VVS Vs. RAF

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.....

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........

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!

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!!

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

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

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

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

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

plan_D said:

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

Click to expand...

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

BDF - Botswana Defense Force

I...don't know.

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

Click to expand...

...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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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

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