VVS Vs. RAF

[delcyros]

Show a large factorycomplex in range for any british plane operating from Britain or the near east or India. No way. And they would still need to come back. At such a large range even improved design couldn´t carry a large payload.
Baku could be hit but this wasn´t the only fuel production complex. Fuel bombings have been carried out more by US forces than by british forces, as pointed out above. Bomber Harris doesn´t favoured these attacks until General Spatz put them on the target lists on his own.
The VVS had an excellent high altitude fighter even in 1940/41: the MiG-3. In 1942 it was improved to the MiG-3U, an excellent plane for high altitude interceptions. It´s no dream. The Spit wouldn´t have a big chance at low altitudes. keep all the soviet forward air defense in mind. Any inline engined plane has a disadvantage under these conditions but I think the Typhoon/Tempest would have been a very feared plane. Also the best to intercept the Il-2.
You cannot exclude the ground forces here, Plan_D. Esspeccially since the VVS worked extremely close with them together.

[mosquitoman]

The one saving grace that Britain has is the English Channel- no invasion would be possibe across that so it would be the air battle that would matter most. Ground support wouldn't come into this side of things but in the Western Desert and India it would (assuming Soviet troops would get involved down there)

[plan_D]

The RAF and USAAF strikes against the V-2s were not against the rockets themselves but the stationary launch sites. Me-262s were getting burned on their runways along with any other jet fighters the Germans liked to produce.

Strategic bombing caused the massive loss of fuel, manganese and several other vital materials to Germanys war production. The equipment might have been getting built at a high rate but it was lower quality and there was less of it, had the bombing campaign never existed the German factories would have been in constant full production and the factories would have never had to be relocated. Relocating takes time and resources!

The VVS and the Soviet Union would have never got close to Berlin without the help of the Western Allies. The mobilisation of the Red Army was ALL done with U.S and British equipment!

The Spitfire would have a huge chance at low altitudes, it was better than anything the VVS had! The MiG-3, did you just say the MiG-3 was good? I have to laugh at that statement.
The MiG-3 would get slaughtered by Spitfire Mk.XIVs. Even the MiG-3U would!

And you're missing out the night sky. What chance would the VVS have their? Their little U-2s going to save them?

The Soviet troops couldn't fight in desert or jungle. They wouldn't stand a chance. The thing with the Soviets was enmass use of armour. But that armour was suited to the climate of Russia, not the sands of Africa...and it certainly couldn't move through the jungle.

[Udet]

Delcyros:

Whatever!

[plan_D]

Let's look at the RAF Bomber Command statistics of 1944-'45 compared to US 8th AF. I'll exclude the diversion of resources in May, June, July of 1944 when Bomber Command was supporting the D-Day invasion.

Between July and September 1944 11% of RAF Bomber Commands sorties were against oil installations. Between October and December 14% were against oil installations.
In November, 1944, 24.6% were directed against oil installations. RAF Bomber Command dropped more bombs on oil installations in that month than the US 8th AF.

In October, 1944, all together Bomber Command dropped 61, 204 tonnes while 'The Mighty 8th' dropped 38, 961 tonnes. Feburary, 1945, British and American tonnages were 45,889 and 46,088 respectively. In March, Bomber Command dropped 67, 637 and Eighth Air Force dropped 65, 962 tonnes.

Over 10,000 FlaK 18 & 36 88mm AA cannons were diverted to the defence of the Reich from air assault. Diverted from the fighting fronts, most likely that of the Eastern Front. An estimate of 600,000 Germans were killed throughout the war in the bombing offensive of the US 8th and 15th, and Bomber Command.

In the words of Max Hastings "It would be ludicrous to imply that the German people found the experience acceptable, or to deny that Hitler's war production suffered not only from damage on plant, but also from absenteeism and chronic dislocation to the lives of the labour force."

[delcyros]

Well, if these datas are correct, than the bombing had less impact than I fought. If you check the production rates in september, october and november, the aircraft fuel production increased, not decreased (compare my thread in ww2general about german aircraft fuel production to check the numbers...) considerably. Keep also in mind that "precision" was very low (officially considered a hit if the bomb is placed in within 1000 ft distance of the target).
Of the 600.000 killed, how many are military? How many are civil? What does the numbers tell you?
And something to add here: You might find it interesting that the VVS was the first nation to carry out succesful strikes against oil fields (1941 against Ploesti, resulting in the relocation of all but a few rumanian fighters to these fields in order to defend them).
And you are still not factoring the combat sorties of both. Great advantage for VVS.
And while the red forces wouldn´t be able to acces Britain, what are the british forces expect to: Enter Russia? Advance in the plains in front of Moscow? No way. It´s a draw in my eyes. Bombers alone doesn´t ensure winning a war. Esspeccially against Russia. you are not factoring the huge areas there, the RAF simply hasn´t enough planes to get air superiority there. Heavy bombers have less impact than you might estimate, my friend. They would depend on their own, since no british fighter was able to accompany them on their raids. We do know what happens to bombers without escorts. The technology of Britain wasn´t developed to be maintened under those circumstances, also. And the MiG-3 in 1941 was at least comparable to the Spitfire V at high altitudes (and less in lower).
And remeber, the soviets prooved to be very careful in adopting new techs and countering them. The reason why they did not fielded high altitude planes on a larger scale wasn´t because they are unable to do so but because they simply don´t needed them for their purposes.

[plan_D]

The production figures for German production only increases because A. Speer was still building up the production levels.

Do you believe that Allied bombing had no effect, or even so, the opposite effect to what it was supposed to?

The production rates climbed all the way up until 1945. Does that mean that Allied bombing increased German productivity? No it doesn't.

The numbers tell me 600,000 people died under the onslaught of Allied air power. For every 1 soldier, it was 3 civilians.

I have the numbers for the loss of fuel caused by Allied air raids on oil installations.

The VVS strike on Ploesti were nothing compared to the raids by the USAAF and RAF.

The RAF wouldn't need complete air superiority, local superiority is enough to ensure the bombers or attack aircraft get the job done. The Soviet Union increase in technology was largely because of Western Allied technology being sent there. The Soviet Union wasn't capable of developing electronic equipment on par with the RAFs.

The MiG-3 was comparable to the Spitfire Mk.V at high altitude but not the Spitfire Mk.VI, IX and XIV.

What new technology did the VVS field or what German technology did they counter effectively?

[delcyros]

Well, the oil production (unlike other fields) couldnt be dispersed or set to underground facilities. Speer couldnt increase it anyway. The reason why they increased was because bombing was extremely effective in jule1944. Afterwards it never reached this level (and gave the germans enough room and time to upbuild there production again). In this way the RAF helped in delaying the increase in productivity of this timeframe. It could have been crushed but it wasnt. Not one of 3 but moreso one of five to six persons of military died becuase of the strategic bombing. On the other side under the tactical bombradment of the VVS 6,7 of ten died persons have been military ones. If you factor the tanks also more damage to the whermacht as a force was done by VVS than RAF.
Are you saying that Speer was the reason that Germany survived in 1943/44...well, even this underlines the failure of the strategic bombing conception: It wasnt possible for RAF and US forces to crush the german war economy, why should the RAF be able to crush the economy of Russia, a more distant and capable enemy...
The VVS had their own jet technology projects, in 1941 they had the Bi 1, a rocket driven interceptor in prototype stage.

[Udet]

Delcyros:

You have your fashion of sticking to ideas.

It is easy to be to noticed: whenever a comment, remark, idea or source surges to make a point in favor of Germany you ask for moderation or express scepticism or simply provide your info allegedly proving them wrong.

Quite the contrary occurs when the discussion focus on soviet military performance: all your remarks are positive and allow no doubt.

You recognize their losses were frightful and that is about it.


There is a counterpoint to each of your arguments.

It is not just others over-estimating a combatant nation: you over-estimate the capabilities of the USSR during WWII.


So they had no high altitude aircraft for the sole reason "they did not need them for their purposes"?

I am sure that besides geography of the eastern front, there are other reasons to explain why "they did not need high altitude planes for their purposes".

A hint: what about having two allies (RAF and USAAF) receiving thousands of high altitude planes (four engined bombers and fighters) and sending them to pound Germany?

You fail to acknowledge the critical advantages of such situation -or pretend you don´t- in favor of the soviets.

If my "friends" will undertake massive production of heavy bombers and high altitude fighters i can then erase such items from my catalog of war items to be mass produced.



I have read your postings here carefully still fail to have a complete photograph of what you are tryin to say here.

As Plan_D correctly put it, the soviets carried out bombing raids using their twin engined bombers -not only against Ploesti but also Berlin and other cities- which had minimum impact on the enemy targets but, yes, suffered frightful losses of planes in the process.

This to tell you the soviets were more than appealled by the notion of raiding German facilities and of killing German civilians by turning their cities into rubble.

So the "they did not them for their purposes" can be put into serious doubt.

You are not suggesting that if the RAF and USAAF had not been involved in the west with their fleets of heavies, the USSR would have been capable of producing them....are you...?

Saying the USSR was not capable to have four engine heavy bombers and high altitude fighters included in the soviet catalog of mass produced items seems way more realistic.

Other points:

(i) I agree the Mig-3 was a capable modern fighter in the VVS. Now, can you tell what was it that it achieved in the air against the Luftwaffe?

(ii) The soviet rocket driven interceptor: has anyone said jet propulsion and rocketry was unknown for any power of the era? Unless you are about to come up saying the soviet rocket and jet "program" was more advanced than Germany´s i can tell you they achieved nothing in this department.


You over estimate the USSR: by the end of the war it was an exhausted nation, over bled and reaching its limits. No matter how large its territory and population might have been; no matter how brutal and relentless its regime was; no matter its accepted casualty list was insanely huge.

[delcyros]

Dear Udet,
I see your points. You critizize me for taking position for a force which is generally considered a poor one in terms of aerial warfare. This is -just in my eyes- a mistake. I agree that it sounds from time to time not balanced, but there are reasons for me to do so. Understanding of the eastern front might be a key factor in understanding the whole ww2.
(i)What does the MiG achieved? Operational order No. 123/21-41:"(...) unter allen Umständen sind Begegnungen mit den MiG-Jägern in Höhen über 5000 m ohne Überzahlvorteil zu vermeiden" Actually this lead to tactics trapping the MiG in lower altitudes and never was a serious problem. Losses have been inflicted by those MiG´s at high altitude, esspeccially during the Moscow bombardment. The superior tactics used by Luftwaffe fighter pilots in this timeframe shouldn´t reduce the capabilities of this airplane in our views.
(ii) The rocket driven interceptor: No, I replied to the theory that the VVS was a low end technology force, uncapable to field something new. In comparison to Britain they have been further in 1941, since Britain obviously had no rocket interceptors in prototype stage. The only nation to do so was Germany with the DFS 194 and Me-163A in 1941. Both are in my views more advanced than the soviet version but comparable in some points. Jet technology was far more ahead in Britain and Germany than in Russia.
The VVS did carried out some desperate sorties but never intended to work on a larger strategical bombing campaign since they had other prioritys, the prioritys of the ground forces on the front. This often had more significant impact than the strategical bombing campaign. A strategic bombing campaign usually depends on high altitude planes, while a concentration on tactical duties prefer the low level performances.
The VVS had the opinion to produce the heavy bomber Pe-8, a mediocre design but better than anything the germans fielded in 1941, but they decided that the mass production would take too much ressources, which have been needed for fighter and tactical planes. They could do so, my friend. On the other side they recognized that probably losses would be terrible and even if they succeed (as did RAF and US), it would not have a serious impact on the curse of the front. Urgently they decided to specialize on tacticals. Not surprising.
You knwo that tacticals usually produce terrible losses (take RAF losses for low level Tornado in the first Gulf war) and so did the VVS. However there are more reasons: Excellent enemy tactics and planes, poor quality of airframes, bad leadership and so on. Even with this in mind the VVS did not took more losses per 100 sorties than did the RAF. Isn´t it surprising? You may argue that this is based on the statistics and the ratio is only that good for the VVS because they have been able to fly more missions than did the RAF and with less missions it would not reduce in less but in more losses for the VVS, since the probability of air superiority grows and falls with the comparison of the sorties to some point. But this is unproven. Possible and probable but speculation. Even then, the VVS was able to do some 3.4 million combat sorties against Germany, while the Luftwaffe only fielded some 1.8 million on the east. That´s why in the end the Luftwaffe lost air superiority in 1944. Had they keep the superiority, they could have prevented the catastrophic situation in mid 1944, where Il-2 crushed the bulk of the german forces with ease.

[plan_D]

I'll start from the bottom of your post and work my way up.

The Soviet rocket-interceptor Bi-2 wasn't any advance in technology. It was a worthless design and didn't see any service in or out of World War 2. Britain didn't intend of having rocket interceptors as they already had a much better propulsion system, which is far more advanced than rockets, the jet engine. The Soviet Union didn't have a single non-prop driven aircraft in World War 2 that operated. The British had the Meteor.

No, I've never said that Albert Speer was the only reason that Germany's war economy kept rising. The RAF and USAAF could have crushed Germany's oil production had the bombing offensive been kept up. They had realised by 1944 where the key to Germany's war was.
This in no way implies that all bombing efforts before then had done nothing to the effort of Germany's war. Think logically, the destruction of a factory with several hundred aircraft airframes, engines, tank chassis, ball bearings or rifles has destroyed that production run which will have to be built again.
Of course, they did get built again but in the time it takes to re-build that same production run they would have built another production run if the bombing had never happened.

The destruction of oil installations, manganese plants and actual tank production facilities does more damage to the Wehrmacht than actually destroying them on the field. What good is German mobilisation without fuel?

The correct figures for the aerial bombardment of Germany was for every one soldier killed, three civilians were killed.

July 1944 was not the peak of Allied bombardment, on the contrary it was the first 4 months of 1945 that was, where the RAF alone dropped 181, 740 tonnes (The US dropping 188, 573 tonnes). Between July and September 1944 only 20 percent of Bomber Command's sorties were against cities, 11 percent being against oil installations. That's 69% of Bomber Command's sorties going directly against factories, ground forces, transport links or supply lines.

The effect of bombing Germany's oil: In March 1944 Germany had 927,000 tons of Petroleum. In May, 715,000 tons. 472,000 tons in June. Luftwaffe aviation spirit dropped from 180,000 tons in April to 50,000 tons in June, 10,000 tons in August!

Germany needed 300,000 tons of oil a month to effectively continue the war. By September 1944 they were receiving little over 150,000.

I have noticed how quickly this has become a thread about you trying to downplay the role of the Western Allied air offensive. I don't like having to repeat myself, let alone the words of someone else twice but you obviously did not read them.

In the words of Max Hastings "It would be ludicrous to imply that the German people found the experience acceptable, or to deny that Hitler's war production suffered not only from damage on plant, but also from absenteeism and chronic dislocation to the lives of the labour force."

It is unfortunate because I merely started out as showing that the RAF was more rounded, better equipped, better trained and elite force than the VVS which purely relied on numbers.

Let's compare the forces:

Night bombing: Lancaster/U-2 (RAF/VVS)
Night Fighting: Mosqutio/None (RAF/VVS)
High Altitude: Spitfire Mk.VI or Mk.XIV/MiG-3U (RAF/VVS)
Low Altitude: Spitfire Mk.XIV C.W/La-7 (RAF/VVS)
Ground Attack: Typhoon/Il-2 (RAF/VVS)
Strategic bombing: Lancaster/Pe-8 {Hardly in service} (RAF/VVS)
Jet/Rocket interceptors: Meteor/Bi-2 {Never saw service} (RAF/VVS)
Maritime Patrol: Sunderland/None (RAF/VVS)
Photo Reconaisance: Spitfire PR.IX/Po-2

Anyone can feel free to include other areas.

[Udet]

Plan D:

Hold your fire!

You do not have to go there (comparing aircraft for each role).

The La-7 was a very capable plane: rugged, manouverable and well armed.

The point here is as follows:

Delcyros and many others trying to credit the VVS with a quality and organization it simply never enjoyed fail to detect the core of the issue.

Go back to basics, do not go outside the nucleus analyzing specifications of planes, sorties, etc.

We know it, they know it: the losses of the VVS during 1941 were far beyond description: both on the ground and in the air they were skinned alive.

Take into consideration soviet pilots had gained combat experience during the Spanish civil war. Did it show in the skies of their country in 1941?

There was a "gap" however, the winter of 1941, during the red army´s counteroffensive around Moscow: miserable weather simply grounded a Luftwaffe that had sustained low casualties in the previous months of Barbarossa.

(Yes, even flying the ancient Ishaks and Chaikas and modern Mig-3s some remarkable soviet pilots scored kills against bombers and even against Bf 109s; cases were few though.)

Funnily, many historians credit the VVS with having achieved remarkable deeds during such winter. I´d ask them, did soviet pilots arriving east the USSR to join the offensive had any special capabilities and equipment for flying in such weather conditions in 1941? Is "NO" the most likely of the answers?

However, when winter was over, the Luftwaffe retook the role it had played the previous year: Operation Blue in 1942 saw the German pilots continuing the slaughter of the VVS. By mid 1942 more than 85 percent of the VVS units located in the western area of the soviet union littered vast areas of land. A massive cementery of planes and pilots.

And no, i am not mocking soviet pilots nor diminishing their bravery and courage and hate. As I said before, bravery is not an issue in my comments for i am god damned sure they all had guts.

The ultra famous battle of Stalingrad had the same kind of outcome in the air. Extremely high losses for the stubborn and brave VVS bomber formations launched to attack German positions across the Don bend and over the city itself.

Another ultra famous battle, Kursk, the cauldron of July 1943, saw the VVS losing to German fighters only about 370 combat planes in the very first day of the battle, add those lost to Flak and accidents.

I will make the long story short. Conclusions. The core of the deal.

I have the soviet version of the airwarfare against the Luftwaffe. In russian so i do not have to rely on translations that might contain unaccuracies. They do not provide that much info that could help us readers in changing our view. Other than several furious remarks saying of the "burgeois" lies and distortions they amazingly failed to provide the evidence that would prove their case.

If they have the evidence, why not to immediately release it and shut the mouths of those they calle liars and distorters?

They claim that by 1943 the Luftwaffe "had been effectively destroyed". By mid 1943, they say, the Luftwaffe "had ceased to be an effective force due to enormous losses inflicted by the VVS".

Facts and statistics easily shatter such claim. The losses during the first day of action at Kursk and the inability of the VVS to gain air superiority in the Kuban area -where German numerical superiority was slight- both in 1943 are of help proving they do not have a case to defend.

It takes more than 1 and half year to raise a professional and highly skilled and organized army out of the ashes of your slaughtered air force.

Why 1 and a half year? From june 22, 1941 to, say, late 1942 -Stalingrad victory- they mildly admit "they learned bitter lessons".

By mid 1943 they claim the VVS was "an entirely different force".

The VVS never ceased to launch formation after formation of fighters and bombers to attack the Germans suffering breath taking losses.

They never really had the chance to cadre "battle seasoned" squadrons in significant numbers due to the enormous losses suffered.

A different thing happened in the German case: in previous campaigns they had suffered losses that always remained moderate (even during the Battle of Britain). The Luftwaffe had a growing number of battle experienced pilots after every campaign in the west, balkans, mediterranean and africa, because their losses never came nowhere near the insanity of VVS losses during 1941 and 1942 and, yes, 1943 at the hands of the Luftwaffe.

The soviet guys did not enjoy such luxury.

Now add the brutal nature of the soviet regime: a fearsome, powerful and professional army IN YOUR SOIL smashing all soviet armies, until Stalingrad. The absolutely unthinkable will be done to attempt stopping it.

Add that by 1943 the western allies had landed in North Africa and Italia: the soviet regime demanded the opening of new fronts that would relieve them from pressure WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

D-day, the allies storm Normandy: Stalin, a skilled politician, had his own political agenda and he did not want his western allies -which he did not trust- to advance faster and further into Europe than his red army could. More pressure to both soviet aircraft producers and pilots. Proper training? Was not their concern.

If there were not Luftwaffe planes to fight, the Yaks did not stay in the air photographing migrating birds: they too were sent out in the ground attack mode as much as the IL-2s. Being slightly armored they were weak and took enormous losses from German ground fire.

So the elements, basics, are:

(1) 1941-late 1942/early 1943. The period when all that mattered was to stop or slow the advancing Wehrmacht: sent them out, all to the fight: enormous losses. Not enough time to train and to organize pilots and units properly.

Units involved suffered so terribly, no significant numbers of battle-experienced pilots to train the new arrivals were left. A Pokryshkin as teacher was the luxury of only a few pilots. Even his unit took important losses; they were not the "super-heros" of the air, as it would be in an American comic book of the Hall of Justice.

(2) Mid 1943-1944-1945. The period when the western allies begin landing in north africa, sicily, italia; then Normandy came to clear the atmosphere as to the unavoidable outcome of the war. Political agenda enters the scenario. To advance faster than the western guys, faster and further: not enough time to properly train and organize the military air force.

That they improved is true. That one or two of their fighters were totally capable by the last year of the war is totally true. That they broke the Luftwaffe all by themselves -date does not matter- is totally untrue.

[plan_D]

Good points concerning Luftwaffe Vs. VVS but don't go telling people to "Hold your fire". That annoyed me but luckily I calmed down while reading the valid points afterwards.

If I want to bait up a comparison between different aircraft types, I will. Also, I never said the La-7 was a poor aircraft. The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire!

[Udet]

Nothing anyone might type here can get close to annoy me.

I am not to tell you what to do or not to do here. Do whatever the hell you want. I could not care less.

Quite actually i am in no way responsible for how you interpret my postings.

*YAWN*

[plan_D]

Apart from the fact that the last sentence made no sense, that was probably the most reasonable post you've ever made.

Well done. =D>