Chocks away!
Senior Airman
1941. Yes you are right, fair enough 8)
VVS Vs. RAF
- Thread starter plan_D
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #242
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.
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.
Attachments
No I dont think you are reading what I am saying.
Did I say this anywhere? I dont think I posted anything about USAAF heavies in my post? Please show me.
Udet said:
Did I say this anywhere? I dont think I posted anything about USAAF heavies in my post? Please show me.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #245
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?
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
Captain
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?
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?
It was LaGG which was called Guaranteed Varnished Coffin. Yak-1 was considered the best of new Soviet fighters at the start of war.
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.
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.
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
Major General
Well look at the categoraisation...The Yaks come under one category, but they are 4 different aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #249
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Major General
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....
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.
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.
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
Yak -36 732 produced total of all wariants
Il-2 -36 134 produced untill end of 1944
cheddar cheese
Major General
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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
Captain
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #257
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.
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.
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 >> 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.
- Thread starter
- #259
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.
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.
