Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
There is little unknown about 2TAF, Nifty. We even have Operational Research Reports on its ineffectiveness, let alone the encyclopaedic reference books by Shores and Thomas, and shelves-full of memoirs.
We also know that Martel as military attache in Moscow in 1943 heard about the high regard in which the Il-2 was held by the Russians for its effectiveness. He raised the matter with the General Staff in London. Their response was the predictable "Nothing to see; pass along please".
This thread is an attempt to pause, and not to pass along, but to identify what is known about the VVS in its CAS role.
All I have read is that VVS CAS was unresponsive - and I assume Simpkin had his source for that statement, even if he did not reference it.
On many grounds, some of which I have mentioned, I find it difficult to imagine that the VVS was as ineffective as 2TAF.
But it's likely that there is no one in the West who can answer that question.
Perhaps someone in Russia has some of the answers?
Tony
|
Can I ask about the attacks on the Wesel Bridges by the 2nd TAF. My understanding was that the attacks were undertaken by Bomber Command on the 16th - 19th February not 2nd TAF but admit to not having the exact details of 2nd TAF missions so if you could supply any dates it would be appreciated.
I admit that I wouldn't expect fighter bombers of any type to have any success against a bridge of that type. Bridges were always hard to destroy as the blast effect would be minimal and the the bombs not heavy enough to damage the foundations. The Il 2 may well carry more effective weapons but I don't know of what nature. Are there any examples of the VVS destroying similar bridges.
Lastly the impact of the IL 2 serving with the RAF or USAAF would be difficult to guess. The IL 2 was better at resisting damage but its a lot slower, a bigger target and less manoeuverable making a lot easier to hit. Typhoons were well protected with armour beneath, behind and to the sides of the pilot which isn't bad. At a guess the factors would probably balance one another. However if an IL 2 or Typhoon were intercepted by Me109 or Fw190 the Typhoon stood a much better chance, well able to evade or join combat but the IL 2 would be little more than target practice and hope the rear gunner is having a good day.
Its also true to remember that the concentration of AA guns against the RAF and USAAF was much higher as the distances on the ground were smaller. This is the only way I could see the Ju87 staying in front line service as long as it did. Operating by day over the western front would be suicide.