VVS Vs. RAF

arras · 06-22-2005, 12:21 PM

Also, during whole WW2 none of the countries put in to wide use powerful enough mobile radar platform. Most of them were heavy big pieces instaled in pernament sites build of concrete wit suporting buildings. None of the fighting side enjoied accurate radar vectoring when they were on advance. While jumping from one field airfield to another there was not time to build radar sites quickly foloving ground advance. And that was true especialy at the begining of war. Mosth of the radars were concentrated at strategical defence, around main air aproaches to big cities and production centers.

In tactical air war, radar played minor role. That was true for Blitzkrieg, Barbarossa, Alied campaign in Western europe and Soviet in the east.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-22-2005, 01:06 PM

that's because the technology for mobile radar wasn't around at the time, you can't blame anyone for that......

but however both the british and the Germans mastered RADAR (the brits more than the germans) for the role it was intended, baisically home defence............

and the allies found a very effective way af countering their lack of moving radar, stick planes on combat air patrol!

Glider · 06-23-2005, 12:08 AM

Arras
The British had mobile stations from the start of the war. As you would expect they got better as time moved on but even in the BOB we had some. The Germans knocked out one ot the British stations at the start of the BOB and one day later a mobile unit was moved in to fill the gap.
When the Allies invaded France we had mobile units that moved forward with the battle to help out nightfighters cover the allied forces. These were also used to give warning of any German raids.

One amusing aside. I have just read 'Nightfighter' and the pilot visitied one of these stations and was impressed by one piece of technology. As the radar beam passed a spot on the display, the operator could push a button and the display could go back or even stay still, enabling them to concentrate on an action that was taking place. As you could imagine this was very helpfull in a fast moving action.
The controller took him outside into a space below the hut and he saw the secret. The ariel was turned by two men on what was basically a tandem bike. When the button was pushed, a light lit up and they pedalled the other way.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-23-2005, 03:46 AM

How about this one:

The Ar-234B-1 Early Warning Project of 1944. It was a Ar-234 with a rotating FuG-244 "Berlin" panoramic night fighting search radar. It rotated at a 1000rpm and worked at a frequancy of 3300 MHz on the 9cm wave length with a peak impulse of 20kW.

It was captured after the war and used by the US as influence for its AWACS program.

delcyros · 06-24-2005, 03:45 AM

The overall strength of the soviet airforces in mid june-1941 is often given with 17.745 planes total. These numbers (compare tmso.leaverworth.army/mil/documents/barabros.htm) are to high in my view. From these planes we have to seperate VVS, POV and the reserve GOK. A number is for transportation and connecting services as well as a larger number for training purposes. Some 2.314 planes awaiting their fading off in this time, too.
The VVS in europe had some 3510 planes (questionable, other sources say between 2204 and 3719, some ~1400 of them in worthy condition), some 1134 planes had the VVS in the far east.
The PVO in europe was seperated in the Moscow, Baku and Leningrad area. They had a number of well prepared airfields with concrete runways. In mid june 1941 for the PVO at Moscow we have two operating Rus-I radar stations (Kiln and Moshaisk) and another Rus-II radar station at Kaluga and 585 fighter planes for the defense of Moscow alone plus numerous AA (no certain number prior to late jule 41: 248 light AA, 796 middle AA and 336 AA MG. Plus 618 search lights and 303 ballons).
The strenght for the other PVO operating zones are unknown to me.
A seperation by plane types is in work but will take some more time.
(deployed at june, 22nd, 1941)
Il-2--------------less than 249
Yak-1-----------+195
Mig-1-----------~80
Mig-3-----------~320
Lagg-3----------
R-5/U-2---------1426
I-15-------------
I-152------------
I-153------------3322 (93 sent to China, 22 captured by Fins)
I-16-------------
Pe-2------------
SB-2-----------
TB-3------------
Pe-3------------
Yak-2----------
DB-3------------
MBR-2-----------
to be continued.....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-24-2005, 11:58 AM

Would be intresting to see the outcome.

Glider · 06-24-2005, 03:23 PM

DELC. a STERLING EFFORT. Both the RAF and the VVS are obviously in a transitional stage with the new planes coming into service.

The numbers could be closer than I expected.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-25-2005, 01:31 AM

RAF would still win

delcyros · 06-25-2005, 03:02 AM

Yes, both airforces are in the midst of their transitional phase. So the numbers are surprisingly very close. There is a problem with the production figures and those numbers deployed. While for the IL-2 all produced (249) planes have been deployed (questionable, since what do they do with the prototypes?), a number of other modern planes isn´t.
100 Mig-1, 1.309 Mig-3, 322 Lagg-3, 487 Pe-2 and 399 Yak-1 have been produced till june 22nd. I expect that most of the new fighters are shifted into the GOK first and then into several VVS/PVO units. Another explenation could be training new crews or a lack of sources.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-25-2005, 09:33 AM

Interesting thoughts. This really is a wiered topic though RAF versus VVS because the VVS used a lot of British equipment. It also makes me wonder how the RAF would hold up at that time.

Glider · 06-25-2005, 11:55 AM

DerAlder. Thats the fun bit. I reckon that we would have held up fine for all the reasons explained in the thread.
The one advantage that I thought the VVS ha was in numbers and whilst that seems to still be the case its looks as if its going to be a lot less than I thought.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-25-2005, 12:48 PM

and that advantage would be even less without british input.......

delcyros · 06-26-2005, 06:00 AM

Allied input on soviet equippment doesn´t count that much in 1941 (it does exist, but it´s quantity is neglectable) but has a peak in 1942. In 1942 it indeed makes a difference, introducing better radio and gunsights-for example. The importance in 1942 is even more significant, because it was a critical (and for the VVS very difficult) year and soviet production lines behind the Ural were just starting to deliver higher numbers.
The VVS modified much of their land lease equippment, Hurricane with twin Berezin 0.50 cal and twin 20mm ShVak as well as weight reduced P-39 and P-40. But even with these materials, the VVS had a hard time with the Luftwaffe, actually it suffered high losses in 1942.
What makes me feel, the VVS could do well against the RAF is that the tactics of the RAF would bring the fight to a higher altitude, suited for planes like Mig-3. Initially the VVS had not that much of the new planes avaiable but innumerous I-16 and Chaikas, which have a less performance but which could do well gaginst Hurricane. (I-16 against Hurricane would be particularly interesting)
Here additional figures for the "coastel defense force" at june 22nd, 1941:
total:
Arctic force: 114
Baltic force: 707
Black Sea force: 624
I-16/I-15bis/I-153: 691
Yak-1/Mig-3/LaGG-3: 72
DB-3/SB/TB-1/TB-3/Pe-2: 337
MBR-2: 345
As we see, most equippment are older designs. Production figures for newer ones are impressive, even in the second half of 1941, particularly those of the Mig-3.

Glider · 06-26-2005, 10:12 AM

Delc, Thanks for this. I agree with your comments on the importance of Lend Lease in 1942 which enabled the Russians to hold the line whilst the Russian production lines were moved East. Also on the rearming of the 303 armed Hurricanes, which was desperately needed.

It looks as if the only plane were the VVS had a significant advantage in was in the 153.

Fighters
I-16 vs Hurricanes would be interesting and probably to close to call.
We have debated the Mig-3 vs Spitfire at altitude. The Mig 3 is certainly faster but very lightly armed and at altitude would perform well. However my view is that if brought below 15,000ft it will struggle, which is why it was taken out of production at the end of 1941. I would suggest that its too specialised and that a General Purpose plane such as the Spit would be better overall.
Overall the quality of the RAF fighter squadrons would cause massive losses to the VVS as happened in the German invasion.

With the exception of the PE2 I don't believe that the VVS can come close to matchng the RAF bomber forces.
In GA I consider it a close draw for the reasons stated before.

In precision strike the VVS have nothing like the Beaufighter and to all intents and purposes they have nothing like the Beaufighter for nightfighting.

What do you reckon

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-26-2005, 10:15 AM

i reckon you're right, i think we can all agree that the VVS could not defend againt heavy night strikes, and that they have no means with which to strike back, yes??