# VVS Vs. RAF



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

I don't want the discussion to die out because it's a good one. 

The VVS didn't need a heavy bomber force because it had the USAAF and RAF doing all the dirty work for them in the skies over Europe. If it had been VVS against the RAF, the VVS would need to deploy heavy bombers against the RAF. 

The RAF had a better high altitude force. It's bombers would get through Soviet air space almost unhampered because the VVS didn't have any high altitude capable fighters, they didn't need them because the Luftwaffe was generally intercepting or attacking at low altitudes. 

The RAF did however have effective low altitude fighters, much more capable than VVS aircraft. The Spitfire Mk.IX and XIV were better in their respective times than what the VVS could field. 

The night campaigns would be all to the RAF because of the Mosquito being the best night-fighter of the war, the VVS had nothing to field against it. 

The Mosquito could effectively hit with precision during the day, just like it did during the day against the Luftwaffe. 

The RAF were only inaccurate in 1940-1941. Electronics began to play their part in 1942 and all the way until the end. The Soviet Union provides many large targets for the RAF, all within range of the RAF Heavy Bombers. The VVS could not strike back...

The bombing campaign over Europe crippled the German war machine, the production numbers only rise because A.Speer put Germany on to full War Time production in 1942. Had he done so and the Allied bomber offensive never happened, the production numbers would have probably been doubled!

In November 1944 (I think the month is right), the RAF dropped more tonnage of bombs on Europe than the US 8th AF. 

All the VVS had was a supremecy in numbers, something the RAF dealt with in the BoB against the Luftwaffe.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2005)

I actually dont see where the discussion would be planD... There really shouldnt be a debate about what u posted above. Its all true....

As a side bar, why is it that the VVS had many more pilots with 30 or more kills???? It wasnt because of better machinery, that much is obvious... Targets of opportunity??? #'s of sorties??? Time in the cockpit??? Quality of the opposition????


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

Del, disagrees.  

More targets. The Luftwaffe was largely on the defensive on the Western Front after the BoB and then, again, after Africa. All the offensive strength went to Russia. Offensive strength consisting of Stukas, He-111s, Ju-88s and Do-17s....EASY TARGETS!


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> As a side bar, why is it that the VVS had many more pilots with 30 or more kills???? It wasnt because of better machinery, that much is obvious... Targets of opportunity??? #'s of sorties??? Time in the cockpit??? Quality of the opposition????



I can tell you why: *Soviet Propoganda*  

As a side note: Many Soviet kills were confirmed by, guess what.. the Partisans ! (So much for a reliable confirmation system, wouldn't you say  )


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2005)

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....


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

It's harder to destroy a fighter than it is a bomber. The VVS had a sky full of Luftwaffe bombers with few fighter escorts. The fighters being sent to the West for intercept duties. 

It makes for a simple target rich environment.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2005)

Here is the full (and long) list of Ivan Kozhedub's victories:

Date Type 
6 July 1943 1 Ju 87 
7 July 1943 1 Ju 87 
9 July 1943 2 Bf 109 (in 2 sorties) 
9 Aug 1943 1 Bf 109 
14 Aug 1943 2 Bf 109 
16 Aug 1943 1 Ju 87 
22 Aug 1943 1 Fw 190 
9 Sept 1943 1 Bf 109 
30 Sept 1943 1 Ju 87 
1 Oct 1943 2 Ju 87 
2 Oct 1943 3 Ju 87 
4 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109 
5 Oct 1943 2 Bf 109 (in 2 sorties) 
6 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109 
10 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109 
12 Oct 1943 2 Ju 87, 1 Bf 109 
29 Oct 1943 1 He 111, 1 Ju 87 
16 Jan 1944 1 Bf 109 
30 Jan 1944 1 Ju 87, 1 Bf 109 
14 March 1944 1 Ju 87 
21 March 1944 1 Ju 87 
11 April 1944 1 Bf 109 
19 April 1944 1 He 111 
28 April 1944 1 Ju 87 
29 April 1944 2 Hs 129 
3 May 1944 1 Ju 87 
31 May 1944 1 Fw 190 
1 June 1944 1 Ju 87 
2 June 1944 1 Hs 129 
3 June 1944 3 Fw 190 (in 2 sorties) 
7 June 1944 1 Bf 109 
22 Sept 1944 2 Fw 190 
25 Sept 1944 1 Fw 190 
16 Jan 1945 1 Fw 190 
10 Feb 1945 1 Fw 190 
12 Feb 1945 3 Fw 190 
19 Feb 1945 1 Me 262 
11 March 1945 1 Fw 190 
18 March 1945 2 Fw 190 
22 March 1945 2 Fw 190 
23 March 1945 1 Fw 190 
17 April 1945 2 Fw 190 

39 Top of the line fighters, and 23 Bombers.........

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


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

I know. I'm talking about VVS pilots in general.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

If the RAF was on the offensive, it could be swamped with fighters- Russia has a large population so there would be a lot of reserves which Britain doesn't as much even if the colonies are included. The RAF might get worn down simply through attrition


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

The VVS had nothing capable of fighting at the height the RAF would be operating at. Remember the RAF would also be operating at night with the NF Mosquito as escort. 

What could the VVS possibly put in the sky with any chance of detecting, attacking and destroying incoming RAF bombers?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2005)

Ummm.... At night???? Nothing........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

The Tu-2 and Pe-2 could probably converted into nightfighters but I don't know how good Russian in-plane radar was


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The Tu-2 and Pe-2 could probably converted into nightfighters but I don't know how good Russian in-plane radar was



Russian Radar   

I don't think the Russians had any airborne radar systems in place until after WW2. See this link

:http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_Radar_WWII.htm


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

I didn't think so but I wasn't that sure


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

i definately think this goes to the RAF, mostly for the reasons already outlined, they had no heavy bomber which they would need against us, and they were practically defenceless by night, and remember the RAF would proberly incluse all our colonies, so when you bring it canada and australia we're talking huge numbers...................


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> 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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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.


----------



## delcyros (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 25, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

Delcyros:

Whatever!


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (May 27, 2005)

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 (May 27, 2005)

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 (May 27, 2005)

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 (May 27, 2005)

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>


----------



## Udet (May 27, 2005)

Plan D:

*smoochie*


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2005)

Not in public, I'm ashamed of you.


----------



## delcyros (May 27, 2005)

Does it seem to you that I sing a song for the all winning VVS? Did I ever told that they had no losses? Losses are one thing, but none of you is still factoring the combat sorties, which play a huge role.
Udet, I can agree with most what you said here.
I don´t care what some of the neocommunistic authors claim to have done. I just have the losses and records of both sides in front of me and I´m going to tell what happens. Most Luftwaffe losses in personal are on the eastern front, far more than any other single theatre of war. Are you going to dispute this? And what is this telling to you? Do you really think it´s all because the Lufwaffe rules the skies over Russia? Or because of the bad climatic circumstances (which would have even more impact on the bad prepared VVS)? 
More Lufwaffe sorties have been flown on the eastern front, than in any other single theatre, also. (ok-if you count all together you closely match parity for the western powers with Africa, Balkan (well, should this go to the western?), Greek, Italy, France , Neatherlands, Norway, bob, Germany, Poland, Africa and so on)
Activity of the Luftwaffe was more focussed on the eastern front than on the western theatres. However, if you look closer to each year you see that this isn´t fact in 39,40 and 44. 
I never denied any impact the strategic bombing campaign had (actaully they had well secondaries, like enforced defense), I stay to my statement that it was FAR LESS than expected (expected: crush the war economy=failed)and this is reasoned in the production numbers except for the oil bombing campaign (which effectively shortened the war).
And even here: Jule 44 was the month with the worsest production figures for high grade fuel. If this doesn´t match to the dropped bomb tonnage, than the later bombing was even less effective than the earlier one.
And the number still is 6 to one for the strategic bombing campaign (which is what we are discussing), 3 to one belongs, as you said, to the aerial bombardment, including tactical sorties. That´s something different.
And the Bi-2 is not that bad. It has some well contributions to pioneering technology. Why do you say it is worthless? The Gloster E-39/40, He-178 and DFS-194 are also a pioneering planes (none of them got into service) but I would never say they are a worthless design.
I may go so far with downgrading the role of RAF-impact on the war as I would say the following:
Fact is that the surviving of the SU was key factor for surviving of Britain and the help of the western allies was (in 1941/42) key factor for the surviving of the SU. The VVS binded effectively most of the Luftwaffe in the east, allowing the RAF and US forces to deploy forces in europe and carry the airwar to Germany.
Fact is that the strategic bombing campaign, compared to the tactical sorties of the VVS did reduced the Whermacht in a minor way, while the VVS not only destroyed tanks and equipment (which was also done by the RAF) but also the crews in them, the forces with experience and so on.
And look at the advances of the red army to Germany in 43/44, faster than the advance of the western forces or isn´t it? 
I doubt that the Luftwaffe recognized the losses in the east correctly. And from mid 1944 on they could only achieve local air superiority against the VVS for a very short time (period 2.2.-16.2.45 for example). While it is true that they effectively flew against the VVS for a long timeframe and succeeded in repeated destruction of their units, they failed to ensure ruling the skies and they couldn´t prevent those desperate Il-2 to wreck havoc under the german ground forces.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2005)

You've made a huge error in your judgement of the whole situation. The VVS destroyed mostly bombers on the Eastern front. Bombers do not stop other bombers from doing their mission. The VVS didn't tie up significant fighter formations, had those fighter formations been in the West, the West would still have bombed France and Germany.

The highest loss rate of the RAF and USAAF was in 1943 with an average of 5.5% loss per sortie. 

You're trying to say that the Western Allied strategic bombing campaign had little or no effect on the German capability to wage war on the Eastern front. You couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## delcyros (May 27, 2005)

The Luftwaffe moreso destroyed bombers in the west in ´43 than fighters. 
And no, I´m not saying that the whole strategic bombing campaign was without effect. I will split it up for you:
primary target oil campaign: nearly reached
secondary: VERY WELL REACHED
primary target on production: failed
secondary: reached
primary target on enemy morale: failed
secondary: failed
The average loss rate of RAF and VVS (over the whole war) is about the same (see above).


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2005)

The primary task of bombing production plants was to hamper production. Think logically, every tank or shell destroyed in a bombing raid has to be re-built as well as rehousing the labourers and rebuilding any damage to the factory. 

All takes time and resources. It was far from a failure. Look at the percentages of Bomber Command strikes too, 20% were against cities! A mere 20%!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

Also think about the tooling used to build tanks and planes, etc. Tooling takes a lot of time to build and inspect. Destroy the tooling, destroy the product!


----------



## delcyros (May 27, 2005)

Well, This is what I am agreeing in.
And if you take the strategic war for this goal it worked. However, if you look into the memos of leading UK/US airforce generals you will see that the purpose was:
(1) engage the enemy civil morale in a way that the germans are forced to lay down the arms (impossible with conventional weapons)
(2) crush the enemys production (not just delay its increase in output)
(3) destroy communication ways and transportation systems
and later:
(4) crush the enemys oil production

I have read many books (german as well as english) stating that the strategic bombing campaign has achieved all these goals. And I am going to disagree in this.
And while it is completely true that tooling devices are needed you are still not factoring that the Luftwaffe was never short on planes in 44/45 or engines. It was (a) experienced pilots
-and we have seen that more personall losses of crewman are on the east than on the west
and (b) fuel shortage
-which only played a role at the Luftwaffe for the grounding of the He-177 and most bomber units. Later (turn 44/45) it played a role for the training capabilities of fighter pilots and not until early 45 for piston engined fighter (jet driven planes suffered not that much since they could take lower grade fuel also).
The general shortage of fuel moreso hampered all ground activties, esspeccially the tanks. However in this timeframe the end was very, very close.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

Agreed, but by this time 44/45 wasn't German arms production (example aircraft manufacturing) dispersed at many locations? I think German war production planners were smart enough not only to spread out their prodcution facilities, but to build several sets of production tooling and disperse them as well.


----------



## Glider (May 27, 2005)

I think it should be remembered that its quite hard to destroy the tooling itself. The ball bearing raids on Germany proved that as did the German raids on Russian factories. The buildings can be knocked down but the tooling is far more difficult to destroy.
The campaign against the towns certainly hurt the Germans and made them realise that they were unlikely to win the war but that isn't the same as destroying their will to resist. In that we failed completely. The bombing of the oil production facilities did a lot of damage and its a shame that the British didn't join in what was largely US assult. By 1944 we had the ability to hit quite small targets and a combined approach could well have succeded in significantly reducing the fighting ability of all german forces.


----------



## Glider (May 27, 2005)

Udet, I forgot to say that I thought your posting of 4,36 was excellent. There is one thing that you may want to add. The Pre war Russian airforce was a well trained and (for its time) reasionably equipped airforce. They learnt a lot of lessons in Spain and beat the Japenese airforce in Manchuria, which was no small achievement. However in the Stalin purges just before the war almost every officer of any quality was killed, jailed or removed from command. This must have had an effect on the performance of their airforce in the first 12-18 months of the conflict against the Germans. 
How much we will never know, as its one of those great unknowns. However it meant they didn't start with a well led force and as you rightly said didn't get the chance to recover unitl much later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

Glider said:


> I think it should be remembered that its quite hard to destroy the tooling itself.



NO - Have you ever seen aircraft production tooling? Its big, bulky, usually made from hardened steel with a lot of details that bolt on. If you could find it, its a sitting duck! The bigger tooling is usually sitting in the middle of a production factory. You need well made tools to make aligned fuselages, wings, etc. This is the Achilles heel of war production. Destroy the tooling, you destroy the product!


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2005)

FJ, Yes i have seen tooling of this nature also the tooling for APC's. It is big, bulky, and pretty solid lumps of meal. What I am saying is the to destroy the tooling, you need to hit it. Knocking the building down around it won't do the job.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

Still, logic evades you. By destroying a factory you destroy the what is being built there, that has to be built again. It takes time and resources to relocate, rebuild and in some cases, retool a factory. 

Had the bombing never occured then the production levels would have risen far beyond the amount that we read of today. 

The only thing I see in your argument that I agree with is that the strategic bombing did not collapse the Germans will to resist. They reduced the capability of the German war machine with each raid. The lack of oil and aviation spirits affected the Luftwaffe much greater than you seem to believe. 



A nice little fact for you, Glider, Bomber Command _did_ get involved with the bombing of oil installations. In fact, in November 1944, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil installations than the US 8th AF. 
With hindsight we can see that in 1944 the end was nigh but how much longer could it have dragged on if the Germans would have kept the oil to keep their Panzer formations mobile? Many a tank left behind because they lacked the fuel. Many the plane grounded because they lacked the fuel...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2005)

Heres some shots of the effects of a large scale bombing campaign... Not much left..... Think u could find tooling machinery in there????


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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!



The Spit XIV would trash a La-7 in a dogfight. 

The Russian Lavochkin series are hyped up to be something they were not, the 109's 190's litterally slaughtered them. 

The best Soviet Fighter was the Yak-3 in my opinion.


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2005)

I seem to be in a minority of one but here goes. The pictures are impressive but can be misleading. 
Railway yards are ideal targets and one that I have said a number of times. But trains still ran. Not as many and with a lot of distruption, but they ran. Is anyone going to deny that.
Oil production / storage are another good target, but oil was still produced in surprising quantities until I think the last quarter of 1944, but it was still produced. 
Most of the other photos are of cities which received a fearful pounding but moral didn't collapse. As I said earlier, I believe its fair to say that it made the ordinary German realise that the war couldn't be won, but the will to resist stayed until close to the bitter end.
German tank production stayed at very high levels until the end of 1944 despite the damage to the factories.
German aircraft production stayed high, again until right to the end again despite the bombing on the factories.
German U Boats were being produced in large numbers right to the end despite the raids on the shipyards. In this case, a large proportion of the damage to production was done when ships/subs were damaged in dock as it was difficult to move them. The facities to produce them were still in place.
I mentioned the ball bearing raids which were undertaken at significant loss. The factories were badly knocked about at the end, but the bearings were still produced after a short time lapse.
Time and again the allies were suprised at the speed at which the Germans were able to repair facilities and restart production, because the tools themselves often survived. I must ask again? is anyone going to deny this

There were occaisions when a facility was abandoned completely but these were few and far between compared to the number attacked.

Plan D is right when he says that time effort and resources are taken up in fixing damage and rebuilding the facilities. After all if you have the machine tools you still need the infrastructure. Also that if we hadn't bombed the sites then production would have been much higher

FJ is right, the machine tools are the key to production but unless you destroy the tool itself, it can be salvaged and reused.

What I am saying is that in the majority of the cases, the tools themselves could be reused as they were not destroyed, as a result recovery faster than anyone expected.

Last point. I am aware that we did take part in the bombing of the oil facilities but it was largely an American strategic aim. If we had given it the same priority as the USA I believe that a lot more planes would have been grounded, a lot fewer tanks would have moved and production itself would probably have suffered.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2005)

Soren, point out the line or comment when I stated that a La-7 would challenge a Spitfire Mk.XIV effectively. I know the Mk.XIV was better than the La-7. 

Glider, the production of goods, items, machines and oil were still in existance but they were not as high as they would have been had the bombing never happened. I notice you recognise this, I'm just reinforcing it among the others. 

The oil was still produced but it was FAR below what the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe required to continue a war (I leave out Kriegsmarine because they'd basically become non-existant by 1944). As I stated, they required 300,000 tons a month to sustain any kind of effective resistance. By September 1944, they'd dropped to 150,000 tons. 

The oil attack was U.S led but don't get the wrong idea that Bomber Command did nothing to aid the attack. I do agree the British should have done more towards oil but 'Bomber' Harris was adamant that bombing cities would do something. The head of the RAF really should have come down harder on him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ, Yes i have seen tooling of this nature also the tooling for APC's. It is big, bulky, and pretty solid lumps of meal. What I am saying is the to destroy the tooling, you need to hit it. Knocking the building down around it won't do the job.



Not necessarly - production tooling, although massive and bulky is very susceptible any movement or shaking. I've seen tooling go out of calibration just by having someone move a large heavy object close to it and vibrate the ground around the tool. Even settling of a factory floor can cause problems. Because of conditions like this in a factory, there are periodic tooling inspections. Imagine what exploding 500 pounders would do, even if not hitting the tool or the building.



plan_D said:


> Still, logic evades you. By destroying a factory you destroy the what is being built there, that has to be built again. It takes time and resources to relocate, rebuild and in some cases, retool a factory.
> 
> 
> > My point exactly!


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2005)

Nice discussion.
We can all agree in the point that bombing factories costs manpower and time but after all I see, there is no justification for the view that heavy bombardments could crush the war economy in this field anymway. There is reason to believe it worked positively in the "numbers if not" speculation but except for the fuel bombing it never had the expected impact.
Had they followed the example of VVS in strikes on oil targets in 1941 on a larger scale (even with night bombardments), I am sure that Gemany would have been in a worse fuel situation as soon as 1943, shortening the war. For the Luftwaffe fighter force the historical fuel problem was existant but far away from hampering them to fly sorties. Indeed thanks to the increase in fuel production by september, october and november, despite the efforts of the RAF to crush the production, the Whermacht got enough fuel to locally allow offensive operations again for a brief period (battle of the Bulge).
Kriegsmariene did exist in 1944. Indeed it carried out the largest navy operation in ETO in 1944/1945 (evacuation of over 4 million people from the east prussian terretorys), requiring a huge amount of oil and cowl. Beside of this the Uboat fleet was intact at VE-day, having both, a numerical and quality advantage over any other time, some say it was most dangerous at the time of wars end. Production was also very dispersed, resulting in an even increasing number of deployed new submarines, like the revolutionary type XXI and XXIII. The La-7 was quite a good plane, capable of taking the fight to anyone below 20000ft. (wasn´t there one of the Experten with over 200 claims who was killed with all of his squadron by a La-7 formation late in 1944?)The Spitfire MK XIV was an excellent high altitude plane, comparable to the excellent I-225.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2005)

yes but we're not talking about the war against germany here.........

and it is said that one lancaster took out, in one sortie, the equivilent manpower and machinery it took to produce the lancaster in the first place, and as each lancaster made on average, 20 operational sorties (and against russian defences the average number would be higher), then very quickly we can see just how devistating raids could be, and we would not only be hitting russian cities, but the vital road and rail networks and the communications network..........

and, just out of interest, where are the two countries launching their aircraft from?? because if the RAF is launching raids from england and the VVS from russia, all this talk of fighters is useless as opposing fighters wouldn't have the range to engange in combat, as such the war would be decided by long range bombing, and as the RAF had this capability, and the VVS didn't, they couldn't even defend themselfs from this kind of attack by night, it is clear the RAF would win.........


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2005)

Plan_D said:


> Soren, point out the line or comment when I stated that a La-7 would challenge a Spitfire Mk.XIV effectively. I know the Mk.XIV was better than the La-7.



This highly indicates that you were emplying the La-7 was as good as the Spit XIV:


Plan_D said:


> *The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire*



In any case it doesnt matter, as you just said it yourself that the Spit XIV was better.



delcyros said:


> The La-7 was quite a good plane, capable of taking the fight to anyone below 20000ft. .



The 109 was better than the La-7, as the 'Real' history and aerodynamics testify.



> (wasn´t there one of the Experten with over 200 claims who was killed with all of his squadron by a La-7 formation late in 1944?)



   

Russian-dream-story  



> The Spitfire MK XIV was an excellent high altitude plane, comparable to the excellent I-225.



The Spit XIV was better than the La-7 below 5000ft aswell.


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2005)

I reread it and you are right, it wasn´t a La-7 who brought O. Kittel down but a reversefire from a desperate Il-2.
Operating from England, Lancaster, no british plane could drop bombs on any vital city in Russia nor on any important target anyway. Even operating from the near east, which is more reasonable, they had not the range to strike the aircraft industries...
And again: if you turn on one wheel you have to factor the enemy actions properly. Had the VVS to deal with heavy bombers and nightfighters, they would come out pretty soon with excellent high altitude planes:
nightfighter: MiG-5 (5 hrs endurance, 375 mp/h at 16.000 ft)
high altitude interceptor: I-225 (451 mp/h at 32.000 ft.)
Technology was there, they simply did not needed them for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2005)

ok, so maybe after a few months of repeated RAF bombing they would have come up with a average nightfighter with a very poor radar to combat the lancaster raids and the mossie, the best allied nightfighter of WWII, so if they had done that then what, how would you strike back?? by developing a heavy bomber that would use up allot of resorces?? only for that bomber to get decimated coming over England by waiting fighters as we saw you coming hundreds of miles away on our RADAR??

and the lanc had more than enough range to get to russia from england, what in russia could reach england??

and the MiG-5 and I-225 you mentioned, how much service did they see?? were they actually any more than designs??

and remember the british and proberly the americans wouldn't be sending you any resorces, weapons or secrets, how would you fare without our technology??


----------



## Udet (May 28, 2005)

I do think it is crystal clear that on a RAF vs. VVS the Brits have a clear quality advantage.

There is, however, a point where the VVS would have the upper hand: the list of accepted casualties.

Keep in mind England did not have the contempt for the lives of their soldiers the soviet fashion.

During the famous Battle of Britain, even when the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the island, the RAF finished the battle being badly mauled.

Contrary to what most Brits believe, the Luftwaffe did not cancell its operations over England due to "unbearable losses". German losses if indeed high during several days of the BoB remained within the moderate range and the operations were cancelled mainly because of Hitler´s agenda for the east.

After the BoB, the bulk of the Luftwaffe went east to feast with the VVS, leaving only JG 2 Richtofen and the lethal Schlageter JG 26 to deal with the RAF in the west and taught them Brits painful lessons.

Throughout late 1941, the complete 1942 and early 1943 the RAF proved uncapable of dealing with the Luftwaffe by itself.

It appears to me the effect of losses endured by the RAF during the BoB has not yet been assessed in due dimension when one sees the performance of the RAF in the west right after the BoB; likewise the effect of Luftwaffe losses in the same battle have been over-estimated when one sees the performance of the Luftwaffe after BoB (crushing the VVS in 1941 and 1942 -and its operations in France and over the channel).

It´s been said here:
No one will deny the soviets had nothing available in their stock to deal with the Mosssie or that the Spit MkXIV could clearly deal with the La-7 or any the late war Yaks -at any altitude-. The alleged German order issued to their pilots "to not combat with the Yaks at low altitude" seems funny.
Crap. Late Yak was very capable machine, but nowhere near "invincible" at whatever altitude.

Ground attack: just like the superb Fw190s did with soviet ground attack planes whenever they met them, the Typhoons could take care of the slow, heavy and clumsy IL-2s.


So it would all depend on how fast superior quality pays dividends in battle for the Brits: if the plus of superior quality manages to inflict massive losses to the VVS before the numerical superiority of the enemy (and his willingness for casualties) takes its toll on the RAF.

If superior quality pays dividends the way it did for the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942 in the USSR, and the fight is not protracted beyond the limists of a nation like England (the way Hitler and cronies did tresspasing the limits of Germany) the most likely of the scenarios is a stunning and clear British victory.

Not even the best pilots, planes and tactics will ensure winning a war if those in the politics do not do their work. Hitler had absolutely everything to supress the soviet union but, being the gambler he was, he pushed the war beyond the limits of his soldiers. He had the best warriors and tactis. Everyone and everything had limits though.


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2005)

May I suggest that if we are talking about USSR VS UK then we work on the basis that the UK is fighting ina simmilar situation to the Germans. To try and fight from the UK just wouldn't hae worked due to the distance.
The thread only works on the basis that we are in range/contact with each other


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2005)

Udet said:


> The alleged German order issued to their pilots "to not combat with the Yaks at low altitude" seems funny.



Thats because that order was never given. Go ask any German pilot about this, and he will agree, as he's never heard that order before.

Actually the Germans were given the same advice on how to combat the Yak's, as on how to combat the Lavochkin's.

The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots on the Lavochkin are as follows:

_"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109."_


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2005)

ok so we are now assuming that the RAF is opperating out of Germany and the VVS from russia?? or is the RAF based in Poland?? either way, our fighters and ground controll was were far superior to the VVS, they had nothing to combat the mossie by day in the low level attack role, or by night in the night fighter role, huge parts of russia were in range of the lancaster and their mossie escort from Poland, whilst the IL-2 would suffice for ground attack, the tiffy was far superior in that it could fight it's way in and out of a batlle as well, which the IL-2 could not, our pilot training was superior, as were our radios, furthermore the RAF is likely to include our commonwealth as well, which is allot of power.......


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2005)

'Bomber' Harris stated that the RAF bombing offensive on German cities was to crush the Germans will to resist, in this it failed. However, in 1940-'42 Britain wasn't in the best of situations. Quite rightly Britain took the war to Germany by bombing it's cities, just like it did ours. 
Sure, from a military point of view it seems tactically and strategically pointless but it rose the moral of the British isles. While it never decreased the German will to resist it increased the British will to continue the fight. 

The VVS set no example by bombing German oil installations. The VVS bombed everything and anything that had a Swastika flying anywhere near it. They bombed cities just as they did military targets. Helsinki was continually bombed by the VVS until the FAF destroyed their bombers. 

In 1944 Kriegsmarine servicemen were being drafted into the other arms of the service because it's existance was becoming more and more pointless by the day. The U-boat fleet might have still been in existance but it's effectiveness had been crushed by the Allied actions in the Atlantic. The Tirpitz was sunk in 1944 by the RAF. The evacuation of East Prussian terrorities shows how vulnerable any Axis surface vessels were in 1944. 

The Spitfire Mk.XIV was a superior fighter to the La-7 at any altitude. Did the I-225 ever get off the drawing board? Was it with any squadron? Did it see combat?

Soren, I fail to see how that saying the La-7 was probably the best the VVS had is saying I'm comparing it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV but okay. 

del, Soviet RADAR was practically non-existant in World War 2. How do you expect them to wage an effective night defensive campaign? The MiG-5 and I-225 how far did their development get? 

Also, notice the Asia map I have attached. It is very crude but basically correct. You can check it yourselves, the B.III Lancaster had a combat radius of 2,000 Km. 

The black indicates bases in Syria. The blue in Iran. The red in India. The green in Hong Kong. You could infact put the India bases in the north of Pakistan, as in World War 2 it was still India.


----------



## delcyros (May 29, 2005)

We do try to compare RAF vs. VVS, not commonwealth.
If operating from Poland, Moscow would be in range for nightattacks with Lancaster at reduced payload. NOT EVEN ONE OF THE MAJOR AIRCRAFT COMPLEXES IS IN RANGE OF A LANCASTER ATTACK. Just take a map and find complex 43 south of Nishnewartowsk, which is the closest major plant to Poland, we are talking about a distance of 7.450 Km if you want to come back ( 4.720 miles). Even a Lancaster MK-II had only a range of 2.510 miles total. What a payload could a Lancaster carry on these distances?
You may argue that Moscow (closest 1250 miles) and Gorki (closest 1800 miles) are reasonable targets (Moscow because bomber Harris would take this as a priority target and Gorki because it´s powerplants produce a majority of electrical energy for the european part of the SU), but there is still no impact on the production field. And some big planes flying at Il-2 speed for 5 hours over enemy held terretory would exclude day sorties. 
No Mossie or any other RAF escort fighter could accompany them on these distances. There is also a dense AA defense over Moscow, Radar aided and excellent ground controll for the interceptors (which did succesful night interceptions particularly in late 1941).
I wonder what could bring the RAF air superiority in the front affairs since the VVS was able to fly in average two-three times more combat sorties. And on the ground, the british forces would have been crushed as well by the red army forces, leaving Poland and Germany for the VVS.
The only way to bring RAF on equal or better terms is with the help of the US and at the end of ww2.
The VVS also could field much more planes, leaving the RAF over Poland in the defensive.
One example to the quality lack of the VVS (earlier years):
The MiG-3 in 1941 was superior to anything the british (and germans) had in high altitude, there it was 100 Km/h faster than the Bf-109 F-2 and 125 Km/h faster than the Bf-109 E-4. 
And another one for the late timeframe (44):
I-220 (A) -proposed designation: MiG-7, top speed: 697 Km/h (433 mp/h) at 7.000 m (23.230 ft), range: 400 miles, time to 5.000 m: 4,6 min., service sailing: 44.820 ft.) 
weapons: 4 Shvak 20mm gunsTwo prototypes build in 1943, tested in early 1944 originally as an answer to the german Bomber-B program (serial production canceled because of the german program, which also was canceled: no need, no plane.
For the Kriegsmariene: German submarines succesfully sank british ship in the firth of forth at may, 5th. 1945, a mock attack of U-2511 on a british task force would have resulted in the sinking of a british heavy cruiser. The attack was that fast and stealthy that the british simply doesn´t believed Schnee in the first moment, afterwards, as they compared the time and position figures, they found out that he evades 7 destroyers in this convoi with ease...
The evacuation was the most succesful surface operation of ww2, Prinz Eugen, Scheer, Lutzow and Hipper repeatedly drove off russian tank forces by shore bombardments, One of these cruiser was destroyed by Lancaster Tallboy bombs, another by VVS pilots.


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2005)

Obviously someone didn't look at the map. Moscow was not just a city but the transport heart of Soviet Russia. That was the main reason the German General Staff wanted Moscow. Study German invasion plans and battle doctrine and it says "Fight over the land, not for it" in most cases. The Wehrmacht sneaked to crush the Red Army not take land from them, no army no defence. 
In this doctrine it would rule out the capturing of cities and towns just for the sake of it. Moscow was, however, different because it provided the Soviet Union with a rail center to transport units to the front. In German hands it would provide them with a rail center for efficient transport throughout Soviet Russia.

The RAF would see that as a vital target to hamper the movement of Soviet troops from key battlezones. They would be right in assuming it would be a key target too. 
The Lancaster B.III had a combat radius of 2,000 k/m. The map shows, rather crudely I will admit, the extent of it's combat range. It includes Caucasus oil, Ukrainian coal, Stalingrad, Moscow and several other production or raw material centers. From India they could strike southern tips of Russia. 

The RAF would fly sorties when they needed to. The low sortie number for the RAF is purely because they were flying sorties when they wanted, not when they were needed. 

I think the Battle of Britain shows how effective the RAF can be in the defensive. Typhoons and Mosquitos would make short work of any incoming VVS bombers. Spitfire Mk.XIVs would make short work of any incoming VVS fighters. 

The Spitfire Mk.V was superior to almost all VVS fighters in 1941, at almost any height and speed. The Spitfire Mk.IX was superior to all the VVS had at any height and speed, and the same applies for the Spitfire Mk.XIV in it's timeframe. 

The 'proposed' MiG-7 never came about and is therefore not up for discussion. What is written down on paper doesn't always turn out so beautiful in the sky. 

As for the Kriegsmarine, you honestly believe it had any worth against Western Allied Forces in 1944-'45 any more than it just being a nuisance. The Battle for the Atlantic was over, the Allies had secured the shipping route from the Wolfpacks. 

The evacuation of refugees from East Prussia took a large toll on man and machine. In fact, the worst maritime disaster in history happened during those evacuations. Wilhelm Gustoff sinking with over 7000 souls.
Even then, the local actions of this tiny force of three Cruisers and civilian vessels evacuating people while laying down support fire doesn't make the Kriegsmarine a formidable force.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Soren, I fail to see how that saying the La-7 was probably the best the VVS had is saying I'm comparing it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV but okay.



Plan_D you litterally wrote it  

See for yourself: 


Plan_D said:


> The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, *that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire *


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2005)

What is your first language? 

I said that's the best with the VVS had, that is why I compared it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV - the best dogfighter the RAF had.


----------



## delcyros (May 29, 2005)

First off, the map you present here used a very favourable projection method , the circles are very, very favourable to your position, some circles are based on SU terretory and not UK.
Crushing the transportation network with heavy bombers didn´t worked in case of Germany and is even more unprobable in case of Russia. 
Spitfire V vs MiG 3 (1941/42):
The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
top speed: spit Va-----------------------mig-3 (1st serial block 1941)
at sea level: below315 mp/h------------309 mp/h
max speed: 374mp/h at 20.800ft.--------398 mp/h at 25.900 ft.
time to alt.: 5.1 min to 16.000ft-----------5.1 min to 16.000ft.
service sailing: 37.000ft.------------------40.000 ft.So what? The Mig beats the contemporary Spitfire of 1941 at high altitude with ease. At the Spits best altitude, the Mig is 22 mp/h faster, at the Migs best altitude the Mig is 31 mp/h faster. A comfortable speed advantage, if you ask me. No Spitfire V has the performance of a Mig 3 at high altitude.
Actually the I-220 was flown (as was the I-225) and the speed figures are confirmed by various flight tests. There are comparable planes, however I see no technical superiority of the RAF, except for the number of planes deployed. I told you why the VVS refused the serial production of these high performance planes...
The german submarine force is widely recognized to be most dangerous in the time at about VE-day. It was considered a serious thread and plans have been made to return into the Atlantic with superior boats (U-2511 was the first of three to go, and there are more than 130 additional Type XXI boats). If you check marine historians or even if you check the official Royal navy war diary, you will find this confirmed.
The sinking of W.Gustloff and Goya, originally passanger ships are credited to soviet forces, not RAF. Also keep in mind that the evacuation was done under the worsest imaginable circumstances: Fuel shortage, no air cover, in range for serious attacks by VVS and RAF and so on...


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2005)

Lanc
My May 25 10.03 posting was on the basis that USSR and UK were head to head. I really don't care where but if your trying to compare airforces then they need to be able to reach each other.
By the way. In that posting I totally agree with your comments . Or should that be that your agreeing with mine. Either way we seem to be close


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2005)

delcyros said:


> First off, the map you present here used a very favourable projection method , the circles are very, very favourable to your position, some circles are based on SU terretory and not UK.
> Crushing the transportation network with heavy bombers didn´t worked in case of Germany and is even more unprobable in case of Russia.
> Spitfire V vs MiG 3 (1941/42):
> The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
> ...



Yep. To add to that it was also tested using its full compliment of 4 ShVAK's, carrying 400 rounds each. Its performance then fell to 415mph at 22,300ft, Max. Service ceiling of 36,000ft and 6.3mins to 16,400ft


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I said that's the best with the VVS had, that is why I compared it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV - the best dogfighter the RAF had.



What you wrote can be intrepreted in two ways, and I went to make sure you meant the right thing, wich you made clear to me you did when you said the Spit XIV was better. To wich I answered:


Soren said:


> In any case it doesnt matter, as you just said it yourself that the Spit XIV was better.



But then you asked: 


> * "Soren, I fail to see how that saying the La-7 was probably the best the VVS had is saying I'm comparing it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV but okay." *



And I gave you this answer: 


Soren said:


> Plan_D you litterally wrote it
> 
> See for yourself:
> 
> ...



See the connection ? 

I was just answering your question.


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2005)

Point which dot on my map has the base in Soviet terrority. The bases are in Syria, Iran, India and Hong Kong. All owned by the U.K in World War 2. So, the map is right. 

All the MiG-3 has it a little faster speed. It carries weak armament, weak armour, weak dive, weak climb, weak everything basically. 

Again, an aircraft being flown in tests doesn't bring it's worth up for combat capability. It has to be combat tested to see how it will fare against other aircraft. You just assume it will be good because Soviet records state it was from their own tests. 

If the Kriegsmarine was such a formidable force, why were so many Kriegsmarine troops recruited into the Heeres or Luftwaffe in 1944-'45? Again, you assume the U-Boats would all make it into the Atlantic. Where were the U-Boat bases on V-E Day? All their Atlantic bases were taken during 1944. The only ones they had were in Wilhelmshaven. The only reason they could be considered a threat is because they were concentrated. 

I never said the Gustoff was lost to RAF forces. _Cap Arkona_ was sunk by RAF Typhoons though. 

Also, the VVS didn't provide close air-support to the troops in any efficient way. The RAF and USAAF had radio-links with ground forces which would allow them to be called in for air strikes when they were needed. The VVS just came in willy-nilly, and I dread to think how many times they dropped bombs on their own troops.


----------



## delcyros (May 30, 2005)

So, Plan_D, whats wrong on your map? well take a look on it:
The dots represent allied air bases but non of the circles around it fit to the dots. I assume that the circles represent the range but there are it´s basicdot... 
A)in case of the India it is somehwhere north of Pakistan instead of India
B)in case of Iran it is somewhere in the Caukasus instead of Iran
C)in case of Irak it is somewhere on the northern coast of Turkey instead of Irak
D) in case of China it is somewhere near Chengdu instead of Hongkong.
All range circles are approx. 200-350 miles closer to SU terretory than they actually should be if based on UK terretory. Correcting this would bring Moscow and Gorki out of range (or at least on the very edge of range).
Point out in detail why the Mig-3 is weak in your terms.
Weak climb? Well its the same time to altitude than the SpitVa, Weak altitude? The Mig is better. Weak Speed? The Mig is better. Weak dive? proove. Weak armour? Why, the Mig has a 9mm armor plating for the cockpit? Weak armement? The Mig carrys only 2 0.50 and a 0.33 gun but it can be refitted with unguided missiles and two addition 0.50 guns. At least it is enough to deal with a Spit Va(eight 0.33) while I agree that the Spit may have an advantage here in case the Mig is in clean configuration and the Mig has an advantage in armement with two additional 0.50 (while this would bring the performance down to Spit Va level). The Mig also has an advantage in agility thanks to lower wingload, particularly in high altitudes.
I agree that an aircraft tested doesn´t reflect it´s combat abilities on a highly reliable base. The I-220 and I-225 are based on the Mig-3, so you may find it´s combat abilities not that far away from them, except for the better performance figures. Originally I wanted to disprove that the VVS was unable to bring out anything in the high altitude fighter field.
The recruiting of Kriegsmariene personal does belong to the last weeks of ww2 (mid april till early may´45) after the evacuation operation in the Baltic sea and most of the personal comes from surface vessels, not from the submarines. If you check the war map in 45 you will find various U-boat basis with acces to the open ocean: Bergen, Narvik, Trondheim. U-2511 was operating from Bergen in Norway (where more boats awaiting orders) and made the mock attack at may, 8th. 1945 in the northern Atlantic. It is wrong to say that there was just Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Hamburg, Gotenhaven and so on without acces to the Atlantic, only.
The VVS did provide more and effective close support for their ground troops. The succes of the red army in mid 44 was done because of excellent ground support and because of the Il-2 knocking out the german artillery effectively.


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2005)

Your Geography and/or eye sight leaves a lot to be desired. The look at the map more closely, the dots are the bases, the circles represent the radius of the B.III Lancaster. Compare the rings, moving north, to the bar at the bottom indicating 2,100 k/m. 

The Indian base is actually in modern day India. I could have moved it further north into Pakistan, if I really wanted to as Pakistan was still a part of India in World War 2. 

I fail to see how the base is in Caucasus, it is quite clearly in Northern Iran. Look more closely at where the base is, in the purple zone marked _Iran_. 

I haven't marked a base in Iraq. There is one in Syria, which was taken by the British in 1941. However, I could just move the base to the East into northern Iraq. 

The Hong Kong one is the only one that you have any point about. Move it just below Taiwan. In all others, look at the map don't just jump to false conclusions. 

Now, I did the map again, basing around the same _exact_ dots. Making the circles more precise around the combat radius of the B.III Lancaster, Moscow and Gorki _would_ be out of range. The Caucasus however, as well as Stalingrad, is still in range. 

No, you have to prove the MiG-3 as a superior aircraft to the Spitfire Mk.V. Since you seem to believe that the VVS was fielding aircraft on par with the RAF. Again, I notice you didn't read my post correctly. If you had, then you would have got the correct list. 

Norweigan bases still have to go around Scotland to get to the Atlantic. It's not an easy task going around Scapa Flow. 

No, the VVS provided inefficient (note: Inefficient is not ineffective) support for their troops. The USAAF and RAF were on call at any moment. If the ground troops needed air support, they would call it in. This luxury did not exist for the Red Army. 

The western forces were much more efficient and precise than the Red Army when it came to close air support.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2005)

yes and pD you're underestimating the lanc, she could carrry a 7,000lb payload 2,530 miles, with this range she could hit russia from england let alone closer bases!

and comparing the MiG-3 to the spit Mk.V you're arguments are slowly being torn to shreads, give up now, the spit was superior to the mig so you cannot win this one.........


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

It´s not me, who said that the Mig is inferior to the Spit V. Actually I cannot sea a single point (including quantities), where the Spit Va can easily top the Mig in performances, particularly in the high altitude field. And it obviously is a high altitude plane and I would say it counts to the best in 1941. That´s why I emntioned it, just to show, that the VVS was able to develop high performance planes in the high altitude field, also (if needed). Are you goint to dispute this than you are free to show me, where I am wrong.
The bases are in the correct places, this I never disputed. The range circles are not. Using this projection method, the errors are even bigger as you move to the north. 
During 1944 the VVS had an officier for connecting ground advance and air support in every advancing Korps. They played their role. You are right to say that much of the ground attack hampered red forces also, but this is also common for advancing allied ground troops, particularly in the early stages of their advance in France. Keep in mind that the soviets took losses much easilier than the british forces.
Operating from norwegian bases is quite easy, you don´t even need to get close to Scapa flow if you head northwestern and than into the danmark strait. Anyway this would be a critical way for the older submarines since they are pretty slow (if submerged) and prone to radar detection (if not submerged). Type XXI and XXIII could do this easily. Type XXIII never had a problem to operate very close to England (as was done in the firth of forth). However, this field is going to get off topic, I originally wanted to disprove that the Kriegsmariene was from 1944 on virtually non existant. Such a view exclude the ongoing development and deployment of more advanced submarines late in the war (which, unlike the jets, haven´t been rushed into combat), which did became the next generation of submarine warfare. 
All I know about efficiency of Il-2 would be bad for UK ground forces if they are able to attack once (flying at very low altitude prevents radar detection until they fullfilled their mission or are very close to do so, depending on the distance of the Radarstation...) 
The Lancaster is an excellent heavy bomber but to think, this bomber could do better in Russia than it did on Germany is silly by means of a strategic bombing campaign. Also if we have a situation with, let´s say Poland, Tschechia, Hungary hold by RAF and opposing VVS flyers I would bet my money on the VVS, since the RAF simply had not enough planes to ensure air superiority over that large terretory, while the VVS actually had. And they could produce more than the british with any succeding month.
Local air superiority could be ensured by the RAF under good circumstances but I doubt that the RAF could prevent The VVS from getting air superiority if they launch a massive attack.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

Could the Lancaster carry 7000 lbs 2,530 miles and get back again, lanc? If that's true, then Moscow and Gorki are in range. 

You're trying to prove that the MiG-3 was better than the Spitfire, and not just the Spitfire Mk.V. As you did claim that the MiG-3U could match a Spitfire Mk.XIV if my memory serves me correctly. 
The vast majority of the people on this site would agree the Spitfire a better fighter and aircraft, so it's you that is being controversial, so you prove your point. 
The MiG-3 is certainly _not_ proof that the VVS could field a high altitude fighter that was on par with the RAF. The Spitfire Mk.IX was far superior. I would also like to point out the Spitfire Mk.VI - the High Altitude Spitfire. 

I mis-read your last post. My map still provides a viewing that the Lancaster could reach the Caucasus oil fields from the Middle East. Also, if what lanc says is true, Moscow isn't out of the question. 
The Lancasters being re-designed for Pacific operations with increased fuel tanks are not out of the question. A little help from lanc would be nice. 

The ground forces didn't have effective radio contact to the air support units. The VVS had to fly continual sorties to make sure they were in the area at the right time. The Western Allies had direct radio support to call in air strike when and where they needed it. If a German blocking position was discovered, the Thunderbolts could be called in to destroy it. The Red Army didn't have that. 

Operating from Norway isn't easy. The vessels still had to pass through the North Sea, which was blockaded by the Royal Navy. They then had to travel A) North of Scotland, pass Scapa Flow, base of the Home Fleet or, B) North of Iceland and down through the Denmark Straits. B) being what the Bismarck did and was detected every step of the way. 
The only reason the Wolfpacks were so successful was because they had bases on the French Atlantic coast. 

The Kriegsmarine was no threat in 1944. Compare it's size to the Royal Navy or United States Navy, it was practically non-existant. 

The RAF doesn't need Poland or Hungary. It has the Middle East. You keep forgetting the night sky. The VVS had nothing to hold the night sky, the Lancaster would operate with ease in the night sky over Russia.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2005)

Sorry pD i should have made myself clear, it could carry 7,000lbs 2,530miles on a round trip, it could go out 1,265 miles, and then come back, but this range could be extended several hundred miles with the fitting of fuel tanks in the bomb bay (this was quite common, it wasn't just a one off thing), and still alowing the 7,000lbs to be carried, and yes the Mk.I(FE) would have had even grater range closer to 3,500 miles with a 7,000lb payload..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

> The MiG-3 is certainly not proof that the VVS could field a high altitude fighter that was on par with the RAF. The Spitfire Mk.IX was far superior. I would also like to point out the Spitfire Mk.VI - the High Altitude Spitfire.



Yeah but were they around in late 1940/ early 1941? 

If youre comparing a plane from that timespan with ones that were built 2-3 years later then obviously the later ones are bound to be better.

And even the yes the MiG-3U was early 1943, but the I-230 which was the basis for the MiG-3U was knocking around in 1942.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk.V was 1941 along with the Spitfire Mk.VI. The Spitfire Mk.IX was 1942, the Spitfire Mk.VIII was 1943. The Spitfire Mk.XIV was 1944. 

The MiG-3U wasn't as good as the Mk.IX, VIII or XIV. The I-230 hardly saw any flight time let alone combat action, so it can't be compared. 
It's all well and good saying "That airframe has potential" but you can't say it would have been good if it didn't prove it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Hang on, re-reading this discussion I notice you said 



> All the MiG-3 has it a little faster speed. It carries weak armament, weak armour, weak dive, weak climb, weak everything basically



Yet when you refer to Delcyros's quick chart 



> The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
> top speed: spit Va mig-3 (1st serial block 1941)
> at sea level: ~315 mp/h 309 mp/h
> max speed: 374mp/h at 20.800ft. 398 mp/h at 25.900 ft.
> ...



I notice that the two are very similar, which contradicts what you said. Whos right? Well I checked the MiG's and theyre all correct, cant be bothered to find the Spits though but they look about right. The MiG is almost certainly superior to the Spit Mk.Va at higher altitudes, at least in terms of flight characteristics.


Youre damn right about the weak armament on the MiG though, 1x 12.7mm and 2x 7.62mm is total crap  Later versions had 2x 20mm but even then that isnt great.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

How does that contradict what I said? 

I said it carried weak armament (correct), it was weak armoured (correct), weak dive (the chart doesn't prove otherwise), weak climb (the Spitfire Mk.V wasn't impressive at climbing), weak basically everything else (Turning, reliability, ease of handling, ease maintenance, ease of build, all round view, pilot opinion, combat service none of which the chart shows).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Well maintenance and construction was easy. As for Pilot opinions, they were contrasting. The 519th Fighter Air Regiment rated it above the other planes they were using, considering the Yak-1 too fragile, LaGG-3 too heavy and I-16 too slow; whereas the 487th Fighter Air Regiment rated it poorly, complaining of its lack of manouverability. However one of the pilots testing the MiG-3, Yu Antipov, said that it "Turned like an I-15", and at low altitudes it could outmanouver the Yak-1.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

So, the chart didn't contradict what I said. 

What about German opinion of the MiG-3? What about Soviet opinion of the MiG-3 from anyone who flew the Spitfire Mk.Vb in VVS service? 

You can't just compare speed and climb rate, then say it's better if it was faster and had an equal climb. What about acceleration? Roll rate?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

I dont know them figures, but it speaks here of compat reports against 109E's, which should then provide links to comparisons of the MiG-3 and Spit Mk.Va :

"At altitudes below 13,100ft the MiG was faster than the 109. Although it couldnt climb with the 109 in a steep climb, its vertical manoeverabilty was far better. Their turning radius' were the approximately the same, with the 109 turning a little tighter due to its lighter wing loading. However at altitudes above 16,400f the MiG outclassed the 109E in every respect, and could even hold its own against the more advanced 109F's."


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

If the MiG-3 couldn't turn with a Bf-109E, it certainly couldn't turn with a Spitfire! 

It still doesn't provide enough to compare the Spitfire Vb and MiG-3. The Spitfire V could out-turn a MiG-3 under 13,000 feet, as we now know. Above 16,000 feet, we still don't know. 

I cannot remember if the Spitfire V could climb with a Bf-109E. I know the Spitfire Mk.I and II couldn't.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Yes but my recollection is that the discussion is about comparing the two planes at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes the MiG was nothing special and Spitfires would probably thrash it.

At higher altitudes though they were much more comparable. Its possible that the MiG would be slightly better than the Spit about 16-23,000ft. I ll have to look for some figures on roll rate, acceleration etc because this book doesnt quote these figures.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

The quote states that MiG-3 out-classed the Bf-109E in every respect, an extremely vague summary. The Spitfire Mk.V could out-turn the Bf-109E at any speed and altitude, so this does not state that the MiG-3 could out-turn the Spitfire V above 16,000 feet. 

Also, the roll rate is quite important. You need to roll to turn.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Sorry my mistake. The book actually says it _*completely*_ outclassed the 109E above 16,000ft. Still vague though.

I cant actually find anything on the MiG's roll rate, everything I read is again vague, simply saying "Extremely manouverable at high altitude".


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide _solid_ evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941. 

Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide _solid_ evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941.
> 
> Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.



Agreed - but I doubt the Russians would alter anything!

Идите получают их, или гулаг для Вас!!!!!


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?

Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet. 

Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?
> 
> Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet.
> 
> Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.



  

It means, go get them or its the gulag for you!

Mig-3 nightfighter alteration


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

Ah, right...that'll come in handy when I ask a Russian for a cup of coffee. 

Suka = Bitch. Betska = Beetle. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa = Kill that son of a whore Adolf. Golozhopil = Naked Ass. 

Suka and Betska were nicknames for some Soviet tanks, I forget which ones. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa was written under the U.S.A written on the U.S lend-lease trucks. Golozhopil Ferdinand was the nickname for the Su-76...Naked Ass Ferdinand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Ah, right...that'll come in handy when I ask a Russian for a cup of coffee.
> 
> Suka = Bitch. Betska = Beetle. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa = Kill that son of a whore Adolf. Golozhopil = Naked Ass.
> 
> Suka and Betska were nicknames for some Soviet tanks, I forget which ones. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa was written under the U.S.A written on the U.S lend-lease trucks. Golozhopil Ferdinand was the nickname for the Su-76...Naked Ass Ferdinand.



GREAT STUFF D!


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2005)

As I understand it the weak point of the Mig 3 was the weight of the engine. The AM-35a had a dry weight of 1,830 lb compared to contemporary Merlin and DB601 who came in at around 1,350lb. A huge difference in a fighter.
This resulted in the ineffective armament and short range. As we know at altitude it was as good as any in the world in particular its speed.
An interesting figure is the number that were made. 3,332 for a plane that was out of production by the end of 1941 isn't a bad number. I believe that quality control was a problem and a lot of pilot flew it without the sliding canopy which cost them a precious 30mph


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

I have to admit that my low opinion of the MiG-3 stems from Il-2. I know it's a mere flight simulator but it's quite realistic. The worst thing was attacking enemy aircraft and it just couldn't hurt them! Even Bf-109s take a beating from it.


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

I will do some translation work for additional figures. There is a book of test pilot M. Gallai, who test piloted the Mig-1, Mig-3 and others in a contest for the next (1941) generation VVS flyers. I know that the Mig was tested against a Lagg and a Yak-1, so maybe we can draw some conclusions, regarding the ability to maneovre vis a vis of it?
The acceleration depends to a high degree on weight and horsepower (plus to a less degree on aerodynamic drag ( more at speeds closing to top speed) and airscrew design), factoring both, the Mig has a power to weight ratio of 3,38 Kg/1KW, while the Spit Va has about 2,81Kg:1KW, indicating that the Spit Va has a slightly better acceleration at least in the slow speed figures. The difference is not that big but it does exist. The spitfire V would also have some secondary advantages (better reflector gunsight as well as standart radio devices).
The advantage in speed of the Mig vs. Spit Va is comfortable (20-30+ mp/h). I really don´t have datas to verify which of both is a better diver but the Mig was a better diver than the Yak (obviously) and a better energy fighter than the LaGG-3. It isn´t prooven that the Spitfire Va is the better diver. At the first encounters between Mig´s and Bf-109 E/F the germans thought it was a new, secret german design and nothing VVS, impressed by it´s performances, they soon found out that the Mig is not that impressive at lower altitudes and trapped these planes in lower altitudes with success. The mig-3U is no match for a Spitfire MkIXV, the Spit would win. ( I originally had the I-230 as a comparable contender in mind) Do you know about the 1942 I-210/211 (Je)? They are comparable to the 1942 Spit IX...
By the way, Plan_D, both planes, Spitfire as well as Mig are beauties, or aren´t they?


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2005)

Plan_D said:


> The Spitfire Mk.V could out-turn the Bf-109E at any speed and altitude, so this does not state that the MiG-3 could out-turn the Spitfire V above 16,000 feet.



Plan_D the 109E and Spit V were about equal in turning radius, except if the 109's slats werent working properly which the "E" series many times didnt. The slats were however fixed from in the F series, and wouldnt jam nomore.

This is a fact Plan_D and I made that clear in some arguements with RG.

The slats highly increases an a/c's max AoA at all speeds, and would help the wing provide alot more lift than a conventional wing at high AoA. 

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig63.jpg

Now some German pilots will tell you otherwise (*E series pilots only*), as the slats on their aircraft jammed making them ease back the turn. Many novice LW pilots were afraid of the slats early in the war. But in reality the slats were a booster to turn performance at all speeds, and many LW pilots know and agree with this.

As for the Mig-3 and 109E comparison:

German pilots in the E series found it very easy to outmaneuver a Mig-3.

------------------------

(Small edit: sorry wrong link, that didnt say anything about slats, the fault has been corrected)


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

MiG-3 usually had a careful aerodynamic finish and they had the sliding canopy. The version usually flown without was the Mig-1. And you are right, it reduced the top speed to from 404 mp/h(2nd prototype) to ~390 mp/h (serial version with canopy) and 376 mp/h (serial without canopy) at best altitude. However, the Mig-1 was a tricky plane, having poor stall speed figures and unlike the Mig-3 a bad behavior in critical flight situations.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

I hate the MiG-3 for it's armament. With better armament, I'd probably love the thing but my experiences from Il-2 just stick in my mind. I also found that accelerating was quite poor and dive wasn't that spectacular. 

I really shouldn't be making my opinions of the plane from a game but it's supposed to be realistic, as I do fly it at full realism. Just, that armament...weak.


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

In Il-2 is not a big difference in the weak armements of Bf-109F-2 and Mig-3. If you take the additional two 0.50 cal.guns the Mig is quite good (for the cost of decreased performances). Il-2 is a damn good game but I don´t know if all planes are modelled correctly. The Lagg obviously isn´t (it´s overpowered in Il-2), as is the He-162.
Here are some informations on the I-211:
proposed as a Mig-3 with radial engine (ASch-82 with 1360 KW), it was designed in short time for comparison with the La-5. Actually the I-211 and the I-210, its predecessor, did beat all contemporary VVS fighter as well as the prototypes of the 1942 La-5 and Yak-9 with ease.
weight: 3100 Kg / 6.820 lbs.(fully loaden)
power to weight: 2,26 Kg/1 KW
wingload: 177 Kg/m²
top speed: 566 Km/h 352 mp/h at sea level (3rd prototype,with reduced payload)
top speed: 670 Km/h / 416 mp/h at 7.100 m / 23.570 ft. (2nd preserial, with full payload)
service sailing: 11300 m / 37.500 ft.
climb to 5000 m / 16.600 ft.: 4,0 min.
range: 1140 Km / 708 miles
weapons: unguided missiles and two 20mm Schwak (I-210ne 20 mm SchVak + two 0.50 and two 0.33) 
Surprisingly the I-211 wasn´t choosen for serial production, most probable because the Yak-9 and La-5 already went in mass production and it was thought that these designs could deal with the Bf-109 F/G easily (which was a mistake). Eventually ten preserial I-211 went at summer 1942 to the Kalinin front, where they participated in dogfights with success. Both, test and VVS pilost voted for the serial production of this plane as they found it superior to anything else they flew.


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2005)

Plan_D said:


> I really shouldn't be making my opinions of the plane from a game but it's supposed to be realistic, as I do fly it at full realism. Just, that armament...weak.



Plan_D thats the wrong attitude to have towards games. Reality and Games are two completely different things, especially regarding these arcade-like Flight sim's !

---------------------------------

Back to the subject:

It is true that the Spit V was superior to the Mig-3.


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

Soren, can you point out why and at what altitudes the 1941 Spit V was better than the MIg-3?


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Soren, can you point out why and at what altitudes the 1941 Spit V was better than the MIg-3?



Certainly !

The Mig-3 was a dog in flight compared to most other fighters, especially its roll rate was 'very' poor ! In a dogfight German pilots comment it as "easy-prey". 

Finnish pilots aswell flying 109's found the Mig fighter an almost worthless enemy in a dogfight.

Only the Mig's speed at High alt can be mentioned as a positive point.


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

Can you refer solid datas for the bad rol rate?
Just keep in mind that the roll rate at low altitudes (where most dogfights happened) or low speeds, e.g. at low energy, doesn´t reflect it´s general abilities inb other altitudes or at different speeds. In 1941 most german pilots, as well as finnish used superior tactics and prior learned experiences to get Mig-kills. Indeed, the average german fighter pilots of 1941 counts to the best of their time, while the VVS was somehow shorthanded by executions of some officers, ongoing losses and old tactics. Even then the Mig prooved to be the workhorse for the later ace Alex. Prokryshkin, who developed useful energy tactics, flying the Mig-1 and Mig-3 in 1941. These statements may not reflect the true abilities of the Mig. Wingload and powerload indicate that it is very well maneuverable. The Mig was also comparably stable for a soviet plane, having pilot armor as well as anti ingnition protection for the fuel tanks and a more rugged airframe structur. If taking the Mig as an energy fighter it is excellent in 1941. In high altitudes, it was superior to Bf-109 E by more than 75 mp/h speed difference. However, better pilots, knowing of the disadvanteges of the enemy and their own advantages usually have an advantage even if they fly an inferior plane.


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Can you refer solid datas for the bad rol rate?
> Just keep in mind that the roll rate at low altitudes (where most dogfights happened) or low speeds, e.g. at low energy, doesn´t reflect it´s general abilities inb other altitudes or at different speeds. In 1941 most german pilots, as well as finnish used superior tactics and prior learned experiences to get Mig-kills. Indeed, the average german fighter pilots of 1941 counts to the best of their time, while the VVS was somehow shorthanded by executions of some officers and old tactics. Even than the Mig prooved to be the workhorse for the later ace Alex. Prokryshkin, who developed useful energy tactics, flying the Mig-1 and Mig-3. These statements may not reflect the true abilities of the Mig. Wingload and powerload indicate that it is very well maneuverable. The Mig was also comparably stable for a soviet plane, having pilot armor as well as anti ingnition protection for the fuel tanks and a more rugged airframe structur. If taking the Mig as an energy fighter it is excellent in 1941. In high altitudes, it was superior to Bf-109 E by more than 75 mp/h speed difference.



The Wing-loading for the Mig-3 was not only worse than the 109E's(And considderably worse than the Spit's), but its wings were thinner and had no slats, and its tail section was very short. This is more than enough to establish that the Mig-3 was a dog in the air by comparison to the 109 and Spit.

However I will agree that if used as a energy fighter, the Mig-3 might very well have been alot more useful. But as a dogfighter it was close to useless against the 109 and Spit, and all these wonderful stories about how good the Mig was as a dogfighter, are all soviet propoganda attempts to 'again' twist history to their favor.

You might find it interesting to find just how easy a prey the Mig-3 actually was, just by looking in German pilot's note books.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

Have you ever played Il-2, Soren? I think you would be pleasantly surprised. My extreme distaste for the MiG-3 stems from that game. Certainly you would agree, the distaste is well-founded.


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2005)

> Have you ever played Il-2, Soren? I think you would be pleasantly surprised.



I have tried one of the most advanced flight-sim's ever made Plan_D, the one that modern fighter pilots train with, and as admitted by the ones that maintain it; even that can't exactly imitate all the aspects of aerodynamics. So what makes you think a game that doesn't even take wing-loading or slat-effects into account, is in any way accurate ?

It is however very easy to make a Flight sim 'seem' accurate, all you have to do is to try and follow popular believe 

But yes, I have tried IL-2, my nephew showed it to me once(He's very into such things), and it is as arcade'ish as almost can be. I never play such games, as I know how inaccurate they are and that its just pure entertainment, nothing else.



> My extreme distaste for the MiG-3 stems from that game. Certainly you would agree, the distaste is well-founded.



Yes I will certainly agree that its well founded. (If you'd read about it aswell)

Don't ever base your judgments on a game  (Its pure entertainment)


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 31, 2005)

Soren said:


> So what makes you think a game that doesn't even take wing-loading or slat-effects into account, is in any way accurate ?
> 
> It is however very easy to make a Flight sim 'seem' accurate, all you have to do is to try and follow popular believe
> 
> But yes, I have tried IL-2, my nephew showed it to me once(He's very into such things), and it is as arcade'ish as almost can be. I never play such games, as I know how inaccurate they are and that its just pure entertainment, nothing else.


You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

That would be hilarious


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2005)

It would be, I think someone should. 

I don't need to read about the MiG-3 though, now, because I know it's dog. The unrealistic game showed me. And, del, you take those extra two .50s - it's still dog but at least you can actually get kills in it. 

And I never stated that my opinion of aircraft come from Il-2...just my opinion of the MiG-3. Also, my opinion being well-founded can't be thrown away because I didn't spend £20 buying a book about the thing because it's dog, I'd rather go get drunk with that £20.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

nonskimmer said:


> You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!



Like those fantasy boys would listen anyway  But I agree, it would be funny, as the only thing they would be able to say in defense would be something like: " eerrr.. errr.. your wrong ! your just wrong !.. viva la IL-2 !!!"  

Fact is these 'Games' are pure "Entertainment", nothing else. Which is also why they differ so much from each other. 



plan_D said:


> And I never stated that my opinion of aircraft come from IL-2...just my opinion of the MiG-3. Also, my opinion being well-founded can't be thrown away because I didn't spend £20 buying a book about the thing because it's dog, I'd rather go get drunk with that £20.



 I respect your decision Plan_D !


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 1, 2005)

Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences



These Games are very inaccurate and thats a fact ! You don't have to fly a WW2 fighter to know that. 

These games are constantly being upgraded as they don't rely on any aerodynamic data or facts, but just popular believe and user-satisfaction. As soon as enough complaints has come about something, an alteration will be made, nomatter if its 'correct' or not. Its business more than anything, in which the motto "All for satisfying the customer(s)" comes 1st.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2005)

Yeah thats true. I believe though that whilst their not realistic in terms of real life they are realistic within the game, for instance the Fw-190's have good roll rates, the Yak-3 accelerates pretty well etc...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences
> ...



I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!

When I was going for my instrument rating I continually flew on MS 2000 Flight Sim. It was 98% realistic for flying a light aircraft in instrument conditions. I passed my check ride with ease because of this.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!
> 
> When I was going for my instrument rating I continually flew on MS 2000 Flight Sim. It was 98% realistic for flying a light aircraft in instrument conditions. I passed my check ride with ease because of this.



MS 2000+ relies on a few aerodynamic facts, as its partly build of a real FS. Any fault in MS 2000+ can easely be corrected, as there's easy access to these planes and their technical and aerodynamic data. Microsoft tried to incorperate some of these aerodynamic data and facts into CFS3, and got some fairly realistic results out of it, but other things went wrong and it never reached full realism.

IL2 doesnt rely on aerodynamic data or facts at all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!
> ...



I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 1, 2005)

To disprove that the Mig has good maneuverability is not that easy. You may argue that the wing of the Mig-3 is placed more closer to the front, allowing a better AoA and the flaps of the Mig are great, fully deployed allowing an areodynamic lift coefficient of 1.51(!), making turning simple.The wingload is by far not bad. Compare it with the P-38L, or Fw-190A-8, its better: 
Mig-3(1st serial block): 213,19 Kg/m², Mig-3 (2nd serial block): 192 Kg/ m², P-38L: 308 Kg/m² Fw-190A8: 226 Kg/m². The Bf-109 E/F and Spitfire V are slightly better, agreed. Nobody would seriously dispute that the P-38L could turn well. I found several turning datas, coming from testflights (Rechlin, 12.4. 1942, Oberammergau TA 1275 (1941)and from Gallais book (*). Datas give the best time for a sustainable turn at low altitude (TA 1275 gives 800 m. This is the worst performance altitude for the Mig, keep this in mind. 
Bf-109 E-4: 253 Km/h / 157 mp/h and 22.5 sec. (slats not fully deployed)
Bf-109 F-4: 298 Km/h / 185 mp/h and 20.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Bf-109 G-6: 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 21.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Fw-190 A-4: 336 Km/h / 207 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Spitfire Vc: 296 Km/h / 184 mp/h and 19.0 sec.
Mig-3 (1st serial block): 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Mig-3 (2nd serial block)*:309 Km/h / 192 mp/h and 23.0 sec.
You can also calculate the turning radius with these datas. Following these datas the Mig keeps inside the turn of a Fw-190 A-4 but can be outturned at low altitudes by all other comparison planes. The difference is not that big (compare P-38 L: 355 Km/h / 220 mp/h and 25 sec., P-51B: 322 Km/h / 200 mp/h and 23.0 sec.) and it excludes the view that the Mig is kind of a dog in turning fights. keep in mind that the Mig gets better with the altitude in this competition.I read accounts from pilots who flew the Mig and some found it barely suitable, while others found this ´very precious. A friend of mine, who works in St. Petersburg explained that this may result from different tactics, used by them: Some used the plane in no other way as they did use the I-16 (which is a mistake for any high performance plane), while the pilots, like Prokryshkin, who developed energy tactics found this plane excellent.
According to german notes of late 1941, they have been in trouble fighting the Mig at high altitudes, esspeccially over Moscow, while many have been killed in lower altitude, dogfights. Reports quite often noticed the bad VVS tactics like 3 plane flights. This shouldn´t reduce the abilities of this particular plane in our discussion.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.



Yes, I will definitely agree that for instrumental flying MS 2000+ is superb. Its the only game I ever played for a long period. Looking forward to flying the new Airbus in the next sequel


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.
> ...



If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

delcyros said:


> To disprove that the Mig has good maneuverability is not that easy. You may argue that the wing of the Mig-3 is placed more closer to the front, allowing a better AoA and the flaps of the Mig are great, fully deployed allowing an areodynamic lift coefficient of 1.51(!), making turning simple.The wingload is by far not bad. Compare it with the P-38L, or Fw-190A-8, its better:
> Mig-3(1st serial block): 213,19 Kg/m², Mig-3 (2nd serial block): 192 Kg/ m², P-38L: 308 Kg/m² Fw-190A8: 226 Kg/m². The Bf-109 E/F and Spitfire V are slightly better, agreed. Nobody would seriously dispute that the P-38L could turn well. I found several turning datas, coming from testflights (Rechlin, 12.4. 1942, Oberammergau TA 1275 (1941)and from Gallais book (*). Datas give the best time for a sustainable turn at low altitude (TA 1275 gives 800 m. This is the worst performance altitude for the Mig, keep this in mind.
> Bf-109 E-4: 253 Km/h / 157 mp/h and 22.5 sec. (slats not fully deployed)
> Bf-109 F-4: 298 Km/h / 185 mp/h and 20.0 sec. (slats deployed)
> ...



Del,

Those numbers are very wrong !  

The E-4 had a much lower wing loading than the G-6, and would turn inside a Spit V ! And the Fw-190"A" would never turn that tightly at that low a speed !

Where is your info from ? And what is it based on ? It certainly isnt based on tests !

And the reason the 109 was such a capable T&B fighter:

The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulence.

The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

Here's a chart showing the difference of AoA achievable between a Wing fitted with slats and one without slats:






The slats on the 109 gave about 45-50% extra lift in banking maneuvers. (That's alot !)

Now add to this the 109's low wing-loading and excellent power-loading, and you've got one hell of T&B figther.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft



Most certainly.


----------



## Udet (Jun 1, 2005)

I agree with Soren, completely.

Now, getting back to basics: no one denies the Mig-3 made a modern capable fighter.

My point on this particular part of the discussion is the Mig-3 achieved very little in helping the VVS. It sure had its pluses but it did not show in the air and the Bf-109 Fs got them both in the air and on the ground.

To the weak excuse of having only ancient Chaikas and Ishaks soviet advocates throw to "explain" the utter defeat of the VVS against the Luftwaffe during the first 2 years of war in the east I have always opposed the fact a modern fighter was available in numbers for them soviets, and that was precisely the Mig-3 and that just like the Polikarpovs it achieved almost nothing.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 2, 2005)

I agree in you Udet, in my view the VVS had problems to develop modern aerial dogfight tactics for all pilots. This may be resulted in the pressure by taking ongoing losses beside of the haevy losses inflicted by the first weeks. Off all 1941 VVS planes the Mig-3 was probably the most complicated fighter, requiring comparably much maintenance (for a soviet fighter) but it also was the most envisioned soviet design (I would rather say european..) in 1941. Used by experienced pilots in the proper altitudes with proper tactics it would have been a big problem to the Luftwaffe. However, the VVS preferred the defensive circle at low altitude, while flying this advanced plane, what can I say?
Soren, I do not see any wrong thing on the numbers, I have given. They are not that contradictary as you may find. The slats produce lift but also drag, reducing the arc/sec. turning speed while allowing a higher AoA and preventing stalling to a higher degree. This would result in the statistic, given. If you calculate deeper (Spitfire IIa: 292 Km/h / 181 mp/h and 19.0 sec.same source) you will find out the following:

-----------------------------Bf-109 E vs. Spitfire IIa
sec. to get a full turn : below 22.5-----19.0
best sustainable speed: 253 Kp/h------292 Kp/h
arc.degree per sec.:better16.00 d/sec.--18.94 d/sec.
turnspeed: 70,27 m/sec.-81,11 m/sec.
circumference of the circle: 1.581 m------1.541 m
taking the Powerload and wingload into account you may also draw conclusions regarding the G-factor of this specific turn, if needed. The difference therefore between -109E (with slats not fully open) and Spitfire IIa is going to be nearly zero: The Spit turns slightly faster, the Bf-109 at slower speed and therefore tighter (if slats deployed). The Spit would need an average of 61 full turns to get an advantage of half a turn to this Bf-109E.
Combat records confirm these crude statistics: The Bf-109E more widely was used as an excellent energy fighter but was capable to do turnfights, also. This has nothing to do with the MIg-3 datas. But it shows that the Mig was a capable turner, also. Not exactly as good as the Bf-109 or Spit but the difference is not that big (the Spit V has a very tight turnradius and lower speed but also would need more than 35 turns to get any advantage over the Mig-3, leaving this field more to the abilities of the pilot than anything else) The Mig-3 will have the higher speed and g-loading but also will it keep it´s energy better during these tight turns. And the speed advantage would be something worrisome. 
Datas about the roll rate of both planes would be highly welcome here. Any datas anyone? Please post them.
Combining the datas we have, the Mig vs. Spitfire Vc:
Speed: the Mig wins at speed, particularly at alitude with a considerable advantage over the Spitfire V, while at sea level (only) the Spitfire is equal if not slightly better. At low altitudes there is not much difference while at medium altitudes the Mig is better and at high altitudes the Mig is much better than the Spitfire V
Service sailing: goes to the Mig
time to altitudes-about equal for both
climb: at low to medium altitudes with a slight advantage for the Spit, at very high altitudes the Mig has the advantage 
Acceleration: goes to the Spitfire V
Roll rate: not yet discussed, the Spitfire with clipped wingtips is expected to be better at low altitudes, particularly.
turning abilities: goes to the Spitfire V at low altitudes, the Mig is expected to be about equal in medium -and maybe better in high altitudes
armement: goes to the Spitfire, the Mig carries weak armement but can carry additional guns to come to a draw (by costs of performance)
dive: not yet discussed
energy keeping abilities: Goes to the Mig during turns at low altitude, not yet discussed in detail 
durability: expected to be about equal for both planes
My conclusion is that the MIg-3 is superior to the Spitfire V at high altitudes particularly, the altitudes where it was designed for. The Spitfire V, hands down, is the better plane for low altitudes, particularly.


----------



## arras (Jun 2, 2005)

You can't compare aircraft looking on its stats on paper only. Weapon may look good but can fail in way it is used.

That is the case of MiG-1 / MiG-3.
Aircraft was modern in its times, build as high altitude interceptor (it wasn't designed as dogfighter) and it seems to have good performance in altitudes (was faster than Bf109 there).

So why it failed and was unpopular by most of soviet pilots?

1. Air combat over russian front was rarely fought high due to way both sides used their airforces -for ground support.

2. MiG was dificult and unstable to fly with sometimes unpredictable behavior, requiring experienced pilot.

3. For Soviets MiG was expensive and relatively dificult to maintain.

4. Its design (as well as that of Yak and LaGG) was full of faults becouse of hurry and presure under which it was born, tested and put to production. MiG-1 was found to be full of child illneses and was quickly replaced with MiG-3 which was just improved version dealing with most critical faults.

5. MiG used the same powerplant as Il-2 ...that finaly doomed its development. There were some prototypes of more advanced variants build but newer reached production. Early Yaks and LaGGs had similar problems and later both developed to very succesfull aircrafts. MiG did not get such a chance. http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/167.html#1616

In general Soviet air force needed simple, cheap, easily produced aircraft which require little maintance, can be easily controled in air and have good low level performance. Such aircraft have to be produced in high numbers by unskiled workers in redeployed or quickly established factories in bad conditions of Ural or Siberia. Unexperienced pilots should quickly learn to fy it.

...All this was wery important especialy at the begining of war since Russians were under bad pressure, lacking experienced pilots, mechanics, factory workers, rare materials, with low production quality, sustaining heavy looses.
It is no wonder that MiG failed.

Bye the way, Yak-1 ang LaGG-3 wasn't that much more succesful (LaGG was wery unpopular, may be more than MiG)


----------



## delcyros (Jun 2, 2005)

Welcome Arras to this discussion.
I agree in your posts with a few exceptions:
1.)agreed, except for the fact that 75% off all Migs over 1941 and 1942 were deployed to the POW (home defense) around Moscow, where they should intercept intruders. In theory this should allow high altitude engagements, in praxis the Luftwaffe trapped the starting Migs at low altitude or the took the fights at low altitudes, only. The bombers on the other hand, trying to bomb Moscow had their problems with the high altitude Migs, however the bad armement reduces it´s effectiveness there as an interceptor.
2.) belongs to the Mig-1. Reports of bad behavior, esspeccially stall behavior, for Migs indeed belong to the Mig-1 and are not common for the Mig-3. The higher wingloading of the Mig-3 (compared to the Yak-1) was kind of suspect for pilots.
3.)agreed
4.)agreed
5.)Not really, the powerplant of the Mig-3D was indeed an rebuilded Il-2 AM-38F for high altitude purposes (adding 40 Kg to it´s weight), while the bulk of the Mig-3 (only a few Mig-3D were build and send into POW service) have been AM-35 powerplants, which are not common for Il-2 (a few indeed had). The decision to produce the AM-38 only, indeed doomed the Mig´s development.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

One notable problem of the MiG was that opening the canopy in flight was extremely difficult, almost impossible. This meant that if they got in trouble they would not be able to bail out. Because of this most of the pilots who flew them flew with the canopy off, causing a speed drop of 25-30mph.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Welcome to the site arras. Nice to see more Eastern Europeans around.


----------



## arras (Jun 2, 2005)

thanks delcyros 

Yes, MiG-3 was used largery in defence of Moscow, especialy at battle of Moscow. By that time city was at the front line however. Also Germans were exhausted allready both at the ground and in air due to the wast distances they already traveled and they experienced their firsth winter on Easthern front ...and that wasn't wery confortable feeling.

MiGs did not made wonders but they stood they ground in battle and stoped luftwafe there. That was aircraft last big battle, Russians later prefered Yak which performed the best of young triumvirate. Later Lavockin developed La-5 (as private project since he was higly unpopular for disapointing LaGG-1 and LaGG-3 designs and had no official suport for project) and those two become standard fighters till the end of war.

As for powerplant, you are true, but in fact powerplant was the same, since all were just version of only one. In case of MiG, powerplant was upgraded for higher altitudes. They were produced in the same factories and powerplant for Ill-2 got priority.


----------



## arras (Jun 2, 2005)

Hi, evangilder and thanks for warm wellcome 
As for my country, it sits as much in the center of Europe as it can. Geographic centre of europe lie in our teritory  
But that is not that much important here


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

Your welcome. Maybe it was a poor choice of words on my part. It may have been better to say "of the former Soviet Republics".


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

The term East European doesn't generally refer to the precise positioning of the country. It comes from the Cold War, anything east of W.Germany was East Europe. 

Today, it's generally anything east of Germany.


----------



## arras (Jun 2, 2005)

evangilder >> Slovakia was newer one of the soviet republics, formerly we were part of Czechoslovakia and as such part of Warsav pact and socialistic block, but newer part of USSR.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 2, 2005)

Yep.
The Lagg´s and Yaks have been preferred but in 1942 nothing in the arsenal of the VVS was as good as the I-211 from Mig, a shame that this plane wasn´t produced en masse like the La-5...
By the way, with Cyprus and Malta, the centre of europe shifts into Slovenia.


----------



## arras (Jun 2, 2005)

..for some presidents it's the same country


----------



## Udet (Jun 2, 2005)

Arras:

Welcome to the mob!


Some tiny remarks regarding your comments on the performance of the Mig-3 around Moscow in the winter of 1941.

The Mig-3s -or VVS in the area- did not stop the Luftwaffe there. Quite actually, no matter what Mr. Delcyros might tell, i am confident the VVS never came quite close to stop the Luftwaffe elsewhere, anytime. 

The Luftwaffe got grounded due to the miserable weather to the most important extent during the november/december 1941-January 1942 period and from damages their engines suffered due to the same cause.

Need facts that support the assertion? When the 1941-42 winter ended, the gravity of the German effort in the east moved south: Operation Blue. The Luftwaffe simply retook the role it had played before the winter: feasting with the VVS.

I have read several accounts of the air action over and around Moscow during such winter (1941) and what i find extremely funny is the fact most historians see only the German pilots suffering the consequences of such winter -by having their units grounded- like if the soviet pilots had enjoyed at the time some kind of unexplicable ability to fly and combat under such weather conditions. 

(An identical issue can be easily detected during the winter of 1942 in Stalingrad, where the Luftwaffe -von Richtofen´s powerful VIII fliegerkorpos included- got flatly grounded due to miserable weather and soviet pilots again apparently enjoyed "superb miserable winter weather flying abilities".)

Flying on such terrible conditions is even a challenge for the most seasoned airline pilots in the present-day world no matter if the plane they fly is small or huge: simply add computers, satellites, and other comodities no pilot of any air force during WWII ever enjoyed.

There were some days during such winters in the eastern front when skies cleared and could certainly allow units to scramble, even then, the VVS can not be credited with having stopped the Luftwaffe.


Cheddar cheese: regarding your comments on the Mig-3 cockpit, i have German guncamera footage showing LaGGs and even La-5s getting pounded and shot down. Soviet pilots were flying with open cockpits on several of the shots (!)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

East Europe is anything east of Germany. It's common thought throughout Europe and the Western world. Ex-Soviet bloc countries, in Europe, are East Europe.


----------



## arras (Jun 3, 2005)

Udet >> I newer sad Luftwafe was defeated by MiGs at battle of Moscow. When I sad stop I meant its offensive was stoped and I mentioned also other reasons for that including weather. (similary nobody say Luftwafe was defeated at battle of England)

As for soviets enjoing such a weather, problems Germans had are well known from German sources. From the same sources it is aparent that for Germans Soviets did not seem to suffer from weather as much as themselfs.

That doesnt mean they were flying they sorties as in mid summer. Simply they were prepared for winter conditions much better. Germans evaluate themselfs as totaly unprepared and whole thing as their own failure.

Best way to evaluate whole thing would be to count number of sorties flown by each country and compare it with the same data from late summer or autumn.

I don't think some of us have time and possibility to do so.

In general during firsth two years of war, Germans were always on offense during summer time while Soviets been on offense in winther. That shows howe in general fighting ability of both sides was influenced by weather. There is no reason to think that airforces were some exeptions.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2005)

Nobody disputes that the VVS suffered also (in many ways more) than the Luftwaffe during winter 1941/42, Udet.
However, the Luftwaffe tried to attack on a larger scale Moscow. From 4.10.1941 till 6.12.1941, at the peak of the attacks, it flew 35 large (more than 100 planes) attacks and more than 4000 combat sorties (counted bomber planes only) against the SU capitol. From jule 1941 to january 1942 it have been around 8000 combat sorties. If you check the records of the Generalquatiermeister of the Luftwaffe (a german source) you see that the bomber force lost during this timeframe at attacks against the capitol 952 planes (including those beyond repair and lost due to landing accidents). Numerous of them during night attacks, also. What do you think was responsible for these losses? Do you really credit them all to the winter and flak? Not very probable, if you ask me. 
In fact the VVS had several advantages over Moscow:
excellent ground controll, radar, dense flak and balloon obstacles, Mig-3 at well equipped airfields in numbers. According to a soviet source (e.g. Yakolews book), the losses due to mechanicle problems of the Mig´s have been quite high in the winter, he states that the PWO had an average readiness of about 35% during winter. This may confirm your opinion that VVS planes suffered also by climatics.
The canopy problems doesn´t belong to the MIg´s only. The Laggs, Yaks and so on also. Even the Bf-109 had the problem that you cannot open the canopy in flight (except you want to bail out), indeed several pilots coming from Chaikas preferred open canopy. This belongs moreso to the MIg-1, most Mig-3 had closed canopy, thanks to the task of high altitude interceptors at the PWO.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

Taking off and landing at night _and_ during winter is a very dangerous activity. I'm pretty sure a huge amount of those 952 losses were due to accidents rather than enemy action.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2005)

> Soren, I do not see any wrong thing on the numbers, I have given. They are not that contradictary as you may find.



Yest they are !  

The Fw-190A would NEVER turn that tightly, and the 109E would NEVER turn that sluggishly !

The 109E would turn inside even a Spit II.



> The slats produce lift but also drag, reducing the arc/sec. turning speed while allowing a higher AoA and preventing stalling to a higher degree.



Didn't you read the facts I posted about the slats ? Well read it very carefully this time, and especially note the marked part. 

_The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and *there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.* _

 



> This would result in the statistic, given. If you calculate deeper (Spitfire IIa: 292 Km/h / 181 mp/h and 19.0 sec.same source) you will find out the following:



By the above, I have already proven your calculations wrong.



> taking the Powerload and wingload into account you may also draw conclusions regarding the G-factor of this specific turn, if needed. The difference therefore between -109E (with slats not fully open) and Spitfire IIa is going to be nearly zero: The Spit turns slightly faster, the Bf-109 at slower speed and therefore tighter (if slats deployed).



Again I'll let you look back at my previusly presented facts.

_The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with *automatic* leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed *or at high speed under G loads*, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulence. _

The automatic slats will deploy in both low and high speed banking maneuvers, greatly improving turning performance at all speeds. 



> The Spit would need an average of 61 full turns to get an advantage of half a turn to this Bf-109E.



_The slats on the 109 gave about 45-50% extra lift in banking maneuvers._

= The Spit II couldnt at all outturn the 109E in a pure T&B fight ! Not even if it wanted to real bad.



> Combat records confirm these crude statistics: The Bf-109E more widely was used as an excellent energy fighter but was capable to do turnfights, also.



Thats right, in reality it was one of THE best T&B fighters of the intire war.

*Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace: *
_"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. 
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."_

*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:*
_"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. 
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."_ 



> This has nothing to do with the MIg-3 datas. But it shows that the Mig was a capable turner, also. Not exactly as good as the Bf-109 or Spit but the difference is not that big (the Spit V has a very tight turnradius and lower speed but also would need more than 35 turns to get any advantage over the Mig-3, leaving this field more to the abilities of the pilot than anything else) The Mig-3 will have the higher speed and g-loading but also will it keep it´s energy better during these tight turns. And the speed advantage would be something worrisome.



Your calculations are SO VERY OFF ! 

If the 109 or Spit is behind the MIG-3 and the MIG-3 tries to turn, its dead meat, simple as that !



> Datas about the roll rate of both planes would be highly welcome here. Any datas anyone? Please post them.



Look at the a/c's wingspan, wing-area, wing-loading and airfoil data, and then try to compare it with the 109's data. Then you will see just how much worse the MIG really was.

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.*
_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in a turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

And some additional facts about the 109:
- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

The Bf-109 could turn inside the Spitfire then but it rarely did. From those German ace accounts it was only veterans that knew how to turn inside a Spitfire, it wasn't just a case of flipping it on it's wing tip and pulling back on the stick. 

An air force is never full of veterans so the Spitfire was generally better for the turn fights because the green pilots would be willing to do it just as much as the veterans. 

You've already mentioned the Bf-109E slats jamming at times too, so that doesn't need to be mentioned.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

Also, I have just read a report on the turning Spitfire Vs. Me-109 by Wing Commander G.H Stainforth, 9th June 1940. It clearly states that the Hurricane easily out-turned the Me-109 and the Spitfire did it just as easily. 

On the Me-109 it states;

_Although the aileron control was very good up to moderate speeds the aircraft is generally extremely unmanoeuverable owing to:-

(a) Its large turning circle

(b) Impossibility of tightening up the turn owing to the uneven opening of slots and the tendency of the wings to stall unevenly, resulting in flick and the slowing down of the rate of turn. 

(c) Extremely heavy aileron control at high speeds_

Quite obviously this would be a Bf-109E as it is June, 1940. It might be one of the hybrid Es that the RAF concocted during the Battle of Britain from bits and pieces of the E models they captured.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

I have just read a report on the Me-109F dated October 28th, 1941. 

I quote; _It is considered, however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would prevent a simple target to a following Spitfire..._

From the conclusion of the same report it states; _The Me.109F, although very similar in appearance to the Me.109E is much superior to it in all-round performance...The aircraft has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire, but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me.109F, especially at high-speeds_.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2005)

> The Bf-109 could turn inside the Spitfire then but it rarely did.



No, it did it quite often actually. There just ain't many British pilots left to tell you that, as they died discovering it. 
Marseilles preferred outturning a Spit or any other foe more than anything else.

It rarely happened in BoB though, as MANY novice pilots didnt dare turning that hard in a "E" series, as its slats would jam quite often if not maintained properly(A little dirt could easely make them jam), 
and because of the loud bang and slight notch the plane would make when they deployed. (This scared MANY novice LW pilots) 

What 'could' happen to the 109E, was that one slat could jam, giving more lift on 'one' of the wings, sending the 109 into a vicious spin. This is what Günther Rall experienced as a novice, and he never turned that tightly in a 109 again, even when this problem was solved. 

--------------------------------

Fact is most German 109 (And 190) pilots used Bouncing tactics as they were MUCH safer than T&B tactics, and because the 109 was unrivaled in the climb. 
Eventhough the 109 was an excellent T&B fighter and unrivaled by most of its foe's in this kind of fighting, it was NEVER safe, as a passing enemy fighter could quite easely pick you off while you were concentrating about turning inside your prey. 

This rule applies to all the fighters of WW2, as a T&B fight isnt safe nomatter what a/c your sitting in. Ask any Zero pilot about this and he will quite strongly agree  



> From those German ace accounts it was only veterans that knew how to turn inside a Spitfire



During BoB this is true, but after BoB the 109 did it frequently and many novices learned about this ability from the beginning. 



> it wasn't just a case of flipping it on it's wing tip and pulling back on the stick.



Umm.. Yes it was !  It was a case of not freaking out and ease off when the slats deployed, but keep pulling back the stick. 

The mistake made by many LW novice's (And British test-pilots), was to ease off when the slats deployed, as the loud bang and slight notch scared the hell out of them, all they needed to do was to keep pulling. 



> An air force is never full of veterans so the Spitfire was generally better for the turn fights because the green pilots would be willing to do it just as much as the veterans.



Again this is only true for the BoB.



> You've already mentioned the Bf-109E slats jamming at times too, so that doesn't need to be mentioned.



I didn't mention it in my previous post at all. It was mentioned in one of my quotes, but that can hardly be blamed on me


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I have just read a report on the Me-109F dated October 28th, 1941.
> 
> I quote; _It is considered, however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would prevent a simple target to a following Spitfire..._



Plan_D British test-pilots did exactly the same as novice LW pilots did when trying to turn the 109 ! They eased off the turn as soon as the slats popped out, and wouldnt go any further. 

The british even verify this themselves in many tests:

_"the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "_

British test-pilots would almost shit their pants when the 109's slats deployed, and would think "Hell no !" and then drop the maneuver entirely. That is why these test-results are so inaccurate.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2005)

I can confirm this. According to the RAF comparison flight of a Hurricane and a Bf-109E it seems that the testpilot did not explored the limits of the Me. Later he wrote: "(...) I never got out that much of the Messerschmidt, compared to those Luftwaffe pilots."
Another thing is the stiffness of it´s rudders. It is a very twoshapedargument, since you have also to take the forces at the controllstick into account to give 80% or more. If factoring this you clearly find out that the Spit is going to be very stiff, also (indeed you need more power at 350 mp/h in a Spit to initiate a turn than in a Me).However, the one, who stays in vertical maneuvering keeps his energy against the one, who tries to outturn.
But back to the turning datas. Soren, you still failed to provide own datas about it. The slats are described but in howfar do they work? We need datas to compare them. 200 mp/h are not that bad for a Fw-190 to turn sustainably. Actually I have these numbers from a Rechlin test (Fw-190A). If there is something wrong with them I would like to know.
Roll datas cannot be calculated exactly by comparing pure datas. We need statistics about different speeds and altitudes for them. A few expectations may be granted in the way you described them.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2005)

delcyros said:


> But back to the turning datas. Soren, you still failed to provide own datas about it.



Own data's ? Have you read Hans Werner Lerche's (Luftwaffe test-pilot) book ? He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. 



> The slats are described but in howfar do they work? We need datas to compare them.



What do you mean the slats arent fully described ? I've already presented you all the facts about how the automatic slats work. What more do you want ? Their piece by piece description ?

To put it simple; The 'automatic slats' work at all speeds, and their deployment depends on the wings AoA. 



> 200 mp/h are not that bad for a Fw-190 to turn sustainably.



Come on ! your quoting the 109E to have just as bad a turn-rate as the Fw-190A, which is just not true !

The 190's turn-rate numbers are very suspicious aswell.



> Actually I have these numbers from a Rechlin test (Fw-190A). If there is something wrong with them I would like to know.



So where did you get the 109 numbers from ? Cause they certainly don't compare to the ones I've seen before !



> Roll data's cannot be calculated exactly by comparing pure data's. We need statistics about different speeds and altitudes for them.



No but accurate assumptions can be made from them.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 4, 2005)

No, I haven´t read Lercher´s book (yet). Does he provide more datas or just subjective experiences of the turning datas?
I don´t want to know in detail about the slats, it´s airflow principle is known to me. I just want to know if there are any datas to confirm this?
E.g. a comparison between a Bf-109E with working slats and with fixed slats. There should be differences in the turning performances. If you have datas, I suggest to post them.
The Bf-109E would always turn inside the Fw-190. If you check the turning datas you will find this confirmed. While the turnrate is close to each other (keep in mind that in this particular test the slats of the Bf-109E are not fully deployed, thus are reducing the Bf-109E´s performance a bit), the turning diameter of the Fw-190A-4 is much larger thanks to it´s higher speed at turning. The difference is quite big.
If you have turning datas (you said you have seen other datas), please post them.


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2005)

> No, I haven´t read Lercher´s book (yet). Does he provide more datas or just subjective experiences of the turning datas?



Yes he does, and the Fw-190A's turnrate lies at around 25-26 sec for a full 360 degree turn without loss of height !



> I don´t want to know in detail about the slats, it´s airflow principle is known to me. I just want to know if there are any datas to confirm this?



Wait a minute, you just said you knew their airflow principle, but then you say you need data to confirm this ?  Its bloody simple aerodynamics buddy !

They work the way I (And the illustration) explained to you, but since you seem to have missed this, I will explain it again: 

Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will *not* be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

You can also see this confirmed on the illustration that I gave you, as it is clearly stated that seperation is delayed. And it is also clearly stated that the "stall-angle" of the wing is increased.



> E.g. a comparison between a Bf-109E with working slats and with fixed slats. There should be differences in the turning performances. If you have datas, I suggest to post them.



Del, what are you talking about ? No 109 had fixed slats, they were all fitted with "Automatic slats". The German Me163 Komett had fixed slats, and yes they increased drag, although that didnt matter much on a rocket propelled a/c. Bottom line is (As explained above) the "Automatic-slats" DONT give any increase in drag at all ! 

I can tell you this aswell, the auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in all situations, and they were therefore installed on the 109 permanently. If they in anyway were unessential or degraded A/C maneuverability they would have been removed as they were expensive and complicated to make, but they weren't removed.



> The Bf-109E would always turn inside the Fw-190.



Exactly, and every mock-fight between them proved this, as it is quoted time and again that the 109 "Easely" outturns the 190.



> If you check the turning data's you will find this confirmed. While the turnrate is close to each other (keep in mind that in this particular test the slats of the Bf-109E are not fully deployed, thus are reducing the Bf-109E´s performance a bit), the turning diameter of the Fw-190A-4 is much larger thanks to it´s higher speed at turning. The difference is quite big.



As I've already said the Fw-190A's turn-rate would normally lie around 25-26 sec for a full 360 degree turn without loss of height. 

Now where did you get those 109 numbers from ?

------------------------------------------

More 109 pilot quotes:

*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories:*
_"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."_

*Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:*
_"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him.......
He (Russian pilot) turned sharply, leaving a heavy vapor trail, and dove away towards the northeast.......... I cut him off and closed in at high speed. My airspeed indicator was showing more than 750 km/h.
I opened fire rather too soon, but he didn't change direction, instead he put his nose down briefly so that I was suddenly a level higher than he was. I put my nose down as well, but as I was about to fire he pulled up again, and this time I ended up below him."_


----------



## delcyros (Jun 4, 2005)

Could be that there is some miscommunication?
Slats: you (again and again and...) describe how they work. Ok. What I want to know is how far makes this a difference, in numbers (e.g. take a bf-109 with slats in working condition and those which are (arteficially) fixed and compare the turning datas: turning speed in sec., stall speed, turning diameter and so on. Of course there is no additional drag if the slats are n ot deployed, they disappear in the leading wing surface. But they produce beside of lift a specific amount of drag if they are deployed, and that´s what I want to know. I know that there have been tests with these automatic slats in bf-108 planes, but while the wing is almost the same, you cannot compare the bf-108 with the bf-109, there is lot of differences in the performances.
The sources for bf-109 E is the RAF comparison flight between Hurricane and bf-109E in 1940. You will find this document if you run www.lanpartywolrd.com/ww2/files and search for aircraft comparsison files. There is lot of datas (scanned original documents, but also manuals and lot of other stuff).For bf109F2 and Fw-190 A is the Rechlin test in oktober 1942 (see my first post to this problem).
25-26 sec. is quite high for a Fw-190A4. The A-8 comes close to this (24.5 sec at 218 mp/h after my sources) but the A-4? The Rechlin tests show me a differnet figure for it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2005)

> Could be that there is some miscommunication ?



It certainly seems that way !



> Slats: you (again and again and...) describe how they work. Ok. What I want to know is how far makes this a difference, in numbers (e.g. take a bf-109 with slats in working condition and those which are (arteficially) fixed and compare the turning datas: turning speed in sec., stall speed, turning diameter and so on.



As I've said earlier, the slats (When deployed) provide about 45% extra lift to the wing. Now it should be easy for you to calculate the rest.



> Of course there is no additional drag if the slats are n ot deployed, they disappear in the leading wing surface. But they produce beside of lift a specific amount of drag if they are deployed, and that´s what I want to know.



 

I repeat: A wing without slats will stall at a certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with a sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will *not* be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, *only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall. *

A wing without slats will stall at a lower AoA, and therefore produce alot more drag (Earlier on) in banking maneuvers, than a wing equipped with slats. Which means that a fighter equipped with slats will lose energy at a *slower* rate in banking maneuvers, than a fighter without slats.

I tried to explain this to you many times, but you obviously missed it yet again. 



> I know that there have been tests with these automatic slats in bf-108 planes, but while the wing is almost the same, you cannot compare the bf-108 with the bf-109, there is lot of differences in the performances.



Del, what are you now talking about ? 

The slats were tested on the Bf-109 ! Your not seriously trying tell me that you actually believe that they would put Auto-slats on a Bf-109 without testing it first, now are you ?!

I was talking about tests with the 109 ! And on the 109 the slats were found beneficial in all situations, also by Willy himself ! That is why they were fitted permanently on the 109, and never removed. The auto-slats were highly expensive and complicated to manufacture, so if they in any way degraded A/C maneuverability or performance, they would've been instantly removed, but they weren't !



> The sources for bf-109 E is the RAF comparison flight between Hurricane and bf-109E in 1940. You will find this document if you run www.lanpartywolrd.com/ww2/files and search for aircraft comparsison files.



Which makes the rest of your data totally merit-less. You can't compare two totally different tests from different country's !

Furthermore RAF's tests with the 109 are useless, as they barely dared flying it. And I've explained before why. 

Btw notice the site's description  



> 25-26 sec. is quite high for a Fw-190A4. The A-8 comes close to this (24.5 sec at 218 mp/h after my sources) but the A-4? The Rechlin tests show me a differnet figure for it.



The Fw-190A's turn rate lies at 25.5 - 26 sec.


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2005)

May I make a request that you start a new thread on the effect of aerodynamic devices on the performance of aircraft in Combat. It truly could be interesting as a number of aircraft had devices to help.

This thread is about the VVS and the RAF. Not if the 109 slats made it turn inside almost anything else in the air.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 5, 2005)

that is a very good request i agree, whilst this is interesting it's off topic..........

and you're almost at 100 posts glider........


----------



## delcyros (Jun 5, 2005)

Certainly.
Back to the topic. Originally we did compared the Mig with the Spitfire V in 1941. As we have seen, both are comparable planes, each having advantages of it´s own at specific altitudes. Both planes are very comparable at low altitudes (at sea level, the Spit even have an advantage over the Mig´s performance), while at higher altitudes the Mig has the better performance. In my view, we can count the Mig as the better high altitude plane and this is going to be notable, since it´s going to disprove that the VVS could never field a plane in the high altitude field. Actually this is more important in this thread, since the RAF would more probably depend on high altitude sorties compared to the Luftwaffe.
Of course, there are better high altitude Spitfires possible, the Spitfire VI to name one, but the Mig´s does also have more advanced high altitude planes, none of them was produced in masses anyway.
But about what a timeframe are we talking? 1939, where the british declared war on the soviets, who -alongside with nazi Germany- atacked Poland? Or 1941? 1945? I think, the sooner you put the VVS on war, the bigger the advantage of it is. The later it goes the more would count the development of more advanced planes, finally the advent of the first (RAF) jet planes. What do you think?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

Well, all the way up to 1942 the most numerous plane in VVS service was the I-16 wasn't it? It's hardly a formidable enemy, especially when it's shining point was turning and the Hurricane could out-turn it. 

The Spitfire Mk.V would hardly be flying above 15,000 feet. The MiG-3 might have the advantage above 16,000 feet but RAF bombing normally took place below that altitude with any escort fighters being there also. 
The MiG-3 would be trapped below it's optimal altitude in almost any combat occasion. It shows there was the foundation for a possible increase in high performance fighters but it isn't solid proof that the VVS could field anything on par with the Spitfire Mk.IX or XIV.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

Performance is one thing but the problem with the Mig 3 is its lack of weapons. A Mig 3 would have a very hard time shooting down a British Medium/Heavy bomber with the 1xHMG and 2xLMG that it carried. 
The standard 4xLMG rear turret on almost every British bomber from the Whitley on could be considered to outgun it. 
I know that some were given an extra 2xHMG but any increase in weight on such a weight sensitive aircraft would significantly inpact its performance. For my money the Spit 5 is a better al round machine as its 2x20 and 4xLMG gives it sufficient punch to take on any VVS plane, fighter or bomber.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2005)

At 15.000 ft the Spit has considerably less performance than the Mig-3, even at 10.000 ft the Mig is faster (as it is in 5.000 ft.), and with four 0.50 and a single 0.33 the Mig has a comparable, if not better punch to a Spitfire Va and is less powerful than a Spit Vb. The recoil force of the two 20mm are wuite high for the Spitfire airframe (esspeccially if they are mounted in the mid of the wing), making prolonged aiming difficult. The Mig has all guns (except for two additional 0.50) mounted in the nose, this is an advantage. Without the disadvantage of a heavy recoil force.
The later Mig 3 did had some two 20 mm guns, which give them a better punch to bombers. But I don´t think that british bombers could stay on their own over soviet airspace. No bomber is probable to do so. Also as you can see, the Spitfire Vb has not much ammo to spent, indeed, much less than comparable VVS planes. The Spitfire Va or Vb would be in big trouble with hunting the Il-2, since they don´t have proper firepower and ammo. The Hurricane would have even bigger problems because they also lacked in speed. But in general, their armement is well suited do deal with VVS fighter. 
As I posted earlier, the I-211 of 1942 was comparable, if not even better in performances than the Spitfire IX....draw. And it saw combat in mid 1942.
Bristol Blenheims, HP Hampdons and Wellingtons would have a hard time against numerous fighter attacks. If needed, the VVS would field more heavier guns (they had a good 37mm gun, excellent for downing bombers).
The I-16 was produced in heavy numbers most exclusively because the SU lost several aircraft factories and had to upbuild their lines completely new. The tooling for the I-16 was avaiable sooner. However, this goes more to the Blitzkrieg than anything else. The RAF equippment, unlike the Luftwaffe one, is not suited for such attacks. Had the RAF instead of the Luftwaffe attacked the VVS, there would be less probability to advance that fast, destroying that much planes on the ground and driving the VVS in such a desperate position as the Luftwaffe did. It´s simple, the RAF lacked dive bombers, numerical advantage of medium bombers and fighters as well as the proper tactics to do such attacks on a larger scale. With this in mind, the appearence of I-16 even in 1942 would be unproable in case the VVS attacked the SU.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk.V would rarely operate at 15,000 feet. The optimal altitude for the MiG-3 was above 16,000 feet, bombing was normally done at 15,000 feet. Rarely was it above that altitude although sometimes the B-17 did go to 30,000 feet!

The performance of the MiG-3 was greatly reduced with wing loaded 12.7mm HMGs. Your stats provide information for the MiG-3 without those guns. It doesn't have a comparable punch to eight .303cal or two 20mm and four .303cal. 
The MiG-3 wouldn't have any recoil force anyway, it only had one 12.7mm and two .303cal without the wing loaded 12.7mm!

Explain accurately how the I-211 is as good as the Spitfire Mk.IX. 

You're assuming the VVS could, in 1941-'42, affectively attach an effective 37mm armament to a high altitude fighter. It certainly wouldn't go in a MiG-3 because it'd shake the thing to pieces. In fact, it only went in the Yak-9U. 

No, the reason for the large I-16 numbers was because their air force was made up of that before World War 2. They had thousands, all inferior aircraft to the Hurricane and Spitfire. 
Hurricanes and Spitfires could do the same ground attack with bombs as the Ju-87. The RAF medium bombers such as the Wellington could provide the same support as He-111s and Ju-88s. 

The Il-2 wasn't an invincible machine, Erich Hartmann downed many a Sturmovik in a Bf-109, which carried less or equal armament to any B,C or E wing Spitfire.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

Delc. I only thought that the Mig 3 carried 1xHMG and 2xLMG. with two extra HMG bolted on under the wing as an extra. The weight of fire for the Mig 3 would be around 1.3KG per second in standard mode compared to around 3.5KG per second on the Spit, quite a difference. This excludes the considerably higher HE content of the 20mm shell which significantly increases the difference.
I am with PlanD in being quite certain that the Mig 3 with the extra two guns would have a lower performance as it was so weight sensitive. The figures would be interesting

Had the British attacked the VVS in 1942 the Hurricane 2C would have probably been used in GA and the Spit 5b as escort. No shortage of firepower there. Comparatively speaking few Spit 5a were made so I refer to 5b. Typhoons were entering service and would have been very difficult to counter. The RAF were not short of dive bombers, they basically didn't have any but any Hurrie 2C or Typhoon would have had a field day against the slow IL2 and were at least as effective in GA. I doubt if many German dive bombers shot down the IL2.

No one is saying a Wellington would have found the VVS a walk in the park but they would have stood a much better chance of surviving against a Mig than almost any other fighter in any other airforce of the time. 

So to follow your summing up. We didn't have Dive bombers we had planes at least as good in GA and could defend themselves in air to air.
We didn't lack medium bombers and could have used Sterlings with a huge increase in bomb load to destroy the targets. 
Our fighters were also capable of taking on the best that the Russians had.

Put the clock forward 6-9 months and we have Typhoons, Mossies, Halifax's and Lancasters comming of the production lines.


----------



## arras (Jun 7, 2005)

These are all but speculations.

Firsth of all Soviets and British would not be able to attack each other efectively by air. Distances were too big. British had long range strategic bombers which they did develop later in to formidable force. But they never had any fighter to escort them. War proved that bombers regardles hove good they are armed and protected can't operate without fighter escort unles taking heavy looses.

Brithis bombers operated during nihgt and even if they were efective in burning down German cities, this had little efect to German war efort. US daylight bombing was more efective but American themselfs declared afther post war analises that only small (15-30% if I remember) portion of bombs realy hit their targets.

Strategic bombing wasnt able to win war against Germany, there is no reason to beleive that it can do the job against USSR which much biger distances involved, les developed = les sensitive infrastructure, industry spreaded over large teritories + big resource and human reserves at Soviets hands.

And last thing, both airforces were developed to fight diferent enemy. If ever they would have faced each other, they would need to be developed and deployed diferently.

As for comparing planes against one to another. Dont forget that Soviet military philosophy was and (Russian) until now is diferent than that of western countries.
Soviets newer rellied on technical and technological quality as much as western countries. Quality was always evaluated in relation to production efeciency, easines of use, high reliability.
This philoshophy allowed them to use their advantages as much as possible while minimizing efect of their disadvantages. And they were higly succesful in this. Since winter 43 Germans practicaly did not have any chance to win war at Eastern front.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2005)

Arras you are right in that this is a theoretical exercise but that is for me part of the fun. For this to work you have to assume that the two sides can reach each other.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

Yes, we are comparing air forces not distances. The RAF is a more well rounded air force than the VVS. The RAF was designed to fight at any length, height, day or night. 

I won't start on the strategic bombing again, just go back and read the facts.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 7, 2005)

It´s just an interesting discussion.
The I-16 stayed, in fact, in production until 1942 because of the reasons, I listed. There are some thousends made earlier. It should be interesting that the I-16 could match with the Hurricane (altough I regard the Hurricane the better plane), esspeccially if the Hurricane shifts to the GA role. And the VVS had lots of I-16. 
Another interesting point is the Wellington, it has a good range, allowing strikes deep into the european part of Russia (with a very small payload) at low speeds. Without escort.... -You know the rest.
The 37 mm gun would be fitted in either, a Yak-2, Yak-4, Yak-5 or Pe-2. These planes have been modified for the heavy fighter role (e.g. interceptor) late in 1941, but the VVS found that it could handle with He-111, Ju-87 and Do-215 with their regular forces, also.
The Spit V has a better armement than the Mig-3, agreed. I just pointed out that the Mig could be equipped better (including 20 mm guns in the Mig-3D), and keep in mind, it was by far not a fragile plane. Four 0.50 and a single 0.33 are a better armement than eight 0.33. Compare the parameters for the soviet 0.50 cal.gun rounds. Fragile belongs to the Yak-1 particularly. The Mig-3 had armor, fire resistent fuel tanks and a rugged airframe, much more durable than the average VVS plane. The Spitfire on the other hand is known for it´s weakness. I would rate them at about equal in this field. Hartmann killed many IL2 because he got close ups to them. And even than you need multiple 20 mm HE hits at vulnarable spots of the IL-2. This is well possible with nose mounted 20mm / 30mm guns but 0.33 and even 0.50 cal. guns are not suited for this task. Even the four wing mounted 20mm guns of a Hurricane would have problems thanks to convergance problems. At low altitude, the Hurricane is not much faster than the Il-2, the Typhoon would be much better in this task. The Spitfire has not enough ammo as we know, reducing it´s performance in this point.
Compare the I-211 (datas posted above)with the Spitfire IX, the I-211 beats the Spitfire in top speed, climb rate, ammo and acceleration while it is about equal in maneveurability and the I-211 has a radial engine, giving it an edge in durability. They are indeed comparable planes.
All in all, the Spitfire is not very well suited for the soviet climates, it´s far to prone to mechanicle problems. The Spitfire V send to Russia proved that. The Hurricane is much better in this.
A real problem for the RAF would be the disadvantage in numbers, I barely can see the RAF in the offensive role because the VVS had so much bombers and GA planes and fighters.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

The I-16 was the most numerous fighter of the VVS in 1939-1942. If the war starts in 1939 then the RAF is fielding Spitfire Mk.I and Hurricane Mk.I against I-16s. The Hurricane is just superior to the I-16 in almost every aspect. The Spitfire even more so. 

The Yaks would have to be getting up to the altitude of the RAF bombers. Remember that these bombers were heavier than Luftwaffe bombers and flew at a greater altitude. 

The up-gunned MiG-3 with 12.7mm BK pod-guns under the wings gave the MiG-3 two 7.62mm ShKAS, one 12.7mm UBS and two 12.7mm BK. 
I've read that many of the under-wing pods were removed when the units received the new MiG-3s because the extra 150kg drastically altered the flight characteristics, making them a much more clumsy aircraft. 
The Spitfire Va was hardly produced, they were mostly Vbs with four Browing .303cal and two Hispano Mk.II 20mm. The Spitfire Vb armament was much more destructive and accurate than even the up-gunned MiG-3, especially during high G combat. 

The Spitfire was not known for weakness, the liquid cooled Merlin was. The Spitfire had armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. The Spitfire V would normally be operating at 15,000 feet and below. The MiG-3 would be easy pickings below 16,000 feet. 

The Spitfire Vb would have no problem with destroying Il-2s. The Hispano 20mm would cleanly rip a Il-2 to pieces. The Hurricane IIC would have an even easier time, getting in close eliminates the convergance problems. The Il-2 would be [and was] easy pickings for any fighters. 

The Spitfire was not unable to cope with the Russian winter. The Soviet mechanics were not able to cope with the Spitfire, they were primitive. The Spitfire served in every theatre, with every Allied air force, you cannot honestly state that it wasn't capable of combat out of the ETO. 
I know little of the Spitfire V action in the Soviet Union, even less of the Spitfire IX action but I do know this;

821st IAP, 8th Air Army, Sector between the rivers Molotchnaya and Mious, August-September 1943.
93 combats, 32 victories, 16 Spitfires lost.

3rd Squadron, 7th IAP of Black Sea Fleet.
10 Spits received in Summer 1943.
In May/August 1943 30 missions, mainly to escort sea convoys; 5 German bombers claimed.

57th GIAP, April/June 1944, Kuban.
46 combats, 31 victories, 11 Spits and 4 pilots lost.

The Spitfires sent to Russia were only withdrawn in some areas because the Luftwaffe was bringing the Bf-109G and Fw-190 to bare. The Russians enjoyed the Spitfire V in 1941 and early 1942. They were requesting the Spitfire IX because of it's high altitude performance, they needed it for their PVO to counter the Ju-86. 
The Hurricane and Spitfire served with distinction in the Soviet Union. They both could handle the weather and they both could handle their opponent in their time span.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 7, 2005)

You should also notice the non com bat losses of Spitfires in Russia. During Nov-42-february 43 at Stalingrad (it must be noted that this timeframe was a really crude winter) the VVS lost several Spitfires due to mechanicle problems (weak undercarriege mostly) and 43 were put out of action by climates. 
The Spitfire Vb clearly has the advantage in armement against the Mig-3. However, the Spitfire Vb also has a lower performance than the Va and much more recoil force. The recoil force is a problem, esspeccially if you try to make prolonged hits with the wing mounted guns. This force you to close up and this brings you in the hot zone of the defensive armement of the Il-2. Several Bf-109 have been destroyed by Il2 reargunners and the Spit is as vulnarable as the Bf-109. The ammo of the Spit Vb is also not enough to deal with more than one or two Il2. The british 20 mm gun is a good weapon, with better ap-capabilities than the german MG151/20, but you still need to get close enough to ensure that the rounds doesn´t glance off.
In 1939, howmany Spitfire and Hurricane could face the VVS?
I-16 against Hurricane, umm, the I-16 has an advantage roll rate, armement, durability and comes about equal in turnrate, speed and acceleration.... 
Some 300 Spitfire I and about 500 Hurricane against what? Alone 476 I-16 in spain, over 2000 fielded by the VVS in late 1939. The VVS had combat experience in Spain and Manchuria. It had a good medium bomber (SB-2) and lots of Chaikas for the GA-role. And not to forget the obsolete TB-3, a durable bomber with over 9000 lbs. payload, in quantities. No way, the RAF would be in a very defensive position in 1939. 
But it is still very interesting, how would the RAF react? It is a hard job to deal with TB-3 or SB-2 while only having 0.303. But it is possible. I think the RAF would sooner shift to 20mm and the VVS would sooner put better planes into their airforces. The Yak-1 outclasses the Hurricane and Spitfire at low altitude (except for firepower and durability), the Mig-1 outclasses them at high atlitude (direct fuel injection! One of the prototypes made 404 mp/h but most planes have been flown without canopy, reducing it´s speed to "only" 370-380 mp/h, the handling of the Mig is sluggish, the Spitfire is much better).


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2005)

Delc. I have never heard of the Spit fire having problems with the stress of firing the 20mm and I am sure that something would have slipped out. You often mention the lack of ammunition. A few early 5B's only had 60 rds per gun but early in the war all 20mm only carried 60 rds. Zero's MS406, De520, Spit 5, 109E, Whirlwind, P39, even the P38, they all started with 60rds per gun. However by mid 41 they all developed belt feed and this increased considerably. In the case of the Spit to around 140 rds per gun which was sufficient and similar to most other aircraft.

I do agree that the 303 would be pretty useless against a IL2, I think the Germans called them door knockers which seems to fit pretty well.

As for getting close pick your year. 
If its early and you want the RAF to only have Spit 1 and Hurricanes armed with LMG then remember that the IL2 was slow, low and didn't have a rear gunner. There is nothing to stop you getting as close as you like. The I16 is agile yes, but slow, no good at altitude, poorly trained, no radio for communication. The ground control has no radar for direction or control. The VVS would only be good for pre planned opps or targets of oppertunity, it lacks flexibility.
If its later then we have 20's with a good supply of Ammo. Take your pick.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2005)

Well the sooner a comparison is, the more difficult for the RAF. The VVS always has a numerical advantage. But late in the war the VVS has only few excellent designs, and even less are in service (Yak-3U, La-11, Il-10). And almost nothing in the jet field. On the other hand the Meteor-III, the only allied jet in service at wars end, wasn´t that impressive.
1939 on the other hand would exclude the Il-2 for the VVS.
The Il-2 was optimized for low level flying. This would give the VVS the ability to underfly the Radar. It is also questionable if the RAF could develop a radarchain over the whole central european part. With this in mind, the english Radar advantage is only important at defensive positions in connection with the geographicle advantage. From 1941 on, the VVS also had radar installations (type Rus-1 and Rus-3) around Moscow and Gorki.
The poorly training level is one point, but the RAF also had a poor training level if under pressure (take the repeatedly reduced training times for fighter pilots at BoB), as the VVS. The training in 1939 and 1940 was by far not as bad as those of 1941 and 1942, and this doesn´t surprise me.
In 1939 and most of 1940 both airforces use the obsolete fightertactics, but the VVS had combat experiences. You should also compare soviet planes for the gun point. No VVS plane had 60 rounds only for it´s 20mm guns. The Lagg-3 in service 1941 had 120 rounds, the MiG-3D of 1942 had 185 rounds for each gun. Even the 20mm upgunned I-16 type 28 had 110 rounds per gun (The I-16P even had 150 rounds per gun). The I-26 prototype for the Yak-1 with four 0.303 and a single 20mm gun had 130 rounds for his big gun. The I-26U had two 0.303 and three 20mm guns with 120 rounds per (20mm) gun. This argument is misleading if you compare only western planes with the Spitfire V. The VVS had an ammo advantage, no doubt.
If you take the I-16 type 10 with 4 0.303 only, it needs only 16.5 sec. per turn, clearly beating both, Spitfire and Hurricane. The I-16 type 28 needs 20 sec. per turn.


----------



## arras (Jun 8, 2005)

Hartman (best acce of all times) consider Il-2 to be wery tough target, rounds bouncing off its armor. Only vulnerable place he then used to shot down IL-2 was its oilt tank under fuselage. To hit your oponent at such a small spot is not easy even for good pilot. Il-2 was not undestructable and many were lost, thats why Soviets restored rear gunner on later models.

But to consider it easy prey for any fighter is wrong. Soviets considered it to be their most important plane and they did it for good reason. They would not produce looser at such a big numbers.

In some Soviet sources I have even found about Il-2 accepting dogfight and shooting down some German fighters (with front guns). And that is quit possible considering its armament. Few shots from its front canoons head on and you are on the way to see ground realy close.

There was nothing similar to Il-2 in Brithis hands during war. Aircraft designed for ground support like Battle were total failure. Huricanes II and Typhons were just obsolete or unsuccesful fighters adapted to ground role. They might have been sussesful but you can't compare it to specialized aircraft like IL-2.

Both were much more vulnerable to both air and ground fire, with smaler payload, having only advantage to be as fast as fighters afther throving their payload away.

And one more thing when you compare armament of Soviet fighters, take in mind that their canoons and MGs had mostly higher rate of fire, about one half than other countries designs. Also most of Soviet aircraft had all their armament concentrated near its axis which had some balistic and aerodinamic advantages.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 8, 2005)

> tman (best acce of all times) consider Il-2 to be wery tough target, rounds bouncing off its armor. Only vulnerable place he then used to shot down IL-2 was its oilt tank under fuselage.


A very tough target to shoot down from the ground... From the air is a different story..... It was a sitting duck to German fighters.... 

Just because Hartmann had 350+kills doesnt make him the Best Ace.... Visit out Greatest Fighter Pilot Topic to go into more detail, but read the WHOLE topic...... Get educated.. There are more than 2 guys who deserve that title more so than Hartmann.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

and, whilst their armour made shooting them down, german fighter pilots could still pick and choose when to shoot, and where, this gave them the advantage over the slower and less nimble IL-2............

and the reason we did not have anything like the IL-2 was simply because we didn't need anything like that, we had the hurricane Mk.IID for the desert, which became one of the most feared planes out there, but we really had no need for a specailised tank destroyer, bombs could finish of the few (compared to the east) that our forces had to combat........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

The Meteor III was more impressive than anything the Soviet Union had. It certainly would rip any Il-2s to pieces and intercept anything else the Soviet Union threw at them. 

Early war, the Soviet Union didn't have effective air tactics even with experience at Khalkin-Gol and in the Spanish Civil War. If they had then the Luftwaffe wouldn't have slaughtered them on the ground and in the sky. 
The RAF got a rude awakening in May 1940 but it quickly learnt and even under pressure from the Luftwaffe it still got the highest training time for it's pilots. 

The I-16 Type 10 could turn inside a Hurricane and Spitfire but with four .303cal it's not going to shoot them down. The German pilots found the eight Browning .303cal on the Spitfire and Hurricane laughable...

arras; to consider the Il-2 easy prey for fighters is right. These things were shot down enmasse. They weren't able to avoid their predators and fell to the guns of Luftwaffe fighters all the time. The majority of the highest scoring aces of the Luftwaffe achieved their kills against Il-2s. 

The Soviets *would* carry on producing a 'loser' because it was numbers, numbers, weight in numbers! Like the Red Army, the VVS relied on massive numbers to overcome a technically and tactically superior opponent. The Il-2 is the defination of the Soviet swarm in the air. 
Anything an Il-2 shot down was lucky. It wasn't a capable dogfighter, if someone made the mistake of going at it head-on then it was the luck of the Il-2 pilot. 

The British didn't have any designated ground-attack aircraft but that doesn't make them poor. The Hurricane IID and IV were both remarkable machines and did severe damage to the Afrika Korps armoured columns. When these machines were mentioned to Stalin by Churchill, Stalin requested them be sent to the Soviet Union pronto!

The Typhoon was one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war. It's four Hispano Mk.II 20mm could destroy almost any Wehrmacht machine of the war. When it'd done it's ground attack duty, it was a remarkable low-level interceptor. I certainly wouldn't want to tangle with a Typhoon at low altitude. 
If you want to survive, you don't want to hang around too long. 

The Soviet guns also had the great advantage of jamming!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

and as much as i want to make a follow on joke about us being able to jam soviet radars, they didn't have any!!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

They did have some around Moscow and Ghorki. Where did they get the technology for that, you ask? The Western Allies, of course.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

which they wouldn't have if we were at war with them......


----------



## arras (Jun 8, 2005)

Afther reading this thread for last few days, confusion struck my head ...I don't remeber anymore for sure who won the war?!?!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

Oh god...everyone knows it was Botswana that won.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

has news about the war spread to central africa yet??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Oh god...everyone knows it was Botswana that won.



HEY - I've been there! Worked on their entire fighter force! 10 F-5s  

BDF - Botswana Defense Force


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

I...don't know.


----------



## arras (Jun 8, 2005)

> The majority of the highest scoring aces of the Luftwaffe achieved their kills against Il-2s


...I newer saw kill list of any German ace with columns filed with Il-2, perhaps you can provide us with few on hand  

...I was looking for kill list of some of them on net for a while but I cant find one. If somebody have one on hand please post it.
I can provide one of E.Hartman next week ...nothing even close to quoted sentence.


----------



## arras (Jun 8, 2005)

OK finaly have found good page: *Aces of the Luftwaffe* http://www.luftwaffe.cz

here are two I took randomly (both clearly fightning at E. front):
Hermann Lücke http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lucke.html
Wolfgang Tonne http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tonnew.html

...and ...what a nasty suprise ...second one downed more Spitfires than IL-2 


You can look at other profiles, there are even pilots sorted as xxx killers, including Il-2 and some other alied aircrafts.
There is nothing like Germans shooting hundreds of Il-2 on wish. In fact Il-2 is one of less comon aircrafts there and that was most produced aircraft of war ...all nations inluded!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

14,200 Il-2s were claimed down in 1943-1944 alone. 

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/ilyushin.htm


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2005)

I do collect some material about soviet radar in ww2 and will present it in a few weeks. But some can be said first:
The VVS had Radar.
It´s first generation of radar doesn´t come from the western allies but from Germany in 1940 (basis for Rus-1 stationary ground radar). The soviets developed this to Rus-2 (prototype only) and later Rus-3 in late 1941. They got more advanced radar technology in 1942 by Britain.
The Meteor could barely rip the Il-2 (with ease) except if they reduce their speed to get close kills. This plane (could face the more armored Il-10) is highly advanced and a superior fighter but approximation is quite high and you can only fire fewer rounds on the Il-2/-10 or you choose to reduce the speed (leaving the Meteor a very easy prey for escort fighters and rear gunners: slow, BIG TARGET, clumsy, worse acceleration). The Typhoon/Tempest is the best RAF plane for this task: Good armed, with high acceleration and durable enough.
The I-250 of Mikoyan (first flown in march 1945) tops the Meteor III in almost every aspect, except for service sailing, durability and the equal armement: Top speed from low level to high altitude, Acceleration, turn rate, roll rate and climb. Just a note to be careful for generalizations.
The Hurricane and Typhoons are formidable fighters, but none of them could rip a Pz.IV onwards, resp. T-34, KV-1/-2, JS-1/-2, or the SU-artillerys. The ap-capabilities of the 20mm makes this highly unprobable. Bomb and rocket hits could do this but you need a (unprobable) direct hit to do so. The hit percentage at tactical sorties of the 2nd tactical RAF airforce during 1944 and 1945 was below 30% (a hit was considered if the bomb strikes somewhere in 1000 ft. distance to the target!). The Typhoon could not take out any Whermacht vehicle, regardles of qhat you think you have read. This question is discussed in other threads in detail. And there are lots of soviet tanks, without proper counter weapons, there is a big problem for the British ground forces.They are good for unarmored and light armored vehicles, where they can wreac havoc with ease, and this can be as important as knocking the tanks out. The IL-2 on the other hand can knock out any British ground target.
The Il-2 losses are very high, no doubt. But what I know from the reports is that no other single allied plane destroyed that much percentage of fighting Whermacht forces, and that´s the reason why it was produced in numbers. In this way Plan_D is right. The RAF on their theatres had no urgent need for such a plane, while the red army depends on it. It´s a question what kind of enemy you face in what quantities.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2005)

Delc
You can always pick and choose pilots, try Otto Bruno Kittel. 94 Il2's and NO spits but that is a dangerous game to play. In a conflict such as WW2 anyone can find examples to prove any point.

In 1941 the Spits carried 140 rpg so there is no difference.

Lets make it interesting. Pick a year and we can compare, your choice


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2005)

Otto Kittel was downed and killed in Action by an Il-2 reargunner...


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2005)

Delc
Apologies I hadn't seen your last mail as it came up when I was typing. I agree with you re the Meteor, there is little doubt that the Tempest and Typhoon would have been better for getting amongst the IL2. I also agree re the destroying of the ground tanks. However we obviously had the weapons (40mm on Hurricane) and had push come to shove we would have found ways of fitting it on other aircraft. That said if the Ju87 with AT guns could survive in the air then I am sure that a Hurricane would have been better.

I also didn't thank you for the Aces site which looks a good one.

However, as I said pick a year and lets compare


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2005)

(Agreed, The Hurricane with 40 mm is a reasonable tank hunter, no doubt)
Umm, that´s difficult. I asume that the VVS equippment developed in a specific was to counter the Whermacht and not he RAF from 1941 on and if you turn on one wheel you can easily forget the other turning. I think 1941 would be the best year, since the RAF and VVS did not developed in an extremely specific way either. Both airforces have considerable combat experiences, the RAF undoubtely has more.
We have already discussed the Mig-3 and Spit V, the Hurricane should be discussed against Yak-1, Lagg-3 and I-16. And we have the Pe-2 and Welland, the SB-2 and Hampden...On the ground we have the excellent Matilda II and the KV-1 and KV-2. Could be really interesting. But I doubt that any nation could win a decisive victory in within a year. The SU is unbelieveable large and England is well protected by the Royal Navy and the Channel. I put in the year, maybe you should give a szenario for a specific campaign, Glider? Just a "What if", of course, but we need the circumstances to compare the airforces. 
By the way, you should credit the site to arras, who posted it.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2005)

Arras, My mistake.
Delc, lets keep the scenario simple, switch Germans for British. Border to border, head to head. 
Also we are copmparing airforces at a point in time. We are not trying to say that one side or the other will win a war in 12 months
Before I go any further I am going to think about it and probably come back tomorrow.
Anyone else reading this feel free to pitch in. It isn't a two way discussion.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

Do you want to put your money on the Typhoon being unable to destroy anything about Pz.Kpfw IV? The capabilities of the four Hispano Mk.II was discussed when the rounds bounced up under the Tiger. Everyone in that discussion agreed that a Typhoon could destroy a Tiger from above when rounds entered the vents on the top back of the Tiger chassis. 
The Typhoon could have destroyed anything the Soviet Union fielded during World War 2. Maybe having difficulties with the ISU and SU SPGs. 

The four 20mm on the Meteor made it an effective bomber destroyer. As they were all in the nose, it would have effectively destroyed Il-2s with no problem. 

The Il-2 probably did destroy the most ground forces for any aircraft of the war but it paid the price and with that price comes the proof that the Il-2 wasn't indestructable and it was an easy target. 

In 1941 the VVS and RAF had developed to their own doctrine. Britain was largely a defensive nation by the 1940s due to the fact that the empire was large, there was no need for expansion. The Soviet Union was an aggressive nation set for expansion, their military doctrine of Deep Battle stated mass armoured assaults with close air-support. Although Stalin had purged a vast majority of the staff and wiped Deep Battle from the doctrine, the designs, armour and air had already been produced. 

1941 would pit Spitfire Vb and Hurricane IIA,B,C against I-16s, Yak-1s and MiG-3s. In the armour sector, the T-26 was in majority but few and far between were KV-1, KV-2 and T-34s...the British armour wouldn't have stood a chance with Matilda IIs, Valentines and Light Tank Mk.III.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2005)

Delc
VVS vs RAF 1941
Taking it in decent steps and the easiest first 

The night belongs to the RAF. We have the Bombers, Halifax and Stirling to hit the Russians hard and with a force that the Germans ever did. There supply routes would suffer serious damage and delays would impact the availability rates of all Russian forces. Also in 1941 a number of the critical production facilities would not have been moved east and could have been attacked. Should the VVS have tried to reply in kind then we had the Beaufighter. The VVS only had the PE8 as a bomber and whilst I think this is a good plane it lacks the payload of the RAF bombers and there is no comparison to the Beau in the VVS.

Next are the fighters. This has been debated and I see the Spit V being able to take on anything that the VVS had. Even above 15000ft I believe that its easy handling and superior firepower over the Mig 3, being more than enough to deal with any threat. 
The shear numbers of the I16 is a cause for concern and there is no denying that its agile and well armed. However there is no need for a Spit to get into a turning fight and if it did it isn’t a slouch in that area and with its extra speed, it could leave the combat at will. The Germans inflicted heavy losses on the VVS with the Me109 and there is no reason to believe that the Spitfire wouldn’t have had the same success.

Ground attack. Again we have debated this a number of times and the RAF would have used the Hurricane IIc. It has firepower and a bombload, is able to take on targets of opportunity both in the air and on the ground, as well as being able to defend itself against VVS fighters. It is more vulnerable to ground fire than some other planes but on balance that would be a reasonable price to pay.

Light bombers. Here I see this as an advantage to the VVS. The VVS had the SB2bis and we had the Blenhiem which was a draw, but the VVS had the PE2 one of (in my mind) the most underrated planes of the war. I am itching to say the RAF had the Boston which would be a good comparison, but being American built that wouldn’t be fair.

Medium bombers. Where the Germans used the He111, Do215, Ju88 we would be using the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden. Against Germany these were normally used at night, against the VVS I see the Whitley being used at night as it was so slow and poorly armed but it did have a decent range and payload. I would also see the Wellington being tried in daylight. Its better protected than the He111 with a higher performance and while I know that it’s a risk, with the lack of Radar in Russia and the lack of radios to direct the fighters once they are in the air, it’s a risk worth trying. 
I would also try using Sterlings in daytime. This was done to a very small degree in Europe but the numbers were small, literally no more than a squadron at a time. I wouldn’t try to go without escort which would limit the range but I suspect it would work for the same reasons mentioned above.

Command and Control. The VVS in 1941 I believe, is only really able to cater for pre-planned missions, targets of opportunity and fairly short ranged interceptions. As mentioned in Medium bombers, this would have been a major weakness and is why I believe the defenders would be at such a huge disadvantage. It also probably explains why planes withdrawn from other areas of combat could be used in Russia. The lack of C&C plus the distances involved made interception difficult.

Specific Strike. The RAF would use the Beaufighter. Its fast for the time, heavily armed, could carry a good bombload and was tough. I don’t think the VVS had an alternative.

Plan D
Bouncing 20mm shells destroying T34 up? total fanasy, maybe a fluke but only a fluke.
Meteor destroying bombers? totally agree
Il2 probably right
RAF Defensive in 1940? only where we had to. A lot of bombers were lost in the BOB and they didn't do it by staying at home. In fact you may find we lost more bombers than fighters.
Russia being agressive. Totally wrong. Stalin would believe anything rather than launch a war on Germany.
British Armour against Soviet totally agree, we could handle the lighter tanks but the T34, KV1 would walk right over us


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

you're pretty much right, the night would be totally ours, the russians had nothing to stop us at night (apart from AAA), and we'd fairly easily stop any russian bomber raid, even if they had escort, though use of our radars and the range advantage we'd have, if we launched a bomber raid by day over russia, the first sign they'd have of us coming would only be when we fly over their airfields.........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

Glider; 

I never stated that bouncing 20mm shells would destroy a T-34. Re-read what I said, the only mention of bouncing shells was to direct del to the discussion of Tank Busters. 
The Typhoon could easily destroy T-34s from above. The 20mm would smash it's way through the vents in the back of the T-34 either destroying it or, at least, crippling it. 

There's no point in attempting your point on the RAF not being defensive. It was a defensive nation, the design specifications for aircraft were never long range. We didn't have an expansionist attitude in 1940. We certainly were on the defensive, the whole Battle of Britain was a defensive conflict for the RAF. 

The Soviet Union was an expansionist state. They believed in Marxism which in turn that all should be converted to their ways, if so...by force. The Soviet Union was looking to expand it's terrority in East Europe, it invaded Poland on September 17th, 1939 and invaded Finland in 1940. What is this, if not an expansionist attitude?
Stalin was preparing the Soviet Union for war, he expected his forces to be ready by 1942. He didn't expect Germany to attack while they still had to defeat Britain. The Soviet Union were going to invade, Germany just beat them to it. 

Luckily the T-34 and KV-1 were in low quantities, the KV-2 being in even lower quantities. The only real way of achieving victory over these tanks was disabling them then bringing in artillery or aircraft to knock them out completely.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

After all I read only fluke hits allow the 20mm to destroy a tank. If "open" you may kill crews or important parts even with 0.303, but if "closed" not even a 20mm has a chance. And remember, the soviet tanks are pretty easily constructed. The Luftwaffe developed for this task the MK-101 30mm gun with extra high velocity (920m/sec. for a 530 g /1.16 lbs grenade) and special Wolfram made shells. Later they found the MK-103 with the same shell and little lower velocity (but much more rate of fire) also suitable for this task. 
The Night may belong to the RAF but the VVS had the Pe-3 (modified Pe-2) nightfighter with good speed, durability and firepower. It lacks an airborne radar and depends on ground direction and search lights. This tactics worked against the Luftwaffe over Moscow and I don´t see why it shouldn´t work against the RAF. Keep also in mind that you greatly overestimate the results of night bombings without radar aim in 1941. At these distances (you said that distances open some airspace, which is- in my view- right and allow bombers at night to attack) the payload is little and the structures to attack in Russia are pretty easy to repair. The Luftwaffe repeatedly striked the railway net in 1941 and soon found out that it almost had no impact, since the railwaysystem was repairable even under the worsest circumstances. 
Stalin was an expansionist, but the expansionism of the SU isn´t originated in the marxism. I suggest to read the kom. Manifest first.
In the szenario we made, the RAF simply has not enough fighters to cover the whole border (we are talking about nearly 2000 miles) and home defense. In order to achieve air superiority some areas would have been pretty open for the VVS also, allowing them to engage UK forces there.
The big advantage of the Spit V in 1941 was that it was well suited for any altitude while the VVS had planes for specific purposes (mostly low altitudes) but the Yak-1 can outmaneuvre the Spit V at low altitude and comes close in speed and acceleration. In any way there wouldn´t be any superiority, esspeccially since the VVS had the numerical advantage.
The Luftwaffe inflicted heavy losses on the VVS because they relied on advanced tactics and experienced pilots as well as with numerical advantag e in 1941. The VVS had not the same capabilities (numbers of bomber sorties possible in a certain timeframe)) to strike all or most VVS airfields simultaneously as the Luftwaffe did and thus would leave the VVS in a far better position against the RAF.
I can agree in the GA and Light bombers, but keep in mind that the VVS also had very much light bombers (I-153 rocket equipped biplanes) to strike on it´s own initiative. The numerical advantage belongs to the VVS also.
Stirlings at daytime would be very interesting but as I pointed out, this bomber is not suited to attack mobile ground targets by means of level bombardment. Maybe the Warwicks and Stirlings and Wellington could take out a few aircraft factories in the european part of Russia. This would be in within both, range and possibilities.
C-C: Probable. However, even with the strikes of the Luftwaffe against airfields and specificly (including covered operations) Command strukture, the VVS was able to counter strikes on it´s own low level command strukture (and it repeatedly did but lost many planes doing so).
A last word to the Meteor-III: A Meteor against IL-2 would be nonsense. Just keep in mind that approximation speed is far to big to allow close engagements and precisely aiming (and this is necessary to deal with a Il-2) at high speed. Bad aiming would enforce the probability of rounds to glance off the armor of the Il2. At low level (the Il-2 exclusively flew at low level) the fuel consumption of the jet engines is extremely high and the range and endurance of the Meteor III is small. Unlike the Me-262 the Meteor would be catchable in such situations since it doesn´t have the superior speed (a Yak-3 or Yak-9 could esily catch a Meteor if it has an altitude advantage): 473 mp/h at best altitude and under 400 mp/h at sea level. A La-5 or Yak-3 needs around 3000 ft altitude advantage to chase effectively a Meteor-III. 
And while it was agenerally well suited weapon platform it suffered from snaking and thus is making precisely aiming even more difficult. The Il-2 on the other hand is a low level, slow flying small and well armored plane. A difficult target to hit while the Meteor-III is an easy target to hit.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

I don't think you understand the vulnerability of tanks. Four Hispano Mk.II 20mm would rip up a tank from above, the vents of tanks are normally on the top/back of the chassis...these vents can hardly be armoured, they're vital points of the tank. 
Even with a 'flukey' hit it PROVES that 20mm can destroy a tank from above. 

The Meteor-III would and could destroy a Il-2. Four Mk.V Hispano 20mm would NOT just glance off the Il-2 armour.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

This question belongs to distance and angle. and from some distances or at certain angles, it canoot glance off, agreed. But you have to come both close and precisely and this is more a task for a Tiffy than for a Meteor-III. The Tiffy is really the better Il-2 hunter, I don´t know why you insist in the Meteor-III, she really has disadvantages in this purpose or you reduce the speed to aim correctly, but offering speed for more effective shooting would be a very unwisely choice in this jet....


----------



## arras (Jun 10, 2005)

heh ...preatty optimistic you are  


> Luckily the T-34 and KV-1 were in low quantities, the KV-2 being in even lower quantities.


...from number of tanks Soviets had in 41 its true that T-34 and KV series were RELATIVELY few ...but what I dont understand is what makes you beleive there were few of them in ABSOLUTE way?? ...Especialy if you compare it to what Britain had in 41 ...Brithis tanks must have been pitiful in Soviets eyes ...both numericaly and technicaly.
Cruiser tanks which formed backbone of tank forces are comparable to BT-5 or BT-7 and that is wery favourable comparism since they were motoricaly ureliable. Matilda perhaps was protected good but underguned and undermotorised ...in fact it was "infantery tank" slow and short ranged, unsuited for deep penetrations.

Here is some comparism:

Matilda II:
Type: Infantery tank
Crew: 4
1 x 2 pounder Mark 9 Gun
1 x 7.92 mm Besa Machine gun
Maximum Armour: 78 mm
Minimum Armour: 20 mm
Specific power: 7 HP / ton
Speed: 24 kph

Valentine II:
Type: Infantery tank
Crew: 3
1 x 2 pounder Mark 9 Gun
1 x 7.92 mm Besa Machine gun
Maximum Armour: 65 mm
Minimum Armour: 10 mm
Specific power: 8 HP / ton
Speed: 24 kph
Range: 145 km

KV-1B:
Type: Heavy tank
Crew: 5
1 x 76.2 mm ZiS 5 Gun
3 x 7.62 mm Degtyarev MG Machine guns
Maximum Armour: 90 mm /sloped/
Minimum Armour: 40 mm
Specific power: 11 HP / ton
Speed: 35 kph
Range: 250 km

T-34/76 B
Type: Medium tank
Crew: 4
Armor Armament
1 x 76.2 mm F-34 Gun
2 x 7.62 mm Degtyarev MG Machine guns
Maximum Armour: 52 mm /sloped/
Minimum Armour: 20 mm
Specific power: 18 HP / ton
Speed: 55 kph
Range: 300 km

Britain produced 25 115 tanks during whole war + received nearly 25 000 from US. Soviets produced more than 100 000 (+12 000 received from Alies).
When Germans attacked in 41, Russians had around 20 000 tanks. I dont know the same figure for Britain in 41 but in June of 1945, it had 2750 operational tanks in Europe and 4800 in reserve.



> the night would be totally ours


...in 41???
...in 41 Britain lacked navigation devices and tactic to be efective in night (similar to Luftwaffe in BoB)

In general I see Britain of 41 having advantage in better fighters, been equal or slightly better in heavy bombers. I dont know hove many heavy bobmers Britain had in 41 but I ques not many since most of their raids against Germany were done by Welingtons. In medium bombers both were roughly equal. As for ground attack there is advantage on Soviet side, which would be even worse for Britain been totaly inferior in tanks. 
Both would have huge dificulcies making any kind of strategic war due to lack of long range escort fighter and lack of navigation and targeting devices for night bombing.
Brithis would have big advantage in radar technologi and Soviets in numbers in most categories.

All in all none would be able to criple his oponent in air in 41.


----------



## arras (Jun 10, 2005)

And Il-2 versus HuricaneII:
Huricane with 40mm canoons was unstable gun platform + its performance suffered due to weight of canoons and ammo.
When arming Huricane with any reasonable bombload you have aircraft moving through air with speed of Il-2, having no rear gunner and armor for protection. Its only advantage is been able to efectively run from battle.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

First off, there's no need for you to try and tell me about the specifications of tanks. I know my tanks, just in case you didn't know. My statement was not a comparison statement. I was not comparing the Red Army armour numbers to British Army armour numbers. 

The *fact* is in 1941 the Red Army had FEW T-34s, KV-1s and KV-2s. The backbone of the Red Army in 1941 was the T-26 as it was the majority tank! Developed from the Vickers 6 tonne. 

In 1941, the Soviet Union had 28,800 AFVs. This was soon knocked down to 1506 in 7 months by the German onslaught. I don't know why you're babbling on because I never stated the British Armour was anywhere NEAR capable of countering the Soviet armour. 
The Soviet Union received 22,800 AFVs from the Allies during World War 2. In fact, 14% of British war production went to the Soviet Union.

State anywhere on this ENTIRE website where I've said that British armour could counter Soviet armour. ANYWHERE! 

del, I never stated the Meteor-III was the most ideal fighter for the task. I said that it could and would do it.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

No, Plan_D never states that the British had better tanks.
To the Hurricane, Arras: Yes but it originally was posted that the Hurricane with 40mm was intended as an tank hunter, not an Il-2 hunter (for this task it lacked in speed). 
In 1941 such modified Hurricane could provide vital air support against soviet tanks. A 40mm gun would have a reasonable chance to destroy a T-34 with a single hit at most probable angles.
I reread an article about german military ordonance and found out that the MK-103, which replaced the MK-101 in the Hs-129, was only suited to attack from the rear or the top, where the vents are less protected. 
A MK-103 has much more punch than a 20mm gun.
After Gunstons book, the soviets had the best 20 mm gun of the war. And those are better suited for dogfights, also.


----------



## CTO (Jun 10, 2005)

Planes with canons were never effective in WW2 against tanks. 

50 Hs129 flew an attack at 8.7.1943 an claimed 84 tanks destroyed, indeed only 6 were hit (means not destroyed) and none burning. The only unit which can be attacked by them, never had 84 tanks and lost 9 at this day, out of these 9 were some combat losses due heavy fighting with Waffen-SS.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

The Hurricane IID and IV were remarkable tank hunters. They could destroy anything in their time frame. They provided valuble service in the desert and were even used by the VVS. 

Strangely enough, and I still can't work out why, the Hurricane IID was used in night fighting duties with the VVS. 

On the anti-tank armament:

Mk103: 

Round Weight: 330 grams
Rate of Fire: 360-420 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 860

Hispano Mk.II: 

Round Weight: 130 grams
Rate of Fire: 600 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 880

As you can see, the Hispano is throwing more rounds out at a marginally higher speed but with one third of the weight of round. Velocity is important to an armour piercing round and both have it. The RoF however is also important, the Hispano is throwing more lead at the tank than the Mk103 and when we take into account that most likely it's going to be holes made in the vents that will cripple the tank; the RoF on the Hispano is going to almost make sure that at least some will puncture. 

Both the Hispano 20mm and Mk103 30mm could destroy Soviet armour effectively.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

You base your whole opinion on that one combat report? Look up Hurricane IID and IV actions in North Africa. Or Ju-87G kills on the Eastern Front.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

Interesting. But I would like to see the sources for that. The red army doesn´t have (better doesn´t provide access to...)specific loss reports for their troops after all, I know. (I tried)
According to the Il-2 with heavy guns as well as the Ju-87 with 37mm guns and the Hs-129 with 30mm and 75mm guns and the tests made, I am pretty sure, you are wrong.
According to german OHL reports, the tanks suffered from Il2 attacks, according to the test serials at Rechlin, the Hs-129 with 30mm MK-101 can esily rip a tank up to T-34 size.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

weight per sec. is one thing, important against soft targets. But we are talking about hard ones. Therefore velocity AND weight is most important.Compared with a MK 103, the Hispano 20 mm gun has a much lower penetration depth against armor at best angles and is even more worse on less favourable angles (Where the impact weight of a grenade counts more).
With this in mind, the rounds of the 20mm would be much more probable to glance off than those of a MK 103. All the weight per sec. would have no effect against armor.
It´s just the same with the 30 mm MK 108. It has a very low velocity and decent weight plus a good rof (usually 660 rpm, this rate increased continuosly until they reached 850 rpm in late 1944). The combined weight per sec. is better than those of the Hispano but it has a worse penetration depth compared to it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

The reason the Mk108 had low penertration was because of the low velocity. I'm not saying the Hispano and Mk103 were equal armour piercing because I know the Mk103 was better in the role. 

However, when penertrating armour it's not the full weight of the round. It's the weight of the point that's punching the hole which is the tip. Velocity often plays the leading role in penertration capabilities (of course as long as the weight of the round is enough, which the 130 grams is). The RoF plays a high role in it as well because armour can collapse even continually under bombardment. Every dent is a weakness. 
That's not the point though, the high RoF makes it more likely that more shells will enter the vents on top of the chassis thus destroying the tank.


----------



## arras (Jun 10, 2005)

Plan_D >> ...cool down mate ...just in case you don't know them  
...I was reacting to you underestimating T-34 and KV numbers and somebody else writing something about "exelent Matilda" (delcyros I think)

delcyros >> I was not comparing HuricaneII as Il-2 destroyer but as ground atack aircraft.

As for canoons versus tank armor ...when atacking tank, aircraft need to attack at quit shalow angle since it need to get quit close to hit such a small target and be able to evade collision with ground. That mean that shels will impact armor at big angle, I think 45degree+ and lot of them will bounce away. Also corect me if I am wrong but most aircraft canoons have used HE not AP shels ..not wery efective against armored target but the largest calibres.
Another think to consider is that projectile loose its penetration power over distance quickly, especialy small calibre.

That mean only vulnerable place are vents, which means you need luck and lot of rounds at target from close enough ...all in all, tank is not easy target for aircraft armed with standart aerial canoons.

Il-2 used containers of small HEAT bombs to destroy tanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

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.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

Agreed. Just one thing to add: It was a considerable risk to attack the plane in a Bf-109, since it has a reputation of a good reargunner.
The Spitfire would suffer also in this way.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

From what I read, the HS 20 mm with AP MK IIZ rounds could pierce at best some 27 mm of armor at 0 degrees impact angle and 200 yards distance. This reduces to 19 mm at 40 degrees impact angle. The more common AP Mk IZ has 24mm at 0 and 15 mm at 40 degrees.
Such an equipped Hurricane may rip a T-26 but even a T-34 is more than unprobable. It could hurt, however.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

ok that's with 20mm, what about twin 40mm??


----------



## Udet (Jun 10, 2005)

May I intervene?

Delcyros: your penultimate comment deserves further remarking.

The IL-2s earned no reputation whatsoever for having good rear gunners.
You refuse to believe they were undertrained, and that many many times those poor rear-gunners had a piece of adjusted canvas as their seat.

Before the IL-2M, the single-seat Shturmovik made an even more comfortable target.

The rear-gunner featuring in the Shturmoviks of course implied a risk for German fighter pilots, still it did not imply a signficant modification in the chances of the IL-2 when intercepted.

A box of heavies, packed with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns was extremely vulnerable to interception. Yes, the messy defensive barrage of B-17s and B-24s could manage to hit interceptors and to shoot some of them down.

A formation of, say, 40 B-17s carrying some 400 .50 cal could receive brutal treatment at the hands of a complete staffel of Bf109s or Fw190s.

A formation of 40 IL-2s with only 40 defensive guns was hopeless.

Right, the IL-2s rear gunners could manage to hit and to shoot down some German pilots, but the same thing was achieved by Stuka rear-gunners manning a lighter defensive machine gun.

There were Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who got hit and shot down by Stuka rear gunners during the Battle of Britain.


Finally, that there were cases of IL-2s "accepting dogfights" and managing to shoot down German fighters is an assertion produced in the realm of delusion.

Can you detect the smell of soviet propaganda in the air?
The IL-2 was as nearly as crippled as a B-17 or B-24 carrying a full bomb-load. Acceleration, climbing and turning were utterly miserable. Its maximum speed was about the same of the Stuka: 400-410 km/hr.

And it is ruddy ridiculous to affirm that if "the wing cannons of the IL-2 could hit a german fighter you could have a kill". Let´s not be silly. If Hans Ulrich Rudel could place one of his 37mm shells flying his late war tank busting Stuka right in the cockpit of a Yak3 or La-5 you´d have a lovely view of pyrotechnics.

It would not be daring to affirm the IL-2 could be struggling for the Gold Medal in the "most shot down aircraft of WWII" category.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

del, the penertration values are for one round. Also, penertration is never based off 100% splinters entering the tank. In reality the shell could have entered some 30% of the way and not have been considered of penertrating. 
Many hits from the shells causes a lot of damage and would have gone through. Armour collapses after several hits. If a Tiger met enough of a barrage from 75mm fire from Shermans the frontal armour just might collapse. On German tanks it was less likely than on Soviet tanks, since they were better made.


----------



## CTO (Jun 11, 2005)

Il-2 was a strong enemy for german fighters. 
At least 7 german Knightcrossholders were killed by Il-2.
Kittel (swords)
Romm (WIA) 
Hoffmann
Franke
Götz
Quast
Döbele
Gaiser 

For example: Also Grislawski was shot down in dogfight! with Il-2. 

Rall states that Il-2 was difficult to shot down and only by experts. In 1941 whole swarms of german fighters shoot her whole ammo at Il-2 and still flying. 

At least Il-2 claimed over 5000 kills and made 78 aces, even if you take this figure by 1:10, which is too high in my eyes, it 's not that low level. 4400 Il-2 were shot down in aircombat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

4,400? Out of ~36,000 of them produced? Understatement of the century...I have a feeling a whole lot more than that got shot down, perhaps Erich has some figures on this?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

The problem of the Bf-109 (and Spitfire) is that both have liquid cooled engines, a single hit even from small cal. guns may rip the cooling lines and force the attacker to break. And this happened.
Another problem you have not factored, Udet, is that you have to close in for succesful attacks. The Il-2 is clumsy and slow, but not that slow for it´s altitude (at low level 400 Km/h is not that bad, esspecially if you try to intercept in an Hurricane). The armor of the plane forces to shoot from closer distances (as most Il-2 aces would confirm), and the rear gunner has a better chance to hit in these distances, also.
I never disputed that the Boxes had far more firepower, but the Bf-109 was in an uncomfortable position to intercept an Il-2. The Fw-190 would be much better, it has an air cooled engine.
And please, the 37mm gun of a Stuka is-compared to the Il-2 armement, not that suited for dogfights, prolonged shooting is highly difficult (and not much ammo, of course), not to speak of the recoil focres (!).
However, if hit by an Il-2 (or 37mm equipped Ju-87), the cannons may ensure destruction except for duds and wingtip hits. All in all none of those planes have considerable dogfighting abilities, but they are excellent in the GA-role. 
Plan_D, have you datas for the penetration depth of the 40mm equipped Hurricane? Would be interesting. I believe it could do very well.
Multiple hits may desintegrate the armor as you said, but they have to be very, very close to each other. You may calculate how many 20mm hits are necessary to destroy the weakest point of an T-34 armor at a single squarefeet. Surprise: 18,5 at 20 degrees. Call it Luke Skywalker!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

And again, CTO, you post very interesting facts, but where are they from? What sources do you have for these numbers (4400 downed in aerial combat)?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Udet said:


> May I intervene?
> 
> Delcyros: your penultimate comment deserves further remarking.
> 
> ...



Hello! Whether they were trained or not having a rear gun would make any pilot think 2 about attacking from the rear. I dont know about you but I dont go and charge a gun head on like that. In the war between flesh and lead, lead almost always wins.



Udet said:


> Right, the IL-2s rear gunners could manage to hit and to shoot down some German pilots, but the same thing was achieved by Stuka rear-gunners manning a lighter defensive machine gun.
> 
> There were Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who got hit and shot down by Stuka rear gunners during the Battle of Britain.



Why whenever someone talks about an allied aircraft or crewman or gunner doing something you automatically have jump in and get deffensive like that. The Il-2 was just as capable of shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft with its rear gun as a Stuka. 

I am sorry I just see one hell of a trend here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

CTO said:


> At least Il-2 claimed over 5000 kills and made 78 aces, even if you take this figure by 1:10, which is too high in my eyes, it 's not that low level. 4400 Il-2 were shot down in aircombat.



Okay I dont know where you get these numbers from?
Dont tell me you believe Soviet Propoganda? Soviet Propoganda is quite amuzing.

Just the top Luftwaffe Il-2 killers with no less then 10 Il-'s to here name claim 2204 aerial kills of Il-2's. Then you have to account for all the ones who got less then 10 which would still be in the 100's of pilots who did so, and then you have to account for the ones killed on the ground and the ones killed by ground fire. That would come out to way more then 4400 Il-2's.

*Oblt. Otto "Bruno" Kittel* himself killed 94 Il-2's before a reare gunner got him.

*Oblt. Oskar "Ossi" Romm* was not actually shot down by a Il-2. His engine overheated and he crash landed and was severly wounded not killed.



> On 18 February 1945, Oberleutnant Romm became Gruppenkommandeur of IV./JG 3, taking over from Major Erwin Bacsila (34 victories, DK). He recorded a further six victories to bring his victory total to 92. Romm’s wartime career ended on 24 April 1945, when he was severely injured in a crash-landing when, following aerial combat with Russian Il-2 Sturmoviks south of Stettin, his engine overheated.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/romm.html



*Lt. Reinhold Hoffmann * was not shot down by Il-2 and was actually killed on the western front.



> In spring 1944, Hoffmann was transferred to 9./JG 54 on Reichsverteidigung duties. He had 64 victories to his credit at this time. He quickly added three USAAF four-engine bombers to his tally. On 24 May 1944, Hoffmann attempted an emergency landing at Friesack following aerial combat. His Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 680 184) “Yellow 3” crashed killing the pilot. Hoffmann was posthumously awarded the Ritterkreuz on 28 January 1945.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hoffmannr.html



*Fahnenjunker-Oberfeldwebel Werner "Quax" Quast * was not even killed in the war he survived the war and was killed in a helicopter crash.



> On 7 August 1943, Quast shot down three Russian Yak-1 fighters in quick succession over Noworossijsk. He then engaged a Russian Il-2 Sturmovik ground-attack aircraft, which, in the course of the engagement, rammed his Bf 109 G-6 (W.Nr. 15 844) “White 2”. Quast managed to bale out but was captured and became a prisoner of war. Quast was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 31 December. Following his release by the Russians in 1949, Quast joined the Bundeswehr. On 12 July 1962, Hauptfeldwebel Quast was killed in a helicopter accident at Mittenwald.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/quast.html



*Leutnant Anton Döbele* was not killed by an Il-2 but rather he killed himself when he rammed an Il-2.



> On 1 September, Döbele claimed his 70th victory. His 80th followed on 14 September and his 90th on 4 November. In aerial combat east of Vitebsk on 11 November 1943, Döbele was killed in Fw 190 A-4 (W.Nr. 7082) “White 11”, when he rammed a Russian Il-2 Sturmovik ground attack aircraft. Oberfeldwebel Döbele was posthumously awarded the Ritterkreuz and promoted to the rank of Leutnant on 26 March 1944.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dobele.html



*Leutnant Otto Gaiser* can not be confirmed that he was killed by an Il-2. In fact it is thought it was ground fire that got him.



> On 22 January 1944, Gaiser was last seen in aerial combat with four Russian Il-2 Sturmoviks near Berditschew in Bf 109 G-6 (W.Nr. 140 229). He has remained missing to this day. It is thought he became a victim of the Russian ground defences. Gaiser was posthumously awarded the Ritterkreuz and received promotion to the rank of Leutnant.
> Otto Gaiser was credited with 66 victories in 380 missions. All his victories were recorded over the Eastern front and included 21 Il-2 Sturmoviks. In addition he claimed eight unconfirmed victories.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gaiser.html



So that just leaves Kittel who actually got killed by an Il-2.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2005)

Delc
Sorry I had to be away. Back to the business in hand. The PE3 wa a useful plane but without a radar of its own it was severely limited in what it could do. As for the success against the Germans over Moscow. The RAF would have launched much heavier raids than the Germans could ever have done and stood a good chance of swamping the defence. I think I am right in saying that only a few areas could have been defended in this manner as Moscow I understood to be one of the few areas to have radar coverage. In addition the British were world leaders at what is now called counter measures. There is a good chance that we would have severly impacted the efficiency of the defence. Finally we could have escorted our bombers with the Beaufighter and in a combat between one fighter with a radar against one without, the odds are heavily in favour of the one with the radar.
Your right in saying that the railway system could be repaired but it would have had an impact. British night bombers (Halifax/Sterling and even to a lesser degree Whitley) had a much heavier payload/range than the German planes, plus of course we had a lot more of them. I am confident there would have been an impact.

My comments on Stalin not being expansionist had more to do with the fact that he would believe anything rather than attack Germany. There were a number of occaisions where evidence came to the Russians that Germany was preparing to attack but he did nothing, not even putting his forces on standby or alert. The British using ULTRA knew that an attack was due including details of the plan, but still he did nothing. I wouldn't have expected him to go with everything that we said but some preparatory action could have been instigated. Hence my belief that he was happy to pick on smaller countries but not Germany.

On numbers had we concerntrated our forces which would have been a must do in this case we would have had the same advantages as the Germans and overcome the extra numbers available to the Russians. It must be remembed that the officer corps of all russian forces had been gutted so a large propostion of your hard earned experience in Spain, Manchuria etc, had been lost. 

I agree that Sterlings and Wellingtons in daylight wouldn't be much good against mobile targets, thats still the case today when using iron bombs, However they would destroy any dumps that were identified, troop concentrations or similar targets. The sort of smallish high value target that couldn't be found at night, or properly attacked with light bombers.

Meteor III. I agree my comment was badly worded. I was thinking of a bomber killer as in a B17 type raid. Against a large target at altitude it would be very dangerous.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

Fine to see you´re back, Glider!
Yes, yes, in an interception mode at altitude, the Meteor-III could be amazing and very well suited for hi alt interceptions.
I also agree in your view on Stalin. It´s interesting that he also ignored Dr. Sorge, his best spy (probably the most important of ww2), who informend him detailed about what forces at what times are ordered to attack the SU. That are informations from at least two different sources! After all I read, only the commanding chief of the southern military region (Odessa) Gen. F.G. Mitschugin was concerned by these informations and ordered the forces to decentralize and hide. The Luftwaffe attacks seems to be quite unsuccesful here, only 6 planes have been destroyed on the ground as far as known (with an uncertainity because of the unpublished VVS-losses, source is Gröger´s history of aerial dogfight from 1982) plus an unknown number in the air.
The question is could the RAF with it´s ground forces move so far to overtake airfields closer to allow strikes against Moscow? I see this problematic, as I pointed out, the RAF has no Blitzkrieg tactics developed, esspeccially in 1941. They simply lacked GA-planes. Not to say that they did not had, but the numbers are simply insufficient to cover ground ops (and that´s what counts over Russia) effectively. A concentration of RAF forces might give an advantage to gain air superiority locally for a limited timeframe, but this even is questionable. A sudden strike, just like the Luftwaffe against frontier airfields would be necessary, but this puts the Brit´s automaticly in a very uncomfortable agressor position.
But it would be very interesting how it could develop.
Moscow was radar guarded from all directions:
(VVS radar stations at Moscow from north to south)
Jaroslav (operating from sept. 1941 on)
Kashin
Wladimir
Klin
Moshaisk
Kaluga
Rjasan
Tula
There is no hole in the zones and the range is pretty good. In 1941 countermesures don´t play a role, they could take into effect in 1943 but moreso in 1944. 
But you are right, beside of Moscow, only Odessa had considerable radar coverage. However, if the RAF would shift to night attacks with all it´s shortcomings in precision and naviagtion (keep in mind that the Wellington, Stirling and Warwick have a good range: at least about 4200 Km, that are around 1.800 km striking distance with reduced payload) it could have made it through the defense of other targets, like Smolensk or Kiev. But the effects would be very limited in nighties. 
Another question is how soon would the VVS been forced to develop own airborne radar if the RAF stays in the nightibombing. Not in 1941 probably, but it could happen sooner in these szenarios.
The next problem is the avaiability of planes for combat sorties. The RAF would be forced to stay in extremely high sortie numbers (comparable to the peak of the BoB sorties) over the whole timeframe of 1941. I doubt that the RAF could field these operations. they needed 1941 and 1941 to recover from BoB and build up their strategic bomber force. A prolonged service in such a high degree could be far beyond the limits of the RAF.
And all the ground forces depend on help from them, daily. (...I am convinced that the RAF would have developed a special GA plane for this task, comparable to the Il-2, maybe more advanced..)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

The RAF would have been in a better position to strike deep into Russia. You have remember the RAF had a whole slew of bombers including the Lancaster. The VVS had the PE3 however they did not have much of them, so they would not have been able to strike against England. I think the RAF would have handled themselves just fine against the VVS.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2005)

Delc
Your correct, I have proabably overestimated the RAF's ability to navigate at night in 1941, and the effectiveness of countermeasures at such an early time. 
That said I think you may have underestimated how easy it was to put a radar in an aircraft. In 1939 the UK and Germany were way ahead of the rest of the world in Radar technology. Despite this lead, the trials and tribulations that both sides had to make that technology work in the small spaces, with limited power, vibrating environment of an aircraft with all the loads and strains involved in air combat are worthy of a book in its own right. Even then the Germans never made a decent job of the design of the antenna.
The night would still belong to the RAF

On our ability to make fast advances over large distances, don't underestimate our ability to learn and improvise, something that we were particually good at. On the question of Blitzkreig tactics, some of the tactics used in the desert around this time were similar and the Steppes of Russia are in many ways similar. Moving large amounts of munitions is something we had practiced and were quite good at. For all our failings, the only fully mechanised army in the world at the start of the war, was the British army. Even the Germans relied to a large degree on horse drawn transport for supplies.
Also don't worry about our ability to attack. We can be every bit as aggressive as the next country should we have to. No country had a larger proportion of specialist troops taking the fight to the enemy. Parras, Commando's, SAS, LRDG, Chindits, SBS, Glider bourne troops plus other Special forces such as SOE who organised and helped direct large niumbers of forces behind enemy lines. I know these came after 1941, I only mention them as examples of the aggressive potential of the British army, we could and did take every oppertunity to take the fight to the enemy.

We would have handled ourselves well. 

One huge mistake that the Germans made that we wouldn't is the local people. Vast numbers of Russians hated Stalin for his policies and the terrors that he imposed on them. The Germans managed to turn these against them. We wouldn't have made that mistake. At worst they would have been neutral, at best active to our cause.

Back to planes and the lack of a dedicated GA plane, I have always had a pet theory that the Defiant could have been turned into a decent GA plane. It went 300mph carrying a damn great heavy turret. Take the turret out, put a man in with a rear gun, a couple of 20MM in the wings and you should be able to have a payload of about 500Lbs, pretty agile and a good speed. All totally theoretical and backed up by nothing, but thats what pet theories are about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Glider said:


> Back to planes and the lack of a dedicated GA plane, I have always had a pet theory that the Defiant could have been turned into a decent GA plane. It went 300mph carrying a damn great heavy turret. Take the turret out, put a man in with a rear gun, a couple of 20MM in the wings and you should be able to have a payload of about 500Lbs, pretty agile and a good speed. All totally theoretical and backed up by nothing, but thats what pet theories are about.



Interesting idea.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 11, 2005)

I think at the end of the day-it's quantity against quality-but what stage of the war are we talking about? In 1945 the VVS was HUGE and had highly capable fighters like the yak-3 and La-7 that would give ANY allied pilot a hard time. Look at the two P-51s shot down with such ease by Ivan K. My point is, even with it's amazing aircraft and fine pilots, all the RAF could do was win a temporary battle, before being swamped , like someone before me mentioned.


----------



## Udet (Jun 12, 2005)

DerAdler:

"Why whenever someone talks about an allied aircraft or crewman or gunner doing something you automatically have jump in and get deffensive like that. The Il-2 was just as capable of shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft with its rear gun as a Stuka. "

What?
Perhaps you did not understand the direction of my comment. Getting defensive? Where?
My point was rahter to illustrate Mr. Delcyros the fact on how overhyped the rear-gunner on the IL-2 is.

So you disagree with me when I say a box of B-17s, each bomber with at least 10 .50 cal defensive machine guns could get slaughtered by German interceptors? 

Perhaps I am not getting something, but what would lead you to think the IL-2s fitted with a sole rear defensive gun stood better chances when intercepted than the USAAF heavies in the west?

You virtually said what I said. The fact the IL-2M featured a rear-gunner of course provided the plane with a minimum self-defense capability but DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ITS CONDITION on the event of interception.

I also stated a rear-gunner on the IL-2 of course implied a risk for German interceptors. What was it that you miss?

Also I said IL-2 rear-gunners could hit and shoot down some German interceptors, just like the Stuka rear-gunners achieved.


Mr. CTO so the IL-2 "scored" more than 4,400 aerial kills? Whoooaaa...I have really missed something here. There will come the day when someone will come up saying the IL-2s "accepted" dogfights with Me262s and shot many of them down.

It is fascinating to realize soviet propaganda could produce its dividends. CTO, DerAdler correctly put your posting where it belongs, with the sole exception of Otto Kittel, absolutely all of your citings were incorrect.

Define "dogfight" when it comes to IL-2s involved...


So, if there are any guys here convinced the IL-2 possessed dogfighting capabilities please let me know so I can recommend them for the Muppet awards.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2005)

Chocks. The year that we chose was 1941 for the debate. As for numbers if the RAF was ONLY fighting the VVS the numbers would be a lot closer, whatever year you chose.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 12, 2005)

1941. Yes you are right, fair enough 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

del, show how you came to that figure on the T-34 armour. Anyone can just throw at figures and calculations. 

Stalin was expansionist but his Red Army was not prepared to deal with Germany and he knew it. The Red Army was being expanded and modernised and it was set to be ready by the spring of 1942. He was going to attack Germany when he was ready. 
Stalin hardly ever believed the Western nations throughout the entirety of World War 2. He believed that the Western nations had something against his Communist regime. In fact, it was only Churchill that had any sense to realise that the Soviet Union was more of a threat than Germany. 
After all, Britain was willing to go to war with the Soviet Union and Germany in 1939. Luckily for us we were defeated in Norway due to a complete lack of heavy equipment, this stopped us from sending troops to Finland and starting a war with the Soviet Union. 

I would like to remind everyone that during World War 2 Britain was all over the place. Our largest army was in Burma, the 14th Army. We had the 8th and 2nd Army in North Africa, then the 8th moved to Italy and the 2nd to North-West Europe. We had massive amounts of Commonwealth troops, over 2,000,000 in the CBI, which never saw European battlefields. 
The CBI troops were trained for modern mobile warfare, they were defeated in 1941 by the Japanese because the jungle had been left out in training. We had to adapt to the situation. 

You move all those troops from around the world into Europe in 1941 and you have numbers reaching 4-5 million at least. The Red Army only had 5.4 million on June 22nd, 1941.

Just an addition on the numbers, I did say two million but it was much more than that. The Indian Army alone had 2,499,909 militants, 8,000,000 working on defence, 6,000,000 in war industry. All this was for the CBI and that's only India! 

Just to give an idea of the size and diversity of the 14th Army, it contained Burmans, Chins, Kachins, Shans, Mons, Nagas and Karens. Men from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, South Africans. From Africa, Hausas, Yorubas and Ibos from Nigeria; Kanjarga, Dagartis and Ashantis from Ghana; Mandis and Timinis from Sierra Leone; Mandingos from Gambia; Nyasas and Yaos from Malawi; Manyamwezi and Manyema from Tanzania; Akamba, Nandi and Kavirondo from Kenya; Beganda and Achole from Uganda; Somalis from Somaliland; Awamb and Angoni from Zambia. Finally, from India; Rajputs, Dogras, Sikhs, Jats, Punjabis, Garwhalis, Biharis, Ahirs, Amirs, Chamars, Rawats, Minas, Mahars, Coorgs, Assamese, Adibasis, Kumaonis, Pathans, Brahuis, Mers, Tamils, Telegus, Paraiyahs, Brahmans, Hindustani, Mussulmans,Punjabi Mussulmans, Madrassi Mussulmans and Gurkhas from Nepal. 
This would include a larger RAF to come up to terms with the massive numbers in the VVS

All those cultures marching under the British flag, would all march under the British flag against the Soviet Union as they did against Japan. I think many people underestimate the size, scope and influence of the British empire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

No I dont think you are reading what I am saying.



Udet said:


> So you disagree with me when I say a box of B-17s, each bomber with at least 10 .50 cal defensive machine guns could get slaughtered by German interceptors?
> 
> Perhaps I am not getting something, but what would lead you to think the IL-2s fitted with a sole rear defensive gun stood better chances when intercepted than the USAAF heavies in the west?



Did I say this anywhere? I dont think I posted anything about USAAF heavies in my post? Please show me.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 13, 2005)

I agree that it would be terrible in 1939 to start war against the SU. 
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth was powerful but we are considering the RAF, only. Even if you take Commonwealth forces into account (for ground ops, as it would be necessary in 1941), they could hardly match SU numbers. If you take the soviet far eastern armies also into account the situation would be more worrisome. 
The figures I draw from computerbased calculations. If you run Nathan Okun + armor penetration on Google you may find variuos sources, some of them are for the ship´s analysis but there is also a programm to calculate penetration abilities at different impact angles/speed on different sized armor/quality for specific AP rounds. While these programm originally was made to simulate face hardened and not homogenous armor, I estimate that the difference is not that big. The scaling effects of T-34 armor is even less worrisome than face hardened would be.
In your mind, what tactics would the RAF use? A strategic day-or nighttime bomber campaign or focus on tactical sorties (nice idea with the Defiant, Glider!)? Would the RAF and the British ground forces be able to sustain high loss rates for a long time (remember, the official Luftwaffe losses in 1941 were impressive)? A combination of hi cover flying Mig-3 and low alt flying Yak-1, Lagg-3 and I-16 is a worrisome thread to Wellingtons or tactical Hurricane and covering Spitfires. And the Pe-2 was probably the best light bomber in the world (with better top speed than the Hurricane and even competing to the Spitfire) in this timeframe. What makes you feel that the RAF could win against the VVS in 1941? Because the Luftwaffe dominated that much over the VVS? This is misleading, the RAF in 1941 has not enough operational bomber to inflict a comperable initial blow.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

Give me the link, and since it's not based on tank armour then I don't think it can be used as a certainty. 

Anyway, on the numbers, the Commonwealth provides more people than the Soviet Union could provide. As I already stated, the Red Army had 5.4 million people in 1941. The Commonwealth could beat that number of combatants. 

And yes, we're talking RAF only, the Commonwealth served in the RAF ~ Indians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians plus many others all served with the RAF. 
All the nations of the Commonwealth would be producing arms for Britain. By being at war with Britain, the Soviet Union would be at war with her Empire too. 

The British forces adapt to the situation. A night strategic bomber campaign, with a day defensive attitude. The VVS had nothing capable of hampering the night bombers, the Luftwaffe with everything they had never stopped it so what makes you think the VVS could?


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2005)

Delc
As ever I would go for a combination. 
Nighttime as previously described with the Whitley and the Halifax at goods yards, factory complex's. 
Daylight (escorted) at high value targets Sterlings, Hampden and Wellingtons.
Precision strike HQ's and similar with the Beuafighter.
GA with the Hurricane. Personally I also doubt the ability to knock out tanks with the 20's. Pz II's may be achievable but the supply trucks and half tracks would be more effective. Hit the tankers and engineering support and everything stops.
By the way I forgot the Whirlwind, pretty good at GA and very difficult to catch.

I am with planD when it comes to numbers the Russians will have an advantage but not by that much and our better C&C would more than make up the difference.

Mig3's don't really worry me as they are no good at below approx 15,000ft and even above it they lack firepower. As I have mentioned before, trying to shoot down a large bomber with 1xHMG and 2xLMG is a tall order.
Yak1's were I recall nicknamed the varnished coffins by Russian pilots would doesn't bode well for them and the first Laggs were disappointing so I am not unduely concerned.
The PE2's would be difficult to counter due to their high cruising speed but good as they are, they cannot make up for the other failings. 

To concentrate on one tactic would be a mistake. The RAF have options, not to use them would be criminal.

How do you see the Russians approaching it?


----------



## arras (Jun 14, 2005)

> Yak1's were I recall nicknamed the varnished coffins by Russian pilots would doesn't bode well for them and the first Laggs were disappointing so I am not unduely concerned.


 It was LaGG which was called Guaranteed Varnished Coffin. Yak-1 was considered the best of new Soviet fighters at the start of war.



> by delcyros: From what I read, the HS 20 mm with AP MK IIZ rounds could pierce at best some 27 mm of armor at 0 degrees impact angle and 200 yards distance. This reduces to 19 mm at 40 degrees impact angle. The more common AP Mk IZ has 24mm at 0 and 15 mm at 40 degrees.
> Such an equipped Hurricane may rip a T-26 but even a T-34 is more than unprobable. It could hurt, however.


T-34 had 20mm armor on the top. Anyway to destroy any tank would require many 20mm AP rounds geting through armor and having sill enough energy to make some damage.
I have photo of Rudel shoving best tactic to attack T-34 at small paper model. On that picture he clearly points from rear down at motor section, where vents are.


> by the lancaster kicks ass: ok that's with 20mm, what about twin 40mm??


 Larger caliber doesnt mean automaticly better piercing ability ...weight wersus speed does (which is energy) Anyway, when hitting tank at it's vents it doesnt matter.

Udet >> any rearguner is big step towards better protection, you simply cant attack ANY aircraft with reargunner in the same way as one without. You have to be more cautious, which means les effective.

Nobody say that B-17 and B-24 was bad plane because it wasnt invicible, so why Il-2 is?

Hove fast was HuricaneII loaded with 500 or 800kg bombload? ...slow moving, unprotected, unmaneurable target it was. So why somebody consider it better than Il-2 I don't understand.


> by CTO: Rall states that Il-2 was difficult to shot down and only by experts. In 1941 whole swarms of german fighters shoot her whole ammo at Il-2 and still flying.


E. Hartman stated the same. Those were 2 best fighter pilots Lufftwafe had on E. front.

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!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

Well look at the categoraisation...The Yaks come under one category, but they are 4 different aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2005)

He has a valid point. Also, why only take the accounts of German aces? The Il-2 was slaughtered by green and veteran Luftwaffe pilots alike. There may have been a green Luftwaffe pilot who got 3 Il-2s then got shot down; he would have a 100% Il-2 kill count! 

The Il-2 was the most produced plane of the war, it was also one of the most shot down. It was not invincible and German pilots enjoyed any oppurtunity to shoot them down. 

Ever thought that the two top scoring German aces liked to cover their friends by attacking the fighters, while their friends took out the bombers. Ever thought that, just maybe, those two weren't sent to intercept many Il-2s? 

The Il-2 couldn't operate successfully in a zone without at least local air superiority. The same applies to the Ju-87G-1 and the Hurricane IID. The Hurricane IID provided invaluble service in North Africa and even served with the VVS. Research the plane a bit more before you try and knock it.


----------



## arras (Jun 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese >> Il-2 was also produced in several variants. But that is not realy important in this, there were more Il-2 (including all variants) than any other aircraft with its wariants in ww2 produced.
So why aircraft which was most common on the skies of E. front is not the one to be shot the most? And that was relatively slow bomber. They are even not close to be the most common to be shot down on the lists.

So why? ...becouse all top German acces (except 3) were bussy protecting novices from red fighters while shoting Il-2 in numbers? ...good try plan_D but you gona have hard time prowing that  


> The Il-2 couldn't operate successfully in a zone without at least local air superiority. The same applies to the Ju-87G-1 and the Hurricane IID. The Hurricane IID provided invaluble service...


 Exactly, but than I don't understant why is Il-2 worst than say HurricaneII?

HurricaneII was fighter adapted to ground suport with all disadvantages coming out of the proces:
1. Cripled performance afther instaling heavier canoons or bombload (40mm guns were mounted under wings) and loosing main advantage fighter have over bomber -speed and maneurability.
2. Relatively small bombload only 113 kg of A model and 2x250 lb of B comparet to 660kg of Il-2
3. no rear gunner
4. no protection except armored plate at the back of pilot seat

Il-2 on the other hand was build specialy for ground attack with most important parts been inside armored tube, while armor is organic part of construction not only extra neat thing. Rear gunner and big load. They were even used to cary torpedos.

So where is advantage? I dont say huricane was a bad plane and I accept its performance at Africa. But what I dont understand is your underestimation for Il-2 at the other hand.

Please say why do you think Huricane is better and why. Facts would be welcomed -I expect you were researching it well


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

> cheddar cheese >> Il-2 was also produced in several variants. But that is not realy important in this, there were more Il-2 (including all variants) than any other aircraft with its wariants in ww2 produced.
> So why aircraft which was most common on the skies of E. front is not the one to be shot the most? And that was relatively slow bomber. They are even not close to be the most common to be shot down on the lists.



Yes - IL-2 3M etc. But for Yak it says Yak-1-7-3-9. They are 4 seperate planes! Then you have the varients, Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9UT, Yak-9D, Yak-3P etc etc....


----------



## arras (Jun 14, 2005)

Yak-7 was just 2 seat trainer variant of Yak-1, Yak-7B just Yak-7 with second seat removed, reinstaled armament and retractable landing gear. You are true that becouse of Soviet designation it seems that Yak-3 is diferent aircraft than Yak-1. But diference is as big as between Spitfire II and Spitfire IX for example. In fact it is the same aircraft refited with diferent engine and redesigned aerodinamics.

Diference between Yak-1 an Yak-3 is rougly comparable to say Il-2M and Il-2m3.

Regardles of designation, there were more Il-2 and its succesors build than Yak-1 and its succesors.


----------



## arras (Jun 14, 2005)

I looked for production numbers of Yak and Il-2 aircrafts at http://users.belgacom.ne to make it clear once for all:

Yak -36 732 produced total of all wariants
Il-2 -36 134 produced untill end of 1944


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2005)

Yes - Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-4, Yak-7, Yak-9, UT-1, UT-2, etc...And thats just some of the models. Yak (Yakovlev) is a manufacturer where as IL-2 is a model. For that to be a fair comparison it needs to be all Ilyushin aircraft as they manufactured the IL-2...as well as the IL-4/DB-3, IL-10 etc...


----------



## delcyros (Jun 14, 2005)

If we compare Hurricane with Il-2 I would go for the Il-2. It is more specialized on the GA role and it bears excellent AA armor protection with a better punch. It is not that vulnarable to air defense at low altitudes. Both planes are vulnarable to air interceptions to a different degree and need fighter cover. The Hurricane could do much damage by knocking out those soft targets like trucks and ammo-/fuelsupply, the Il-2 could hurt the tanks also.
Specialization of the british forces would result in an effective battlemode, but I doubt that it fits to the realities of the eastern front.
The impact at nighttime bombings on production, command strukture and transportation is greatly overestimated, esspeccially in 1941 with Wellands and Warwicks. For the needed distances the payload is tiny, the precision very low and the target struktures in Russia not that much centralized plus easy to repair. Key targets are well protected (not ensuring a total defense, but ensuring a higher loss rate) by radar, dense AA, search lights and nightfighters of the PWO. Protected zones are relatively small in the SU, allowing a strategic nightime campaign by use of the wideness of the russian airspace.
Mig´s are not the best bomber interceptors, but they can provide top cover for own planes (some Pe-2 attacks with Yak-1 as close escorts and Mig-3 as top cover would be hard to deal by the means of RAF, they are to fast for the Hurricanes and the Spitfire would have a hard time with the Mig´s at hi alt and the Yak-s at low alt. Esspeccially since they would need to concentrate on the bombers)
I am not sure if the Mig-3 is not that good at below 15.000ft. It is at least equal to the Spit V, the Spit has advantages at sea level and low alt, at medium alt both planes are comparable while the Mig is untouchable at hi alt. The next problem would be the daylight campaign: What escort plane in 1941 has the range to escort Hampdens at strikes deep into russia? None. The best VVS interceptor for bombers would be either the Pe-3 (with speed, armement and protection) or the Yak-2/Yak-4 but they could not hope to deal with spitfires. At least those RAF fighters have not the range to provide escort for the heavier planes. In the defensive, the Spitfires could achieve probably an impressive kill record, in the way, the Bf-109 did. The Hurricane as a fighter would be needed to deal with the Il2 (better gunplatform and not that vulnarable, compared to the Spit), but they need own protection, too. All the I-16, I-153 and DB-3 could do some damage to the, probably retreating (?) british ground forces or front close airfields of the bomberforces (the distances are the main problem) and the RAF lacks enough fighter planes to deal with all: 
-escort bombers for close range duties 
-fighter sweeps
-interceptions of Pe-2/DB-4-runs
-escort for Hurricane at the GA-role
Not to speak of the tremendeous need of the british ground forces for air-support! A defensive attitude alone would set the VVS in an offensive position and this is very dangerous. As long as the RAF could ensure an active role, the chances are not bad to hurt the VVS on a larger scale.
The possibilities of the soviets to upbuild new factories beyond RAF striking distance is not to underestimate. 
precision strikes in 1941 are not common, esspeccially for the RAF.


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

arras said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 15, 2005)

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 (Jun 16, 2005)

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 (Jun 16, 2005)

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 (Jun 16, 2005)

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.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

Sorry, that was my bad. I haven't seen anything about the 40mm destroying the stability of the Hurricane. I'm pretty sure if there was a problem in the IID, it'd have been solved in the IV.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 16, 2005)

After, what I read, Glider, The Stirling wasn´t in regular service prior to feb. 1942. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me ( I am not sure in the reliabilty of the source). Exclude the He-111. The Ju-88, Do-215 and Ju-87 (as the Pe-2) were more precise because they could dive in or attack at an shallow angle, where the Halifax, Stilings and Wellington couldn´t. At level bombing, the planes differ not much, but the RAF bombers have a better payload.
I must agree to disagree, the use of the bombers you describe is a more reasonable from the view of the RAF. I certainly also agree that the Halifax and Stirlings could protect therself much better than the Luftwaffe bomber. But there are less RAF bombers, this can be a problem over Russia. Strike altitude would bring them in the proper MiG-3 altitude at about 15.000 ft,I would counter them with Mig´s attacking the escorts and waves of I-16 and Pe-3 to deal with the heavys. While in the meantime Yak-1, Lagg-3 and I-16/I-153 together with Il-2 attacking the ground forces or the returning bombers over their bases (best hunting ground: over enemys airfields).
The Hurricane with 4 20mm is a very good GA-plane with self defending capabilities.
The recoil forces you may calculate on your own. Take the single round weight with the muzzle velocity plus some 20 percent for the gaz effects, voilá. Mounted in the wings, the 40mm is suspect to make prolonged aiming impossible because of the recoil effects. In the centerline it wouldn´t effect that much the behavior of the Hurricane. Such problems cannot be solved easily (The Fw-190 A-4/U-15 with two 30mm MK-103 under the wings suffered from bad recoil forces so the guns have been removed in most cases).
The most important figure is still not taken into consideration, the numbers of combat sorties. The presence of enemy planes in the own airspace and the absence of own planes there define air superiority. The VVS can field much more combat sorties than the RAF, and it did. This is often described by waves of waves (and losses of losses) but in the end it ensured air superiority in the late part of the war and in 1941 it took down the Luftwaffe air superiority over Moscow (while in the same timeframe the losses of the VVS are expected to be very high).


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2005)

Delc
The Sterling flew its first missions on the 10th February 1941 and during 1941 were often used in daylight raids as the bait to get the Germans to come up and fight. It started to come unstuck when heavy long ranged raids were started at the end of 1941 against Germany and Italy where its lower bombload (3,500lbs) to Germany and the difficulty it had in climbing to any height (when going over the Alps) to Italy. became a problem.
Sounds like we agree to diagree over fighters and escort. Your ideas sound good but it would take a lot of organisation to get everyone in the right place at the right time when the performance of each plane would differ and most didn't carry a radio. Throw in a bit of cloud and the USSR have a problem
In numbers we certainly had fewer Halifax's and Sterlings as they entered service during this period but we had plenty of Wellingtons. 

However we both agree over the use of 40mm on the Hurricane. I am sure I read somewhere that the firing of the 40's meant that in the real world, you only had one shot as the shock of firing pushed the nose down by 5 degrees. This would rule out firing automatically and they used the 303 as a 'range finder'. As I said before I would stick with the 4x20's.

Numbers of sorties. Bit of an unknown this. If the RAF were only fighting the USSR then we would have a lot more squadrons available. Not as many as the USSR but it would be a lot closer. The RAF proved themselves capable of generating large sortie rates and generally the planes were robust so short term sortie rates should be able to cope. However you are I am sure, thinking of the long haul, over a period of months. 
I think that we would do better than the Germans. We had much better PR abilities and could put considerably more pressure on the Russian infrastructure. So our strikes would be more effective and this would impact the Russian sortie rates.

I should also remind you that we were the world leaders in radio intercept and code breaking. At a tactical level this isn't much help. However as mentioned before, the USSR tend to go for the big push, the set piece battle. We would get warning of these and with our PR we would be better placed to react.

Would it be enough? I really dont know but I think it would. The USSR had its vast size to support it in action, we had a Commonwealth. I think the two would balance out and the final advantage would go to the more technically advanced and better trained RAF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

arras said:


> 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*.
> ...



No you read that correctly, and I stand by what I said. The Il-2 may have been able to take punishment because of her armament, but that does not mean that she was not an easy target. She was easily out maneuevered, she was slow and was no match in an all out fight with a Bf-109F, G, K or Fw-190A or D.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 16, 2005)

All possible, Glider.
You made a point in the radio communication. From what I know almost all VVS planes had radio on board but radio is defined differntly in the VVS. In fact it means that nearly all had a device to receive orders and the squad leaders as well as ground instructors only had sending devices on board. This remained until early 1943, which is quite a long time. It implies a higher degree of unflexibility of VVS ops and in fact could explain why the VVS had such problems even when they sometimes outnumbered the Luftwaffe in 1941/1942. 
If you take commonwealth squads for the RAF we have a closer situation, also. But let´s keep it simple and take the RAF, only. what about the numbers? I will search for VVS fielded numbers in 1941, please try to find what was avaiable in fighter and bomber command (we may exclude the coastal command here, suitable bomber planes could be added to the RAF bombers, keep in mind that there would be still a number of planes in the home defense) over the year 1941 on different theatres. The VVS numbers are expected to be higher because of the rapid advance of german ground forces in 1941 (which led to dismantle production lines, esspeccially those of the newer planes like Yak-1, Il-2 and Lagg-3, and rebuild them beyond range). The british ground forces would surely have more problems with the soviets which would give the VVS more time to bring out bigger numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

It implies more than just inflexibility but just plain stupid.


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2005)

Delc, I will do what I can re numbers, but the reference to the Commonwealth was more to do with the support. For example a lot of British pilots were trained around the world e.g. in Canada. They also supplied a lot of machines and supplies and were areas which are obviously safe from attack and with space to train people well.

Deralder, I don't get your last posting can I ask you to rephrase it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 16, 2005)

Glider said:


> For example a lot of British pilots were trained around the world e.g. in Canada. They also supplied a lot of machines and supplies...


And personnel.


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2005)

Nonskim. I wasn't forgetting the people, who are always the most precious of all, but in this context delc was trying to keep it to the RAF.

My mother was engaged to a Norwegian who was killed when his ship was torpedoed, and her father was sunk three times once in WW1 and twice in WW2, so the personal side is always close to us.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

Yes, del, we're not leaving the Commonwealth out of this because if you went to war with Britain you went to war with it's empire too. Every Commonwealth country would provide man and machine to fight for Britain. You only don't want the Commonwealth involved because it puts a little strain on your one and only reason that the Soviet Union would win, numbers.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 17, 2005)

Well, Plan_D, it would be hard for me to prove that this is not my main motivation, but originally we wanted to keep it all simple. If you take Commonwealth, we have a different situation with key war theatres in Pakistan/Kasachstan and a probability that china, serbia, bulgaria and slovakia entering the soviet side. I don´t want it to be this way, it´s almost even now pure speculation and this has to be underlined. 
If we factor VVS and RAF only, we have more insight to compare these airforces, or not? Stay it a simple way, we are not comparing worlds just airforces, we also left the economy out here.


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2005)

Delc
I am more than happy to keep it to the RAF, that was the arrangement and to be honest the only point it impacts is the numbers. It makes no difference to the aircraft themselves. 
Its similar to the aircraft where I have kept away from American aircraft used by the RAF.
Afterall one of the great unknowns is how would the germans have done if they had only been fighting the USSR. An extra 4-500 planes at the right time in the right place could have made all the difference


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

Glider said:


> Deralder, I don't get your last posting can I ask you to rephrase it?



I was commenting on Delc's post about the Russian planes having "radios" that could recieve but not respond much into 1943.


----------



## Udet (Jun 17, 2005)

It is crystal clear Mr. Delcyros has quite a strong opinion on the capabilities of the VVS.

Keeping in mind no air force, at all, is a perfect organization is that we must assess the strong and weak points each one observes, as it has been pretty much done in this thread.

Now, Mr. Delcyros is completely confident when affirming the VVS made a very significant contribution for "halting" the Luftwaffe during the winter of 1941 around and over Moscow.

He states soviet radar stations made an excellent work vectoring VVS fighter formations to intercept German formations. This deserves further underlining and remarking for it is, to a very important extent, untrue.

I have several books on the evolution of radar and its usage during WWII amongst the many combatant stations.

You might be surprised to learn that when it comes to electronics, the soviets were located well behind the Brits and the Germans. As the war progressed and the Germans were getting pushed west, forward VVS airfields hardly had any of such equipment, even when they had Lend-Lease radar sets at their disposal in their stock.

Do you know, Mr. Delcyros, why the USAAF decided to cancell shuttle bombing missions? For the fundamental reason of the absolute lack of guaranties for their planes and crews in soviet airfields: no radar, weak ground control and weak air defense.

He russians had some stuff of their own when the war commenced, but most radar sets used by the soviet VVS and navy were Lend-Leased items of USA manufacture.


You refuse to acknowledge the VVS did not play any significant role in halting the Luftwaffe in the Moscow area during 1941. 

Yep, there were soviet radar stations by the time, but from where is it that you get they could vector their formations to intercept the Germans?

Did you know that hardly one year before, Battle of Britain, the British radar system of the entire south and east parts of the island did not perform as the British history tells?

"We could see the German formations even when they were assemblying after taking off over France."

Well, further researches proved that AT LEAST 50% of the times Hurricane and Spitfire units vectored to intercept following radar guidance, *simply and flatly found nothing*.


December 7, 1941, while the Germans were around Moscow, a team of operators of a radar station in Hawaii completely failed to interpret what the screen was showing them: a formation of carrier air-borne bombers and fighters approaching Oahu.

What makes you think soviet radar operators were more skilled in the art of interpreting radar information than the guys of the RAF and USAAF were?

The RAF had a bunch of ancient Swordwfish equipped with small radar sets in the open cokcpit for tracking and attacking axis vessels supplying Rommel in North Africa. 

Did the soviets ever came close to fit whatever of their planes with electronics?

The miserable weather of November, December and January of 1941 in the USSR hindered air raids and air support operations during the vast majority of days. Most Luftwaffe losses were caused by the cold, on the ground due to the open conditions of forward Luftwaffe bases, and not soviet fighters.

Now, you might bring forward the argument of number of sorties flown by the VVS during such period, still, soviet pilots -no matter how many missions might have flown- lacked skills to fly under such miserable conditions, just like the pilots of any other air force of the planet.

Noteworhty to mention is the fact that when said winter ended, the main axis of the German war effort in the USSR switched south: eastern ukraine/don river bend and the caucasus entrance. The Luftwaffe which had been active in bigger numbers in Mitte Gruppe, likewise, saw its main effort now in the south, and simply retook the role it had played before the winter of 1941: the slaughter of the VVS.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2005)

Thanks for clarifying the post.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 18, 2005)

Well, Udet, if all the losses of the Luftwaffe at/ around Moscow were inflicted by climates than the Luftwaffe would have even more worse pilots /ground crews than the VVS did have. Lets take a look into the german loss listings...
okey, we have from 7th of december to 8th of march a much reduced sortie number and squads flying with around one third of operational strenght. The reason for this might be the bad weather, agreed. During the same timeframe the Luftwaffe lost (by enemy actions I underline) 559 planes total and a further 317 planes have been damaged beyond 25%. That are almost 5 complete Geschwader destroyed. Do you believe it was all the snow, which destroyed them or the icy runways? If so I would be surprised because the Luftwaffe didn´t took comparable losses in the winter 39/40 and 40/41.
I should also remind you that most of the 1941 radar equippment wasn´t from Britain but from Germany. Lend lease took in 1942 the most effect to the equippment of the VVS (in percentages). And the effectiveness will be discussed later, I am still collecting material.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Not another "Lead-Lease didn't help the Soviet Union one bit" goon. Anywho, I'll let this discussion span out before getting on to why the Commonwealth should be involved in this.


----------



## CTO (Jun 18, 2005)

About Il-2: 
Claiming and reality are different things. 

Out of these 36000 Il-2 "only" 33000 were put at the VVS. Over 10.000 still existed at the end of war. 23.000 were lost complete, over 12000 were lost in combatsorties. Out of these 12000, 4400 were lost in dogfight (means due fighters) and over 4000 were kill by AAA. The rest were crashed by accidents and so on due combat sorties. (different russian books) 

Some may wonder about the high loss rate at the non-front, but thats quite normal of most airforces in ww2. VVS at the beginning had poor training sometimes even less than 10 hours at the special type. 
For german LW in 1942 german officers stated that losses in the rear were several times higher, than losses at the front. One officer even stated they were 6 times higher. (Source: GLM-Konferenzen, not in book, but in Bundesarchiv RL 3/17). For example, in 6/1944 Germany had ~1500 fighters at the front, but 6000 fighters at front and rear (2513)


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

Delc
I have some numbers for you. It should be noted that these exclude training, support, reserves and are from the Order of Battle for July 1941

B17	2
B24	2
Beaufighter 15
Beaufort	5
Boston	2
Bristol Blenhiem 23	
Buffalo	1
Catalina	5
DC 2	1
Defiant	5
Halifax	5
Hampden	5
Havoc	3
Hawker Audax 1
Hudson	9
Hurricane 37	
Kittyhawk	1
Lancaster	1
Lysander	5
Manchester 3
Maryland	2
Mossie IV	1
Short 26 Flying boat	1
Short Sterling 3
Spitfire VB 37
Sunderland 5
Tomahawk IIa 8
Typhoon	1
Vengence	1
Vickers Vilderbeast/Vincent	4
Walrus	1
Wellesey	1
Wellington	29
whirlwind	2
Whitley	4

Some of these are very surprising but we did have some back woods areas across the world.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

I should have said that these were the no of squadrons of each type. It was an interesting time as we were obviously getting rid of a lot of old types and starting to introduce the newer modern types such as the Typhoon, Mossie, Lancaster. Halifax which were to become the backbone of the second half of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

I assume that's for the ETO only. Do you have the order of battle for the CBI? We had 37 Squadrons of Spitfire Vb? I don't believe that, not all would have been V Spitfires.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

PLan D. Suprisingly no, its for the whole world. As for the Spit 5B that is a mistake it should read Spit 5. A number of squadrons were converting from the II to the V and had both on their books. A similar situation applied to the lysanders being replaced with Tomahawks. In these cases I went with the later plane.

I was as suprised as anyone as to what I found. Its clear that the concentration on the production on key planes in 1940 had had an effect. 
Its also clear that outer outposts of the empire were left untouched. Let face it the Audax's and Vincents didn't stand a chance against anyone. To include them in an order of battle is a sign of how stretched we were. 

To all intents and purposes all the Spits were in the ETO and a large proportion of the hurricanes were around the rest of the globe.

The info was from a book called The Squadrons of the Royal Air Force by J.J. Halley. published by Air-Britain Publications 1980. I don't have a copy myself and will need to get one to check a lot of the detail.

If I could work out how to attach a file i will post the spreadsheet which gives the RAF Order of Battle for the war in 3 month chunks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Well Udet it is quite clear too that you are very one sided in your opinions also.

As for this I agree with Del here. The Luftwaffe on the Ost Front were not beaten by climate or themselves (Well partially themselves, they were not getting the supplies and spare parts that they needed) however the Bf-109 and Fw-190's were very capable aircraft in the winter climate of Russia. The shear mass amounts of Russian aircraft had a big part in defeating the Luftwaffe.

Yes I agree with you that the Luftwaffe was superior to the VVS however the VVS had a big part in stopping the Luftwaffe.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

Come December 1941 the CBI was getting old Hurricane I and IIA as well as Blenheims and Lysanders. There was at least 3 Squadrons of Hurricane, 2 Squadrons of Blenheim and 2 Squardons of Lysanders.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

CBI?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

China-Burma-India theatre, the forgotten one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Ah okay.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

PLan D
Under india for July 1941 its down as 
Audax 2 squads
Blenhiem 1 1 squad
DC2 (any idea what this is for?) 1 squad
Catalina 1 squad
Vilderbeast 1 squad

Jan 42
Mohawk IV 1 Squad
Lysander 1 Squad
Hurricane II 1 Squad
DC2 1 Squad
Blenhiem IV 1 Squad
Havoc 1 Squad (This I doubt as its too new)
Wellington 1 Squad
Audax 1 Squad
Hudson 1 Squad
Vilderbeast 1 Squad

So you can see that things are getting better, but only just and maintanence must have been the stuff of nightmares


----------



## delcyros (Jun 19, 2005)

I am impressed, Glider.
For the VVS I need some more time (days), because there are lot of different opin ions in the books, so I try to post the most common numbers and give the not that reasonable numbers in breckages.
I will also exclude the far eastern VVS airforces, because they did played a role only in the last weeks of 1941 after their relocation to the european part of russia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

There has been a lot of good info put out here, I think we all can learn from everyone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

del said:


> If we factor VVS and RAF only, we have more insight to compare these airforces, or not? Stay it a simple way, we are not comparing worlds just airforces, we also left the economy out here.



but during WWII the RCAF and RAAF in europe acted under the RAF (well bomber command atleast), surely they should be counted??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 19, 2005)

That's entirely up to you all of course, but without RCAF and RAAF augmentation the bomber force would've just been that much smaller. Just a thought. We do like to be counted where applicable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

i feel it's only right you are counted in this case.....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

Glider do you know what squadrons because all I've got here is very sketchy information on the CBI theatre squadrons, some of it is over-lapping;

From December 1941 - May 1942;

113th Squadron. Blenheim IV based at Toungoo. 
45th Squadron. Blenheim IV and IVF based at Toungoo. 
17th Squadron. Hurricane IIA based at Rangoon. 
135th Squadron. Hurricane IIA based at Rangoon. 
28th Squadron. Lysander based at Lahore. 
139th Squadron. Hudson based at Anadman Islands
11th Squadron. Blenheim IV - I don't know where they were based. 

That's all I've got. All though I've got information on squadrons of Buffalo and Hurricane I, I don't know their squadron numbers. I've also got information on rag-tag collections of aircraft flying together. During early January 1942, 267 Group had three squadrons of Hurricane but they only had 10 flight worthy Hurricanes between them.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2005)

Plan D
Mohawk IV No 5 Sqdn
Lysander No 20 Squad 
Hurricane II No 30 Squad 
DC2 No 31 Squad 
Blenhiem IV No 45 Squad plus 211 Sqdn (Far East)
Havoc No 62 Squad (This I doubt as its too new) 
Wellington No 99 Squad 
Audax No 146 Squad 
Catalina No 202, 205 Squad
Hudson No 233 Squad 
Vilderbeast No 273 Squad 

I have the following on your details
113 Sqd on Blenhiem in May 1942
17sqd as a Far East unit on Hurricane IIa officially described as destroyed in Burma in May 1942
135 and 136 on Hurricane II in India from May 1942 before that far east
28 Squad On Lysanders in Sept 41 and Hurricane II in Jan 42 as a Far East unit then destroyed in May 42 Part of India from Jan 43
139 Sqdn Another Indian unit on Hudson in Jan 42 but in May 42 in the UK as a Blenheim unit
11 Sqdn An Indian Blenhiem unit from May 42, In Jan 42 it was in N Africa

60 sqdn on Buffalo/Blenhiem was destroyed in Singapore
67 sqdn on Buffalo/Hurricane destroyed in Rangoon
100Sqdn on Vilderbeast destroyed in Singapore
243 Sqdn on Buffalo destroyed in Singapore
258 sqdn on Hurricane destroyed in Java

I don't have any info on bases. Hope this helps


----------



## plan_D (Jun 20, 2005)

Excellent, do you think I would be right in assuming all the Blenheim squadrons had Blenheim IVs?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > If we factor VVS and RAF only, we have more insight to compare these airforces, or not? Stay it a simple way, we are not comparing worlds just airforces, we also left the economy out here.
> ...



I agree they should be counted here in this case.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2005)

PlanD In most cases yes but they fought in anything that would fly and some of the squadrons had converted from the Mk 1 only a few months before.
Put it another way a Blenhiem 1 may not be much but she's better than an Audax


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Did the CBI pretty much get the stuff that was replaced in Europe?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

Anything old and used was delivered to the CBI. Many of the squadrons were recorded as flying Hurricane IIA but in most cases they'd go up with a collection of Hurricane I and IIA with some Buffaloes in there too. 

Many of the squadrons arrived from North Africa to try and save Singapore then Burma just to be destroyed by the IJAAF and IJN. The worst thing was the lack of spares, during the early months of 1942 there were three Hurricane squadrons that only had 10 flight worthy aircraft between them!


----------



## arras (Jun 21, 2005)

Udet >>


> December 7, 1941, while the Germans were around Moscow, a team of operators of a radar station in Hawaii completely failed to interpret what the screen was showing them: a formation of carrier air-borne bombers and fighters approaching Oahu.


You are wrong. It was not radar operators who failed, radar was clearly showing what operator identified as big group of aircrafts moving quickly toward island. Upset operator imediately contacted comanding oficier but there was none to be found. When finaly he managed to reach somebody he was told to calm down, that what he see is flight of new B17 going to land at base (B17 later apeared over island during attack and some were shot down) and to shut down radar and go home. It was command who failed not radar operator.

I have to add that radar was in testing period, been operated only few ours per day and nobody had experience with it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

That is the account that I can recall.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

That's the story I've heard also, he was told to calm down and not let it worry him.


----------



## Udet (Jun 21, 2005)

Arras:

I am aware of the version you commented regarding Pearl Harbor.

Yet, it does not take 1 single miligram of susbstance away from my view; call it as you wish, they failed to acknowledge the approaching danger.


I am strongly confident when affirming soviet radar operators were not any better than the Brits, Germans and USAers.

Mr. Delcyros has failed to prove the Luftwaffe suffered "heavy losses" at the hands of radar vectored soviet fighters during the winter of 1941.

You will not find any sound evidence of such assertion for there is none available.

You co-relate number of missions of flown with assured success. It can be a misleading pattern.

I know what a winter in the Moscow area is, and I can tell you that the most seasoned pilots of the present-day Aeroflot can wet their pants when approaching Sheremetyevo in poor weather conditions.

It is not difficult to at least see in your mind what the conditions most soviet pilots faced during such winter. Soviet political thugs yelling at them to take off and shoot down fascist snakes. Soviet pilots arguing on the terrible conditions most days observed during those weeks. The thugs accusing them of betraying the motherland.

That they might have flown many missions can be true, but what was it that they achieved.

Now, is the issue of radar vectored soviet interceptors in 1941 some sort of an emerging myth?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Yes but the radar operators acknoledged the threat that the radar told him. The whole sitution of Pearl Harbor was botched by the Higher Command and that is why some rightfully lost there jobs.


----------



## arras (Jun 22, 2005)

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 (Jun 22, 2005)

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 (Jun 23, 2005)

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 (Jun 23, 2005)

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 (Jun 24, 2005)

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 (Jun 24, 2005)

Would be intresting to see the outcome.


----------



## Glider (Jun 24, 2005)

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 (Jun 25, 2005)

RAF would still win


----------



## delcyros (Jun 25, 2005)

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 (Jun 25, 2005)

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 (Jun 25, 2005)

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 (Jun 25, 2005)

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


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2005)

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 (Jun 26, 2005)

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 (Jun 26, 2005)

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??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

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?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

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 (Jun 27, 2005)

well they're much more versatile than missiles.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

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 (Jun 27, 2005)

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.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

And the U.S captured Von Braun and already had the nuclear warhead. Nuke and rocket, big bang with no risk to crew. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Okay yeah I can see that. It makes sense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

but you can't take recon photos or carry out a maritime patrol in a rocket........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

You do PR in a fighter and maritime patrol in an aircraft designed for the job like a P-3 Orion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

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!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

OR, you send up a plane with bombs that can conduct recainassance then blow it up while it's still there!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 28, 2005)

I believe, the SU advanced in strategical bombers only because of the avaiability of the nuke in post war times. By the way they did, they never cut off the lines of the specialized GA planes (Il10-il-28-MiG-27-Su-25). In opposition to this, they concentrated more on the GA role for their fighters, too (Mig-15 dsch).
The avaiability of the I-153 is perhaps overstressed by the statistics. The number given must be much lower, but I am not sure in howfar. A number between 1.800 and 2.100 seems to be plausible in 1941. Production lines for the I-153 have been closed in 1940. The most numerous plane of the VVS/PVO is the I-16 in 1941. While I do conduct still some search, 7.000 planes have been produced (the last of them came out in 1942) and a number between 2.800 and 3.500 deployed seems to be plausible for mid 1941.
I also concluded my looks into early soviet Radar tech (thanks to documents provided by E. A. Avramovich/Tartu) and there is quite a lot of evidence that the soviets also mastered radar but never evolved to a very high degree (like Britain):
The soviet scientist P.K. Ostschenko theoritcly prooved the value of Radar for the PVO as early as jule 1934. In october 1934 Tuchatschevski asked S.W. Kirow for support in order to produce 5 experiamental radar stations (allowing a theoritcal detection range of 200 Km at 10.000m). Problems of the insufficient developed soviet electronical industriess delayed the first unit RUS-1 to 1939. Two of these stations have been involved in the Finno-Soviet war of 1940. Operational used brought some tactical problems to daylight: Rus-1 only allowed a detection of range and direction but not the altitude, speed, heading and number of planes. Exchange with german documents eventually lead to the Rus-2 stations, which entered service in late 1940. These units succesfully could detect up to 120 Km distance (similar to the early german Freya-stations) the altitude, approx. number 
and heading of planes. At mid 1941 28 Rus-2 stations have been deployed to PVO-sites like Moscow, Leningrad, Charkov, Baku and Odessa. Other stations have been deployed at Wjasma and Rshev.In late 1941, with increasing Luftwaffe sorties against Moscow these stations coworked with the 7th and 6th PVO air regiment.
I wouldn´t be too sure in the unability of VVS/PVO nightime sorties, esspeccially in 1941, since a total of 4,9% of their interception sorties are nighttime (most PVO) at the end of ww2, in 1945 the average nighttime sortie was above 42% of all VVS/PVO sorties. Even without airborne radar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Couldnt that be because of an increase in Luftwaffe night time sorties?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 28, 2005)

Well possible. If the Luftwaffe shifts to the nightime, the PVO (more than the VVS) would adopt in their tactics to counter them. 
Another interesting point is that the strategical bomber force of the SU, while equipped with obsolete TB-3 had some precision capabilities with underwing mounted bomb equipped I-16, which succeeded in destroying key bridges in the early phase of combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

The Russians though never really needed a Strategic bombing force in WW2, they needed to beat the Germans back off of there own turn and the British and the US were doing it for them.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The Luftwaffe were never developing night offensive technology, it was always to counter the British offensive campaign. The Soviet Union would have to do the same as the Germans as the British would block, jam and scramble any Soviet radar. 

The night interceptions by the PVO were lucky if anything, as I say the Luftwaffe did not have effective offensive night capabilities. There's a big difference between intercepting blind He-111 with Bf-110 escort with your RADAR intact and intcepting Lancasters with NF Mosquitos with blocked RADAR.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

The German night fighter program was quite succesfull actually.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

It wasn't an offensive element, is what I was saying. It was purely on the defensive against the British night offensive campaign.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

That I can agree with then.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

and as has been said, they never actually led the way with electonic warfare, anything they did was to counter what we did first...........


----------



## arras (Jun 29, 2005)

Glider >> I did not say there were no mobile radars used, even Japanese had some mobile radar technology at the end of war. I sat none of the countries put in to wide use powerful enough mobile radar platform. By powerful I mean range and ability to measure height.

DerAdlerIstGelandet >> as you sad, that was just project. Was it ever used in combat?

Here is for example site about Japanese Radar Equipment in WWII:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/radar.htm

It is at exelent page about Imperial Japanese Navy:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm ...recomending.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

Arras no it was never used in combat. I was just posting it showing that the idea for a AWACS type plane was in the works. The United States actually tookt he idea and used it for there AWACS.


----------



## oehtam (Aug 31, 2006)

Udet said:


> Plan D:
> 
> Hold your fire!
> 
> ...


How stupid!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 1, 2006)

You quote all of that to post 2 words?! And that in a thread that hasn't seen a posting in over a year.

If you have an argument to make, then make it. Otherwise keep reading and familiarize yourself with the site before spouting off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2006)

Noobs!


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 1, 2006)

And it's quoting Udet at that...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 2, 2006)

is that les i hear coming?


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Dec 23, 2006)

The Soviets did not have to face the full might of the luftwaffe particularly during the later part of the war when German fighters were defending the homeland from bombers. I will try to find some stats on German losses by theatre.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 25, 2006)

different doctrines folks.
most action of ww2 was undertaken on the ground (and oceans).
soviet doctrine sacrificed VVS to ground support, and Red Army scored sensible results. VVS not was engaged too much against enemy AFs, unless ground OPs required that.
so LW hunters enjoyed scores, Wehrmacht enjoyed loses, Red Army enjoyed (hard and bloody, but decisive) victories and VVS heavily suffered from hunters in favour of army success.
in case of SU vs UK opposition (with another geographical situation), doctrine will be quite different.
i'm almost sure in it, because national socialism and international socialism are somehow similar and could invent similar decisions.

at least TB-7(Pe-8) for heavy bombing, MiG-3 for altitude fights, Pe-3 for long ranges were ready-to-use projects (though required some refining). Pe-8 gave it's AM-35A in favour of massive production of AM-38 for Il-2. MiG-3 was powered with AM-35A too. anyways, Pe-8 etalon 1943 received M-82 engines, and MiG-3 received 2xShVAK in late 1941, Pe-3 much actively provided far-sea air cover. but both AM-35A users fade out because they were outside of doctrines of eastern front.

as for airborne radar, it was symmetrical: LW did not have strong night bombing power, SU had relaxed experiments with airborne radars. had LW strong force, SU would develop airborne radars more actively. so far, gneis-1 airborne radar was ready in early 1941, and gneis-2 in late 1941. gneis-2 was installed to pe-2. the problem was a carrier: in 1943 SU understood that A-20 was more convenient for radar than pe-2/3.

p.s.about rus-1 redut-n: detection ranges was 120-250km, and during Leningrad siege radar stations alarmed 642 air warnings which broken several major raids to city and port. some radars imho were used at frontlines too.


----------



## lape2002 (May 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> This highly indicates that you were emplying the La-7 was as good as the Spit XIV:
> 
> 
> In any case it doesnt matter, as you just said it yourself that the Spit XIV was better.
> ...




Fhew! This man has to be the most peculiar germanophiliac I've ever met! Hey, Germany lost the war in 1945, try to move on ok...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

So just because Germany lost the war does not mean someone can not like there aircraft and equipment?

Hey Canada is the best at being north of the US, try and move on ok...


----------



## lape2002 (May 19, 2007)

I was replying to this guy which I consider the typical Germanophile military chauvinist I usually find in discussions. The stereotype just annoys me with their "we only lost because of Hitler and the Nazis" and mostly by their "Everything the Russians did and produced are lies and propaganda" repetitive rethoric. 

Sorry if I may have hurt any other german stuff lover, I am mainly a Luftwaffe enthusiast after all .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

Well not everyone has to hold the same opinion as you. That is something that you have to learn to deal with. If you dont like it, then maybe internet forums are not the right place for you.


----------

