VVS Vs. RAF

plan_D said:

If I want to bait up a comparison between different aircraft types, I will. Also, I never said the La-7 was a poor aircraft. The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire!

Click to expand...

The Spit XIV would trash a La-7 in a dogfight.

The Russian Lavochkin series are hyped up to be something they were not, the 109's 190's litterally slaughtered them.

The best Soviet Fighter was the Yak-3 in my opinion.

I seem to be in a minority of one but here goes. The pictures are impressive but can be misleading.
Railway yards are ideal targets and one that I have said a number of times. But trains still ran. Not as many and with a lot of distruption, but they ran. Is anyone going to deny that.
Oil production / storage are another good target, but oil was still produced in surprising quantities until I think the last quarter of 1944, but it was still produced.
Most of the other photos are of cities which received a fearful pounding but moral didn't collapse. As I said earlier, I believe its fair to say that it made the ordinary German realise that the war couldn't be won, but the will to resist stayed until close to the bitter end.
German tank production stayed at very high levels until the end of 1944 despite the damage to the factories.
German aircraft production stayed high, again until right to the end again despite the bombing on the factories.
German U Boats were being produced in large numbers right to the end despite the raids on the shipyards. In this case, a large proportion of the damage to production was done when ships/subs were damaged in dock as it was difficult to move them. The facities to produce them were still in place.
I mentioned the ball bearing raids which were undertaken at significant loss. The factories were badly knocked about at the end, but the bearings were still produced after a short time lapse.
Time and again the allies were suprised at the speed at which the Germans were able to repair facilities and restart production, because the tools themselves often survived. I must ask again? is anyone going to deny this

There were occaisions when a facility was abandoned completely but these were few and far between compared to the number attacked.

Plan D is right when he says that time effort and resources are taken up in fixing damage and rebuilding the facilities. After all if you have the machine tools you still need the infrastructure. Also that if we hadn't bombed the sites then production would have been much higher

FJ is right, the machine tools are the key to production but unless you destroy the tool itself, it can be salvaged and reused.

What I am saying is that in the majority of the cases, the tools themselves could be reused as they were not destroyed, as a result recovery faster than anyone expected.

Last point. I am aware that we did take part in the bombing of the oil facilities but it was largely an American strategic aim. If we had given it the same priority as the USA I believe that a lot more planes would have been grounded, a lot fewer tanks would have moved and production itself would probably have suffered.

Soren, point out the line or comment when I stated that a La-7 would challenge a Spitfire Mk.XIV effectively. I know the Mk.XIV was better than the La-7.

Glider, the production of goods, items, machines and oil were still in existance but they were not as high as they would have been had the bombing never happened. I notice you recognise this, I'm just reinforcing it among the others.

The oil was still produced but it was FAR below what the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe required to continue a war (I leave out Kriegsmarine because they'd basically become non-existant by 1944). As I stated, they required 300,000 tons a month to sustain any kind of effective resistance. By September 1944, they'd dropped to 150,000 tons.

The oil attack was U.S led but don't get the wrong idea that Bomber Command did nothing to aid the attack. I do agree the British should have done more towards oil but 'Bomber' Harris was adamant that bombing cities would do something. The head of the RAF really should have come down harder on him.

Glider said:

FJ, Yes i have seen tooling of this nature also the tooling for APC's. It is big, bulky, and pretty solid lumps of meal. What I am saying is the to destroy the tooling, you need to hit it. Knocking the building down around it won't do the job.

Click to expand...

Not necessarly - production tooling, although massive and bulky is very susceptible any movement or shaking. I've seen tooling go out of calibration just by having someone move a large heavy object close to it and vibrate the ground around the tool. Even settling of a factory floor can cause problems. Because of conditions like this in a factory, there are periodic tooling inspections. Imagine what exploding 500 pounders would do, even if not hitting the tool or the building.

plan_D said:

Still, logic evades you. By destroying a factory you destroy the what is being built there, that has to be built again. It takes time and resources to relocate, rebuild and in some cases, retool a factory.

My point exactly!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nice discussion.
We can all agree in the point that bombing factories costs manpower and time but after all I see, there is no justification for the view that heavy bombardments could crush the war economy in this field anymway. There is reason to believe it worked positively in the "numbers if not" speculation but except for the fuel bombing it never had the expected impact.
Had they followed the example of VVS in strikes on oil targets in 1941 on a larger scale (even with night bombardments), I am sure that Gemany would have been in a worse fuel situation as soon as 1943, shortening the war. For the Luftwaffe fighter force the historical fuel problem was existant but far away from hampering them to fly sorties. Indeed thanks to the increase in fuel production by september, october and november, despite the efforts of the RAF to crush the production, the Whermacht got enough fuel to locally allow offensive operations again for a brief period (battle of the Bulge).
Kriegsmariene did exist in 1944. Indeed it carried out the largest navy operation in ETO in 1944/1945 (evacuation of over 4 million people from the east prussian terretorys), requiring a huge amount of oil and cowl. Beside of this the Uboat fleet was intact at VE-day, having both, a numerical and quality advantage over any other time, some say it was most dangerous at the time of wars end. Production was also very dispersed, resulting in an even increasing number of deployed new submarines, like the revolutionary type XXI and XXIII. The La-7 was quite a good plane, capable of taking the fight to anyone below 20000ft. (wasn´t there one of the Experten with over 200 claims who was killed with all of his squadron by a La-7 formation late in 1944?)The Spitfire MK XIV was an excellent high altitude plane, comparable to the excellent I-225.

yes but we're not talking about the war against germany here.........

and it is said that one lancaster took out, in one sortie, the equivilent manpower and machinery it took to produce the lancaster in the first place, and as each lancaster made on average, 20 operational sorties (and against russian defences the average number would be higher), then very quickly we can see just how devistating raids could be, and we would not only be hitting russian cities, but the vital road and rail networks and the communications network..........

and, just out of interest, where are the two countries launching their aircraft from?? because if the RAF is launching raids from england and the VVS from russia, all this talk of fighters is useless as opposing fighters wouldn't have the range to engange in combat, as such the war would be decided by long range bombing, and as the RAF had this capability, and the VVS didn't, they couldn't even defend themselfs from this kind of attack by night, it is clear the RAF would win.........

Plan_D said:

Soren, point out the line or comment when I stated that a La-7 would challenge a Spitfire Mk.XIV effectively. I know the Mk.XIV was better than the La-7.

Click to expand...

This highly indicates that you were emplying the La-7 was as good as the Spit XIV:

Plan_D said:

The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire

Click to expand...

In any case it doesnt matter, as you just said it yourself that the Spit XIV was better.

delcyros said:

The La-7 was quite a good plane, capable of taking the fight to anyone below 20000ft. .

Click to expand...

The 109 was better than the La-7, as the 'Real' history and aerodynamics testify.

(wasn´t there one of the Experten with over 200 claims who was killed with all of his squadron by a La-7 formation late in 1944?)

Click to expand...

Russian-dream-story

The Spitfire MK XIV was an excellent high altitude plane, comparable to the excellent I-225.

Click to expand...

The Spit XIV was better than the La-7 below 5000ft aswell.

I reread it and you are right, it wasn´t a La-7 who brought O. Kittel down but a reversefire from a desperate Il-2.
Operating from England, Lancaster, no british plane could drop bombs on any vital city in Russia nor on any important target anyway. Even operating from the near east, which is more reasonable, they had not the range to strike the aircraft industries...
And again: if you turn on one wheel you have to factor the enemy actions properly. Had the VVS to deal with heavy bombers and nightfighters, they would come out pretty soon with excellent high altitude planes:
nightfighter: MiG-5 (5 hrs endurance, 375 mp/h at 16.000 ft)
high altitude interceptor: I-225 (451 mp/h at 32.000 ft.)
Technology was there, they simply did not needed them for the Luftwaffe.

ok, so maybe after a few months of repeated RAF bombing they would have come up with a average nightfighter with a very poor radar to combat the lancaster raids and the mossie, the best allied nightfighter of WWII, so if they had done that then what, how would you strike back?? by developing a heavy bomber that would use up allot of resorces?? only for that bomber to get decimated coming over England by waiting fighters as we saw you coming hundreds of miles away on our RADAR??

and the lanc had more than enough range to get to russia from england, what in russia could reach england??

and the MiG-5 and I-225 you mentioned, how much service did they see?? were they actually any more than designs??

and remember the british and proberly the americans wouldn't be sending you any resorces, weapons or secrets, how would you fare without our technology??

I do think it is crystal clear that on a RAF vs. VVS the Brits have a clear quality advantage.

There is, however, a point where the VVS would have the upper hand: the list of accepted casualties.

Keep in mind England did not have the contempt for the lives of their soldiers the soviet fashion.

During the famous Battle of Britain, even when the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the island, the RAF finished the battle being badly mauled.

Contrary to what most Brits believe, the Luftwaffe did not cancell its operations over England due to "unbearable losses". German losses if indeed high during several days of the BoB remained within the moderate range and the operations were cancelled mainly because of Hitler´s agenda for the east.

After the BoB, the bulk of the Luftwaffe went east to feast with the VVS, leaving only JG 2 Richtofen and the lethal Schlageter JG 26 to deal with the RAF in the west and taught them Brits painful lessons.

Throughout late 1941, the complete 1942 and early 1943 the RAF proved uncapable of dealing with the Luftwaffe by itself.

It appears to me the effect of losses endured by the RAF during the BoB has not yet been assessed in due dimension when one sees the performance of the RAF in the west right after the BoB; likewise the effect of Luftwaffe losses in the same battle have been over-estimated when one sees the performance of the Luftwaffe after BoB (crushing the VVS in 1941 and 1942 -and its operations in France and over the channel).

It´s been said here:
No one will deny the soviets had nothing available in their stock to deal with the Mosssie or that the Spit MkXIV could clearly deal with the La-7 or any the late war Yaks -at any altitude-. The alleged German order issued to their pilots "to not combat with the Yaks at low altitude" seems funny.
Crap. Late Yak was very capable machine, but nowhere near "invincible" at whatever altitude.

Ground attack: just like the superb Fw190s did with soviet ground attack planes whenever they met them, the Typhoons could take care of the slow, heavy and clumsy IL-2s.


So it would all depend on how fast superior quality pays dividends in battle for the Brits: if the plus of superior quality manages to inflict massive losses to the VVS before the numerical superiority of the enemy (and his willingness for casualties) takes its toll on the RAF.

If superior quality pays dividends the way it did for the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942 in the USSR, and the fight is not protracted beyond the limists of a nation like England (the way Hitler and cronies did tresspasing the limits of Germany) the most likely of the scenarios is a stunning and clear British victory.

Not even the best pilots, planes and tactics will ensure winning a war if those in the politics do not do their work. Hitler had absolutely everything to supress the soviet union but, being the gambler he was, he pushed the war beyond the limits of his soldiers. He had the best warriors and tactis. Everyone and everything had limits though.

May I suggest that if we are talking about USSR VS UK then we work on the basis that the UK is fighting ina simmilar situation to the Germans. To try and fight from the UK just wouldn't hae worked due to the distance.
The thread only works on the basis that we are in range/contact with each other

Udet said:

The alleged German order issued to their pilots "to not combat with the Yaks at low altitude" seems funny.

Click to expand...

Thats because that order was never given. Go ask any German pilot about this, and he will agree, as he's never heard that order before.

Actually the Germans were given the same advice on how to combat the Yak's, as on how to combat the Lavochkin's.

The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots on the Lavochkin are as follows:

"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109."

ok so we are now assuming that the RAF is opperating out of Germany and the VVS from russia?? or is the RAF based in Poland?? either way, our fighters and ground controll was were far superior to the VVS, they had nothing to combat the mossie by day in the low level attack role, or by night in the night fighter role, huge parts of russia were in range of the lancaster and their mossie escort from Poland, whilst the IL-2 would suffice for ground attack, the tiffy was far superior in that it could fight it's way in and out of a batlle as well, which the IL-2 could not, our pilot training was superior, as were our radios, furthermore the RAF is likely to include our commonwealth as well, which is allot of power.......

'Bomber' Harris stated that the RAF bombing offensive on German cities was to crush the Germans will to resist, in this it failed. However, in 1940-'42 Britain wasn't in the best of situations. Quite rightly Britain took the war to Germany by bombing it's cities, just like it did ours.
Sure, from a military point of view it seems tactically and strategically pointless but it rose the moral of the British isles. While it never decreased the German will to resist it increased the British will to continue the fight.

The VVS set no example by bombing German oil installations. The VVS bombed everything and anything that had a Swastika flying anywhere near it. They bombed cities just as they did military targets. Helsinki was continually bombed by the VVS until the FAF destroyed their bombers.

In 1944 Kriegsmarine servicemen were being drafted into the other arms of the service because it's existance was becoming more and more pointless by the day. The U-boat fleet might have still been in existance but it's effectiveness had been crushed by the Allied actions in the Atlantic. The Tirpitz was sunk in 1944 by the RAF. The evacuation of East Prussian terrorities shows how vulnerable any Axis surface vessels were in 1944.

The Spitfire Mk.XIV was a superior fighter to the La-7 at any altitude. Did the I-225 ever get off the drawing board? Was it with any squadron? Did it see combat?

Soren, I fail to see how that saying the La-7 was probably the best the VVS had is saying I'm comparing it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV but okay.

del, Soviet RADAR was practically non-existant in World War 2. How do you expect them to wage an effective night defensive campaign? The MiG-5 and I-225 how far did their development get?

Also, notice the Asia map I have attached. It is very crude but basically correct. You can check it yourselves, the B.III Lancaster had a combat radius of 2,000 Km.

The black indicates bases in Syria. The blue in Iran. The red in India. The green in Hong Kong. You could infact put the India bases in the north of Pakistan, as in World War 2 it was still India.

We do try to compare RAF vs. VVS, not commonwealth.
If operating from Poland, Moscow would be in range for nightattacks with Lancaster at reduced payload. NOT EVEN ONE OF THE MAJOR AIRCRAFT COMPLEXES IS IN RANGE OF A LANCASTER ATTACK. Just take a map and find complex 43 south of Nishnewartowsk, which is the closest major plant to Poland, we are talking about a distance of 7.450 Km if you want to come back ( 4.720 miles). Even a Lancaster MK-II had only a range of 2.510 miles total. What a payload could a Lancaster carry on these distances?
You may argue that Moscow (closest 1250 miles) and Gorki (closest 1800 miles) are reasonable targets (Moscow because bomber Harris would take this as a priority target and Gorki because it´s powerplants produce a majority of electrical energy for the european part of the SU), but there is still no impact on the production field. And some big planes flying at Il-2 speed for 5 hours over enemy held terretory would exclude day sorties.
No Mossie or any other RAF escort fighter could accompany them on these distances. There is also a dense AA defense over Moscow, Radar aided and excellent ground controll for the interceptors (which did succesful night interceptions particularly in late 1941).
I wonder what could bring the RAF air superiority in the front affairs since the VVS was able to fly in average two-three times more combat sorties. And on the ground, the british forces would have been crushed as well by the red army forces, leaving Poland and Germany for the VVS.
The only way to bring RAF on equal or better terms is with the help of the US and at the end of ww2.
The VVS also could field much more planes, leaving the RAF over Poland in the defensive.
One example to the quality lack of the VVS (earlier years):
The MiG-3 in 1941 was superior to anything the british (and germans) had in high altitude, there it was 100 Km/h faster than the Bf-109 F-2 and 125 Km/h faster than the Bf-109 E-4.
And another one for the late timeframe (44):
I-220 (A) -proposed designation: MiG-7, top speed: 697 Km/h (433 mp/h) at 7.000 m (23.230 ft), range: 400 miles, time to 5.000 m: 4,6 min., service sailing: 44.820 ft.)
weapons: 4 Shvak 20mm gunsTwo prototypes build in 1943, tested in early 1944 originally as an answer to the german Bomber-B program (serial production canceled because of the german program, which also was canceled: no need, no plane.
For the Kriegsmariene: German submarines succesfully sank british ship in the firth of forth at may, 5th. 1945, a mock attack of U-2511 on a british task force would have resulted in the sinking of a british heavy cruiser. The attack was that fast and stealthy that the british simply doesn´t believed Schnee in the first moment, afterwards, as they compared the time and position figures, they found out that he evades 7 destroyers in this convoi with ease...
The evacuation was the most succesful surface operation of ww2, Prinz Eugen, Scheer, Lutzow and Hipper repeatedly drove off russian tank forces by shore bombardments, One of these cruiser was destroyed by Lancaster Tallboy bombs, another by VVS pilots.

Obviously someone didn't look at the map. Moscow was not just a city but the transport heart of Soviet Russia. That was the main reason the German General Staff wanted Moscow. Study German invasion plans and battle doctrine and it says "Fight over the land, not for it" in most cases. The Wehrmacht sneaked to crush the Red Army not take land from them, no army no defence.
In this doctrine it would rule out the capturing of cities and towns just for the sake of it. Moscow was, however, different because it provided the Soviet Union with a rail center to transport units to the front. In German hands it would provide them with a rail center for efficient transport throughout Soviet Russia.

The RAF would see that as a vital target to hamper the movement of Soviet troops from key battlezones. They would be right in assuming it would be a key target too.
The Lancaster B.III had a combat radius of 2,000 k/m. The map shows, rather crudely I will admit, the extent of it's combat range. It includes Caucasus oil, Ukrainian coal, Stalingrad, Moscow and several other production or raw material centers. From India they could strike southern tips of Russia.

The RAF would fly sorties when they needed to. The low sortie number for the RAF is purely because they were flying sorties when they wanted, not when they were needed.

I think the Battle of Britain shows how effective the RAF can be in the defensive. Typhoons and Mosquitos would make short work of any incoming VVS bombers. Spitfire Mk.XIVs would make short work of any incoming VVS fighters.

The Spitfire Mk.V was superior to almost all VVS fighters in 1941, at almost any height and speed. The Spitfire Mk.IX was superior to all the VVS had at any height and speed, and the same applies for the Spitfire Mk.XIV in it's timeframe.

The 'proposed' MiG-7 never came about and is therefore not up for discussion. What is written down on paper doesn't always turn out so beautiful in the sky.

As for the Kriegsmarine, you honestly believe it had any worth against Western Allied Forces in 1944-'45 any more than it just being a nuisance. The Battle for the Atlantic was over, the Allies had secured the shipping route from the Wolfpacks.

The evacuation of refugees from East Prussia took a large toll on man and machine. In fact, the worst maritime disaster in history happened during those evacuations. Wilhelm Gustoff sinking with over 7000 souls.
Even then, the local actions of this tiny force of three Cruisers and civilian vessels evacuating people while laying down support fire doesn't make the Kriegsmarine a formidable force.

plan_D said:

Soren, I fail to see how that saying the La-7 was probably the best the VVS had is saying I'm comparing it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV but okay.

Click to expand...

Plan_D you litterally wrote it

See for yourself:

Plan_D said:

The La-7 was probably the best the VVS had, that's why I compared it to the H.F XIV Spitfire

Click to expand...

What is your first language?

I said that's the best with the VVS had, that is why I compared it to the Spitfire Mk.XIV - the best dogfighter the RAF had.

First off, the map you present here used a very favourable projection method , the circles are very, very favourable to your position, some circles are based on SU terretory and not UK.
Crushing the transportation network with heavy bombers didn´t worked in case of Germany and is even more unprobable in case of Russia.
Spitfire V vs MiG 3 (1941/42):
The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
top speed: spit Va-----------------------mig-3 (1st serial block 1941)
at sea level: below315 mp/h------------309 mp/h
max speed: 374mp/h at 20.800ft.--------398 mp/h at 25.900 ft.
time to alt.: 5.1 min to 16.000ft-----------5.1 min to 16.000ft.
service sailing: 37.000ft.------------------40.000 ft.So what? The Mig beats the contemporary Spitfire of 1941 at high altitude with ease. At the Spits best altitude, the Mig is 22 mp/h faster, at the Migs best altitude the Mig is 31 mp/h faster. A comfortable speed advantage, if you ask me. No Spitfire V has the performance of a Mig 3 at high altitude.
Actually the I-220 was flown (as was the I-225) and the speed figures are confirmed by various flight tests. There are comparable planes, however I see no technical superiority of the RAF, except for the number of planes deployed. I told you why the VVS refused the serial production of these high performance planes...
The german submarine force is widely recognized to be most dangerous in the time at about VE-day. It was considered a serious thread and plans have been made to return into the Atlantic with superior boats (U-2511 was the first of three to go, and there are more than 130 additional Type XXI boats). If you check marine historians or even if you check the official Royal navy war diary, you will find this confirmed.
The sinking of W.Gustloff and Goya, originally passanger ships are credited to soviet forces, not RAF. Also keep in mind that the evacuation was done under the worsest imaginable circumstances: Fuel shortage, no air cover, in range for serious attacks by VVS and RAF and so on...

Lanc
My May 25 10.03 posting was on the basis that USSR and UK were head to head. I really don't care where but if your trying to compare airforces then they need to be able to reach each other.
By the way. In that posting I totally agree with your comments . Or should that be that your agreeing with mine. Either way we seem to be close