Would be intresting to see the outcome.
VVS Vs. RAF
- Thread starter plan_D
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
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 numbers could be closer than I expected.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
RAF would still win 
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
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
Captain
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 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
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and that advantage would be even less without british input.......
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
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.
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
Captain
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
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
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
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??
- Thread starter
- #331
Only 1,000 of the 3,000 Hurricanes sent to Russia were re-equipped. Those were the Hurricane IIA (With Eight .303cal), the Hurricane IIB (Twelve .303cal) were left alone. Then there was the 1,300 Spitfire Vb and IX, which weren't touched.
The VVS certainly could not effectively defend against night strikes by RAF bombers. They also had nothing in an effective strategic bomber to strike back. However, I do give credit to the Soviet Union, they can adapt their technology. Maybe an increase in TB-3 production or Pe-8 production could have seen them with a strategic bomber force, however with the combat reports from the strategic bombing campaign against Finland I find it hard to believe that the VVS would be able to come up with the tactics to strike back in the same way that the RAF could strike.
The FAF were a tactically superior force to the VVS. With woefully inadequete equipment they managed to show the VVS up, especially when they stopped the VVS bomber offensive against their cities. And we all know how they did that, don't we?
The VVS certainly could not effectively defend against night strikes by RAF bombers. They also had nothing in an effective strategic bomber to strike back. However, I do give credit to the Soviet Union, they can adapt their technology. Maybe an increase in TB-3 production or Pe-8 production could have seen them with a strategic bomber force, however with the combat reports from the strategic bombing campaign against Finland I find it hard to believe that the VVS would be able to come up with the tactics to strike back in the same way that the RAF could strike.
The FAF were a tactically superior force to the VVS. With woefully inadequete equipment they managed to show the VVS up, especially when they stopped the VVS bomber offensive against their cities. And we all know how they did that, don't we?
You also have to look at the VVS ability to strike back with bombers. The Russians did not have much for Bombers and none really of quality except for the Pe-8. It is also interesting how they went after the war. The allies pretty much went with missles and the Russian kept building Heavy Bombers for quite some time. They also had a huge ammount of missles but there major strategic force was prop driven bombers. It is interesting how there strategy came about.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well they're much more versatile than missiles.........
I agree I am just wondering how they came upon there tactics, for instance the US and the British had heavy bombers also but they relied on cruise missles and such not the Russians did more of the opposite.
Glider
Captain
I suspect that their tactics were dictated by the technology that they had available. During the war the Russians aquired two B29's that crash landed in theeir territory. The crews were treated as POW and a vast amount of effort was put into copying them.
As a result they were automatically one step behind the USA, because the USA were moving onto the next generation.
As a result they were automatically one step behind the USA, because the USA were moving onto the next generation.
- Thread starter
- #336
Okay yeah I can see that. It makes sense.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but you can't take recon photos or carry out a maritime patrol in a rocket........
- Thread starter
- #339
And then you fire the rocket at the place you just PR'd or you send the satalite into space with the rocket and get whatever PR and better PR then from a plane!
