VVS Vs. RAF

[Soren]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I really dont doubt that Kozhedub and Rechkalov and Pokryskin were the leading Aces for the VVS, but the #'s for just about every country are always slightly questionable, with the Soviets slightly more critiqued...

OK maybe alittle more than slightly...

But, a kill that is confirmed by a wingman is a kill.... If the propoganda machine was in full effect, the #'s of kills would have been similar to the German claims, not in the 50's and 60's...

And Propoganda aside, these guys were some of the greatest fighter pilots to EVER squeeze the trigger........ They fought against some of the greatest machines to ever fly with pieces of shiit for planes, and tactics that they practically made up as the fought for their lives....

We have discussed and posted so much info on the VVS and its plight against the Luftwaffe..... Makes for some great reading....

Although I generally agree, I must add that Soviet propoganda was MUCH worse than the German one ! The less truthful German propoganda would actually become less and less as the war progressed, and it 'was' also many times pronounced that "Germany could actually lose the war!" (Very Unlike Soviet propoganda).

Modern researchers have actually calculated that some "Supposed" russian aces with 20-30-40 kills claimed, didnt even make the 10 kills in reality ! All this by looking in German loss-records, wich btw were the most accurate of the war.

Also remember that the German confirmation system was THE most effective and strict of WW2, and therefore MUCH more accurate than the Soviet system.

Kozhedub was one hell of a pilot dude.....

Im sorry, but I doubt he got much more than half of his claimed kills.

And Propoganda aside, these guys were some of the greatest fighter pilots to EVER squeeze the trigger........

In Bravery they certainly were, in skill, no.

They fought against some of the greatest machines to ever fly with pieces of shiit for planes, and tactics that they practically made up as the fought for their lives...

They were THE boldest and most fanatic pilots ever to fly in WW2, and very brave aswell, I'll give them that.

[cheddar cheese]

I agree that most Soviet information is iffy. However I belive the Pokryshkin and Kozhedub's scores are probably true. There are even some theories that Pokryshkin actually got MORE that 59 kills he was credited with. (Some believe he achieved around 70)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

I agree that most Soviet information is iffy. However I belive the Pokryshkin and Kozhedub's scores are probably true. There are even some theories that Pokryshkin actually got MORE that 59 kills he was credited with. (Some believe he achieved around 70)

I've heard this as well

[Udet]

Plan_D:

To the most extent i am with you here.

The soviets never really bothered to move further with airborne electronics. They were way behind Germany, USA and UK in such department.

They had plenty of pilots and planes to expend on the battlefields and also knew that in the west a numerically powerful ally (USAAF and RAF) was relieving them from critical pressure at their front by keeping thousands of enemy planes, pilots and ground personnel stucked elsewhere.

Most impressive is the fact the soviets were not very interested even in ground radar stations and ground control.

Do you recall the shuttle bombing missions carried out by the USAAF during 1944?

The reports from most USAAF pilots and airmen on soviet airbases reported conditions were primitive. No radar. Virtually no air defence.

During mid 1944, Ju88´s and He111s from several Kampfgeschwadern carried out a virtually unopposed night attack in a soviet airfield near Poltava destroying some 45 heavy bombers and about 20 escort fighters on the ground, the attack was fast, accurate and profitable. The Luftwaffe took NO losses in such attack exposing an extremely weak flank in the soviet military air force.

What if the bulk of the Luftwaffe nachtjagdgeschwadern had been deployed in the east?

In view conditions would not be improved by the soviet ally, shuttle bombing missions were thus cancelled.

[Erich]

cannot even be compard

two different fronts with different tactics.
ETO confined per se, Ost front wide open no protection, see for miles.

German nf crews had a hard time as Soviet a/c was primitive, slow, cumbersome, and NO radar installed. a bit of a drag for long houred German pilots looking for targets. RAF provided plenty in the night skies over Germany. Definately a battle of wits end, which radar will be used and a counter to block it.

RAF provided cunning and skill in flight both day and night. soviets tened to overwehlem in sheer masse which often times proved fatal including times till wars end. For the Soviets giving up hers ons was not crucial since mankind was petty and did not matter. Just destroy the enemy at whatever cost.

[plan_D]

The Tu-2 and Pe-2 were both inferior aircraft to the Mosquito, MM. Even if, by some miracle, the Soviets got in-plane RADAR they still would have had to fight the Mosquito. Would they win? Simple two letter answer, no.

[delcyros]

A comparison in this specific way is unprobable (can tell you: The RAF beeing safe on their island, unreachable for red army or what they had in their fleet and no valid production target in range of RAF heavy bombers)
Keep also in mind that the technological edge the RAF had would cause serious problems if fielded in Sibiria at winter. Spitfires have been flown by VVS at Stalingrad but have prooven to be completely unsuited for the bad climatic circumstances there and soon faded out due to mechanical problems... (not so the Hurricane) Even a mosquito, a plane close to my most favoured, wouldn´t easily find a target there (and operating from England it wouldn´t even have the range to do so), it´s all very difficult.
However, both are allies and we might discuss, who in specific comparison did contributed more effectively in a specific way to the succes of the allies. Agreed?
But first off I would like to answer Udet´s questions:
I have been several times in the former SU for excavations (Klin Jar and Elisabetovkoe) and yes, I had some possibility to meet veterans there. As you might estimate, with different experiences.
A problem in the countryside of some corners is the unbelievable thrust they still have to Stalin and their glory age in ww2. Strange.
Capabilities to training are referred to numerical advantages for the VVS. Quality wasn´t that good at all, but the VVS was well able to adopt new tactics or technologies in short times.
Of course the VVS did damage to the Luftwaffe. In the years 1941-1943 more than the RAF did (as posted earlier), and that´s why some of them have high kill ratios as well.

[Glider]

For what its worth this is my suggestion as to how this conflict would have gone. I have broken it into different pieces. I ask you to consider them all to get an overall view.

Nightime
I don't think that there is any doubt that in such a conflict the night would belong to the RAF. The trick would be what we did with that advantage. By 1944 we had the ability to hit pretty small targets very effectively at night and I like to think that we would have be able to apply considerable pressure in cutting of or at least significantly reduce the supply route from the Russian factories to the front. These were huge distances and the bottlenecks such as yards would be wide open.

Day Fighting
That would leave the day fighting. The performance gap in the two airforces would be fairly small. The Yaks were agile, lightly armed small fighters whilst the Lag's were bigger faster with a heavier punch. We would have relied on the Spit and Tempest. Here we would have been ahead but as I said earlier the difference isn't that great.
The big difference would be in the training and other equipment such as radio's and bad weather flying ability. Here the RAF would have had a significant advantage. The Germans had a similar advantage and I think we agree caused considerably more losses to the Russians than they received.
Note - Compared to the Germans we are assuming that the RAF are ONLY fighting the USSR. If the Germans had this scenario its likely that the daytime battles could have resulted in a different result on the ground.

Ground Attack
That leave the third main activity Ground Attack. Here there is a difference in approach.
The USSR would have relied on the IL2 which is tough, but slow and needs heavy escort. With our Radar stations and proven ability to direct fighters to the areas in most need, I believe that they would have sufferred heavy losses in bombers and escort. The RAF would have used the Typhoon in attack, which needs less if any escort and whatever its problems at altitude, if it doesn't want to get caught on the deck, it takes some catching.

Precision Strike
The Russian approach to warfare is to control its forces to a very detailed level. This demands a centralised comand and control structure. In the Mossie we had the perfect strike plane who would wreck havoc. Remember that the UK had the best radio intercept environment and the ability to break codes using the first computers. I have little doubt that we could identify those targets.
Also fighting in Russia involves massive amounts of fuel and other supplies. More ideal targest for the Mossie.

Last but not least, we had the best PR ability in the war with the planes to carry out that task. Russia is a vast area and you need to know what is going on. This would also have stoood us in great stead in such a conflict.
Question would the Germans have attacked at Kursk if they had more detailed knowledge of the defences? Or would they have done what they could do well, i.e. go to a war of movement and left the thousands of guns pointing at empty space.

There you go, feel free to question and comment.

[plan_D]

Who said anything about the RAF just operating from Britain? Take note on the Middle-East where RAF stations were present.

The RAF bombers could strike into the USSR heartland. The VVS didn't have a chance at night. They didn't even have anything capable of flying effectively at night, let alone fighting at night.

The RAF were much better defended than the VVS. Any VVS attacks would be met with precision defence, standing patrols weren't needed with the RAF.

So, the VVS would be demolished by the RAF.

Effect on the Luftwaffe, the RAF had more. You seem to forget that after 1941 the Luftwaffe was on the defensive in the West and offensive in the East. The kills of the VVS were in large bombers of the Luftwaffe.
The RAF couldn't get the high kills of the VVS because the Luftwaffe was only doing nuisance raids over Britain, not full scale bombing campaigns. The RAF, however, were bombing Germany and although I notice you think it was completely inaccurate, it wasn't. It had the effect on oil plants, ball bearings, aircraft plants, fuel plants etc. Which all effect the Luftwaffe more than one of their Ju-87s being shot down in the field.

[delcyros]

The Mossies Nf would need to deal with a very few pre war biplanes flying low level at very slow speed. A bad target. VVS actually did fielded ground based Radar and it developed one of the finest ground controller leading tactics late in the war.
What targets would the Lancasters hit? Moscow? Gorki? Hardly in range. The central sibirian factorys? Impossible far beyond their range. Tanks? Oh, they would need to fly very low (KG-1 tried and failed to do so because the red army has a very dense forward air defence system). Railways, bridges? You underestimate the effectiffness of red army pioneers. At april 45 they even quicklier build bridges over the river Oder than they have been detected by Luftwaffe planes...
The Spit IX is comparable to the Yak-3 or La-5, not superior. The Spit IVX is comparable to the Yak-3U/Yak-9U and La-7 FN, not superior at low and medium altitudes. And there are lots of Yaks and La-7....
Keep in mind that the soviets would develop high altitude capabilities if really needed.
One last word to the bombing campaign:
In 1944 the productivity of tanks, weapons, planes, ammo and anything else (except fuel) was higher than in any other year. It wasn´t as high as 1943, it wasn´t doubled, in some points (fighter) it was a multitple higher. Where is the effect of the bombing campaign here? You are right, Plan_D that Speer pushed the economy to it´s limits but he also dispersed or replaced them underground beyond reach of the bombers as many factories as possible. This is why the bombing campaign had not that much impact. Indeed it has considerable impact on the skyline of the cities but it failed (as wanted in 1944) to break peoples willing to continue the war as did the Luftwaffe attacks on London failed in this goal. You overestimate the effects on heavy bombers over Germany regarding to their effectivness destroying the war economy. Their is pretty much effectiveness to limit the fuel avaiability (this indeed shortened the war), -and this to a large extand thanks to the US8AF, but little else.

[mosquitoman]

The RAF would come out on top as would the RN against the Soviet Navy but even so, The British Army would be crushed by the steamroller that is the Soviet Army. And it is on land that everything matters

[plan_D]

Caucasus, del, oil fields.

The Mosquito would slaughter any Soviet aircraft in the night sky.

The RAF RADAR defence was the best and certainly more capable than the VVS.

The Spitfire Mk.XIV is superior the La-7, plus the fact the RAF would be operating at HIGH altitudes with it's bombers. What gives you the idea that Russia could quickly produce a high altitude fighter with similar capabilities to the Mk.XIV Spit? That's just a dream world.

No, the bombing campaign was extremely effective. German war production wasn't at full capacity in 1939-1941, it was only at about 40%. The only reason the production increased was because Speer increased it to about 90% in 1944. If the bombing hadn't happened, the production run would have been much higher. You UNDER-estimate the effect of the Allied bombing campaign.

The RAF didn't just target cities as you seem to believe. The US 8th AF weren't carrying the air offensive, which you seem to believe is true.

It's well written that German production increased but it's also widely asked, what if the bombing would have never happened?
On top of the obvious, which you miss believing that bombing didn't do anything, the bombing campaign diverted thousands of 88 AA guns to the west and hundreds of thousands of men to man those guns. I've seen an interview with Adolf Galland, and he stated the Western bombing campaign had the most drastic effect on Germany because of the mass diversion of resources to defend against it. I'll take Gallands view over yours...

[delcyros]

Well, the soviet navy wouldn´t even have a chance, agreed. (this is even more important if you factor the geografical advantage of Britain).
The fact that the Luftwaffe did attacked mainly the SU doesn´t reduce the efforts of the VVS. But take 1944 for example. The bulk of the whermacht was destroyed by soviet forces in the Ukraina and Poland and not on the DDay. They dictated by numbers and I don´t see why this could be otherwise fighting the RAF. Their low level attacks would give VVS strikes a reasonable chance to hit effectively, since Radar effectifness (and range) is much reduced for low level flying planes and the RAF did not relied in a larger scale on forward patrol sorties. This gives VVS a big surprise advantage. They also worked much closer with their advancing ground forces than any other nation in ww2.

[plan_D]

I fail to see what the fact that the Wehrmact, as a force, was bled on the Eastern Front has to do with anything.

We're talking about VVS Vs. RAF in capability, not Red Army Vs. British Army.

The RAF could handle close support with Typhoons, Mosquitos, Hurricanes, Beaufighters and, hell, Spitfires if need be.

[delcyros]

The secondary effect (relocating of additional forces in order to defend), you mention, Plan_D is really something to count for the bombing campaign. Agreed. But take the jet and rocket production for example. From early 1945 on most of the key technologys have been dispersed by Speer. Small, independent factories located in the woods produced parts for the Me-262 as did the Kahla underground factory. Repeated bombing of Lechfeld and Augsburg reduced the Me-262 program in a way that prototypes and training was hampered, not the productivity of the plane. Keep in mind that 1433 Me-262 have been produced by wars end. Take the V-2. After all I read some 15.000 missiles have been produced in underground facicilties (with a high degree in bad shape thanks to the forced labourers, I should mention them, they hampered the V-2 attacks more than did the RAF). Take the He-162. Several underground facicilties just begun working at wars end with some 800-1000 planes build (all in all, 50% waiting for engines)and around 115 delivered to the Luftwaffe. Strategic bombing had close to zero impact to these project. In any aspect, it never worked out to reduce anything in any field except for the fuel productivity. Was this it´s original purpose? I doubt. Originally it wasn´t a campaign to slightly reduce the increase of productivity, it´s purpose was to crush the german industrial capabilities. And it failed to do so.
On the other side, while the RAF had a very theoreticle war, the VVS crushed the german ground forces and therefor got Berlin.