heavily armed sitting ducks but without fighter escort they were at the mercy of Luftwaffe interceptors. The USAAF bombing campaign was practically halted in 1943 due to a lack of fighter escort.

The idea of a huge formation of heavily armed bombers being able to defend themselves is flawed. They cannot do it. Fighter escort is a requirement for an effective bombing campaign.

[Smokey]

Of course escort fighters are needed, but attacking a formation of heavy bombers is not a total walk over.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by arras

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!

I dont think you are understanding what people are writing. No where did I say it was an easy target. No where did I say it was the most shotdown aircraft. I was just showing CTO that the Il-2 did not shoot down all those Knights Cross winners like he thinks they did. Go back and read my post if you do not understand it.

As for the bottom post. I dont think I ever said it was the most easy to shoot it down. I was actually defending the Il-2 in several of my posts. And sorry I dont play video games either.

[delcyros]

I took the Warwick into consideretaion because it has quite a good range: 4.200 Km. And that´s pretty much! The Wellington can go for 4.105 Km with 454 Kg ( and that´s a tiny payload). The Striling, wjhich is the best RAF bomber in this timeframe has a total range of 3.334 Km with 1.588 Kg payload. If you factor the usual wartime calculations, than 1 third of the total range makes the penetration or strike range (a distance where you may carry a considerable payload and return to your base with a reserve of about one fith or less).In the case of our Stirling it is something at 1.100 Km distance from the base. The payload increases with reduced range but thenumbers you referred belong to short distances. With 1.100 Km distance you will not reach Moscow. No Spitfire has the range to escort them over these distances. The Spitfire V has a total range of about 800 Km ( that means it can barely esort the bombers for 350 Km of their way, that is one third of their striking distance). Without fighter escort, even I-16 can wrec havoc under daylight bombers (they succesfully did in 1941, even if this means to ram the enemy)
Comparing to the Luftwaffe, the RAF in 1941 has far less planes and this makes a difference. The Luftwaffe bombers, esspeccially the Do-215, Ju-87 and Ju-88 are planes with some high degree of precision, thanks to dive bombings. Only this method ensured the impact the Luftwaffe had over Russia in 1941. The RAF bombers miss this feature, which doesn´t makes much later in the war (at a time when RAF bombers had airborne air to ground radar) , but makes a lot of difference in this stage.
Just one thing to add: Plan_D, please check the performance of Spitfire V and Mig-3 again. post any altitude where the Spit Vb/Vc (we already excluded the Va because of the worse armrment) has a considerable speed advantage over the MiG-3. Please check the altitudes between 5.000ft and 15.000 ft. A considerable speed advantage means more than 10 mp/h, 20 mp/h are comfortable and 30mp/h and more makes a huge difference. Not even at sea level there is reason to say that the Spit V outperforms the MiG in ALL situations. The Spitfie V is an allrounder but it lacks the initiative of the Mig-3. At the Spits optimal altitudes, the Mig is clearly superior, At lower alts, both are more closer to each other but why do you think the Mig is no worthy contender for the Spit V below 15.000 ft? You have to proove this.
Glider, an interesting feature in your post is the Hurr-IIc with four 20mm. But I believe the necessarities of the front would ask for the Hurr with 40mm guns. Esspeccially to deal with the heavier soviet tanks.
According to the Luftwaffe reports of 1941, the VVS was able to counter strikes even in situations where it obviously had no working CinC-strukture. To a high degree it was ineffective, but they kept on doing so. I rate the VVS / red forces in the offensive because the ground ops and air ops over the eastern front are connected much closer to each other than over any other theatre. On the ground I see more probabilities with the soviets than with the British. And with the british generalities in mind, the RAF strategic targets would be of small military worth but moreso in mind of Douhets theories to break the enemys attitude to keep on fighting. This would be a nasty buisness but without hope of success, I assume. The VVS on the other hand directly fought against military targets, oil fields, airfields, ammo and fuel depots, troop concentrations and so on. O fcourse they had the Pe-8, wich is in 1941 quite comparable to the Stirling, if not even better, but they refused strategic campaigns because of the need of direct (visible) results. Some few propaganda sorties against Berlin (without bombs, I remind) and VIP transports, thats all for them.
A problem of the Hurricane is that it was not superior to the VVS planes. Even the I-16 could be a problem for the Hurricane (some versions of the I-16 made 525 Km/h and that´s pretty much), not to speak of the Yak-1, Lagg-3 or Mig. The Hurricane would be a very easy AA target and very vulnarable, too.

[Glider]

Delc
There is no reason why the British bombers in daylight couldn't be as accurate as the Do215, JU88 and He111. I exclude the Ju87 as thats covered in our GA area.
I would also use the Sterlings and Wellingtons in a similar manner. The point is that the Sterling carries almost three times the bombload of the He111 over the same distance of around 600 miles. Should they get hold of a target airfields, supply dumps they would really work it over. As I have said before I see this as a risk but one worth taking in view of the

a) the difficulty in intercepting them due to distance and lack of Radar.
b) they are better able to defend themselves then the german planes.
c) I am not proposing that they do daylight raids of thousands of miles.
d) ramming was done but it was unusual.
e) with droptanks we could do a decent job of excorting the bombers, certainly no worse than the Germans did using the 109 as escort.

As for the Hurricane I do believe that the Hurrie 2D could live in the skies over Russia (why not, the Ju87 with 37's did) I would still stick with the 4x20's, it will do for most purposes and be able to defend itself. I am not saying that the Hurrie 2c is better than the Russian fighters, but its no worse not in 1941.

I don't see us using the night bombers as a way of breaking morale, but against transport links. You have said yourself that the Germans tried this with limited effect. Where we differ is that I belief that we would have an impact and you believe that we will will not do better than the Germans.

I have never believed in Douhets theories. They depend on breaking the will of the leaders and leaders are almost always protected from harm. I know that isn't what he says but in practice the people are cowed by the authorities and they are controlled by the leaders.

[arras]

DerAdlerIstGelandet >> I just reacted to your:

In my opinion the Il-2 was not a very good aircraft but she was very good at what she did. One thing that helped her out though was the massive columns of Panzers. There were massive amounts of targets. Overall though the aircraft was heavy and slow and very easy target for the Luftwaffe fighters.

I think you write preaty clear to understand, but if I missunderstud you than I appologize. As for computer gaming it was not pointed directly to you.

delcyros, plan_D >> do you know if stability of Hurricane was not influenced in negative way by recoil forces of 40mm guns?
Soviets were triing to install 37mm guns at Il-2 but they found it unstable for efective gunnery. They did install 37mm gun to Yak9T but that was in propeler axis. Japanese were also experimenting with bigger caliber guns at some of their aircrafts but with no succes, in general recoil forces were found to be too big to aim and fire efectively.

[plan_D]

Why are you informing me about the Hurricane IID Vicker-S 40mm? The Il-2 was armed with 37mm cannons.

Smokey, I never said that attacking a bomber formation was a walk over. Read the whole discussion, I stated that German pilots saying; "...attacking Il-2s was hard..." means nothing because they would say the same for attacking Heavy Bombers, but the bombers were still sitting ducks!

[arras]

plan_D >> I am not informing you, I am asking you if you know something about performance of those cannons and stability of whole platgorm in flight and while gunning.

Il-2 was not equiped with 37mm guns, it was equiped with 2 x 23mm VYa guns.
37 mm guns were experimentaly mounted at some Il-2m3 but guns were found to be cumbersome and recoil forces too big to make it efective in field.