Allied Versus Russian Aircraft During WWII

[Meusli]

Why does this thread come up as infected in Chrome?

[Ploughman]

Originally Posted by Meusli

Why does this thread come up as infected in Chrome?

Me too. Claims that home.arcor.de has in some way been compromised and that content on this thread originates there.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

Me too. Claims that home.arcor.de has in some way been compromised and that content on this thread originates there.

That's my avatar/sig picture. I doubt there's suddenly a virus in there.

[Fredfetish]

Mostly this tread is about how an air war between the two sides would have played out. I'd love to play a scenario with P47's vs IL2's or Lagg's vs P51's. Maybe scramble missions of Migs to intercept massed bomber formations...

Couple things though:
1. Agree that the first side that would have taken the initiative would probably made major advances. Maybe the Soviets would even threaten the Western Allies (WA) ports. US probably would have pulled out of the war if this happened. At least with direct intervention.

2. My perception is that the Western Allies forces were not too badly equipped (e.g. navy, tanks, artillery and logistics). They were lacking in man power though, but would they not have a material advantage? Would liberated France not be a major contributor in this scenario?

3. Strategic high level bomber strikes against Russian airfields; could this have swayed the air power balance in favour of the WA?

4. Lets say it went in favour of the WA, how could they have approached the vast Russian country side and the winter differently from the Germans? To have won, would they have had to take Leningrad & Moscow?

[addman]

The American public would never have accepted the huge losses of men in such a scenario. Also the strategic capabilities of the allies wouldn't have had any effect in a short term, the reds would already be doing a "Dunkirk Part deux" before any effects of strategic bombing would have had any effect. The Russians had a clear tactical superiority and that would've forced the allied high altitude fighters to fight at a serious disadvantage, P-51 vs La-7 at 1-3000 meters altitude, bye bye little pony.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by addman

The Russians had a clear tactical superiority and that would've forced the allied high altitude fighters to fight at a serious disadvantage, P-51 vs La-7 at 1-3000 meters altitude, bye bye little pony.

Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew. The number of soviet veteran aircrew, while always rather small in comparison to the size of any force, was considerably lower than in other air forces - even at the end of the war. A fresh american or british pilot had more flight hours than a soviet pilot with a few weeks of frontline experience ... and therefor more routine in handling his aircraft.
Secondly the VVS was always a rather rigid and inflexible institution when it came to tactics and doctrine (as was the whole Red Army, which is why the Wehrmacht could withstand it as long as it did) and did not make most of its forces. Often enough lives were squandered by utterly inimaginative tactics which in the end got the desired result but at a higher cost than any other air force would have been prepared to pay.

It's not so much the performance envelope of the aircraft involved but the considerable difference between pilot training, doctrine and tactics that set the two sides apart.

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by csThor

Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew.

This is the common mistake people do. You underestimate the advance the Soviets had done since 1943. I've already posted that link but let me say that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7

Only 115 La-7s were lost in air combat

Do you still think they didn't move a huge step forward? Sure it's a commonplace the Soviets fought by their numbers. It still was probably true on the ground. But in the air things had already been different.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by csThor

Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew. The number of soviet veteran aircrew, while always rather small in comparison to the size of any force, was considerably lower than in other air forces - even at the end of the war. A fresh american or british pilot had more flight hours than a soviet pilot with a few weeks of frontline experience ... and therefor more routine in handling his aircraft.

I agree on the training of these pilots but I think we have to remember that many Western pilots actually didn't see combat over Germany: so they learned the theories of fighting, but could not practice aerial engagements (above all in a "many vs many" environment).

Ok, IL2 it's a game, but I think it can be useful to understand that some types of plane need time to be flown correctly: take Spitfire vs 190 and how a Blue pilot's skill has to evolve to be successful in that fight. If both the pilots have the same low experience who's in advantage there? The pilot in the unforgiving plane has to be patient and unexperienced pilot are not patient at all.

Now translate all with the La-7/Yak3 - P51/P47.
I just can see the guys who attacked Ivan Kozhedub: they had the energy advantage, the positional one and probably could ambush the russian...