VVS Vs. RAF

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.........

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.

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.

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.

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....

heh ...preatty optimistic you are

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

Click to expand...

...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

Click to expand...

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.