VVS Vs. RAF

[cheddar cheese]

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...

Yep. To add to that it was also tested using its full compliment of 4 ShVAK's, carrying 400 rounds each. Its performance then fell to 415mph at 22,300ft, Max. Service ceiling of 36,000ft and 6.3mins to 16,400ft

 

[Soren]

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.

What you wrote can be intrepreted in two ways, and I went to make sure you meant the right thing, wich you made clear to me you did when you said the Spit XIV was better. To wich I answered:

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

But then you asked:

"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."

And I gave you this answer:

Plan_D you litterally wrote it

See for yourself:

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

See the connection ?

I was just answering your question.

 

[plan_D]

Point which dot on my map has the base in Soviet terrority. The bases are in Syria, Iran, India and Hong Kong. All owned by the U.K in World War 2. So, the map is right.

All the MiG-3 has it a little faster speed. It carries weak armament, weak armour, weak dive, weak climb, weak everything basically.

Again, an aircraft being flown in tests doesn't bring it's worth up for combat capability. It has to be combat tested to see how it will fare against other aircraft. You just assume it will be good because Soviet records state it was from their own tests.

If the Kriegsmarine was such a formidable force, why were so many Kriegsmarine troops recruited into the Heeres or Luftwaffe in 1944-'45? Again, you assume the U-Boats would all make it into the Atlantic. Where were the U-Boat bases on V-E Day? All their Atlantic bases were taken during 1944. The only ones they had were in Wilhelmshaven. The only reason they could be considered a threat is because they were concentrated.

I never said the Gustoff was lost to RAF forces. Cap Arkona was sunk by RAF Typhoons though.

Also, the VVS didn't provide close air-support to the troops in any efficient way. The RAF and USAAF had radio-links with ground forces which would allow them to be called in for air strikes when they were needed. The VVS just came in willy-nilly, and I dread to think how many times they dropped bombs on their own troops.

 

[delcyros]

So, Plan_D, whats wrong on your map? well take a look on it:
The dots represent allied air bases but non of the circles around it fit to the dots. I assume that the circles represent the range but there are it´s basicdot...
A)in case of the India it is somehwhere north of Pakistan instead of India
B)in case of Iran it is somewhere in the Caukasus instead of Iran
C)in case of Irak it is somewhere on the northern coast of Turkey instead of Irak
D) in case of China it is somewhere near Chengdu instead of Hongkong.
All range circles are approx. 200-350 miles closer to SU terretory than they actually should be if based on UK terretory. Correcting this would bring Moscow and Gorki out of range (or at least on the very edge of range).
Point out in detail why the Mig-3 is weak in your terms.
Weak climb? Well its the same time to altitude than the SpitVa, Weak altitude? The Mig is better. Weak Speed? The Mig is better. Weak dive? proove. Weak armour? Why, the Mig has a 9mm armor plating for the cockpit? Weak armement? The Mig carrys only 2 0.50 and a 0.33 gun but it can be refitted with unguided missiles and two addition 0.50 guns. At least it is enough to deal with a Spit Va(eight 0.33) while I agree that the Spit may have an advantage here in case the Mig is in clean configuration and the Mig has an advantage in armement with two additional 0.50 (while this would bring the performance down to Spit Va level). The Mig also has an advantage in agility thanks to lower wingload, particularly in high altitudes.
I agree that an aircraft tested doesn´t reflect it´s combat abilities on a highly reliable base. The I-220 and I-225 are based on the Mig-3, so you may find it´s combat abilities not that far away from them, except for the better performance figures. Originally I wanted to disprove that the VVS was unable to bring out anything in the high altitude fighter field.
The recruiting of Kriegsmariene personal does belong to the last weeks of ww2 (mid april till early may´45) after the evacuation operation in the Baltic sea and most of the personal comes from surface vessels, not from the submarines. If you check the war map in 45 you will find various U-boat basis with acces to the open ocean: Bergen, Narvik, Trondheim. U-2511 was operating from Bergen in Norway (where more boats awaiting orders) and made the mock attack at may, 8th. 1945 in the northern Atlantic. It is wrong to say that there was just Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Hamburg, Gotenhaven and so on without acces to the Atlantic, only.
The VVS did provide more and effective close support for their ground troops. The succes of the red army in mid 44 was done because of excellent ground support and because of the Il-2 knocking out the german artillery effectively.

 

[plan_D]

Your Geography and/or eye sight leaves a lot to be desired. The look at the map more closely, the dots are the bases, the circles represent the radius of the B.III Lancaster. Compare the rings, moving north, to the bar at the bottom indicating 2,100 k/m.

The Indian base is actually in modern day India. I could have moved it further north into Pakistan, if I really wanted to as Pakistan was still a part of India in World War 2.

I fail to see how the base is in Caucasus, it is quite clearly in Northern Iran. Look more closely at where the base is, in the purple zone marked Iran.

I haven't marked a base in Iraq. There is one in Syria, which was taken by the British in 1941. However, I could just move the base to the East into northern Iraq.

The Hong Kong one is the only one that you have any point about. Move it just below Taiwan. In all others, look at the map don't just jump to false conclusions.

Now, I did the map again, basing around the same exact dots. Making the circles more precise around the combat radius of the B.III Lancaster, Moscow and Gorki would be out of range. The Caucasus however, as well as Stalingrad, is still in range.

No, you have to prove the MiG-3 as a superior aircraft to the Spitfire Mk.V. Since you seem to believe that the VVS was fielding aircraft on par with the RAF. Again, I notice you didn't read my post correctly. If you had, then you would have got the correct list.

Norweigan bases still have to go around Scotland to get to the Atlantic. It's not an easy task going around Scapa Flow.

No, the VVS provided inefficient (note: Inefficient is not ineffective) support for their troops. The USAAF and RAF were on call at any moment. If the ground troops needed air support, they would call it in. This luxury did not exist for the Red Army.

The western forces were much more efficient and precise than the Red Army when it came to close air support.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes and pD you're underestimating the lanc, she could carrry a 7,000lb payload 2,530 miles, with this range she could hit russia from england let alone closer bases!

and comparing the MiG-3 to the spit Mk.V you're arguments are slowly being torn to shreads, give up now, the spit was superior to the mig so you cannot win this one.........

 

[delcyros]

It´s not me, who said that the Mig is inferior to the Spit V. Actually I cannot sea a single point (including quantities), where the Spit Va can easily top the Mig in performances, particularly in the high altitude field. And it obviously is a high altitude plane and I would say it counts to the best in 1941. That´s why I emntioned it, just to show, that the VVS was able to develop high performance planes in the high altitude field, also (if needed). Are you goint to dispute this than you are free to show me, where I am wrong.
The bases are in the correct places, this I never disputed. The range circles are not. Using this projection method, the errors are even bigger as you move to the north.
During 1944 the VVS had an officier for connecting ground advance and air support in every advancing Korps. They played their role. You are right to say that much of the ground attack hampered red forces also, but this is also common for advancing allied ground troops, particularly in the early stages of their advance in France. Keep in mind that the soviets took losses much easilier than the british forces.
Operating from norwegian bases is quite easy, you don´t even need to get close to Scapa flow if you head northwestern and than into the danmark strait. Anyway this would be a critical way for the older submarines since they are pretty slow (if submerged) and prone to radar detection (if not submerged). Type XXI and XXIII could do this easily. Type XXIII never had a problem to operate very close to England (as was done in the firth of forth). However, this field is going to get off topic, I originally wanted to disprove that the Kriegsmariene was from 1944 on virtually non existant. Such a view exclude the ongoing development and deployment of more advanced submarines late in the war (which, unlike the jets, haven´t been rushed into combat), which did became the next generation of submarine warfare.
All I know about efficiency of Il-2 would be bad for UK ground forces if they are able to attack once (flying at very low altitude prevents radar detection until they fullfilled their mission or are very close to do so, depending on the distance of the Radarstation...)
The Lancaster is an excellent heavy bomber but to think, this bomber could do better in Russia than it did on Germany is silly by means of a strategic bombing campaign. Also if we have a situation with, let´s say Poland, Tschechia, Hungary hold by RAF and opposing VVS flyers I would bet my money on the VVS, since the RAF simply had not enough planes to ensure air superiority over that large terretory, while the VVS actually had. And they could produce more than the british with any succeding month.
Local air superiority could be ensured by the RAF under good circumstances but I doubt that the RAF could prevent The VVS from getting air superiority if they launch a massive attack.

 

[plan_D]

Could the Lancaster carry 7000 lbs 2,530 miles and get back again, lanc? If that's true, then Moscow and Gorki are in range.

You're trying to prove that the MiG-3 was better than the Spitfire, and not just the Spitfire Mk.V. As you did claim that the MiG-3U could match a Spitfire Mk.XIV if my memory serves me correctly.
The vast majority of the people on this site would agree the Spitfire a better fighter and aircraft, so it's you that is being controversial, so you prove your point.
The MiG-3 is certainly not proof that the VVS could field a high altitude fighter that was on par with the RAF. The Spitfire Mk.IX was far superior. I would also like to point out the Spitfire Mk.VI - the High Altitude Spitfire.

I mis-read your last post. My map still provides a viewing that the Lancaster could reach the Caucasus oil fields from the Middle East. Also, if what lanc says is true, Moscow isn't out of the question.
The Lancasters being re-designed for Pacific operations with increased fuel tanks are not out of the question. A little help from lanc would be nice.

The ground forces didn't have effective radio contact to the air support units. The VVS had to fly continual sorties to make sure they were in the area at the right time. The Western Allies had direct radio support to call in air strike when and where they needed it. If a German blocking position was discovered, the Thunderbolts could be called in to destroy it. The Red Army didn't have that.

Operating from Norway isn't easy. The vessels still had to pass through the North Sea, which was blockaded by the Royal Navy. They then had to travel A) North of Scotland, pass Scapa Flow, base of the Home Fleet or, B) North of Iceland and down through the Denmark Straits. B) being what the Bismarck did and was detected every step of the way.
The only reason the Wolfpacks were so successful was because they had bases on the French Atlantic coast.

The Kriegsmarine was no threat in 1944. Compare it's size to the Royal Navy or United States Navy, it was practically non-existant.

The RAF doesn't need Poland or Hungary. It has the Middle East. You keep forgetting the night sky. The VVS had nothing to hold the night sky, the Lancaster would operate with ease in the night sky over Russia.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Sorry pD i should have made myself clear, it could carry 7,000lbs 2,530miles on a round trip, it could go out 1,265 miles, and then come back, but this range could be extended several hundred miles with the fitting of fuel tanks in the bomb bay (this was quite common, it wasn't just a one off thing), and still alowing the 7,000lbs to be carried, and yes the Mk.I(FE) would have had even grater range closer to 3,500 miles with a 7,000lb payload..........

 

[cheddar cheese]

The MiG-3 is certainly not proof that the VVS could field a high altitude fighter that was on par with the RAF. The Spitfire Mk.IX was far superior. I would also like to point out the Spitfire Mk.VI - the High Altitude Spitfire.

Yeah but were they around in late 1940/ early 1941?

If youre comparing a plane from that timespan with ones that were built 2-3 years later then obviously the later ones are bound to be better.

And even the yes the MiG-3U was early 1943, but the I-230 which was the basis for the MiG-3U was knocking around in 1942.

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire Mk.V was 1941 along with the Spitfire Mk.VI. The Spitfire Mk.IX was 1942, the Spitfire Mk.VIII was 1943. The Spitfire Mk.XIV was 1944.

The MiG-3U wasn't as good as the Mk.IX, VIII or XIV. The I-230 hardly saw any flight time let alone combat action, so it can't be compared.
It's all well and good saying "That airframe has potential" but you can't say it would have been good if it didn't prove it.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Hang on, re-reading this discussion I notice you said

All the MiG-3 has it a little faster speed. It carries weak armament, weak armour, weak dive, weak climb, weak everything basically

Yet when you refer to Delcyros's quick chart

The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
top speed: spit Va mig-3 (1st serial block 1941)
at sea level: ~315 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.

I notice that the two are very similar, which contradicts what you said. Whos right? Well I checked the MiG's and theyre all correct, cant be bothered to find the Spits though but they look about right. The MiG is almost certainly superior to the Spit Mk.Va at higher altitudes, at least in terms of flight characteristics.


Youre damn right about the weak armament on the MiG though, 1x 12.7mm and 2x 7.62mm is total crap Later versions had 2x 20mm but even then that isnt great.

 

[plan_D]

How does that contradict what I said?

I said it carried weak armament (correct), it was weak armoured (correct), weak dive (the chart doesn't prove otherwise), weak climb (the Spitfire Mk.V wasn't impressive at climbing), weak basically everything else (Turning, reliability, ease of handling, ease maintenance, ease of build, all round view, pilot opinion, combat service none of which the chart shows).

 

[cheddar cheese]

Well maintenance and construction was easy. As for Pilot opinions, they were contrasting. The 519th Fighter Air Regiment rated it above the other planes they were using, considering the Yak-1 too fragile, LaGG-3 too heavy and I-16 too slow; whereas the 487th Fighter Air Regiment rated it poorly, complaining of its lack of manouverability. However one of the pilots testing the MiG-3, Yu Antipov, said that it "Turned like an I-15", and at low altitudes it could outmanouver the Yak-1.

 

[plan_D]

So, the chart didn't contradict what I said.

What about German opinion of the MiG-3? What about Soviet opinion of the MiG-3 from anyone who flew the Spitfire Mk.Vb in VVS service?

You can't just compare speed and climb rate, then say it's better if it was faster and had an equal climb. What about acceleration? Roll rate?

 

[cheddar cheese]

I dont know them figures, but it speaks here of compat reports against 109E's, which should then provide links to comparisons of the MiG-3 and Spit Mk.Va :

"At altitudes below 13,100ft the MiG was faster than the 109. Although it couldnt climb with the 109 in a steep climb, its vertical manoeverabilty was far better. Their turning radius' were the approximately the same, with the 109 turning a little tighter due to its lighter wing loading. However at altitudes above 16,400f the MiG outclassed the 109E in every respect, and could even hold its own against the more advanced 109F's."

 

[plan_D]

If the MiG-3 couldn't turn with a Bf-109E, it certainly couldn't turn with a Spitfire!

It still doesn't provide enough to compare the Spitfire Vb and MiG-3. The Spitfire V could out-turn a MiG-3 under 13,000 feet, as we now know. Above 16,000 feet, we still don't know.

I cannot remember if the Spitfire V could climb with a Bf-109E. I know the Spitfire Mk.I and II couldn't.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yes but my recollection is that the discussion is about comparing the two planes at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes the MiG was nothing special and Spitfires would probably thrash it.

At higher altitudes though they were much more comparable. Its possible that the MiG would be slightly better than the Spit about 16-23,000ft. I ll have to look for some figures on roll rate, acceleration etc because this book doesnt quote these figures.

 

[plan_D]

The quote states that MiG-3 out-classed the Bf-109E in every respect, an extremely vague summary. The Spitfire Mk.V could out-turn the Bf-109E at any speed and altitude, so this does not state that the MiG-3 could out-turn the Spitfire V above 16,000 feet.

Also, the roll rate is quite important. You need to roll to turn.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Sorry my mistake. The book actually says it completely outclassed the 109E above 16,000ft. Still vague though.

I cant actually find anything on the MiG's roll rate, everything I read is again vague, simply saying "Extremely manouverable at high altitude".