What will the VVS look like?

[Guest Mike]

I have no inside knowledge of whether the Soviet Airforce will be the next addition or not, but I'm always up for a bit of idle speculation, so here's my take

All the ideas here are pure speculation on my part, based on my own research which I freely acknowledge to be of limited scope, and I'd love to discuss the why's and where-for's with anyone who's similarly interested

Note that “light armament” usually means 1 x 20 cannon and 1-2 machineguns, usually rifle calibre early in the war and heavy calibre from mid-war onwards. I imagine this would usually translate to 0/0 for bursts/damage bonus.

Pre-war fighter designs (ie I-153, I-16) were mostly standard steel tube frameworks covered in fabric.

The new generation designs from 1940 onwards (Yak-1, Mig-1, LaGG 1) started with considerable wooden structure, making them quite tough but relatively heavy. As the war went on later versions used duralium and other light alloys resulting in lighter aircraft with better performance.

Soviet fighters were mostly optimised for operations below 4000m (13,000 feet), with their best performance at 3-4000m. Most of them seem to have easily outmanouvred Luftwaffe contemporaries when in the hands of half-decent pilots, so many are rated as AGILE.

This advantage was usually handicapped by light armament as mentioned.

Pt 2 next - The Fighters

[ January 25, 2006, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Guest Mike]

The fighters:

I-153: The little biplane fighter introduced after the VVs had introduced monoplanes in the form of the I-16, because pilots complained that the I-16 wasn’t manoeuvrable enough. Pretty much the same as the Gladiator.

I-16: the first low wing monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage in service anywhere in the world. Outclassed by the 109E, but apparently still manouvreable enough to give German pilots a surprise with how tightly it could turn, so AGILE. Later versions could be heavily armed for the time with 2 x 20mm cannon and 2 rifle calibre machineguns but most had 4 rifle calibre machineguns. Perhaps 1 more performance than the I-153, but likely as not the armament of later versions would be only difference in stats from I-153.

Mig 3: designed as a high altitude interceptor this aircraft was completely out of its element in low-medium altitudes that most combat took place at on the Russian front. Moderate horsepower, high performance for it's time (6 or 7?), turbocharged. Very lightly armed with 1 heavy machinegun and 2 rifle-calibre machineguns – 0/-1. Numerically the most common fighter in 1941-early 42 over 3000 produced before production stopped in 1942.

Yak 1: forerunner of the Yak series culminating in the Yak 3 and 9. Was produced until mid 1943. Lightly armed but AGILE – other stats possibly as Hurricane I or P40B.

LaGG 1 & 3: less successful contemporaries of the Yak 1, not as manouvreable. Lighly armed. Stats probably as P40B

Yak 7: fighter developed from the twin seat training version of the Yak 1 – slightly stronger than the Yak 1 perhaps, probably not agile. Perhaps similar to Hurricane I apart from armament.

La 5: radial engine development of the LaGG 3, outstanding dogfighter at low and medium altitudes, relatively lightly armed, AGILE. Other stats similar to P40E +1 hp &/or performance.

La 7: more powerful and better armed derivative of the La 5 with more metal construction, 2 or 3 20mm cannon, still outstandingly manouvreable. AGILE. Other stats similar to Spitfire I.

Yak 3: lightened and improved Yak 1, possibly the best dogfighter of the war in Europe. Light armament until later marks, which might have 2 x 20mm cannon. AGILE. Other stats probably as Spitfire V.

Yak 9: most common Soviet fighter of the war. Improved but heaver version of the Yak 1, but still a lot lighter than western contemporaries. Considerably more powerful & better performance – later marks were considerably more manouvreable than P51’s over Korea so maybe still AGILE.. Light armament of 1 x 20 or 23mm cannon and usually 1 hmg – some had 2 hmgs as well as the cannon. Anti-tank versions had 37 or 45mm cannon instead of the 20mm. Other stats as per P38 except not quite as strong an airframe.

[ January 25, 2006, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Guest Mike]

Bombers

Soviet bombers don’t’ really fit into the DiF way of doing things. Light bombers are OK, and remained the mainstay of Soviet air offensive operations for the whole war but there was no real equivalent of the day or night bombing offensives conducted by the Luftwaffe against England or the Anglo-American airforces against Germany.

The standard light/medium/heavy bombers for DiF would be:

Light bomber

Il-2 is the obvious choice. But even the Il-2 has 2 main variants – with and without a rear gunner. Su-2 is an option for early war.

Medium:

Il-4 – a good looking aircraft with all the drawbacks of other 1930’s medium bomber designs by all nations. Comparable to He-111, etc.

Heavy bomber

The Russians had the Pe-8 4 engined bomber, but doing high altitude escorts of this would be a mockery of history – few were produced (a few hundred), and they mostly did night raids, occasionally as far as Berlin.

Other bombers

There is also the Pe-2 for most of the war, and Tu-2 and Il-10 for late war.

The Pe-2 doesn’t really fit into the 110/410/Randy mould as it has a light forward facing armament of only 2 machineguns, sometimes supplemented by 1 heavy machinegun.

The Tu-2 has a heavier armament (2 x 20mm cannon fixed forwards, more 12.7mm mg’s defensively), and considerably better performance than the Pe-2 that it never quite replaced. Saw service from Mid 1943 onwards.

The Il-10 was a sort of “super-Sturmovik” with considerably better aerodynamics, more power and better protection for the rear gunner who had a 20mm cannon instead of a heavy machinegun. Came into service late 1944, limited service in Europe but saw considerable action in Manchuria 1945.

The Pe-2 could be represented as a medium bomber, but eth Tu-2 and Il-10 might be better represented (if at all) as heavy fighters.

[musgrove]

La-7 was one of the best fighters of the war bar none...better than a Spit for sure...Yak-3 was indeed the best "turn and burn" fighter...I have tons of references on the VVS if anybody needs them...I'm a big IL2/forgotten battles/pacific fighters guy...

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

I-16: the first low wing monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage in service anywhere in the world. Outclassed by the 109E, but apparently still manouvreable enough to give German pilots a surprise with how tightly it could turn, so AGILE.

On second reading of some accounts last night probably nt agile - cases of these a/c outmanouvring 109's can probably be put down to experienced pilots, while the a/c was not sufficienty manouvreable to dogfight Italian CR32 biplanes in Spain or Nates in Mongolia.

The I-153 was not a success over Mongolia, as the manouvreability was not sufficient to make up for the lower performance of the biplane. So giving the I-16 an extra performance over the I-153 might be a sufficient point of difference.