VVS Vs. RAF

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!
 

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.


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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


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


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


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.


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

Interesting idea.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
108
Aeroweanie
G
RAF PBM Martin Mariner
Replies
0
Views
588
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
B
Roald Dahl RAF Logbook : anyone has it ?
Replies
4
Views
476
bobolex
B
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register