- Thread starter
- #21
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
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
A comparison in this specific way is unprobable (can tell you: The RAF beeing safe on their island, unreachable for red army or what they had in their fleet and no valid production target in range of RAF heavy bombers)
Keep also in mind that the technological edge the RAF had would cause serious problems if fielded in Sibiria at winter. Spitfires have been flown by VVS at Stalingrad but have prooven to be completely unsuited for the bad climatic circumstances there and soon faded out due to mechanical problems... (not so the Hurricane) Even a mosquito, a plane close to my most favoured, wouldn´t easily find a target there (and operating from England it wouldn´t even have the range to do so), it´s all very difficult.
However, both are allies and we might discuss, who in specific comparison did contributed more effectively in a specific way to the succes of the allies. Agreed?
But first off I would like to answer Udet´s questions:
I have been several times in the former SU for excavations (Klin Jar and Elisabetovkoe) and yes, I had some possibility to meet veterans there. As you might estimate, with different experiences.
A problem in the countryside of some corners is the unbelievable thrust they still have to Stalin and their glory age in ww2. Strange.
Capabilities to training are referred to numerical advantages for the VVS. Quality wasn´t that good at all, but the VVS was well able to adopt new tactics or technologies in short times.
Of course the VVS did damage to the Luftwaffe. In the years 1941-1943 more than the RAF did (as posted earlier), and that´s why some of them have high kill ratios as well.
Keep also in mind that the technological edge the RAF had would cause serious problems if fielded in Sibiria at winter. Spitfires have been flown by VVS at Stalingrad but have prooven to be completely unsuited for the bad climatic circumstances there and soon faded out due to mechanical problems... (not so the Hurricane) Even a mosquito, a plane close to my most favoured, wouldn´t easily find a target there (and operating from England it wouldn´t even have the range to do so), it´s all very difficult.
However, both are allies and we might discuss, who in specific comparison did contributed more effectively in a specific way to the succes of the allies. Agreed?
But first off I would like to answer Udet´s questions:
I have been several times in the former SU for excavations (Klin Jar and Elisabetovkoe) and yes, I had some possibility to meet veterans there. As you might estimate, with different experiences.
A problem in the countryside of some corners is the unbelievable thrust they still have to Stalin and their glory age in ww2. Strange.
Capabilities to training are referred to numerical advantages for the VVS. Quality wasn´t that good at all, but the VVS was well able to adopt new tactics or technologies in short times.
Of course the VVS did damage to the Luftwaffe. In the years 1941-1943 more than the RAF did (as posted earlier), and that´s why some of them have high kill ratios as well.
Glider
Captain
For what its worth this is my suggestion as to how this conflict would have gone. I have broken it into different pieces. I ask you to consider them all to get an overall view.
Nightime
I don't think that there is any doubt that in such a conflict the night would belong to the RAF. The trick would be what we did with that advantage. By 1944 we had the ability to hit pretty small targets very effectively at night and I like to think that we would have be able to apply considerable pressure in cutting of or at least significantly reduce the supply route from the Russian factories to the front. These were huge distances and the bottlenecks such as yards would be wide open.
Day Fighting
That would leave the day fighting. The performance gap in the two airforces would be fairly small. The Yaks were agile, lightly armed small fighters whilst the Lag's were bigger faster with a heavier punch. We would have relied on the Spit and Tempest. Here we would have been ahead but as I said earlier the difference isn't that great.
The big difference would be in the training and other equipment such as radio's and bad weather flying ability. Here the RAF would have had a significant advantage. The Germans had a similar advantage and I think we agree caused considerably more losses to the Russians than they received.
Note - Compared to the Germans we are assuming that the RAF are ONLY fighting the USSR. If the Germans had this scenario its likely that the daytime battles could have resulted in a different result on the ground.
Ground Attack
That leave the third main activity Ground Attack. Here there is a difference in approach.
The USSR would have relied on the IL2 which is tough, but slow and needs heavy escort. With our Radar stations and proven ability to direct fighters to the areas in most need, I believe that they would have sufferred heavy losses in bombers and escort. The RAF would have used the Typhoon in attack, which needs less if any escort and whatever its problems at altitude, if it doesn't want to get caught on the deck, it takes some catching.
Precision Strike
The Russian approach to warfare is to control its forces to a very detailed level. This demands a centralised comand and control structure. In the Mossie we had the perfect strike plane who would wreck havoc. Remember that the UK had the best radio intercept environment and the ability to break codes using the first computers. I have little doubt that we could identify those targets.
Also fighting in Russia involves massive amounts of fuel and other supplies. More ideal targest for the Mossie.
Last but not least, we had the best PR ability in the war with the planes to carry out that task. Russia is a vast area and you need to know what is going on. This would also have stoood us in great stead in such a conflict.
Question would the Germans have attacked at Kursk if they had more detailed knowledge of the defences? Or would they have done what they could do well, i.e. go to a war of movement and left the thousands of guns pointing at empty space.
There you go, feel free to question and comment.
Nightime
I don't think that there is any doubt that in such a conflict the night would belong to the RAF. The trick would be what we did with that advantage. By 1944 we had the ability to hit pretty small targets very effectively at night and I like to think that we would have be able to apply considerable pressure in cutting of or at least significantly reduce the supply route from the Russian factories to the front. These were huge distances and the bottlenecks such as yards would be wide open.
Day Fighting
That would leave the day fighting. The performance gap in the two airforces would be fairly small. The Yaks were agile, lightly armed small fighters whilst the Lag's were bigger faster with a heavier punch. We would have relied on the Spit and Tempest. Here we would have been ahead but as I said earlier the difference isn't that great.
The big difference would be in the training and other equipment such as radio's and bad weather flying ability. Here the RAF would have had a significant advantage. The Germans had a similar advantage and I think we agree caused considerably more losses to the Russians than they received.
Note - Compared to the Germans we are assuming that the RAF are ONLY fighting the USSR. If the Germans had this scenario its likely that the daytime battles could have resulted in a different result on the ground.
Ground Attack
That leave the third main activity Ground Attack. Here there is a difference in approach.
The USSR would have relied on the IL2 which is tough, but slow and needs heavy escort. With our Radar stations and proven ability to direct fighters to the areas in most need, I believe that they would have sufferred heavy losses in bombers and escort. The RAF would have used the Typhoon in attack, which needs less if any escort and whatever its problems at altitude, if it doesn't want to get caught on the deck, it takes some catching.
Precision Strike
The Russian approach to warfare is to control its forces to a very detailed level. This demands a centralised comand and control structure. In the Mossie we had the perfect strike plane who would wreck havoc. Remember that the UK had the best radio intercept environment and the ability to break codes using the first computers. I have little doubt that we could identify those targets.
Also fighting in Russia involves massive amounts of fuel and other supplies. More ideal targest for the Mossie.
Last but not least, we had the best PR ability in the war with the planes to carry out that task. Russia is a vast area and you need to know what is going on. This would also have stoood us in great stead in such a conflict.
Question would the Germans have attacked at Kursk if they had more detailed knowledge of the defences? Or would they have done what they could do well, i.e. go to a war of movement and left the thousands of guns pointing at empty space.
There you go, feel free to question and comment.
- Thread starter
- #24
Who said anything about the RAF just operating from Britain? Take note on the Middle-East where RAF stations were present.
The RAF bombers could strike into the USSR heartland. The VVS didn't have a chance at night. They didn't even have anything capable of flying effectively at night, let alone fighting at night.
The RAF were much better defended than the VVS. Any VVS attacks would be met with precision defence, standing patrols weren't needed with the RAF.
So, the VVS would be demolished by the RAF.
Effect on the Luftwaffe, the RAF had more. You seem to forget that after 1941 the Luftwaffe was on the defensive in the West and offensive in the East. The kills of the VVS were in large bombers of the Luftwaffe.
The RAF couldn't get the high kills of the VVS because the Luftwaffe was only doing nuisance raids over Britain, not full scale bombing campaigns. The RAF, however, were bombing Germany and although I notice you think it was completely inaccurate, it wasn't. It had the effect on oil plants, ball bearings, aircraft plants, fuel plants etc. Which all effect the Luftwaffe more than one of their Ju-87s being shot down in the field.
The RAF bombers could strike into the USSR heartland. The VVS didn't have a chance at night. They didn't even have anything capable of flying effectively at night, let alone fighting at night.
The RAF were much better defended than the VVS. Any VVS attacks would be met with precision defence, standing patrols weren't needed with the RAF.
So, the VVS would be demolished by the RAF.
Effect on the Luftwaffe, the RAF had more. You seem to forget that after 1941 the Luftwaffe was on the defensive in the West and offensive in the East. The kills of the VVS were in large bombers of the Luftwaffe.
The RAF couldn't get the high kills of the VVS because the Luftwaffe was only doing nuisance raids over Britain, not full scale bombing campaigns. The RAF, however, were bombing Germany and although I notice you think it was completely inaccurate, it wasn't. It had the effect on oil plants, ball bearings, aircraft plants, fuel plants etc. Which all effect the Luftwaffe more than one of their Ju-87s being shot down in the field.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The Mossies Nf would need to deal with a very few pre war biplanes flying low level at very slow speed. A bad target. VVS actually did fielded ground based Radar and it developed one of the finest ground controller leading tactics late in the war.
What targets would the Lancasters hit? Moscow? Gorki? Hardly in range. The central sibirian factorys? Impossible far beyond their range. Tanks? Oh, they would need to fly very low (KG-1 tried and failed to do so because the red army has a very dense forward air defence system). Railways, bridges? You underestimate the effectiffness of red army pioneers. At april 45 they even quicklier build bridges over the river Oder than they have been detected by Luftwaffe planes...
The Spit IX is comparable to the Yak-3 or La-5, not superior. The Spit IVX is comparable to the Yak-3U/Yak-9U and La-7 FN, not superior at low and medium altitudes. And there are lots of Yaks and La-7....
Keep in mind that the soviets would develop high altitude capabilities if really needed.
One last word to the bombing campaign:
In 1944 the productivity of tanks, weapons, planes, ammo and anything else (except fuel) was higher than in any other year. It wasn´t as high as 1943, it wasn´t doubled, in some points (fighter) it was a multitple higher. Where is the effect of the bombing campaign here? You are right, Plan_D that Speer pushed the economy to it´s limits but he also dispersed or replaced them underground beyond reach of the bombers as many factories as possible. This is why the bombing campaign had not that much impact. Indeed it has considerable impact on the skyline of the cities but it failed (as wanted in 1944) to break peoples willing to continue the war as did the Luftwaffe attacks on London failed in this goal. You overestimate the effects on heavy bombers over Germany regarding to their effectivness destroying the war economy. Their is pretty much effectiveness to limit the fuel avaiability (this indeed shortened the war), -and this to a large extand thanks to the US8AF, but little else.
What targets would the Lancasters hit? Moscow? Gorki? Hardly in range. The central sibirian factorys? Impossible far beyond their range. Tanks? Oh, they would need to fly very low (KG-1 tried and failed to do so because the red army has a very dense forward air defence system). Railways, bridges? You underestimate the effectiffness of red army pioneers. At april 45 they even quicklier build bridges over the river Oder than they have been detected by Luftwaffe planes...
The Spit IX is comparable to the Yak-3 or La-5, not superior. The Spit IVX is comparable to the Yak-3U/Yak-9U and La-7 FN, not superior at low and medium altitudes. And there are lots of Yaks and La-7....
Keep in mind that the soviets would develop high altitude capabilities if really needed.
One last word to the bombing campaign:
In 1944 the productivity of tanks, weapons, planes, ammo and anything else (except fuel) was higher than in any other year. It wasn´t as high as 1943, it wasn´t doubled, in some points (fighter) it was a multitple higher. Where is the effect of the bombing campaign here? You are right, Plan_D that Speer pushed the economy to it´s limits but he also dispersed or replaced them underground beyond reach of the bombers as many factories as possible. This is why the bombing campaign had not that much impact. Indeed it has considerable impact on the skyline of the cities but it failed (as wanted in 1944) to break peoples willing to continue the war as did the Luftwaffe attacks on London failed in this goal. You overestimate the effects on heavy bombers over Germany regarding to their effectivness destroying the war economy. Their is pretty much effectiveness to limit the fuel avaiability (this indeed shortened the war), -and this to a large extand thanks to the US8AF, but little else.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
The RAF would come out on top as would the RN against the Soviet Navy but even so, The British Army would be crushed by the steamroller that is the Soviet Army. And it is on land that everything matters
- Thread starter
- #27
Caucasus, del, oil fields.
The Mosquito would slaughter any Soviet aircraft in the night sky.
The RAF RADAR defence was the best and certainly more capable than the VVS.
The Spitfire Mk.XIV is superior the La-7, plus the fact the RAF would be operating at HIGH altitudes with it's bombers. What gives you the idea that Russia could quickly produce a high altitude fighter with similar capabilities to the Mk.XIV Spit? That's just a dream world.
No, the bombing campaign was extremely effective. German war production wasn't at full capacity in 1939-1941, it was only at about 40%. The only reason the production increased was because Speer increased it to about 90% in 1944. If the bombing hadn't happened, the production run would have been much higher. You UNDER-estimate the effect of the Allied bombing campaign.
The RAF didn't just target cities as you seem to believe. The US 8th AF weren't carrying the air offensive, which you seem to believe is true.
It's well written that German production increased but it's also widely asked, what if the bombing would have never happened?
On top of the obvious, which you miss believing that bombing didn't do anything, the bombing campaign diverted thousands of 88 AA guns to the west and hundreds of thousands of men to man those guns. I've seen an interview with Adolf Galland, and he stated the Western bombing campaign had the most drastic effect on Germany because of the mass diversion of resources to defend against it. I'll take Gallands view over yours...
The Mosquito would slaughter any Soviet aircraft in the night sky.
The RAF RADAR defence was the best and certainly more capable than the VVS.
The Spitfire Mk.XIV is superior the La-7, plus the fact the RAF would be operating at HIGH altitudes with it's bombers. What gives you the idea that Russia could quickly produce a high altitude fighter with similar capabilities to the Mk.XIV Spit? That's just a dream world.
No, the bombing campaign was extremely effective. German war production wasn't at full capacity in 1939-1941, it was only at about 40%. The only reason the production increased was because Speer increased it to about 90% in 1944. If the bombing hadn't happened, the production run would have been much higher. You UNDER-estimate the effect of the Allied bombing campaign.
The RAF didn't just target cities as you seem to believe. The US 8th AF weren't carrying the air offensive, which you seem to believe is true.
It's well written that German production increased but it's also widely asked, what if the bombing would have never happened?
On top of the obvious, which you miss believing that bombing didn't do anything, the bombing campaign diverted thousands of 88 AA guns to the west and hundreds of thousands of men to man those guns. I've seen an interview with Adolf Galland, and he stated the Western bombing campaign had the most drastic effect on Germany because of the mass diversion of resources to defend against it. I'll take Gallands view over yours...
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Well, the soviet navy wouldn´t even have a chance, agreed. (this is even more important if you factor the geografical advantage of Britain).
The fact that the Luftwaffe did attacked mainly the SU doesn´t reduce the efforts of the VVS. But take 1944 for example. The bulk of the whermacht was destroyed by soviet forces in the Ukraina and Poland and not on the DDay. They dictated by numbers and I don´t see why this could be otherwise fighting the RAF. Their low level attacks would give VVS strikes a reasonable chance to hit effectively, since Radar effectifness (and range) is much reduced for low level flying planes and the RAF did not relied in a larger scale on forward patrol sorties. This gives VVS a big surprise advantage. They also worked much closer with their advancing ground forces than any other nation in ww2.
The fact that the Luftwaffe did attacked mainly the SU doesn´t reduce the efforts of the VVS. But take 1944 for example. The bulk of the whermacht was destroyed by soviet forces in the Ukraina and Poland and not on the DDay. They dictated by numbers and I don´t see why this could be otherwise fighting the RAF. Their low level attacks would give VVS strikes a reasonable chance to hit effectively, since Radar effectifness (and range) is much reduced for low level flying planes and the RAF did not relied in a larger scale on forward patrol sorties. This gives VVS a big surprise advantage. They also worked much closer with their advancing ground forces than any other nation in ww2.
- Thread starter
- #29
I fail to see what the fact that the Wehrmact, as a force, was bled on the Eastern Front has to do with anything.
We're talking about VVS Vs. RAF in capability, not Red Army Vs. British Army.
The RAF could handle close support with Typhoons, Mosquitos, Hurricanes, Beaufighters and, hell, Spitfires if need be.
We're talking about VVS Vs. RAF in capability, not Red Army Vs. British Army.
The RAF could handle close support with Typhoons, Mosquitos, Hurricanes, Beaufighters and, hell, Spitfires if need be.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The secondary effect (relocating of additional forces in order to defend), you mention, Plan_D is really something to count for the bombing campaign. Agreed. But take the jet and rocket production for example. From early 1945 on most of the key technologys have been dispersed by Speer. Small, independent factories located in the woods produced parts for the Me-262 as did the Kahla underground factory. Repeated bombing of Lechfeld and Augsburg reduced the Me-262 program in a way that prototypes and training was hampered, not the productivity of the plane. Keep in mind that 1433 Me-262 have been produced by wars end. Take the V-2. After all I read some 15.000 missiles have been produced in underground facicilties (with a high degree in bad shape thanks to the forced labourers, I should mention them, they hampered the V-2 attacks more than did the RAF). Take the He-162. Several underground facicilties just begun working at wars end with some 800-1000 planes build (all in all, 50% waiting for engines)and around 115 delivered to the Luftwaffe. Strategic bombing had close to zero impact to these project. In any aspect, it never worked out to reduce anything in any field except for the fuel productivity. Was this it´s original purpose? I doubt. Originally it wasn´t a campaign to slightly reduce the increase of productivity, it´s purpose was to crush the german industrial capabilities. And it failed to do so.
On the other side, while the RAF had a very theoreticle war, the VVS crushed the german ground forces and therefor got Berlin.
On the other side, while the RAF had a very theoreticle war, the VVS crushed the german ground forces and therefor got Berlin.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Show a large factorycomplex in range for any british plane operating from Britain or the near east or India. No way. And they would still need to come back. At such a large range even improved design couldn´t carry a large payload.
Baku could be hit but this wasn´t the only fuel production complex. Fuel bombings have been carried out more by US forces than by british forces, as pointed out above. Bomber Harris doesn´t favoured these attacks until General Spatz put them on the target lists on his own.
The VVS had an excellent high altitude fighter even in 1940/41: the MiG-3. In 1942 it was improved to the MiG-3U, an excellent plane for high altitude interceptions. It´s no dream. The Spit wouldn´t have a big chance at low altitudes. keep all the soviet forward air defense in mind. Any inline engined plane has a disadvantage under these conditions but I think the Typhoon/Tempest would have been a very feared plane. Also the best to intercept the Il-2.
You cannot exclude the ground forces here, Plan_D. Esspeccially since the VVS worked extremely close with them together.
Baku could be hit but this wasn´t the only fuel production complex. Fuel bombings have been carried out more by US forces than by british forces, as pointed out above. Bomber Harris doesn´t favoured these attacks until General Spatz put them on the target lists on his own.
The VVS had an excellent high altitude fighter even in 1940/41: the MiG-3. In 1942 it was improved to the MiG-3U, an excellent plane for high altitude interceptions. It´s no dream. The Spit wouldn´t have a big chance at low altitudes. keep all the soviet forward air defense in mind. Any inline engined plane has a disadvantage under these conditions but I think the Typhoon/Tempest would have been a very feared plane. Also the best to intercept the Il-2.
You cannot exclude the ground forces here, Plan_D. Esspeccially since the VVS worked extremely close with them together.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
The one saving grace that Britain has is the English Channel- no invasion would be possibe across that so it would be the air battle that would matter most. Ground support wouldn't come into this side of things but in the Western Desert and India it would (assuming Soviet troops would get involved down there)
- Thread starter
- #33
The RAF and USAAF strikes against the V-2s were not against the rockets themselves but the stationary launch sites. Me-262s were getting burned on their runways along with any other jet fighters the Germans liked to produce.
Strategic bombing caused the massive loss of fuel, manganese and several other vital materials to Germanys war production. The equipment might have been getting built at a high rate but it was lower quality and there was less of it, had the bombing campaign never existed the German factories would have been in constant full production and the factories would have never had to be relocated. Relocating takes time and resources!
The VVS and the Soviet Union would have never got close to Berlin without the help of the Western Allies. The mobilisation of the Red Army was ALL done with U.S and British equipment!
The Spitfire would have a huge chance at low altitudes, it was better than anything the VVS had! The MiG-3, did you just say the MiG-3 was good? I have to laugh at that statement.
The MiG-3 would get slaughtered by Spitfire Mk.XIVs. Even the MiG-3U would!
And you're missing out the night sky. What chance would the VVS have their? Their little U-2s going to save them?
The Soviet troops couldn't fight in desert or jungle. They wouldn't stand a chance. The thing with the Soviets was enmass use of armour. But that armour was suited to the climate of Russia, not the sands of Africa...and it certainly couldn't move through the jungle.
Strategic bombing caused the massive loss of fuel, manganese and several other vital materials to Germanys war production. The equipment might have been getting built at a high rate but it was lower quality and there was less of it, had the bombing campaign never existed the German factories would have been in constant full production and the factories would have never had to be relocated. Relocating takes time and resources!
The VVS and the Soviet Union would have never got close to Berlin without the help of the Western Allies. The mobilisation of the Red Army was ALL done with U.S and British equipment!
The Spitfire would have a huge chance at low altitudes, it was better than anything the VVS had! The MiG-3, did you just say the MiG-3 was good? I have to laugh at that statement.
The MiG-3 would get slaughtered by Spitfire Mk.XIVs. Even the MiG-3U would!
And you're missing out the night sky. What chance would the VVS have their? Their little U-2s going to save them?
The Soviet troops couldn't fight in desert or jungle. They wouldn't stand a chance. The thing with the Soviets was enmass use of armour. But that armour was suited to the climate of Russia, not the sands of Africa...and it certainly couldn't move through the jungle.
- Thread starter
- #35
Let's look at the RAF Bomber Command statistics of 1944-'45 compared to US 8th AF. I'll exclude the diversion of resources in May, June, July of 1944 when Bomber Command was supporting the D-Day invasion.
Between July and September 1944 11% of RAF Bomber Commands sorties were against oil installations. Between October and December 14% were against oil installations.
In November, 1944, 24.6% were directed against oil installations. RAF Bomber Command dropped more bombs on oil installations in that month than the US 8th AF.
In October, 1944, all together Bomber Command dropped 61, 204 tonnes while 'The Mighty 8th' dropped 38, 961 tonnes. Feburary, 1945, British and American tonnages were 45,889 and 46,088 respectively. In March, Bomber Command dropped 67, 637 and Eighth Air Force dropped 65, 962 tonnes.
Over 10,000 FlaK 18 36 88mm AA cannons were diverted to the defence of the Reich from air assault. Diverted from the fighting fronts, most likely that of the Eastern Front. An estimate of 600,000 Germans were killed throughout the war in the bombing offensive of the US 8th and 15th, and Bomber Command.
In the words of Max Hastings "It would be ludicrous to imply that the German people found the experience acceptable, or to deny that Hitler's war production suffered not only from damage on plant, but also from absenteeism and chronic dislocation to the lives of the labour force."
Between July and September 1944 11% of RAF Bomber Commands sorties were against oil installations. Between October and December 14% were against oil installations.
In November, 1944, 24.6% were directed against oil installations. RAF Bomber Command dropped more bombs on oil installations in that month than the US 8th AF.
In October, 1944, all together Bomber Command dropped 61, 204 tonnes while 'The Mighty 8th' dropped 38, 961 tonnes. Feburary, 1945, British and American tonnages were 45,889 and 46,088 respectively. In March, Bomber Command dropped 67, 637 and Eighth Air Force dropped 65, 962 tonnes.
Over 10,000 FlaK 18 36 88mm AA cannons were diverted to the defence of the Reich from air assault. Diverted from the fighting fronts, most likely that of the Eastern Front. An estimate of 600,000 Germans were killed throughout the war in the bombing offensive of the US 8th and 15th, and Bomber Command.
In the words of Max Hastings "It would be ludicrous to imply that the German people found the experience acceptable, or to deny that Hitler's war production suffered not only from damage on plant, but also from absenteeism and chronic dislocation to the lives of the labour force."
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Well, if these datas are correct, than the bombing had less impact than I fought. If you check the production rates in september, october and november, the aircraft fuel production increased, not decreased (compare my thread in ww2general about german aircraft fuel production to check the numbers...) considerably. Keep also in mind that "precision" was very low (officially considered a hit if the bomb is placed in within 1000 ft distance of the target).
Of the 600.000 killed, how many are military? How many are civil? What does the numbers tell you?
And something to add here: You might find it interesting that the VVS was the first nation to carry out succesful strikes against oil fields (1941 against Ploesti, resulting in the relocation of all but a few rumanian fighters to these fields in order to defend them).
And you are still not factoring the combat sorties of both. Great advantage for VVS.
And while the red forces wouldn´t be able to acces Britain, what are the british forces expect to: Enter Russia? Advance in the plains in front of Moscow? No way. It´s a draw in my eyes. Bombers alone doesn´t ensure winning a war. Esspeccially against Russia. you are not factoring the huge areas there, the RAF simply hasn´t enough planes to get air superiority there. Heavy bombers have less impact than you might estimate, my friend. They would depend on their own, since no british fighter was able to accompany them on their raids. We do know what happens to bombers without escorts. The technology of Britain wasn´t developed to be maintened under those circumstances, also. And the MiG-3 in 1941 was at least comparable to the Spitfire V at high altitudes (and less in lower).
And remeber, the soviets prooved to be very careful in adopting new techs and countering them. The reason why they did not fielded high altitude planes on a larger scale wasn´t because they are unable to do so but because they simply don´t needed them for their purposes.
Of the 600.000 killed, how many are military? How many are civil? What does the numbers tell you?
And something to add here: You might find it interesting that the VVS was the first nation to carry out succesful strikes against oil fields (1941 against Ploesti, resulting in the relocation of all but a few rumanian fighters to these fields in order to defend them).
And you are still not factoring the combat sorties of both. Great advantage for VVS.
And while the red forces wouldn´t be able to acces Britain, what are the british forces expect to: Enter Russia? Advance in the plains in front of Moscow? No way. It´s a draw in my eyes. Bombers alone doesn´t ensure winning a war. Esspeccially against Russia. you are not factoring the huge areas there, the RAF simply hasn´t enough planes to get air superiority there. Heavy bombers have less impact than you might estimate, my friend. They would depend on their own, since no british fighter was able to accompany them on their raids. We do know what happens to bombers without escorts. The technology of Britain wasn´t developed to be maintened under those circumstances, also. And the MiG-3 in 1941 was at least comparable to the Spitfire V at high altitudes (and less in lower).
And remeber, the soviets prooved to be very careful in adopting new techs and countering them. The reason why they did not fielded high altitude planes on a larger scale wasn´t because they are unable to do so but because they simply don´t needed them for their purposes.
- Thread starter
- #37
The production figures for German production only increases because A. Speer was still building up the production levels.
Do you believe that Allied bombing had no effect, or even so, the opposite effect to what it was supposed to?
The production rates climbed all the way up until 1945. Does that mean that Allied bombing increased German productivity? No it doesn't.
The numbers tell me 600,000 people died under the onslaught of Allied air power. For every 1 soldier, it was 3 civilians.
I have the numbers for the loss of fuel caused by Allied air raids on oil installations.
The VVS strike on Ploesti were nothing compared to the raids by the USAAF and RAF.
The RAF wouldn't need complete air superiority, local superiority is enough to ensure the bombers or attack aircraft get the job done. The Soviet Union increase in technology was largely because of Western Allied technology being sent there. The Soviet Union wasn't capable of developing electronic equipment on par with the RAFs.
The MiG-3 was comparable to the Spitfire Mk.V at high altitude but not the Spitfire Mk.VI, IX and XIV.
What new technology did the VVS field or what German technology did they counter effectively?
Do you believe that Allied bombing had no effect, or even so, the opposite effect to what it was supposed to?
The production rates climbed all the way up until 1945. Does that mean that Allied bombing increased German productivity? No it doesn't.
The numbers tell me 600,000 people died under the onslaught of Allied air power. For every 1 soldier, it was 3 civilians.
I have the numbers for the loss of fuel caused by Allied air raids on oil installations.
The VVS strike on Ploesti were nothing compared to the raids by the USAAF and RAF.
The RAF wouldn't need complete air superiority, local superiority is enough to ensure the bombers or attack aircraft get the job done. The Soviet Union increase in technology was largely because of Western Allied technology being sent there. The Soviet Union wasn't capable of developing electronic equipment on par with the RAFs.
The MiG-3 was comparable to the Spitfire Mk.V at high altitude but not the Spitfire Mk.VI, IX and XIV.
What new technology did the VVS field or what German technology did they counter effectively?
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Well, the oil production (unlike other fields) couldnt be dispersed or set to underground facilities. Speer couldnt increase it anyway. The reason why they increased was because bombing was extremely effective in jule1944. Afterwards it never reached this level (and gave the germans enough room and time to upbuild there production again). In this way the RAF helped in delaying the increase in productivity of this timeframe. It could have been crushed but it wasnt. Not one of 3 but moreso one of five to six persons of military died becuase of the strategic bombing. On the other side under the tactical bombradment of the VVS 6,7 of ten died persons have been military ones. If you factor the tanks also more damage to the whermacht as a force was done by VVS than RAF.
Are you saying that Speer was the reason that Germany survived in 1943/44...well, even this underlines the failure of the strategic bombing conception: It wasnt possible for RAF and US forces to crush the german war economy, why should the RAF be able to crush the economy of Russia, a more distant and capable enemy...
The VVS had their own jet technology projects, in 1941 they had the Bi 1, a rocket driven interceptor in prototype stage.
Are you saying that Speer was the reason that Germany survived in 1943/44...well, even this underlines the failure of the strategic bombing conception: It wasnt possible for RAF and US forces to crush the german war economy, why should the RAF be able to crush the economy of Russia, a more distant and capable enemy...
The VVS had their own jet technology projects, in 1941 they had the Bi 1, a rocket driven interceptor in prototype stage.
Delcyros:
You have your fashion of sticking to ideas.
It is easy to be to noticed: whenever a comment, remark, idea or source surges to make a point in favor of Germany you ask for moderation or express scepticism or simply provide your info allegedly proving them wrong.
Quite the contrary occurs when the discussion focus on soviet military performance: all your remarks are positive and allow no doubt.
You recognize their losses were frightful and that is about it.
There is a counterpoint to each of your arguments.
It is not just others over-estimating a combatant nation: you over-estimate the capabilities of the USSR during WWII.
So they had no high altitude aircraft for the sole reason "they did not need them for their purposes"?
I am sure that besides geography of the eastern front, there are other reasons to explain why "they did not need high altitude planes for their purposes".
A hint: what about having two allies (RAF and USAAF) receiving thousands of high altitude planes (four engined bombers and fighters) and sending them to pound Germany?
You fail to acknowledge the critical advantages of such situation -or pretend you don´t- in favor of the soviets.
If my "friends" will undertake massive production of heavy bombers and high altitude fighters i can then erase such items from my catalog of war items to be mass produced.
I have read your postings here carefully still fail to have a complete photograph of what you are tryin to say here.
As Plan_D correctly put it, the soviets carried out bombing raids using their twin engined bombers -not only against Ploesti but also Berlin and other cities- which had minimum impact on the enemy targets but, yes, suffered frightful losses of planes in the process.
This to tell you the soviets were more than appealled by the notion of raiding German facilities and of killing German civilians by turning their cities into rubble.
So the "they did not them for their purposes" can be put into serious doubt.
You are not suggesting that if the RAF and USAAF had not been involved in the west with their fleets of heavies, the USSR would have been capable of producing them....are you...?
Saying the USSR was not capable to have four engine heavy bombers and high altitude fighters included in the soviet catalog of mass produced items seems way more realistic.
Other points:
(i) I agree the Mig-3 was a capable modern fighter in the VVS. Now, can you tell what was it that it achieved in the air against the Luftwaffe?
(ii) The soviet rocket driven interceptor: has anyone said jet propulsion and rocketry was unknown for any power of the era? Unless you are about to come up saying the soviet rocket and jet "program" was more advanced than Germany´s i can tell you they achieved nothing in this department.
You over estimate the USSR: by the end of the war it was an exhausted nation, over bled and reaching its limits. No matter how large its territory and population might have been; no matter how brutal and relentless its regime was; no matter its accepted casualty list was insanely huge.
You have your fashion of sticking to ideas.
It is easy to be to noticed: whenever a comment, remark, idea or source surges to make a point in favor of Germany you ask for moderation or express scepticism or simply provide your info allegedly proving them wrong.
Quite the contrary occurs when the discussion focus on soviet military performance: all your remarks are positive and allow no doubt.
You recognize their losses were frightful and that is about it.
There is a counterpoint to each of your arguments.
It is not just others over-estimating a combatant nation: you over-estimate the capabilities of the USSR during WWII.
So they had no high altitude aircraft for the sole reason "they did not need them for their purposes"?
I am sure that besides geography of the eastern front, there are other reasons to explain why "they did not need high altitude planes for their purposes".
A hint: what about having two allies (RAF and USAAF) receiving thousands of high altitude planes (four engined bombers and fighters) and sending them to pound Germany?
You fail to acknowledge the critical advantages of such situation -or pretend you don´t- in favor of the soviets.
If my "friends" will undertake massive production of heavy bombers and high altitude fighters i can then erase such items from my catalog of war items to be mass produced.
I have read your postings here carefully still fail to have a complete photograph of what you are tryin to say here.
As Plan_D correctly put it, the soviets carried out bombing raids using their twin engined bombers -not only against Ploesti but also Berlin and other cities- which had minimum impact on the enemy targets but, yes, suffered frightful losses of planes in the process.
This to tell you the soviets were more than appealled by the notion of raiding German facilities and of killing German civilians by turning their cities into rubble.
So the "they did not them for their purposes" can be put into serious doubt.
You are not suggesting that if the RAF and USAAF had not been involved in the west with their fleets of heavies, the USSR would have been capable of producing them....are you...?
Saying the USSR was not capable to have four engine heavy bombers and high altitude fighters included in the soviet catalog of mass produced items seems way more realistic.
Other points:
(i) I agree the Mig-3 was a capable modern fighter in the VVS. Now, can you tell what was it that it achieved in the air against the Luftwaffe?
(ii) The soviet rocket driven interceptor: has anyone said jet propulsion and rocketry was unknown for any power of the era? Unless you are about to come up saying the soviet rocket and jet "program" was more advanced than Germany´s i can tell you they achieved nothing in this department.
You over estimate the USSR: by the end of the war it was an exhausted nation, over bled and reaching its limits. No matter how large its territory and population might have been; no matter how brutal and relentless its regime was; no matter its accepted casualty list was insanely huge.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Dear Udet,
I see your points. You critizize me for taking position for a force which is generally considered a poor one in terms of aerial warfare. This is -just in my eyes- a mistake. I agree that it sounds from time to time not balanced, but there are reasons for me to do so. Understanding of the eastern front might be a key factor in understanding the whole ww2.
(i)What does the MiG achieved? Operational order No. 123/21-41:"(...) unter allen Umständen sind Begegnungen mit den MiG-Jägern in Höhen über 5000 m ohne Überzahlvorteil zu vermeiden" Actually this lead to tactics trapping the MiG in lower altitudes and never was a serious problem. Losses have been inflicted by those MiG´s at high altitude, esspeccially during the Moscow bombardment. The superior tactics used by Luftwaffe fighter pilots in this timeframe shouldn´t reduce the capabilities of this airplane in our views.
(ii) The rocket driven interceptor: No, I replied to the theory that the VVS was a low end technology force, uncapable to field something new. In comparison to Britain they have been further in 1941, since Britain obviously had no rocket interceptors in prototype stage. The only nation to do so was Germany with the DFS 194 and Me-163A in 1941. Both are in my views more advanced than the soviet version but comparable in some points. Jet technology was far more ahead in Britain and Germany than in Russia.
The VVS did carried out some desperate sorties but never intended to work on a larger strategical bombing campaign since they had other prioritys, the prioritys of the ground forces on the front. This often had more significant impact than the strategical bombing campaign. A strategic bombing campaign usually depends on high altitude planes, while a concentration on tactical duties prefer the low level performances.
The VVS had the opinion to produce the heavy bomber Pe-8, a mediocre design but better than anything the germans fielded in 1941, but they decided that the mass production would take too much ressources, which have been needed for fighter and tactical planes. They could do so, my friend. On the other side they recognized that probably losses would be terrible and even if they succeed (as did RAF and US), it would not have a serious impact on the curse of the front. Urgently they decided to specialize on tacticals. Not surprising.
You knwo that tacticals usually produce terrible losses (take RAF losses for low level Tornado in the first Gulf war) and so did the VVS. However there are more reasons: Excellent enemy tactics and planes, poor quality of airframes, bad leadership and so on. Even with this in mind the VVS did not took more losses per 100 sorties than did the RAF. Isn´t it surprising? You may argue that this is based on the statistics and the ratio is only that good for the VVS because they have been able to fly more missions than did the RAF and with less missions it would not reduce in less but in more losses for the VVS, since the probability of air superiority grows and falls with the comparison of the sorties to some point. But this is unproven. Possible and probable but speculation. Even then, the VVS was able to do some 3.4 million combat sorties against Germany, while the Luftwaffe only fielded some 1.8 million on the east. That´s why in the end the Luftwaffe lost air superiority in 1944. Had they keep the superiority, they could have prevented the catastrophic situation in mid 1944, where Il-2 crushed the bulk of the german forces with ease.
I see your points. You critizize me for taking position for a force which is generally considered a poor one in terms of aerial warfare. This is -just in my eyes- a mistake. I agree that it sounds from time to time not balanced, but there are reasons for me to do so. Understanding of the eastern front might be a key factor in understanding the whole ww2.
(i)What does the MiG achieved? Operational order No. 123/21-41:"(...) unter allen Umständen sind Begegnungen mit den MiG-Jägern in Höhen über 5000 m ohne Überzahlvorteil zu vermeiden" Actually this lead to tactics trapping the MiG in lower altitudes and never was a serious problem. Losses have been inflicted by those MiG´s at high altitude, esspeccially during the Moscow bombardment. The superior tactics used by Luftwaffe fighter pilots in this timeframe shouldn´t reduce the capabilities of this airplane in our views.
(ii) The rocket driven interceptor: No, I replied to the theory that the VVS was a low end technology force, uncapable to field something new. In comparison to Britain they have been further in 1941, since Britain obviously had no rocket interceptors in prototype stage. The only nation to do so was Germany with the DFS 194 and Me-163A in 1941. Both are in my views more advanced than the soviet version but comparable in some points. Jet technology was far more ahead in Britain and Germany than in Russia.
The VVS did carried out some desperate sorties but never intended to work on a larger strategical bombing campaign since they had other prioritys, the prioritys of the ground forces on the front. This often had more significant impact than the strategical bombing campaign. A strategic bombing campaign usually depends on high altitude planes, while a concentration on tactical duties prefer the low level performances.
The VVS had the opinion to produce the heavy bomber Pe-8, a mediocre design but better than anything the germans fielded in 1941, but they decided that the mass production would take too much ressources, which have been needed for fighter and tactical planes. They could do so, my friend. On the other side they recognized that probably losses would be terrible and even if they succeed (as did RAF and US), it would not have a serious impact on the curse of the front. Urgently they decided to specialize on tacticals. Not surprising.
You knwo that tacticals usually produce terrible losses (take RAF losses for low level Tornado in the first Gulf war) and so did the VVS. However there are more reasons: Excellent enemy tactics and planes, poor quality of airframes, bad leadership and so on. Even with this in mind the VVS did not took more losses per 100 sorties than did the RAF. Isn´t it surprising? You may argue that this is based on the statistics and the ratio is only that good for the VVS because they have been able to fly more missions than did the RAF and with less missions it would not reduce in less but in more losses for the VVS, since the probability of air superiority grows and falls with the comparison of the sorties to some point. But this is unproven. Possible and probable but speculation. Even then, the VVS was able to do some 3.4 million combat sorties against Germany, while the Luftwaffe only fielded some 1.8 million on the east. That´s why in the end the Luftwaffe lost air superiority in 1944. Had they keep the superiority, they could have prevented the catastrophic situation in mid 1944, where Il-2 crushed the bulk of the german forces with ease.
