delcyros
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.