# Best Air Force 1939-1941



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2011)

We had a thread with a poll about the Best Airforce of WW2 and many members of the forum requested that this be broken down a bit more. So here is the first part...

What was the best Air Force overall in the world during the period of 1939 to 1941? This does not include Naval Air Forces...


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 31, 2011)

Is there any answer possible than die Luftwaffe? if so I'm dying to hear the arguments

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Mar 31, 2011)

Luftwaffe, no contest. But, it was like a championship athlete with a brain tumor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2011)

We can try some kind of breakdown.
In the fighter branch, RAF is a close second by 1941 contender, with LW having a good LR fighter all the time.
In SE bombers, Ju-87 and Il-2 are at top.
In twin-engined bomber class, Ju-88 leads, but RAF evens things via better torpedo bombers here (Beaufort, Hampden); Beaufighter features rockets already IIRC. USA has some strong contenders in A-20 B-25, making all 3 AF pretty even.
RAF has the edge in really heavy bombers, USA second with early B-17s.
In MP class things are pretty even - RAF has the edge due to electronics greater emphasis on this key issue.
Transports are pretty even.
Radars are good, after what RAF has at disposal, and much later.
LW has top pilots here; those are hampered by Goerings Hitlers decisions, though. The other main thing is that Germany is outproduced, and US production is bulking up the numbers of planes RAF VVS have at disposal.

Any advantage Luftwaffe held in 1939 is pretty much thinned out by 1941.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 1, 2011)

Hands down, the LW. it was numerically the most numerous (exception: the VVS outnumbered it, though most VVS aircraft were not in flying condition), until the very end of 1941, its equipment the best in the world, and its crews the most experienced. It had suffered one major reverse, and in russia was embroiled in an unwinnable quagmire, but this was all for the future. in the here and now of 1941, it was clearly ascendant


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2011)

Luftwaffe for the same reasons as parsifal.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2011)

Forgot to add night fighters; RAF is leading the way here with AI radars as early as 1940. Zero radar-equipped night fighters for LW, for this time frame?


----------



## renrich (Apr 1, 2011)

Overall, the LW was the most effective with the RAF trailing close behind. The LW's accomplishments in 39-early 40 along with it's opponent's weaknesses contributed to the LW's accomplishments. It is handy to blood your military against lesser opponents.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2011)

Has to be the Luftwaffe as it was the most complete airforce. In a number of areas the RAF were as good as the Luftwaffe or even better but overall if has to be the Luftwaffe.
1942 was the big year for the RAF with a lot of the prewar aircraft being replaced but up to 1941 in key areas they were still behind.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2011)

I'll state (again) some areas that other AFs have had the lead in 1941:
-radar-equipped NF force (RAF only)
-(land based) MP torp-bomber force (RAF Italians here)
-heavy bombers (RAF no.1)
-development of planes engines that would've replaced existing types within foreseeable future
-production of planes 
-numbers of pilots in training, multiplied by hours of flying 

In some categories LW is tied with others:
-heavy fighters (RAF has Beaufighters)
-2-engined bombers (RAF USAAF are strong here too)
-transport planes

I know there is more to air force than just hardware, though 
If someone can state 5 (preferably more ) categories that LW have had clear edge, that would've been cool.


----------



## peterpro (May 30, 2011)

Luftwaffe,due to reasons said above.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jun 1, 2011)

As I was submitting my vote, came to my mind one of the dialogues in the original Blazing Angels game in which a LW pilot says in heavy German accent "Nobody can out fly the Luftwaffe"; this topic is very complex of course and open to scrutiny but in my best opinion, the Luftwaffe was second to none in the early days of the war and its preparedness paid dividends at the expense of Nazi Germany's unprepared neighbors.


----------



## Nxthanos (Jun 11, 2011)

I'll be a little different and make the argument for the RAF!

The reason being that while german fighter tactics and training was better, overall the British could do a better job with replacement and training, plus they had an edge in things like radar controlled intercepting, which of course the germans did at night also, but I think the brits were a little better but could be wrong!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2011)

I think ignoring Naval Air Forces, then I would have to say the Luftwaffe. However, if including Naval Air Forces I'd have to say Japan.


----------



## Nxthanos (Jun 12, 2011)

Its hard to qualify who was really the best pilots if you add naval aviation.

For example many of the AVG 'flying tigers' were marine and navy pilots, and they got the best of teh japanese over burma and china.

The great performance of the japanese in the first 6 months of their entry into WWII cannot be over looked either!

Yes, very hard to say.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2011)

Errr....there are many who argue that Japan entered WWII very early given its extensive operations in China (ie in 1937).


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2011)

Japana was actually at war from 1931, Manchuria.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 12, 2011)

Undoubtedly, but there is a perceived difference between the scope of the hostilities commenced in 1931 compared to the events of 1937 - I wrote an essay on the subject for my MA a few years ago and got a less-than-stellar mark for arguing that 1931 was the starting point! That said, it's somewhat moot to argue the pros and cons either way. Bottom line is that Japan didn't enter the war in 1941.


----------



## Nxthanos (Jun 13, 2011)

Well, the german and italian as well as russian air forces all fought in spain and gained a lot of experience not available to britsih and french fliers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2011)

Undoubtedly so, but Spain was most definitely a civil war whereas Japan's involvement in China was an expansionist war of aggression.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 13, 2011)

From the standpoint of tactical operations: Luftwaffe and possibly equaled by the IJAF. From an air defense standpoint the RAF. I give a slight edge to the Luftwaffe for the period of years specified. If the Luftwaffe had had the capability to adequately cope with the problems of over Channel operations that edge would be significantly larger.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2011)

well the BoB was the exception to the rule, but in the operations it was designed to fight, namely as providing close air support of its armies, the Luftwaffe was peerless. It had the opportunity to fashion itself more as a strategic bomber force, but after General Wevers demise, this opportunity faded.

Luftwaffe also did a credible job in antishipping operations. It was good at battlefield recon, excellent at airborne operations and airborne supply. It only gets average marks at replacement training. Its embracement of new techs was okay and its efforts in R&D were pretty good, though somewhat unfocussed and wasteful after the war broke out. It was always rather below standard with regard to logisics...nuts, bolts spares and the like. Its ability to follow a ground advance, build emergency airfields was also excellent


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 15, 2011)

We can devote a word or two for German (non) development of planes in 1939-41 time frame. 
The types of basic designs on hand for attack vs. Poland seldom differed from types of basic designs deployed vs Soviet Union (we have 109s, 87s 111 as most numerous, with Do-17 disappearing while Ju-88 was deployed) . Even the prototypes flying were far less numerous than what other major players were trying to make. Since this era was the first 1/3rd of a major war, such an attitude earns, for German air force, a tick minus.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 20, 2011)

Wow, quite suprised to see the Luftwaffe out there in all honesty! Sorry, I'm new to this forum and this is my first post so I'm not going to rock the boat, suffice to say, I have read plenty that contradicts the poll!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2011)

You would not be rocking the boat by telling everyone why you believe what you say...

What would make you disagree that in that time frame it was not?

*That is the point of a discussion forum, to discuss ideas and views and facts or dispell facts.*

Your are welcome to do so.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 20, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> Wow, quite suprised to see the Luftwaffe out there in all honesty! Sorry, I'm new to this forum and this is my first post so I'm not going to rock the boat, suffice to say, I have read plenty that contradicts the poll!


 
Please do post what information you have. I don't recall who said this "I have never learned anything from a man who agrees with me" but I share the belief. I am always open to reexamining the basis for my opinions. Welcome to the Forum Scott.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 20, 2011)

Well, everything I have read paints the picture of an airforce that started with tactical and numeric superiority but by 1941 the Luftwaffe was struggling with pilot losses, poor organisation and logistics, poor strategic thinking and so on. I think my point is that the Turkey shoot in Russia paints a distorted picture considering the losses sustained by the Luftwaffe in France and the Battle of Britain, it was already a shadow of it's former 1939 self in my humble opinion. "Best" is objective, 1939-1940? Yes, probably in terms of numeric superiority but in other terms, I don't think so, the RAF was a professional organisation that lacked the numbers of the Luftwaffe but was I think a match in terms of pilot training, in fact maybe better in a lot of respects and was almost certainly better organised.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 20, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> Well, everything I have read paints the picture of an airforce that started with tactical and numeric superiority but by 1941 the Luftwaffe was struggling with pilot losses, poor organisation and logistics, poor strategic thinking and so on. I think my point is that the Turkey shoot in Russia paints a distorted picture considering the losses sustained by the Luftwaffe in France and the Battle of Britain, it was already a shadow of it's former 1939 self in my humble opinion. "Best" is objective, 1939-1940? Yes, probably in terms of numeric superiority but in other terms, I don't think so, the RAF was a professional organisation that lacked the numbers of the Luftwaffe but was I think a match in terms of pilot training, in fact maybe better in a lot of respects and was almost certainly better organised.



I think you and I are much closer in opinion than you may think. I agree that there is much more to having a best Air Force than just planes and tactics. I don't recall who said this "Good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics" but I strongly agree with the opinion. This is why when I posted I gave the Luftwaffe "a slight edge" in superiority.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2011)

I don't believe that the Luftwaffe was hurting for trained pilots by that point yet. By 1941 it had lost the edge, but the poll is for 1939 to 1941.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> the RAF was a professional organisation that lacked the numbers of the Luftwaffe but was I think a match in terms of pilot training, in fact maybe better in a lot of respects and was almost certainly better organised.


The RAF as my Dad would say" couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a scoop shovel" in 1939 -40 with their bombing, the fighter tactics with area tactics was dated and outmoded , had coastal command even sunk a U boat during this period . I give the RAF a reluctant 3rd barely ahead of the US and Italy


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> The RAF as my Dad would say" couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a scoop shovel" in 1939 -40 with their bombing, the fighter tactics with area tactics was dated and outmoded , had coastal command even sunk a U boat during this period . I give the RAF a reluctant 3rd barely ahead of the US and Italy


 
A little harsh. The bombing ability was on par with the Germans with the obvious exception of the Dive Bombers and that is a big difference. One reason why I put the RAF second. By 1941 the fighter tactics ha been resolved but I agree that it took the BOB to turn that around so until say August I would agree that the tactics in use in the squdrons was patchy. Patchy as some had learned the lessons and some didn't. Similar story with the Anti Submarine units. The problem there were the anti sub bombs in use. The RAF didn't realise how bad they were until they bombed an RN submarine, scored a direct hit on the ost vulnerable part where the conning tower meets the deck and only did light damage. So again in 1940 I would agree with you but in 1941 the problem had been sorted.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 20, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> The RAF as my Dad would say" couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a scoop shovel" in 1939 -40 with their bombing, the fighter tactics with area tactics was dated and outmoded , had coastal command even sunk a U boat during this period . I give the RAF a reluctant 3rd barely ahead of the US and Italy



I also think think that is very harsh, the Italian airforce had numbers and that was about it, machinery was not spectaular and as an airforce, as a whole, pretty ineffective unless we are talking air displays!Their early campaigns were fairly shambolic.

You are talking about RAF night bombing in the early days, read on some of the earlier daylight raids, accuracy was not an issue, lack of fighter cover was, plus Wellingon aside, the bomber quality was poor and finally fighter tactics? The BOB was won because of a combination of poor German strategy and at that time, the RAF having the Air Defence system in the world, which in my mind is one of the reasons the gap should be a lot closer than the poll suggests.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> I also think think that is very harsh, the Italian airforce had numbers and that was about it, machinery was not spectaular and as an airforce, as a whole, pretty ineffective unless we are talking air displays!Their early campaigns were fairly shambolic.
> 
> You are talking about RAF night bombing in the early days, read on some of the earlier daylight raids, accuracy was not an issue, lack of fighter cover was, plus Wellingon aside, the bomber quality was poor and finally fighter tactics? The BOB was won because of a combination of poor German strategy and at that time, the RAF having the Air Defence system in the world, which in my mind is one of the reasons the gap should be a lot closer than the poll suggests.


save Radar which is the only thing the Brits had on the LW . RAF bombing was less then spectacular in fact it was brutal , fighter tactics were lacking and very slow to change . Tacticle air was non existant. The RAF had 2 frontline aircraft the Wellington and the Spitfire. These were not front line Lysander and Battle for close air support, Anson for ASW Blenheim for med bomber


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

One area that is being overloked in this sub discussion on the RAF was their superior organization, in comparison to the Luftwaffe. The number one reason why the RAF was able to survive the German onslaught in 1940 wasnt because of the hurricane or the Spitfire, it wasnt even because of radar, though all of these were parts of the victory. Above all of these was the organization of the command, and the leadership that drove that organization. Fighter command in 1940 was a truly unique and priceless organization, and dowdings command and use of that structure was as near to perfect as was humanly possible. Without Fighter Command the RAF would have lost the battle. If the Luftwaffe had been in charge of the Defence of the british Isles, with only the numbers that the RAF had at their disposal, they would have lost.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2011)

Pbfoot,

I think you're being a tad ungenerous to the poor old RAF. I entirely agree that the Fighting Area tactics were totally outmoded, the product of "bright ideas fairies" who had no grounding in operational reality. However, it must be remembered that the only fighter forces of any substance anywhere in the world that HAD real combat experience prior to Sept 1939 were the German Luftwaffe (in the Spanish Civil War) and the air arms of the USSR (in the Spanish Civil War and against Japan) and Japan (against China and the USSR), all of whom were Axis (or Axis-lite) in 1939-1940. However, operational experience was applied within Fighter Command and tactics improved markedly throughout 1940. 

As for the RAF's bombing capability, I agree that the Battle and Blenheim were obsolescent at best, particularly the former. However, what truly set the RAF's bombing capability apart from the Luftwaffe's? Aside from the fantastic Ju-88, the remaining German bombers were a mediocre crop that only succeeded over the European mainland because of strong fighter escort and an absence of a defensive support system akin to the that developed by Fighter Command in the UK. Flying against the UK, the weaknesses of these aircraft, particularly the Heinkel He111 and Dornier Do17 became woefully apparent. In my view they were no better than the Blenheim.

I also have to disagree with a few of your evaluations. The Hurricane was still a very viable front-line aircraft throughout 1940 and beyond. As for the Lysander, how was that design any worse than the German Hs123? Finally the Blenheim, although hardly the greatest aircraft, did yeoman service in the worst of operational conditions and, unlike the Battle, it remained in service for some considerable time. Was it the best? Far from it, but I think it did rather well given the odds stacked against it. Finally, you are forgetting (or ignoring) that the RAF was rapidly bringing into service true heavy bombers from a specification laid down in 1936. The Halifax entered service in November 1940, with the Stirling coming after the turn of the year. 

Despite fighting for its very survival, the RAF continued to press the more numerous and more experienced Luftwaffe throughout 1940-41, continuing to expand both quantitatively and qualitatively despite the loss of all allies. Not a bad achievement, but I'm sure you'll disagree.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> One area that is being overloked in this sub discussion on the RAF was their superior organization, in comparison to the Luftwaffe. The number one reason why the RAF was able to survive the German onslaught in 1940 wasnt because of the hurricane or the Spitfire, it wasnt even because of radar, though all of these were parts of the victory. Above all of these was the organization of the command, and the leadership that drove that organization. Fighter command in 1940 was a truly unique and priceless organization, and dowdings command and use of that structure was as near to perfect as was humanly possible. Without Fighter Command the RAF would have lost the battle. If the Luftwaffe had been in charge of the Defence of the british Isles, with only the numbers that the RAF had at their disposal, they would have lost.


 
Yep that’s why when the Brits went on to the offensive in 41-42 they did better than the Luftwaffe.... Pilots were cheap ,fighters were much cheaper than bombers = victory for the team with home field advantage .Everything else (courageous leaders on one side and suicidal morons on the other ) is bull.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

I fail to see the correlation between the defensive campaign in 1940, and the offensive/defensive campaign in 1941. The best single volume reference on this issue is by John Foreman entitled *1941 - Part 2 - The Blitz to the non-stop Offensive - The Turning Point* Air Research Publications, 1994. This book gives a pretty good day by day, loss by loss account of how the RAF turned around from being strictly on the defensive to undertaking a continuous offensive, beginning with ther 1000 bomber raids in early 1942. At the beginning they had to deal with the continuing night bombing offensive by the germans. At the same time they had to push the german fighter groups back from the Channel, which they achieved, at great cost, but they were successful eventually. 

The Germans retained a qualitative advantage especially in the expereience of their pilots, but in terms of organizational skills, I dont see anything that compares with Fighter Command, until the reorganization of the Reich Defences and the establishment of the Kammhuber line in 1942-3. Until then, the Luftwaffe, whilst enjoying a significant qualitiative advantage in its personnel, did not have the organizational skills to match.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> One area that is being overloked in this sub discussion on the RAF was their superior organization, in comparison to the Luftwaffe. The number one reason why the RAF was able to survive the German onslaught in 1940 wasnt because of the hurricane or the Spitfire, it wasnt even because of radar, though all of these were parts of the victory. Above all of these was the organization of the command, and the leadership that drove that organization. Fighter command in 1940 was a truly unique and priceless organization, and dowdings command and use of that structure was as near to perfect as was humanly possible. Without Fighter Command the RAF would have lost the battle. If the Luftwaffe had been in charge of the Defence of the british Isles, with only the numbers that the RAF had at their disposal, they would have lost.



Put very well and very true.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> RAF bombing was less then spectacular in fact it was brutal



German raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam and London could hardly be described has having finesse.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm pointing out that the side which had the home advantage won.RAF in BOB , Luftwaffe in mainland Europe.Only massive numerical difference could change that.Not ''organization''.
By the way what happened to the organization of Fighter Command vs the Channel geschwader?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> At the same time they had to push the german fighter groups back from the Channel, which they achieved, at great cost, but they were successful eventually.


 
Pushed back..? Huh? Most fighter unitstransferred to the Ostfront in early 1941. A couple of Wing remained. Those remained in the exact same spot for years, essentially fighting like guerllas in the air. I do not understand what you are talking.

Ratio of loss was 1-5 favour of Jagdgruppen, despite outnumbered. RAF was not outnumber in 1940.. it outnumbered attacking fighters in contrast and had poorer results. Of course advantage of Germans was they had nothing to defend in France. Bombing of France by English..? It is a favour for German. France is enemy country.. they can sunbath in airfield, sip beer, watch show. British couldnt do, when London was attacked, they had to fly.



> The Germans retained a qualitative advantage especially in the expereience of their pilots, but in terms of organizational skills, I dont see anything that compares with Fighter Command, until the reorganization of the Reich Defences and the establishment of the Kammhuber line in 1942-3. Until then, the Luftwaffe, whilst enjoying a significant qualitiative advantage in its personnel, did not have the organizational skills to match.


 
I do not think this so simple. The UK had centralized fighter defense system with radars, Germany had a de-centralized fighter defense system with radars. At start of war. The latter worked well enough, Bomber Command forced to cease daylight bombing. Centralised system was better for defense against massed raids, but British system was hardly perfection, it could scramble fighters from a Group, even scramble-able, guided Squadrons number was limited.. but otherwise was rigid area defense.. 11 Group and 12 Group not even working together at all. British had not one home defense system but four! Complete human stupidity and rivalry between leaders, otherwise easily possible. Technically it was limited, radar operator can not tell true altitude, nor could tell true numbers of enemy aircraft - vital elements - too poor training, too poor equipment (big wavelenght CH radar, more primitive, early radar). Completely blind over land - radar only sees to sea. Organistation, "Big Wing" controversy is well known. Some UK leaders realized need for centralised fighter, bomber etc. force. _Like Germans already did._ British organisation and planning, scramble relied on small Squadron, German already on Big Wing (Gruppe). Different words - German already had system which routinly concentrated force into large units. USA, USSR similiar structure. Only UK relied on ad hoc grouping of Squadrons in 1940-41.. No doubt it was backward practice of WW1. Speaking WW1 - Red Baron already realised that, used Big Wing tactics as English call. In reality, idea present from immerial times: concentration of force. Napoleon was one master of it.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm pointing out that the side which had the home advantage won.RAF in BOB , Luftwaffe in mainland Europe.Only massive numerical difference could change that.Not ''organization''.
> By the way what happened to the organization of Fighter Command vs the Channel geschwader?



What is a "Home Advantage". Certainly numbers were decisive, but the numerical advantage enjoyed by the RAF didnt come about because of superior production bases, it came about because of superior organization, and admittedly poor strategic decisions by the Germans. Key point of course was the decision to invade Russia, but even before that, there were signs the Germans were losing the air war. Despite enjoying a considerable numerical advantage overall, even in mid 1941, they were losing in certain key area. Their blitz offensive had become prohibitively expensive. Along the channel frontiers, the two geschwaders battling the 6 or so squadrons tasked with attritioning them down, were suffering some humilating defeats, or at least not shooting the RAF down as one sidedly as usual. this led to a decision in July to the Luftwaffe pulling back from the frontier near the channel ports. This was followed by other withdrawals from other sectors of the coast. By forfeiting control of the airspace over the channel, except in certain sectors, the LW were being denied the ability to challenge the control of the Channel, and were denied the possibility of restarting their offensive over England. It rendered safe the bases of bomber command, and paved the way for the commencement of the great offensive that destroyed the Luftwaffe really. This was all done at great cost, admittedly, but it was also done from a position of overall numerical inferiority, not superiority.

As 1942 wore on the RAF and the LW traded places insofar as numerical position was concerned. I do not believe this was a product of fate, or was inevitable, and it certainly wasnt because the RAF had a bigger industrial base to call on, or because the Germans were preocupied in Russia and the British had no other theatres to worry about. Quite the contrary, the british had numerous distractions from this great purpose as well. They were losing shipping hand over fist, they were puring huge resources into dealing with the Italians, and were being forced to rush reinforcements to the Far East. No, it was their superior organization that was paying dividends for them. They wedre mass producing aircrew, and foregoing the "sexy" end of technology in favour of getting the numbers out there. They were organizing their forces in a far more focussed and effiicient way than the Germans ever did (well, maybe in 1944, when it was all too late). Here is where you will find the benefits of organization. 

As for the Kanalkampf, I see this as a British victory as well, despite the heavier losses. The British simply refused to give battle at that time except where vital interests were concerned and the battle over the channel was not a vital battle for them, at least not for a short period. they could forego the channel convoys and still survive.....but they had to defend the defence network of south east England....so they waited, essentially


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Pushed back..? Huh? Most fighter unitstransferred to the Ostfront in early 1941. A couple of Wing remained. Those remained in the exact same spot for years, essentially fighting like guerllas in the air. I do not understand what you are talking.
> 
> Ratio of loss was 1-5 favour of Jagdgruppen, despite outnumbered. RAF was not outnumber in 1940.. it outnumbered attacking fighters in contrast and had poorer results. Of course advantage of Germans was they had nothing to defend in France. Bombing of France by English..? It is a favour for German. France is enemy country.. they can sunbath in airfield, sip beer, watch show. British couldnt do, when London was attacked, they had to fly.
> 
> ...


 
Which explains perfectly why the Luwftwaffe lost the Battle Of Britain? The big wing was wrong, Park was exactly right......I believe the outcome of the battle speaks for itself, the Royal Air Force acheived what no other European nation achieved, the successful defense of it's homeland and demonstrated that superior tactics (and may I add that several comments keep drawing on poor squadron tactics which are now largely dispelled as myth, early in the battle yes but for main, the pilots learned quickly, you don't have a 2-1 shoot down ratio with poor tactics and poorly trained pilots) and superior organisation overcame superior numbers, the Luftwaffe lost the BOB as much as the RAF won it.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

RAF was not outnumbered in Battle of Britain, it had more fighters than Germans due to concentration of fighter aircraft. Also flew more. Typically RAF was flying at local numerical advantage. It did not have a 2-1 shoot down ratio. It lost as much planes as Germans. These are myths, but very stubbron ones.

Failure of Luftwaffe had many factors. Main I believe is very short time period - two-three weeks of intense air warfare is enough to bring the RAF to breaking point, not enough to break them completely. Strategic air campaign needs many months, if not years. Worsening weather then limited operations to blind bombing. 
Second most important - German Army could not cross channel to take advantage of LW success. It could take advantage in every previous campaign. Thats why it won. 

Superior tactics? This is joke for certain..


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

Ctrian, an over simplification, sorry, as for your final point, I assume you are talking operations in 1941 on?


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

Tante Ju, You need to read more books and get over your bias.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> What is a "Home Advantage".



Ability to decide when and where to attack, and when not to attack. Ability to know enemy concentration. Ability to achieve local superioty on key points. Abilty to save pilots who are shot down but parachute. Ability for damaged planes to land quickly and repaired later. These are key advantages of any combat - unlike on ground, in air defender can concentrate forces quickly, too.



> Their blitz offensive had become prohibitively expensive.



What was number of losses in blitz offensive?



> Along the channel frontiers, the two geschwaders battling the 6 or so squadrons tasked with attritioning them down, were suffering some humilating defeats, or at least not shooting the RAF down as one sidedly as usual. this led to a decision in July to the Luftwaffe pulling back from the frontier near the channel ports. This was followed by other withdrawals from other sectors of the coast.



I believe it was done because 98% of the Luftwaffe simply moved to Russia. There were no bombers to escort to Britain for raids. 
Why have bases at the Channel, close to Britain then? Tactically for defense its disadvantagous - being too close to British raids, scrambling fighter does not have time to move to altitude and intercept.

Do you have examples humilating defeats? Actually Fighter Command was not being shot down one sidedly over Britain in 1940. Some exception on both sides.. They were however shot down VERY one sidedly over France.. whereas LW fighters shoot down RAF Fighters ca. 2-1 1940, they shoot down them 5-1 1941.



> By forfeiting control of the airspace over the channel, except in certain sectors, the LW were being denied the ability to challenge the control of the Channel, and were denied the possibility of restarting their offensive over England.



Why? The same way they moved from Channel to inland base, they could move from inland base to channel base, if needed. Nothing prevented that, except the LW being in Russia..



> It rendered safe the bases of bomber command, and paved the way for the commencement of the great offensive that destroyed the Luftwaffe really.This was all done at great cost, admittedly, but it was also done from a position of overall numerical inferiority, not superiority.



Were bomber command bases ever under threatening..? Fighter Command had more fighters from August 1940 than the Luftwaffe. Fighter Command certainly had more fighters than but two JG over the La Manche in 1941. I do not understand what numerical inferiity you talk about. Perhaps you have numbers.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

There are some simple facts here.
1) Had the LW continued to bomb the RAF airfields that we have been in trouble.
2) The 'Big Wing' was an effective use of resources.
3) RADAR gave the RAF the edge.
4) We had a superior interceptor fighter in the Spitfire.
5) The RAF was not all British, we had volunteers from all the world to help us.
6) The LW's city bombing just stiffened British resolve to fight on.
7) The RAF's final victory...however close, was a propaganda gift from heaven for Churchill.
8) Goering gave up , was defeated, which ever you prefer.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> Ctrian, an over simplification, sorry, as for your final point, I assume you are talking operations in 1941 on?


 
JG2 and JG26 wiped the floor with Fighter Command despite being outnumbered ,using aircraft with same performance and the Brits having the element of surprise.That's how important *home field advantage *really is.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> 2) The 'Big Wing' was an effective use of resources.


This is a fallacy


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> This is a fallacy



Says who?


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> JG2 and JG26 wiped the floor with Fighter Command despite being outnumbered ,using aircraft with same performance and the Brits having the element of surprise.That's how important *home field advantage *really is.



Wiped the floor ? That is plainly not true. Even stevens with occasional ascendency but neither side wiped the floor with the other, its nonsense to even suggest that.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> Says who?


when have you ever heard of engaging the reserves before the main force , Park and Dowding were running a war and and Bader didn't like the rules .


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> Wiped the floor ? That is plainly not true. Even stevens with occasional ascendency but neither side wiped the floor with the other, its nonsense to even suggest that.


 
You need to read more.

The Spitfire - An Operational History - 4. Into France

RAF Fighter Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_The year 1941 saw RAF Fighter Command claim some 711 Luftwaffe fighters shot down (although only 236 were lost
from all causes, 103 in combat) for losses of approximately 400 RAF fighters lost._

_The most notable offensive battle took place over Dieppe, France Although the RAF succeeded in preventing the
Luftwaffe from interfering with the shipping, which was its primary aim,
its perceived success was misleading. Despite claims at the time that more German aircraft than British had
been shot down (106 kills were claimed by the RAF) postwar analysis showed 88 Spitfires were lost for just 
23 Luftwaffe fighters and 24 bombers shot down._

_1942 statistics yielded 560 claims (272 German fighters were
lost from all causes) for 574 RAF day fighters destroyed_

Source is given as 'The JG 26 War Diary' (Volume 1), Caldwell .That is a well known author on Luftwaffe history ,i have his book (with Muller) ''The Luftwaffe over Germany''.I also have ''The right of the line'' and it says the same.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> You need to read more.
> 
> The Spitfire - An Operational History - 4. Into France
> 
> ...


 
I shall quote you some different figures later on. I dispute your 'wiping the floor' claim. Maybe something is getting lost in the translation here...
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> when have you ever heard of engaging the reserves before the main force , Park and Dowding were running a war and and Bader didn't like the rules .



Bader was proved right. I'll quote you sources later on tonight.
'reserves'?...we were on our uppers.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> I shall quote you some different figures later on. I dispute your 'wiping the floor' claim. Maybe something is getting lost in the translation here...
> Cheers
> John


 
You're free to quote whatever you want just keep in mind that German casualties are *all causes*.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

Wiping the floor is incorrect, in part I don't agree with Lee Mallory's tactics, he didn't in part learn from the mistakes the Luftwaffe had made in 1940, that said, the RAF had little choice but to take the fight to the Luftwaffe over France, so I would call it a rock and a hard place situation, but wipe the floor? No.

I agree, the Big Wing as a reserve had merits, partiularly once the Luftwaffe switched to bombing London, but I think most people agree now that Park was right, Bader was wrong with regard the overall strategy.


----------



## scott cuppello (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> JG2 and JG26 wiped the floor with Fighter Command despite being outnumbered ,using aircraft with same performance and the Brits having the element of surprise.That's how important *home field advantage *really is.


 
There is one flaw with the "home advantage" theory.....the defeat of the French, Polish, etc airforces and the inevitable defeat of the Luftwaffe.....lot's of reasons can be sighted, "home advantage" seemed to be more "home disadvantage"? I'm sorry, but I think you are really over-simplifying it.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 21, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> when have you ever heard of engaging the reserves before the main force , Park and Dowding were running a war and and Bader didn't like the rules .


 


Readie said:


> Bader was proved right. I'll quote you sources later on tonight.
> 'reserves'?...we were on our uppers.
> Cheers
> John


 


pbfoot said:


> The RAF as my Dad would say" couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a scoop shovel" in 1939 -40 with their bombing, the fighter tactics with area tactics was dated and outmoded , had coastal command even sunk a U boat during this period . I give the RAF a reluctant 3rd barely ahead of the US and Italy




Guys it had little to do with Bader. Leigh-Mallory was the Big Daddy of "The Big Wing" baby of which Bader was one of the Nannies supporting it. Park and Leigh-Mallory were both correct but at different at times during the BoB. Leigh-Mallory was completely daft and wrong in his opinion of what D-day air operations would be. I think it is fair to say that the American counterparts of Leigh-Mallory believed him wrongheaded and obstinate on most things until his death in I think 1944.

pbfoot, et al,

I definitely think the opinion that the RAF was greatly inferior to the Luftwaffe is overstatement. I believe that much of the Luftwaffe's superiority in the 1939-41 period was its ability to achieve the ultimate in air superiority by having the Heer place a tank on the enemy's airfield. Certainly the Luftwaffe helped the Heer in doing this but the Heer would have done the same with much less help. Nothing the Allies were doing in Belgium and France in Spring 1940 was going to stop the Heer. The Channel was certainly the greatest air defense weapon for the British because Panzers don’t float. The Luftwaffe was as an organization like George Foreman to the RAFs Muhammed Ali in “The Rumble in the Jungle”. Just like Ali the RAF’s depth and width of defensive/offensive skill was superior to Foreman’s and Luftwaffe’s shallow and narrowly focused superior offensive power. The existence of the Channel certainly influenced the design of the RAF. It should not be considered an “unfair advantage” so to speak. If it didn’t exist the RAF would have certainly been designed differently, and perhaps been just as effective in defeating the Luftwaffe in the Summer of 1940. This is another explanation of why I originally posted that the Luftwaffe had “ a slight edge” during 1939-41. The assertion that the RAF was closer to the Italians or even a distant second to the Luftwaffe is not credible in my opinion.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

scott cuppello said:


> There is one flaw with the "home advantage" theory.....the defeat of the French, Polish, etc airforces and the inevitable defeat of the Luftwaffe.....lot's of reasons can be sighted, "home advantage" seemed to be more "home disadvantage"? I'm sorry, but I think you are really over-simplifying it.


 
You can't have an airforce when the enemy's army is occupying your country.Poland and France were defeated in detail not just by airpower.As for the Luftwaffe it kept fighting till the end.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

The period we are looking at really is January '41 through to the end of June. In that period the germans outnumbered the RAF, not the other way around. Moreover it is a myth that the two german Fighter Groups were taking on the whole of Fighter command. In fact only small portions of the FC were ever committed to the battle, usually about 3 squadrons, escorting groups of bombers. In that six month the RAF committed 17 squadrons to the offensive, with a maximum of 8 committed in the biggest battles. Conversely, in that time the LW committed 38 staffeln to the battle. I do not know the maximum committed at any given time. 

It is actually a misnomer to try and compare the battle over France without also considering the wider battles occurring in the whole of western Europe. If that is considered, German losses actually outnumber British.

If we just look at a few days in April, we can see the loss rates were much closer than is so often claimed...these rates are from Forsyth, who names the serial numbers of aircraft lost, and where they were lost as well as the cause. They are collated from post war reconciliations drawn from both sides, and not from unsubstantiated claims so often used misleadingly in so many otherwise reputable sources:

7/8 April 
RAF: 17
LW: 14

8 April (Day)
RAF: 12
LW: 9

8/9 April

RAF: 11
LW: 13


9 April (Day)
RAF: 14
LW: 11


9/10 April 
RAF: 21
LW: 21

10 April (Day)

RAF: 17
LW: 10

10/11 April
RAF: 19
LW: 22

11April (Day)
RAF: 7
LW: 5

And so it went on, more or less the same, for 6 months. That is not a 5:1 ratio, its not even a 2:1 ratio. If one compares oranges to oranges, and looks at all losses for the whole TO, a much better, and far closer margin, picture of what was happening begins to emerge. Sure, by concentrating most of their available fighter assets near the Channel, the Germans were able to eak out a modest advantage, but by so doing lost elswhere on the front. Over Britain, German losses were becoming crippling, both by day and night. British losses were heavy as well, this was no picnic, but the British knew they could absorb such losses and come back for more.....the germans either did not, or did not want to, think about the long issues


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

Is that fighters only or all aircraft? What areas? What was the strength of Luft and RAF ? If those stats apply to the German effort against Britain they show the RAF in poor light .


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Over Britain, German losses were becoming crippling, both by day and night. British losses were heavy as well, this was no picnic, but the British knew they could absorb such losses and come back for more.....the germans either did not, or did not want to, think about the long issues



Thank you parsifal.
Goering under estimated the RAF and did not anticipate the losses the LW would have to take to make good his promises to Hitler.
When things did not go as planned like every out of touch commander in history he gave in and looked around for another soft target where his lauded LW could dominate.
If Adolf "Dolfo" Joseph Ferdinand Galland or Werner Mölders were in charge then it may have been a different story...
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Is that fighters only or all aircraft? What areas? What was the strength of Luft and RAF ? If those stats apply to the German effort against Britain they show the RAF in poor light .



They represent total losses to both sides from all causes over the whole western European Theatre. Does not include operations over Iceland, the western approaches or over Scandinavia.

I fail to see how they show RAF operations in a poor light. Outnumbered, with a generally lower standard of pilots at that time, they were nevertheless inflicting comparable losses on their opponents. The daylight operations over Northern France were particularly difficult, as you rightly claim, but the British can nevetheless claim the strategic victory here as well (which is coroborated by LW personnel of the time, principally Galland). Always outnumbered, targetting the the premier fighter groups of the LW, this was always a tough assignment. Nevertheless by the end of the campaign the RAF had achieved its stated mission.....it controlled the skies over the channel and were denying control of the airspace even over the coastal regions of Northern France. Your friend who disputed that point earlier, demonstrates a classic continental misunderstanding of the purpose of the campaign and its outcomes. The German fighter groups were still there alright, but they no longer seriously challenged RAF dominance in the channel. Throughout the latter half of 1941, LW operations over the British isles tapered off to almost nothing, and this wasnt just because they lacked the numbers from Russia. Its because they lacked the numbers because of poor management of their available resopurces. 

Galland amply demonstrates in his book the significance of this campain, and why it was a costly, but strategic victory for the RAF. Germany's efforts over England cannot make that claim, cannot claim to have won the defensive battle even but must admit similar losses at least in the first half of the year. In the second half things got harder, but by then the battle was irretrievably lost for the LW. Yjere was much hard fighting ahead, many battles with one sided losses, but the air battle over for France was well nigh won by the end of the Summer 1941. British skies and coastal waters were secure....it was time to move on to Germany...... a three year nightmare if ever there was one


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

I do not understand why concentrate on first half of 1941. RAF operations were very small scale.

1st half of 1941, RAF offensive operations balance, 

Fighter, 6873 sorties, 112 losses (1,6%) Day
Fighter, 275 sorties, 5 losses (1,8%) night
Bomber, 1033 sorties, 34 losses (3,2%) day
Bomber, 2330 sorties, 34 losses (1,0%) night

Unfortunately, no Luftwaffe sorite/loss figures.

Its easy pick a few days, and forgot all months.. 3/4 of all fighter sorties were flown in June not until then... Taking advantage of LW being elsewhere. Pushing back, no. Turtle put out his head when eagle left the scene you can say.

After in 2nd half of 1941, things got ugly for *RAF*. July-December 1941:.

Fighter, 20495 sorties, *416 losses (2,2%) Day*
Fighter, 311 sorties, 7 losses (2,2%) night
Bomber, 1406 sorties, 108 losses *(7,6%)* day
Bomber, 2688 sorties, 39 losses (1,45%) night

Luftflotte 3 in 2nd half of 1941, July-December.

Fighter,19535 sorties, *93 losses (0,4 %)*
Bomber, 6409 sorties, *129 losses (2,0 %)*
Recce 1108 sorties, 13 losses (1,1 %)

Fighter exchange 4,47:1. RAF was loosing fighter 5,5 times rate and bombers 4 times rate per sortie than Luftwaffe.

"Over Britain, German losses were becoming crippling, both by day and night. (in first half of 1941)"

Not true. German bomber night losses losses in Blitz, 1941.

Day losses are insignificant (3 to 9 per month, November - May), i do not list. Waste of time.

Night losses.
October 1940, 5900 sorties, 0,3% loss per sortie
November 1940, 6125 sorties, 48 loss. 0,7% loss per sortie
December 1940, 3450 sorties, 44 loss, 1,2% loss per sortie
Jan 1941 2050 sorties, 22 lost, 1 % loss per sortie
Feb 1941, 1450 sorties, 18 losts, 1,2 % loss per sortie
March 1941, 4275 sorties, 46 lost, 1 % loss per sortie
April 1941, 5250 sorties, 58 lost, 1,1 % loss per sortie
May 1941, 3800 sorties, 55 lost, 1,4 % loss per sortie
June 1941, much higher, because bombers now in Russia. There is opposition. Mid May is last attack on London. 

How the loss of one or two bombers a day will cripple Luftwaffe bombers is mystery. In 1941 they loose as many in a month as in a bad day in summer 1940. Perhaps airframes need write off because of ageing after a while, and crews get old and unfit for duty! 

Loss were insignificant both in absolute numbers (during BoB German bomber losses amount to 200/month. And they could keep it up). Also note most is due to accidents of night taxying, navigation, not enemy action. Crews mostly safe.

My source Hooton, Eagle in Flames.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

I'll post the figures for any month, was not selective in choice of days/nights. However, I would suggest that your analysis is highly selective, fails to understand the reasons for these losses, contains some downright errors or untruths, and hides critical losses for the LW to present them in the best possible light. The offensive over Northern France was part of the overall offensive, and happened to be the most expensive for the RAF. but it was only a part, of the overall program. Same can be said about the germans, their operations over Northern France were just a part of their overall pattern of ops, and contrary to what you are attempting to claim, bombig operations over the UK (London is not the only part of the UK incidentally) continued for some time after June, at an alarming and catastrophic cost. 

If overall operations are viewed in the west, rather than concentrating on this one part of the front, then German losses actually very similar to those suffered by the RAF. And the important thing to note in all of this, which I stress is corroborated by people like Galland, is that as time progressed in 1941, the LW was increasingly losing its ability to act offensively, and increasingly denied access to various bits of airspace. These are undeniable and vital outcomes in the air battles that raged through 1941, and th early part of 1942. it essentially ploughed the ground on the road to Germany. 

You say that the germans could sustain losses of 200 bombers a month, I'd like to see your sources for that kind of sweeping statement. i put it to you that they suspended operations over Britain for a reason, and it wasnt simply because they were growing tired of the job. I suggest you read the OKL war diaries to understand exactly how badly the LW was hurting in all of this 

Moreover your dismissal of bomber losses in 1941 underestimates grossly just how many bombers they were actually losing. again from Freman, whoi has used Luftwaffe loss returns to collate his list, i will post random excepts that will show that bomber losses were way bigger than you are suggesting I would like to know your sources in this, but they simply dont correlate to the recorded loss rates given in LW records. 

I can see your version of history is fundamentally different to mine. I would dearly like to know your rasons why the germans abandoned their daylight offensive in 1940, why they all but suspended bomber operations in the latter half of 1941 (something I dont fully accept, but I will check first) and why or how the british were able to resume convoy operations in the channel in 1941 with less than 0.25m tons of losses. Why werent the the LW continuing to target RAF bases as the bomber offensive? i think I know what your answer will be on that one, because the bombing was inneffective....but that is not how OKL viewed it, they were increasingly alarmed at the growing British proficiency, and would have dearly loved to have disrupted its development, but no longer had the means to do so (in 1942).


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

parsifal said:


> They represent total losses to both sides from all causes over the whole western European Theatre. Does not include operations over Iceland, the western approaches or over Scandinavia.
> 
> I fail to see how they show RAF operations in a poor light. Outnumbered, with a generally lower standard of pilots at that time, they were nevertheless inflicting comparable losses on their opponents. The daylight operations over Northern France were particularly difficult, as you rightly claim, but the British can nevetheless claim the strategic victory here as well (which is coroborated by LW personnel of the time, principally Galland). Always outnumbered, targetting the the premier fighter groups of the LW, this was always a tough assignment. Nevertheless by the end of the campaign the RAF had achieved its stated mission.....it controlled the skies over the channel and were denying control of the airspace even over the coastal regions of Northern France. Your friend who disputed that point earlier, demonstrates a classic continental misunderstanding of the purpose of the campaign and its outcomes. The German fighter groups were still there alright, but they no longer seriously challenged RAF dominance in the channel. Throughout the latter half of 1941, LW operations over the British isles tapered off to almost nothing, and this wasnt just because they lacked the numbers from Russia. Its because they lacked the numbers because of poor management of their available resopurces.
> 
> Galland amply demonstrates in his book the significance of this campain, and why it was a costly, but strategic victory for the RAF. Germany's efforts over England cannot make that claim, cannot claim to have won the defensive battle even but must admit similar losses at least in the first half of the year. In the second half things got harder, but by then the battle was irretrievably lost for the LW. Yjere was much hard fighting ahead, many battles with one sided losses, but the air battle over for France was well nigh won by the end of the Summer 1941. British skies and coastal waters were secure....it was time to move on to Germany...... a three year nightmare if ever there was one


 
Well said.

I have been reading 'Battle Stations' by Taylor Downing and 'They flew Hurricanes' by Adrian Stewart. Both books cover the period we are discussing.

Goering's Aldertag started with a command ' within a short period you will wipe the British airforce from the sky.. heil Hitler'. This signal was intercepted at Bletchley Park. 
Aldertag started with inclement weather and Goering himself recalled the first wave of bombers and fighters. However, not all the LW had the new crystal sets and did not receive the order to turn back. The fighters turned back but the bombers carried on where they bombed Sheerness and Eastchurch. The bombers then were mauled by the RAF with 5 bombers being shot down. Aldertag stared in earnest later that same day when the weather had cleared up. 300 bombers took off with the objective of hitting RAF bases. Detling was badly bombed with loss of life and machine but, it wasn't a RAF base. It was a Coastal Command airfield. Faulty intelligence was too blame. At the end of Eagle Day the LW had lost 45 planes in action and the RAF had lost 13 in action. Goering withdrew to his Prussian hunting lodge with his senior commanders to review Aldertag. Goering failure to grasp the key elements of contemporary military strategy made him comiit one blunder after another during the BoB. He failed to press home his attacks on the Radar stations, he willingly listened to the extreme claims of his intelligence analysts about the LW successes, he failed to set the right targets for his bombers and he weakened the effectiveness of his fighters by tying them too closely to the bombers. 
On the 15th August Goering and co are sipping fine wine while the Norway LW attacked Britain.15 LW bombers were shoot down for the loss of 1 RAF fighter. 
The whole days operation shows a loss of 71 LW aircraft for the loss of 29 RAF aircraft. German intelligence continually underestimated the strenght of the RAF and with all autocratic systems the Germans only reported what their bosses wanted to hear...

After the first week of Aldertag Dowding was down to 700 fighters,German intelligence got the figures wrong again reporting that we had 300 fighters. The LW pilots would joke bitterly that once again they had found the 'last 50 fighters' when the RAF attacks did not diminish.

The 'big wing'.
Bader argued that the most effective way to attack the LW bombers was in mass formations consisiting of 3 or more squadrons. Bader believed that Park and Dowding dissipated the impact of the RAF by attacking at only squdron strength, keeping other squadrons standing by to respond to later assaults.The BW reflected the different circumstances of 11 12 group and caused friction within the RAF as 11 group bore the brunt of the BoB. Bader met with Churchill and the controversy rumbled on slurring the repuation of both Park and Leigh-Mallory. The BW has been judged to be a sucess at some costs within the Dowding's fighter command.

Reserves.
On the 15 September Churchill visted Park's HQ at Uxbridge. Eventually all the RAF squadrons were ordered into the air with no squadron standing by...Churchill asked Park 'what reserves have we?' Park answered 'There are none'. Both men realised that the game was nearly up, one further wave of German bombers and the airfields, the city of London and indeed the very survival of Britain would be at stake. But, no more bombers came. Goering had pushed the LW to its limit. The plan to invade Britain would be postponed indefinitely.

A close run battle ? I should coca.

Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

Just to give one months figures on the bomber losses for the LW. according to German records, they lost 278 Bombers to all causes on the western front in April. The frontline strength of the LW at the end of March was slightly over 1800 bombers, so a loss rate of 278 aircraft represents 15.44% of the force pool. If that is not a force structure haemorraging itself to death I dont know what is....generally a loss rate abaove 3% per raid was considered unsustainable, and at that rate, the average monthly loss rate in the RAF was around 7.5% of the total force pool. Evidently 15% loss rates are unimportant to the Germans according to our esteemed friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

Of the many things I have observed regarding human nature and the psychology of competition, the following two observations come to mind and I wonder if they are not somewhat being manifested in this and other threads:

A competitor or his supporters will frequently insist “he was holding his own” until suddenly being overwhelmed even when impartial observers were aware from the beginning of a steady decline in performance that defeat was inevitable.

Victors will frequently consciously and unconsciously exaggerate the prowess of the vanquished because victory over even a worthy opponent is never enough to satisfy the human desire for a glorious victory over the almost invincible.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

seems very deep. could you explain in slightly more simple terms for someone interested, but confused.....


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Just to give one months figures on the bomber losses for the LW. according to German records, they lost 278 Bombers to all causes on the western front in April. The frontline strength of the LW at the end of March was slightly over 1800 bombers, so a loss rate of 278 aircraft represents 15.44% of the force pool. If that is not a force structure haemorraging itself to death I dont know what is....generally a loss rate abaove 3% per raid was considered unsustainable, and at that rate, the average monthly loss rate in the RAF was around 7.5% of the total force pool. Evidently 15% loss rates are unimportant to the Germans according to our esteemed friend.



14.99% losses are acceptable though

Even the mighty LW can not sustain that, even if it is ordered too....

Cheers
John


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2011)

I hate to jump in with what may seem almost off-topic at this point in the Luftwaffe versus RAF debate, but I wanted to point out an often overlooked airforce that definately needs mentioning in this poll...

The Finnish Airforce - who gets my vote not because it had state-of-the-art world-class aircraft or a gruelling pilot training program that produced hundreds of cutting edge pilots, but because they scraped together castoff, often obsolete aircraft piloted by determined men and handed the Soviet Union it's a** against great odds...

That, in my book, is what makes them the best airforce of 1939 - 1941


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Of the many things I have observed regarding human nature and the psychology of competition, the following two observations come to mind and I wonder if they are not somewhat being manifested in this and other threads:
> 
> A competitor or his supporters will frequently insist “he was holding his own” until suddenly being overwhelmed even when impartial observers were aware from the beginning of a steady decline in performance that defeat was inevitable.
> 
> Victors will frequently consciously and unconsciously exaggerate the prowess of the vanquished because victory over even a worthy opponent is never enough to satisfy the human desire for a glorious victory over the almost invincible.


 
Yes Steve, you are right. Very thought provoking. This concept could be applied to a lot of situations not just WW2
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I hate to jump in with what may seem almost off-topic at this point in the Luftwaffe versus RAF debate, but I wanted to point out an often overlooked airforce that definately needs mentioning in this poll...
> 
> The Finnish Airforce - who gets my vote not because of it had state-of-the-art world-class aircraft or a gruelling pilot training program that produced hundreds of cutting edge pilots, but because they scraped together castoff, often obsolete aircraft piloted by determined men and handed the Soviet Union it's a** against great odds...
> 
> That, in my book, is what makes them the best airforce of 1939 - 1941


 
Yes, I see what you mean. Rather like faith, Hope and Charity.
Your example shows what advantage the home ground holds too.
Whether is determination, fear or anger that is driver it doesn't matter when you fight over your own soil.

Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I fail to see how they show RAF operations in a poor light....


 
LW- 105 , RAF -118 .The defender despite all the advantages that come with it has higher losses than the attacking force .That’s definitely disappointing.As for _outnumbered_ ,in what sense ? I was under the impression that fighters strengths were higher on the RAF side .


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I can see your version of history is fundamentally different to mine. I would dearly like to know your rasons why the germans abandoned their daylight offensive in 1940, why they all but suspended bomber operations in the latter half of 1941....


 

Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 22, 2011)

multi post


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Just to give one months figures on the bomber losses for the LW. according to German records, they lost 278 Bombers to all causes on the western front in April. The frontline strength of the LW at the end of March was slightly over 1800 bombers, so a loss rate of 278 aircraft represents 15.44% of the force pool. If that is not a force structure haemorraging itself to death I dont know what is....generally a loss rate abaove 3% per raid was considered unsustainable, and at that rate, the average monthly loss rate in the RAF was around 7.5% of the total force pool. Evidently 15% loss rates are unimportant to the Germans according to our esteemed friend.


 
It would be very heavy loss if it would be truth. It is not. Number already given 58 bomber destroyed against England during night, about 5 in day time in April 1941. Your numbers are fantasm category.


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> It would be very heavy loss if it would be truth. It is not. Number already given 58 bomber destroyed against England during night, about 5 in day time in April 1941. Your numbers are fantasm category.


 
There is a lot of stat's bending by the LW team.
Goering gave up simply because he had driven the LW to exhaustion.
And, to be fair, the RAF got a lucky break.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> It would be very heavy loss if it would be truth. It is not. Number already given 58 bomber destroyed against England during night, about 5 in day time in April 1941. Your numbers are fantasm category.


 
We need to see your source material to verify that claim. In the meantime I have posted the loss sheets for the LW in April. these losses are based on the OKL Quartmaster loss return sheets, which have to be considered as the best primary source for the germans. I started at 7 April, and only needed to go to 10 April to exceed your claim of 58 bomber losses. The losses do include aircraft dmaged, but according to Foreman, an aircraft damaged much more than 35% would almost certainly be scrapped.

Anyway here are the bomber losses according to Foreman for the period of 7-10 April. as they exceed 58, and you have not posted your source material, I do not need to go any further than that to debunk your claim. as i said Foreman says he bases these lists on the OKL quatermasters loss reports. For these lists to be wrong, either Foreman is lying, he has not read the report s correctly, the OKL reports are wrong, or your claims are incorrect. guess which one I think is most likley....... 

The summary sheets include the units and the serials so you should be able to verify the losses from your own source material.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> LW- 105 , RAF -118 .The defender despite all the advantages that come with it has higher losses than the attacking force .That’s definitely disappointing.As for _outnumbered_ ,in what sense ? I was under the impression that fighters strengths were higher on the RAF side .



Not sure about your point here. I think you are saying that the LW lost 105 bombers and have assumed that the RAF lost 118 fighters in doing that. If so, you have misunderstood the location and nature of British losses. 1941 was different to 1940, because the RAF was beginning to undertake offensive operations in western Europe. At the same time, the LW was still committed to some daylight bomber operations and a major effort at nighht operations. The RAF did not lose 118 fighters shooting down those bombers, they lost the vast majority of their fighters, plus quite a few bombers, in attacking Germany directly (for the bombers) and Northern France. The majority of RAF fighter losses were sustained in offensive patrols against the LW fighter groups. The losses incflicted on the Germans bombers cost the British virtually no fighters. 

If I have misunderstood you, please clarify 

With regard to fighter strength, overall fighter strengths were roughly even, though the British had rebuilot their reserves, whilst the Germans had not. But in terms of forces committed to the battle over France, the British were definately outnumbered on almost every occasion. A typical circus for them might involve 3 or four squadrons, the biggest committment was 8 squadrons in a single operation. A total of 17 squadrons at one time or another were committed to this battle. The Germans committed over 38 squadrons, and typically would commit 6-10 squadrons to a single battle. They could only achieve this however, by not escorting their daylight raids over England, and not defending other parts of the Reich properly. In the longer term, their over-committment to these battles, cost them the campaign


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 


And your point is.......Britain did not abandon its offensive in the west because of its numerous and diverse worldwide committments, which for britain were at least as arduous as the LW committment to Barbarossa. Unlike the germasns they planned for, and made allowance in their planning for these committments. They did not allow obligations like the far east, the middle east, the meditteranean, North Africa, the North Atlantic, the fleet air arm, the western approaches, or any of the other myriad of worldwide responsibilities deter them from the task at had. They wanted to gain control of at least parts of the western ETO and theyachieved that by 1942. The Germans failoed to plan properly, under-estimated the threat, and ultimately lost.

As I said, poor organization and planning were the downfall of the LW, Not a weak industrial base, or the potential to build an air force of sufficient power to meet all their commitments


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> And your point is.......Britain did not abandon its offensive in the west because of its numerous and diverse worldwide committments, which for britain were at least as arduous as the LW committment to Barbarossa. Unlike the germasns they planned for, and made allowance in their planning for these committments. They did not allow obligations like the far east, the middle east, the meditteranean, North Africa, the North Atlantic, the fleet air arm, the western approaches, or any of the other myriad of worldwide responsibilities deter them from the task at had. They wanted to gain control of at least parts of the western ETO and theyachieved that by 1942. The Germans failoed to plan properly, under-estimated the threat, and ultimately lost.
> 
> As I said, poor organization and planning were the downfall of the LW, Not a weak industrial base, or the potential to build an air force of sufficient power to meet all their commitments


 
True enough, plus the added burden of the drunken fool Goering in charge of the LW.
I can almost feel for the aces like Galland and Molders. Great flyers and leaders for the LW
'Lions led by a donkey' springs to mind. ( with apologies to the WW1 origin of that phrase)
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the _numerous and diverse worldwide commitments _ i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn’t do better.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

For the poll I vote LW by a whisker. In 1939 there is little doubt, 1940 sort of even and in 1941 they wiped out most of the VVS they were up against but lost heavily in the process.


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the _numerous and diverse worldwide commitments _ i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn’t do better.



That first sentence is inflammatory.
A deal was done with our American friends and allies to help us and it took us a long time to repay the loan but, we did.
Wiki sums it up Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheers
John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> That first sentence is inflammatory.
> A deal was done with our American friends and allies to help us and it took us a long time to repay the loan but, we did.
> Wiki sums it up Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Cheers
> John



Like you said it sums it up : 

_Following the fall of France, Great Britain became the only European nation actively engaged in war against Nazi Germany. Britain had been paying for its materiel in gold under "cash and carry", as required by the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s but by 1941 it had liquidated so many assets that it was running short of cash_

_Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II.[N 1] In 1943–1944, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships_

_There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war_

_This program was a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. There was no debt; the U.S. did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation_


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Like you said it sums it up :
> 
> _Following the fall of France, Great Britain became the only European nation actively engaged in war against Nazi Germany. Britain had been paying for its materiel in gold under "cash and carry", as required by the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s but by 1941 it had liquidated so many assets that it was running short of cash_
> 
> ...


 
No debt? you jest surely...


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I hate to jump in with what may seem almost off-topic at this point in the Luftwaffe versus RAF debate, but I wanted to point out an often overlooked airforce that definately needs mentioning in this poll...
> 
> The Finnish Airforce - who gets my vote not because it had state-of-the-art world-class aircraft or a gruelling pilot training program that produced hundreds of cutting edge pilots, but because they scraped together castoff, often obsolete aircraft piloted by determined men and handed the Soviet Union it's a** against great odds...
> 
> That, in my book, is what makes them the best airforce of 1939 - 1941



Considering the appalling consequences of geography that placed the Finns between the two most dangerous countries in the world, their conduct was magnificent in preserving their nation. To have to strike a bargain with the Nazis to defend your nation from the Stalinists was an incredible dilemma. Then to be poorly equipped and outnumbered and still perform as well as the Finns is truly remarkable. I hope Trilisser from Finland will weigh in on the Finnish Airforce. Thanks for bringing up the subject GrauGeist.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> No debt? you jest surely...


 
Nope that's your link i quoted.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 22, 2011)

With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour


 
What's today? bash the RAF day?
I'm sure you are trying to get a rise from me and others with these outrageous posts.
'Crushed in the battle of France?'
'Little success in any other endeavour?'
If I thought you were being serious I'd be quite offended.
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> What's today? bash the RAF day?
> I'm sure you are trying to get a rise from me and others with these outrageous posts.
> 'Crushed in the battle of France?'
> 'Little success in any other endeavour?'
> ...


I am very serious , I'm not saying they were inept but very ineffective


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the _numerous and diverse worldwide commitments _ i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn’t do better.



Again, you miss the salient point. The grand alliance that eventually was ranged against the Axis didnt just hapen, it didnt just occur because of Axis aggression. The formation of the joint chiefs, the united natiopns, the creation of lend lease, the turn around in US public opinion was in part a carefully orhestrated excesise initiated by the British. Cultivation of the US, politically, militarily and economically was the number one priority for Churchill.

As far as Lend Lease is concerned, until April 1941 it was anything but charity. It was a policy of cash and carry, which meant Britain had to pay for everything in cash before they could purchase on time payment under lend lease. And Lend lease, whilst vital to the British effort, hardly compensated in the first 18 months following the entry of the US for the weaknesses of their new ally. You forget the US very nearly lost the war in 1942 by its profligate loss of shipping. You forget or ignore that there was no effective offensive action or significant deployment in the ETO including Britain by US forces until Torch. You overlook that in Europe Britain was fighting not one but two major powers. You foreget or omit that after 12/41, nearly 20% of British war effort had to be diverted to the pacific, and that after 1942, three of its commonwealth allies were forced to make sigificant redeployments back to the pacific. You foreget or omit to note that nearly half of leand lease aid to Britain ended up in the Pacific. You forget or omit that for the first year of the war, about half the US military potential, including the greater part of its navy was sent to the Pacific, and not the ETO. All this so you can make an inane comment about Britain relying on US charity.

As for who was the attacker and who was the defender, I can only repeat my earlier statement. most of the losses you seem to be refrring to were suffered by Britain as the attacker, not as the defender. If you truly want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at the losses being incurred by the RAF whilst engaging those LW intruders over Britain. If you do this you will come up with a far different exchange ratio. My best guess is that the exchange ratio runs at about 5:1 against the LW over England, though I have not done the real legwork fopr this.


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Nope that's your link i quoted.



Here is the reality ctrian,

Britain did repay a large amount of the debt from Lend Lease, as did Canada. Smaller Commonwealth nations, such as Australia or New Zealand, didn't receive anywhere near as much equipment, and debts were never pursued.

England (or UK) did not benefit from Lend Lease. The USA did sell the UK military equipment which was repaid with interest. The point of the Marshall Plan was to bring Germany in as part of the international political and business community. 

Many in the UK are still bitter that Germany (the loser of the conflict) was given such a huge non-repay investment while the UK (the winner) continued to suffer crippled industry, high debt from the war, and rationing.

The British 'debt' to the USA is still being paid today and will always be owed.
Its not all about money.

Cheers
John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I am very serious , I'm not saying they were inept but very ineffective


 
You are having a Turkish mate


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour



So I take it you are not a fan of Mosquito, or the Beafighter, or the Beaufort. Not a fan of either the halifax or the Lancaster either I take it. You do realize that the Butt Report led to changes to bombing policy that in turn led to the 1000 bomber raids, and eventually the raid on Hamburg, which in my opinion was the most effective strategic bombing raid until the firebombing of tokyo.

You do relaize that the lions share of blind bombing aids and airborne radars forthe first 2/3 of the war are of British origin. You do realize that Britain passed all its considerable knowldege on Fission to the US. 

I agree that if the naval air forces of japan were included in the debate, we would have a tussle for second, but the USN and the IJN are not included in the poll. Difficult to see how the JAAF is superior to the RAF without the help or inclusion of the IJN AF


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> You are having a Turkish mate


 
what is a Turkish.
As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> what is a Turkish.
> As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver


 
Did Canada buy all those Shermans it used?


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> *England (or UK) did not benefit from Lend Lease*


 
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.



Why would they run out of everything? After Lend lease they continued to churn out vast quantities of domestically produced war materiel. In the ETO Lend Lease amounted to about 10% of aircraft receipts, and a somewhat smaller proportion of ground arments. Britian never received foodstuffs under Lend Lease.

Eventually, Leand Lease did help the British, but in 1941-2 it hardly compewnsate for the myriad of problenms that the British had to deal with as a result of US weaknesses.

This line of argument is non-sequita. I fail to see where it is leading to to be honest


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Of the many things I have observed regarding human nature and the psychology of competition, the following two observations come to mind and I wonder if they are not somewhat being manifested in this and other threads:
> 
> A competitor or his supporters will frequently insist “he was holding his own” until suddenly being overwhelmed even when impartial observers were aware from the beginning of a steady decline in performance that defeat was inevitable.
> 
> Victors will frequently consciously and unconsciously exaggerate the prowess of the vanquished because victory over even a worthy opponent is never enough to satisfy the human desire for a glorious victory over the almost invincible.


 


parsifal said:


> seems very deep. could you explain in slightly more simple terms for someone interested, but confused.....



The Vanquished frequently exaggerate the prowess of the Victor to make defeat less stinging by taking pride in the honorable and valiant actions of individuals and groups in what history judges as a bad cause. 

That after the victory the Victor frequently dismisses the Vanquished as fools for opposing them even though when in the midst of the conflict both the Victor and the Vanquished demonstrated foolishness and wisdom in close to equal measure. 


What I am communicating is that while reading the excellent postings of both sides of this debate I am keeping these four bias in mind and I hope the people posting are doing the same. I obviously from the “I like” checks I have made tend to agree with what you and others are writing in support of the RAF. However, I could easily do the same for the others point of view but did not so as not to appear hypocritical or fickle. I think all things considered the conflict during the time period "Was a very close run thing" to paraphrase Wellington after Waterloo.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.


 
Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

I understand, for the record I believe the LW was the superior air force in 1939-41, but I also believe that in 1942, the positions were reversed.

I hope my arguments are not depicting the germans as fools. I am saying the British benefitted from a superior organaization in their fighter defences over England in 1940-1, and that they enjoyed certain flow on advantages from that. But the factsd are what they are....Germany did start to lose the initiative, losses for them did start to mount. Eventually they did suffere great dmage at the hands of the RAF, far more so than was meted out on Britain by the LW. Surely you agree these are all unavoidable truths about the war


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
> *However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me*.



 Touche


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> what is a Turkish.
> As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver



English rhyming slang. Turkish bath = laugh




Mustang nut said:


> Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
> However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me.



OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I understand, for the record I believe the LW was the superior air force in 1939-41, but I also believe that in 1942, the positions were reversed.
> 
> I hope my arguments are not depicting the germans as fools. I am saying the British benefitted from a superior organaization in their fighter defences over England in 1940-1, and that they enjoyed certain flow on advantages from that. But the factsd are what they are....Germany did start to lose the initiative, losses for them did start to mount. Eventually they did suffere great dmage at the hands of the RAF, far more so than was meted out on Britain by the LW. Surely you agree these are all unavoidable truths about the war



I think you are doing a very good job at not depicting the Germans as fools and keeping bias in check. I also think your summation in the second paragraph is excellent.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

*OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great. *

Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 22, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Did Canada buy all those Shermans it used?


Maybe we swapped dor PBYs, Mosquitos, Helldivers and we also made some Shermans but armour is not a point I claim but we did produce 800K trucks and 50k of various amoured vehicles
WWII: Canadian War Industry - Canada at War


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Why would they run out of everything? After Lend lease they continued to churn out vast quantities of domestically produced war materiel. In the ETO Lend Lease amounted to about 10% of aircraft receipts, and a somewhat smaller proportion of ground arments. Britian never received foodstuffs under Lend Lease.
> 
> Eventually, Leand Lease did help the British, but in 1941-2 it hardly compewnsate for the myriad of problenms that the British had to deal with as a result of US weaknesses.
> 
> ...


 
I cannot see what point ctrian is trying to make either...
The allies paid for the victory in every conceivable way and sharing resources was the only way forward.

Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> *OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great. *
> 
> Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world


 
Actually you are quoting me and I was mainly referring to Greece's situation and how somewhat by the grace of good Geopolitical location we don't find ourselves in a similar position. The political talking heads here in the States are already speculating that we may find ourselves in Greece's debt position. 

Steve not John


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> *OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great. *
> 
> Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world


 
MN, you said what I was thinking but, didn't get around to saying about Greece.
The UK has paid its debts and I'm glad we have paid every single penny.
But, debt is not just about money, in my view we still have a debt of honour to our allies that can never be repaid.

Cheers
John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Actually you are quoting me and I was mainly referring to Greece's situation and how somewhat by the grace of good Geopolitical location we don't find ourselves in a similar position. The political talking heads here in the States are already speculating that we may find ourselves in Greece's debt position.
> 
> Steve not John


 
Ummm... the good ship UK may be joining the USA as well.
Its all gone Pete Tong ( wrong)
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I think you are doing a very good job at not depicting the Germans as fools and keeping bias in check. I also think your summation in the second paragraph is excellent.


 
The Germans were most certainly not fools. Their Field Marshall's were brilliant. Rommel was a military genius.
Were it when wrong was the ideology that drove the Third Reich and the madmen that that attracted.

Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> I cannot see what point ctrian is trying to make either...
> The allies paid for the victory in every conceivable way and sharing resources was the only way forward.
> 
> Cheers
> John



 you can't make this stuff up...
The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> you can't make this stuff up...
> The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.


 
Apart from providing your obvious entertainment what point about Britain -USA are you trying to make?
I'm sure you can provide some sound financial guidance that we'll benefit from on the question 'how do you fight a war when you have just spent all your money 21 years early in WW1 and started a recovery from the biggest single economic disaster that we have every encountered in the Western world'.
The current one is excluded for the purpose of this discussion.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I agree that if the naval air forces of japan were included in the debate, we would have a tussle for second, but the USN and the IJN are not included in the poll. Difficult to see how the JAAF is superior to the RAF without the help or inclusion of the IJN AF



I need to update first post. Remember talking me into making it include naval forces?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

oh yes, I forgot......in that case, its a strong contest for second


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> you can't make this stuff up...
> The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.



Britain throughout the war was still exporting considerable amounts of materiel, they also had huge and profitable investments overseas, for example the oil fields in Iraq. They were also receiving considerable credits from the worlds largest merchant marine (which remained the case until the latter half of 1944). There were also various austerity means that assisted greatly, for example in 1942 Britain ceased to be dependant on food imports, by dint of great efficiencies she produced enough food to feed herself, If Britain did not have lend lease it would have hurt, no doubt, but that is completely different to ceasing production altogether. Really, that is just such an absurd statement to make that I am surprised you would even attempt to make it in any serious vane.

With regard to doing Roosevelt a favour, well in a sense they did. Massive amounts of British money was used to prepare US industry for war prior to 1941, and Britain made a significant contribution to US naval defences by trasnferring large numbers of ASW escorts to the USN, and teaching the US some ASW tactics. Lend lease was actually a mutualk assistance package. The nett overall benefit was in Britains favour, but the sum of the parts was greater as a result of the mutual co-operation than if each part had operated separately

This is in stark contrast to the economic relationship between Germany and Italy. This was a nasty little relationship if ever ther was one.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 22, 2011)

IIRC, the UK received approx 25% of its war materiel from Lend Lease. Whilst that's a considerable proportion, its removal would not have resulted in automatically in the UK having to surrender. Lend Lease was a purely pragmatic decision by Roosevelt. By mid-1940, the only democratic nations of substance outside the US were the UK and the English-speaking nations of the Commonwealth. If the UK ceased fighting, America would have been surrounded by expansionist dictatorships with little chance for the US alone to overcome them (launching D-Day from Greenland, anyone?). The probably result (assuming Barbarossa followed a similar path to the way things panned out in reality) would be a Soviet-dominated Europe, or at least a long, bloody fight between the USSR and Nazi Germany, with Japan having effectively a free hand in the mainland battles of the Far East - no Burma Campaign, which was one of the main drains on IJA strength, and little need for the Pearl Harbor attack.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> ......With regard to doing Roosevelt a favour, well in a sense they did. Massive amounts of British money was used to prepare US industry for war prior to 1941, and Britain made a significant contribution to US naval defences by trasnferring large numbers of ASW escorts to the USN, and teaching the US some ASW tactics. Lend lease was actually a mutualk assistance package. The nett overall benefit was in Britains favour, but the sum of the parts was greater as a result of the mutual co-operation than if each part had operated separately
> 
> This is in stark contrast to the economic relationship between Germany and Italy. This was a nasty little relationship if ever ther was one.



The U.K. did the U.S.A. just as big a favor as received. For one they held the wolf at bay long enough for America to gather strength. Anyone with a knowledge of the prewar size, organization, and sophistication of the U.S. Military knows that America benefited enormously from the example set and shepherding it received from the U.K. military. Just two things among many demonstrate this. The British showed great patience and acumen in dealing with the bigotry toward the British displayed by USN CinC Ernest King. A bigotry so strong that it prevented him from accepting obvious facts and techniques of modern naval warfare in 1941-42 that led to the loss of many merchant ships and death of many merchant seamen. These were facts and techniques he was later forced to acknowledge and adopt. The British also provided significant aid to America's Signals Intelligence capability. The U.S. had some capability but the example and support from GCHQ greatly expanded it. We can debate all we want to about who had the best planes and pilots, but more Allied soldiers were saved and more battles won because of an almost total monopoly on good SIGINT from the U.K. and U.S.A. SIGINT was the single most significant weapon of the war, not the Atomic Bomb which became the most significant weapon of the postwar, and certainly not any fighter or bomber during the war.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

This site is amazing, i learned that the Brits were doing Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease and that they were so rich they could built and buy anything they wanted ... I need an aspirin.Better yet get the whiskey.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.

You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do. 

So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.
> 
> You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do.
> 
> So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way


 
Nope i think i'll get a double dose.


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.
> 
> You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do.
> 
> So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way


 
parsifal,
ctrian is just winding us up.
We know we are right and so does he.
Funnily enough I thought the Greeks were on our side.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> This is in stark contrast to the economic relationship between Germany and Italy. This was a nasty little relationship if ever ther was one.




Don't forget the 'neutral' Swiss the people who financed the Third Reich....


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> parsifal,
> ctrian is just winding us up.
> We know we are right and so does he.
> Funnily enough I thought the Greeks were on our side.
> ...


 
Actually it's you that are winding me up,but what can i say i'm a weak character and i take the bait


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Okay, fair enough. What evidence do you have then to support your claim that Britain was 100% dependant on LL to sustain its war effort. Please include verifiable references so that we can verify whether you are full of it like in other threads.

If you cannot provide some evidence to support this claim of yours, then you need to modify your position to state that its merely your opinion based on...nothing.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Actually you are quoting me and I was mainly referring to Greece's situation and how somewhat by the grace of good Geopolitical location we don't find ourselves in a similar position. The political talking heads here in the States are already speculating that we may find ourselves in Greece's debt position.
> 
> Steve not John


 
Sorry Steve

The point I was making was that Greece has defaulted on its national debt 5 times the UK never has despite 2 world wars and the Napoleonic wars etc etc. That is off topic but in 1939-45 it was taken into account by those that extended credit to the UK and today is taken into account on world money markets.


originally posted by Parsival
*With regard to doing Roosevelt a favour, well in a sense they did. Massive amounts of British money was used to prepare US industry for war prior to 1941, and Britain made a significant contribution to US naval defences by trasnferring large numbers of ASW escorts to the USN, and teaching the US some ASW tactics. Lend lease was actually a mutualk assistance package. The nett overall benefit was in Britains favour, but the sum of the parts was greater as a result of the mutual co-operation than if each part had operated separately*

Parsival great post

there was also the transfer of Radar and other technologies. The choice faced by the USA was to help the British or see Britain possibly taken over by the Nazis. I dont know how you can price the difference but there was the possibility of the US facing the British and Japanese fleets armed with ASDIC and RADAR and Russia facing fleets of 4 engined bombers and the full force of the German war machine with no distactions in North Africa and Europe. In that scenario lend lease is a no brainer.


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Actually it's you that are winding me up,but what can i say i'm a weak character and i take the bait



An honest answer.
But, we are right and I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Okay, fair enough. What evidence do you have then to support your claim that Britain was 100% dependant on LL to sustain its war effort. Please include verifiable references so that we can verify whether you are full of it like in other threads.
> 
> If you cannot provide some evidence to support this claim of yours, then you need to modify your position to state that its merely your opinion based on...nothing.


 
Clear the foam from your mouth.

_''In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediately.''_

Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1937-1945 - Lend-Lease and Military Aid to...

There was a british meeting after the fall of France were they had to decide if they would carry on the war and how they were going to pay for it since they had no money left.I don't remember where i read that but i'll try to look around.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA.. 

Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..
> 
> Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.


 
You're wasting your time with them (so am i ) .Britain could fight on indefinitely producing everything and maybe just maybe if Roosevelt begs them they would allow ''some'' American aid.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..



Per my earlier post, across the entire war (1939-1945), lend-lease accounted for about 25% of military hardware obtained by the UK. The key problem was lack of gold reserves in the UK, not overall bankruptcy of the UK economy (it is possible for someone to remain financially solvent even if they don't have any savings in the bank!). 

I agree that WWII marked the death-knell for the British Empire and the emergence of the US as the world's only industrial and military superpower. That said, I for one am very proud of my nation's sacrifices. The alternatives, per my earlier post, are a Europe dominated either by Nazism or Communism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2011)

Some of you need to tone it down a bit and play nice! This thread is on the verge of getting out of hand (as the other one is).

This is the one and only warning. I also don't want any "He Said, She Said" crap, just cool it down.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

According to Andrew Clark aeditor of the business section of the Observer Newspaper, in an interview I saw recently and something of an amateur historian that specialises on wartime economics (I understand)

(What was Britains financial position at thye time of Lend lease)

"_The UK was incapable of buying some war equipment it wanted, without
going into debt. At the time Lend-Lease went into effect, the British
dollar reserves, and assets convertible into dollars, were quite low.
The British economy was still a powerful modern economy, and Britain
was not yet in debt_".

(in reply to the question was Britain bankrupt at the time of lend lease?)

"_Not at the time Lend-Lease went into effect. That would have been
true some time later. In any case, this is precisely the same as
most other international transactions. The British economy was
under a great deal of strain and uncertainty, but that's hardly
unknown even in peacetime circumstances_."

(Was the British economy on the Brink of Bankrupotcy in 1941?")

"_I would be very reluctant to describe an entity as being on the
brink of bankruptcy when said entity was not actually in debt.
Up until Lend-Lease started, Britain had been buying war materiel
from the US on a cash basis, and Britain was getting close to
not being able to do this any more. The British economy was
capable of keeping a war effort going, although not as large a one
as the authorities thought desirable_".

(If Britain had been refused Lend lease would they have been bankrupt, and could they have continued the fight?)

"_Britain wouldn't have gone bankrupt without the US. 
Rather, the British war effort would simply have had to be scaled down to 
take into account lack of supply from the US. That would have had 
significant consequences for the course of the war but it wouldn't have 
meant a German victory_." 

In any event, this mans views offer a pretty clear appraisal of the military potential of the British without Lend Lease. I think his views and opinions are accurate and balanced


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..
> 
> Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.



You seem to be quite pleased to point this out Tante Ju.
I'm not sure where you hail from but, I'm guessing its not Britain.
You and your comrade ctrian continually over look one thing .
Even though I rather suspect that the tongue is firmly planted in the cheek....

The USA, The Commonwealth and Great Britain were allies.
If polictical deals were done to help each other out then so what?

I would rather any deal was done and been born a free Englishman that the subject of the Third Reich.
We have paid dearly for our liberty and it would be very wrong to belittle the hard decisions made and their consquences.

That's it from me as I have nothing I wish to add to this thread.

Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

How would Britain continue to fight if : 
_Up until Lend-Lease started, Britain had been buying war materiel
from the US on a cash basis, and Britain was getting close to
not being able to do this any more. The British economy was
capable of keeping a war effort going, although not as large a one
as the authorities thought desirable_

_Rather, the British war effort would simply have had to be scaled down _

Scaled down to what? Without M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Rommel is drinking his coffee in Cairo.The RAF's Bomber Command has to close shop since they can't take the horrific losses they historically absorbed.No P-40 for N.Africa ,no P-36 for Far East , supplies of all types ,fuel etc etc etc.
There's a thing called Liebig's law check it up.Lend lease kept Britain from collapsing ,thanks to it it could continue the fight .


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> How would Britain continue to fight if :
> Without M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Rommel is drinking his coffee in Cairo.The RAF's Bomber Command has to close shop since they can't take the horrific losses they historically absorbed.No P-40 for N.Africa ,no P-36 for Far East , supplies of all types ,fuel etc etc etc.
> There's a thing called Liebig's law check it up.Lend lease kept Britain from collapsing ,thanks to it it could continue the fight .


 
I dont know what point you are making, without lend lease the Americas are isolated Europe Africa Asia and eventually India Australasia are under the control of either the Nazis Communists or Japanese. Lend lease was a deal between allies for mutual benefit. The USA may have eventually been the biggest winner financially but how would you price a dark age of Europe including Britain being ruled by Adolf? As I understand history Greece was liberated by lend lease weapons.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I dont know what point you are making, without lend lease the Americas are isolated Europe Africa Asia and eventually India Australasia are under the control of either the Nazis Communists or Japanese. Lend lease was a deal between allies for mutual benefit. The USA may have eventually been the biggest winner financially but how would you price a dark age of Europe including Britain being ruled by Adolf? As I understand history Greece was liberated by lend lease weapons.


 
I don't know why i'm not getting through.LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments)
Obviously the Americans weren't being kind they were defending their interests.I'm not talking about the morality or if it was a good or bad deal.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

No P-40 for North Africa would mean the 18 squadrons would have remained equipped with Hurricanes. No P-36s for the Far East - a whole 2 squadrons - hardly significant.

Tanks in North Africa? I think one of the main tanks during the key phases of the fighting was the dear old Matilda - once again, produced in the UK.

As for Bomber Command being unable to sustain horrific losses, what relevance does that have to Lend Lease? Bomber Command was primarily equipped with British-manufactured aircraft. 

Once again, the 25% figure was for all war-related supplies. Lend Lease did not keep Britain from collapsing. That's absolute nonsense.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Sorry Steve
> 
> The point I was making was that Greece has defaulted on its national debt 5 times the UK never has despite 2 world wars and the Napoleonic wars etc etc. That is off topic but in 1939-45 it was taken into account by those that extended credit to the UK and today is taken into account on world money markets.



I was just making sure everyone knew I made the original. post. Perhaps I should make a little explanation/apology to you for not taking more time in my original post to elaborate. I guess we all know how easy it is to quickly throw out a reply on this forum that given more time crafting would have better clarity. What I was trying to communicate was that I do not think the financial condition Greece finds itself in today in any way invalidates Ctrian's opinion. In fact you can often learn more about and how to avoid a bad situation from a "loser" than a "winner". Ctrian informed me by PM he considered your comment just joking. I think my own appreciation of the historically difficult Geopolitical position of Greece and my own sensitivity to having the U.K. and U.S.A. appearing as smug bullies caused me to be more blunt than I should have been.

I am truly surprised after decades of disclosure and research that anyone could not think that the U.S. benefited from lend-lease as much as the recipients.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments.



I don't understand what you're saying. The UK was producing huge quantities of armaments in its own right - Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters, Mosquitos, Matilda tanks, Churchill tanks, ships etc etc etc. We had oil supplies from Iraq and food and other materials from across the Empire and Commonwealth. Can you please explain to me how the loss of US-produced war materiel would cause a collapse in the UK? You keep making that statement without any back-up information. Please justify your comments.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I don't know why i'm not getting through.LL was vital to Britain ,without it the country would collapse(unless you think a country at war can reduce armaments)
> Obviously the Americans weren't being kind they were defending their interests.I'm not talking about the morality or if it was a good or bad deal.


 
Ctrian 

As pointed out lend lease was 25% of the British war effort. We could easily defend ourselves at the time from invasion, other things such as N Africa and the far east may have had to be scaled down but what difference would that make? Eventually the USA may have beaten Japan and eventually Russia may have beaten Germany or Germany may have won and turned on Britain and Britain may have lost but that is different to Britain collapsing because LL didnt happen. Without LL the whole world would have collapsed one way or another.

Most people are technically bankrupt for most of their lives because they take out a loan to buy houses and cars, you only actually become bankrupt when someone calls in the loan, its the same with countries. The USA extended credit for a period of 4 years for supplies to help both sides of the partneship win the war, it was neither given as charity or demanded as a right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2011)

Why the heck are you all bickering over lend lease, national debts and tanks in North Africa, when the thread/poll is about the "Best Airforce 1939 to 1941"?


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Ctrian
> 
> As pointed out lend lease was 25% of the British war effort. We could easily defend ourselves at the time from invasion, other things such as N Africa and the far east may have had to be scaled down but *what difference would that make*? .


 
Collapse in N.Africa ,Middle East goes to the Axis.Collapse in Far East even worse than historically happened.No Bomber Offensive (a contracting economy will not be able to support attrition on such a scale).That country was terribly overextended even with American aid without it the most that you could do was make sure noone invaded you? What about every kind of material bought from the US ,could your economy function without it? Machine tools ,fuel ,food etc ? LL was 10% of Soviet effort and it was decisive you think 25% somehow means you could go at it alone?  Did you read what the prof said ? Scale down armaments in the middle of the war ...

@GrauGeist : neither side can walk away i'm afraid


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I was just making sure everyone knew I made the original. post. Perhaps I should make a little explanation/apology to you for not taking more time in my original post to elaborate. I guess we all know how easy it is to quickly throw out a reply on this forum that given more time crafting would have better clarity. What I was trying to communicate was that I do not think the financial condition Greece finds itself in today in any way invalidates Ctrian's opinion. In fact you can often learn more about and how to avoid a bad situation from a "loser" than a "winner". Ctrian informed me by PM he considered your comment just joking. I think my own appreciation of the historically difficult Geopolitical position of Greece and my own sensitivity to having the U.K. and U.S.A. appearing as smug bullies caused me to be more blunt than I should have been.
> 
> I am truly surprised after decades of disclosure and research that anyone could not think that the U.S. benefited from lend-lease as much as the recipients.



Thanks for that Lighthunmust 

I was just joking of course but having been to Greece and visited a site where the Nazis massacred civilians I would say Greece was as much a beneficiary of LL as the UK was so I find Ctrians point of view surprising but we are all entitled to an opinion.

Graugeist

Good point I think this is going no where


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

I'm going to provide one more input then bow to GrauGeist's common-sense observation that this is supposed to be about the best AF in 1939-41.

Re the USSR, I think the key thing was Germany overextended itself and Stalin literally moved whole factories east to maintain production. Last time I checked, the USA didn't supply the T-34 or Il-2 which were real war-winners for the USSR (in addition to millions of men and women in uniform).

Once more, you are confusing lack of gold reserves with an inability to pay for home-grown military hardware. The UK was exchanging gold for US dollars to pay for weapons but those gold reserves were running out. However, the UK was paying for all the factories across the Empire and Commonwealth that were producing war materiel using Pounds Sterling. If the British economy was contracting without lend lease, how would lend lease have stopped that process? 

Re your "go it alone" comment - Britain had gone alone since France surrendered in 1940. We had no allies who could help offset the military production. That situation could have gone on for some time without your forecast "collapse". Once again, please show me where a lack of US materiel would have resulted in the loss of North Africa or the Middle East or the Far East?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 23, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> However, the UK was paying for all the factories across the Empire and Commonwealth that were producing war materiel using Pounds Sterling.


I believe at least in Canada we paid for these factories ourselves


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm going to provide one more input then bow to GrauGeist's common-sense observation that this is supposed to be about the best AF in 1939-41.
> 
> Re the USSR, I think the key thing was Germany overextended itself and Stalin literally moved whole factories east to maintain production. Last time I checked, the USA didn't supply the T-34 or Il-2 which were real war-winners for the USSR (in addition to millions of men and women in uniform).
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand what you're trying to say ,without LL the economy would contract.This didn't happen historically because of LL.As for ''go it alone'' check the US material that your forces used in N.Africa and Far East.2 Sq only of P-36 ? What about zero? How will that affect ops ? What happens when there are no P-40's in Africa? You'll replace them with what? If you had extra capacity why didn't you use it? If your tanks were good why did you switch to the Sherman? All rhetorical questions of course...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

You obviously didn't read my earlier posts. Losing 2 squadrons of P-36s would have had no impact on the Far East - there were 10-times that number of Hurricane and Spitfire units. As for the P-40s, most of those could have soldiered on with Hurricanes. The alternative to Lend Lease was simply not getting US-produced materiel but that doesn't mean the economy will contract. For the third time, prior to Lend Lease the UK paid for US purchases by converting gold reserves to US dollars. The gold reserves are like savings in the bank. Without the US equipment, the UK would have used existing resources (eg not retiring Hurricanes quite so early).


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> You obviously didn't read my earlier posts. Losing 2 squadrons of P-36s would have had no impact on the Far East - there were 10-times that number of Hurricane and Spitfire units. As for the P-40s, most of those could have soldiered on with Hurricanes. The alternative to Lend Lease was simply not getting US-produced materiel but that doesn't mean the economy will contract. For the third time, prior to Lend Lease the UK paid for US purchases by converting gold reserves to US dollars. The gold reserves are like savings in the bank. Without the US equipment, the UK would have used existing resources (eg not retiring Hurricanes quite so early).


 
In '41 and '42 ? ????


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

RAF Order of Battle in Sept 1942 (note that the Mohawks only commenced operational service in May 1942) had 10 squadrons of Hurricanes and one squadrons of Mohawks. So the Mohawks constituted 10% of the total, which aligns with the shoot-from-the-hip figures I gave in my last email.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

The assumption here is that without LL the british war effort would collapse. Have produced some expert opinion to refute the claim that britain was bankrupt. Out of money, yes, out of investments that were returning good incomes no, out of productive capacity no. no options, no.

What would have happened if the LL Act had not been passed. No evidence has been shown that Britain would collapse has been provided, so we just have to let that one slide, until we hear something I guess. 

If the US did not enter into agreement about Lend Lease then what is it going to do with its spare production. It will not get quite the outputs that British finance allowed it to in the lead up to war, but its still going to mean that the US military is going to be a lot stronger than it was historically. If it going to be asumed that for some reason the US is ignoring events in Europe, for reasons unclear, illogical an unexplained (but lets go with it anyways), the only two places the US is going to deploy these additional assets are in the continental US and in the Far East. The additional deployments into Continental US will mean a greater readiness state for the US, and quicker mobilization when the US does eventually join the conflict. Instead of it taking a year to prepare just three divs for Europe, they are going to have perhaps 8 or 10 ready in six months or so. The bomber assets means better resources to combat the Uboats, and that means a quicker recovery in the ETO. I dont see a lot of difference in the outcome, just a different pathway. Britain has less resources, but she also has less time to walk the tightrope. The US cavalry arrives sooner, because they are better prepared prewar...... 

In the pacific, an increased deployment by the US will mean less need for the Brits to expand their garrisons in this TO. Instead of all those Buffaloes and Beaforts and Blenheims, manned by Commonwealth and British personnel. I would think it reasonable to assume that instead of Force Z deploying to Singas, and the dozen or so cruisers and the 40 or so destroyers that British sent there in the months prior to the outbreak of war in the Far East, that these assets would be retained in home waters,. The DDs would definately be needed to replace the four pipers provided under Lend Lease in 1940-41, but instead of being manned by British sailors, these ships would now be manned by USN personnel. Some of these ships would end up in the Far East. Instead of the POW and Repulse, we would probably see the USN accelarate the completion of the North Caolinas and send them to the Far East, probably to Subic Bay. But the end result of all this is that instead of British personnel and equipment contributing to far eastern defence, it would be US forces shouldering the whole burden. The additional British resources would of course be returned or retained for the ETO 

So, what do the British do if there is no lend lease. I think that this situation would have required a more strictly neutral attitude by the US from the very beginning of the war, ie from 1939 or even earlier. They would not simply wake up and say "oh, and by the way, no more planes and guns"....more, from the very beginning there would be no assistance provided. So what are the options for the brits in that situation. Well, for a start they have a whole lot of additional cash that they can use, so where does it go. Instead of spending its gold reserves to set up the factories in the US, the British would have been forced to invest this capital elsewhere. They could spend it expanding their own industrial basis, or they could invest it in the developing war industries in the dominions. I kinda like the latter, so lets have a look at that. 

The obvious places were the developing economies of the empire....Canada, Australia NZ India and South Africa. The money spent on the US industrial complex would, in my opinion, be spent on Commonwealth production. I think that this would have the effect of pushing outputs from these sources by about a year to 18 months. I know, for example, that the delays to the Australian tank production plans were due primarily to a lack of funding to set up the engine and steel rolling facilities. 

Similar delays were experienced with the Beafort program. The Boomerang was not started because the RAAF received Buffaloes. Without that aircraft, and with some British investment capital, it is not unreasonable to assume the appearance of the Boomerang at least two years before it did historically. all the technology was there, they just needed the money to make it work. In the case of the Canadians their aircraft industry was even more developed as was their tank production. Both the major dominions had rapidly expanding industrial capabilities. If we look at Australias aircraft industry, , in 1941 we produced 636 aircraft. In 1942 this increased to well over 1300. The Canadians were even more spectacular. 

So, whilst not having LL is a problem, ther is no evidence presented to indicate a collapse, and in fact thinking about it, there may well have been some compensations. It would have been great to see how Boomerangs would have fared over the western Desert, or Ca15s over Germany, or perhaps the CA-4 Woomera Bomber, or the RAM or Sentinel Tank designs. I think they would have done fine to be honest. Australia had plans to buid a heavy cruiser, carriers and destroyers. There were plans to build more than a million tons of shipping. The Canadians actually built more than a million tons, so I guess, with additional cash to help them along, they would just have to build....another million tons!!!!


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Like i said before you were doing them the favor .You know it's too bad the people back then were not as smart as you, build everything in the Commonwealth why didn't they try that ...Counterfactual history at it's best


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Like i said before you were doing them the favor .You know it's too bad the people back then were not as smart as you, build everything in the Commonwealth why didn't they try that ...Counterfactual history at it's best


 And attempting to say without LL British production is zero is not "counter factual" (whatever the hell that is).

And you didnt say we did them a favour. You started this off by attempting to say that British production would collapse without LL. You produced nothing to support that, you or your mate. I produced some reasonably expert opinion to refute the claim, further have tried to determine what or how the unused resources that are associated with LL might be utilized. If British money isnt used on LL, then how would it be used. If US production is not being used to equip British forces, then how is that being used. Resources just dont disappear, much as you would hope they would, they just transmogrify (go and look it up) to some other form


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> And attempting to say without LL British production is zero is not "counter factual" (whatever the hell that is).
> 
> And you didnt say we did them a favour. You started this off by attempting to say that British production would collapse without LL. You produced nothing to support that, you or your mate. I produced some reasonably expert opinion to refute the claim, further have tried to determine what or how the unused resources that are associated with LL might be utilized. If British money isnt used on LL, then how would it be used. If US production is not being used to equip British forces, then how is that being used. Resources just dont disappear, much as you would hope they would, they just transmogrify (go and look it up) to some other form


 
Your own interview admits they would have to SCALE DOWN the war effort in the middle of the WAR.What more do you need to understand that things were near the end?
What money? Who would keep selling to you since you were broke? You need foreign currency for imports.How long would the other Commonwealth countries continue to receive payment in a worthless currency? It was a matter of life and death that you receive equipment and supplies and you can thank Roosevelt for keeping you afloat.Even so with all that help you lost Far East and you came very close to total defeat in N.Africa.You seem to think your country was on the same league with USSR and USA ,sorry but you had neither the manpower,the raw materials or the industrial infrastructure.I'm not trying to denigrate Britain but you simply couldn't deal with the Axis esp Germany even the tiny forces that were fighting against you.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

Both sides in this debate believe they have led the "horse" to water. Why don't all of you agree you are never going to make the "horse" drink and get back to the thread topic. This was a great thread, with very interesting on topic posts I was enjoying reading but unfortunately I think anymore time spent visiting it is not worthwhile if the lend-lease bickering doesn't stop. Just my opinion, I'll be back one more time to see if the majority agrees with it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 23, 2011)

".... The money spent on the US industrial complex would, in my opinion, be spent on Commonwealth production. I think that this would have the effect of pushing outputs from these sources by about a year to 18 months."

This is a sound assumption, Parsifal. I don't think Ctrian understands the nature of the Commonwealth. The last time I checked, Britain wasn't "paying" Canada's wartime production bills. Canada was. (And I am sure the same was true for Australia, NZ, etc.  [Maurtitius donated a squadron of Hurricanes IIRC]

As far as US neutrality is concerned. Ford and GM Canada (to name two) were involved in fulfilling Canadian government contracts as quickly as they could be - after September, 1939. While Ford and GM Germany were busy fulfilling GERMAN government contracts at the same time. By its nature, capitalism is 'neutral', if left without government intervention. . 

http://wwii.ca/content-17/world-war-ii/canadian-war-industry/

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

Well, just because your corporate head quarters is in another country that is at war with the country that you are in doesn't mean you can refuse government orders for equipment or production. They just might call it treason and have you replaced by somebody more willing to go along with 'their' ideas. And no, you don't get the golden parachute retirement buyout so you can sit out the war in a neutral country either.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> If the US did not enter into agreement about Lend Lease then what is it going to do with its spare production. It will not get quite the outputs that British finance allowed it to in the lead up to war....



So... the British built US industry, too... that is news.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround,

This is going way, waaayy off topic but I strongly recommend the book "Seduced by Hitler: the Choices of a Nation and the Ethics of Survival" by Adam LeBor and Roger Boyes. It's a fascinating study of the decisions individuals made that enabled Hitler and his cronies to succeed. One very interesting example given is Sweden which, although neutral, provided most of its iron ore to Germany, begging the question about the meaning of neutrality particularly when you are supplying a war machine as abhorrent as that led by Nazi ideology.

Cheers,
B-N


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Money does not stink - said a roman emperor..


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> So... the British built US industry, too... that is news.



US industry capitalised on European rearmament. In 1941, the US Army was exercising with wooden dummy rifles and trucks driving round with the word "Tank" painted on the sides. The US military in 1940-41 was a mere shell with little substance to it, largely driven by economic limitations in the aftermath of the Great Depression. The US defence industry was similarly constrained - an order for 100 fighter aircraft for the USN was something to be fought over. European rearmament enabled US industry to expand in 1939-1940 and move away from small-scale manufacturing towards full-bore production lines.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

This explains. I think French placed big order, too? Best order for US probably.. customer did not show up after paying$


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 23, 2011)

".... This is going way, waaayy off topic ".

Not so much.  Germany began rearming after 1933 - and the LW was the largest recipient. If they were the best Air Force in 1939 it had something to do with rearmament. 

MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> This explains. I think French placed big order, too? Best order for US probably.. customer did not show up after paying$


 
France and Belgium and Greece all placed substantial aircraft orders, and there were investigations from many other countries (eg Poland was in discussion with Brewster about buying the Buffalo). The Finns, too, received a few aircraft - Brewsters and P-36s.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 23, 2011)

...and China


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Obvious that we cannot agree on the impact of LL or whether even britain would collapse without it. So we will have to agree to disagree on the strategic principal, but perhaps w can have a look at the detail of the original context. This whole thing started as a comment on the extent of support being provided from LL to the early offensives by Britain, starting roughly in April 1941.

What I can do is look at the numbers of LL aircraft serving or used on active operations in the FAA, in the Meditterranean TO, and on the western TO in that 3 month period leading up to June 1941. It wont be an exact number, but we will have an idea of how extensive the "boots on the ground" (or in this case "wings in the air") were from LL sources. how many squadrons were using foreign equipment, and how many were using home built stuff. I have a list somewhere as well, i think it was from the HMSO that summrises foreign deliveries for the entire war. From there we can guage its relative importance at the moment in time that we should be discussing, ie early 1941, when the balance of power in the air was shifting.

As I said, I dont think we will ever achieve consensus on the strategic issue of LL, but perhaps we can look at the raw numbers and determine the extent of the contribution at that moment in time.

Will have to wait until tonite, however


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2011)

Oh you little tease!!!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2011)

Ok, then let's look at the definition of "The Best Airforce" and what qualifies a particular nation for that title...

Would the qualifications be:
A) A higher percentage of high-performance aircraft than other nations?
B) A higher degree of qualified pilots? - this would be in training or battle-tested (or both)
C) A solid manufacturing base that would enable that air force to quickly replace aircraft lost?
D) The ability to quickly adapt above mentioned aircraft to changing battlefield requirements?
E) Using a combination of technology and training to stay ahead of the enemy's learning curve?
F) Being able to counter a numerically superior enemy with minimal losses (with or without the above mentioned points)

Or perhaps a combination of those listed above?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh you little tease!!!!



Okay, because of that, here is some of the promised information. The aircraft received by the HMSO for both domestic production and those received from the US are attached.

In summary, in 1941, the HMSO received 20094 new aircraft from domestic production. At the same time 1712 were received from the US. However approximately half of these aircraft were rejected for operations in Europe, diverted to the Pacific, given the Dominions, passed to the Soviets as part of their lend lease. The domestic production figures also dont include new aircrafdt built in the Dominions, which amounted to several thousand more aircraft of various types.

Possibly 8-900 of the LL material were accepted and used by the RAF in the TO. That kinda matches upo with what Foreman suggests. Only one or two squadrons in both Bomber Command and the Tactical Group engaging the germans over France were using LL equipment

Anyway, here is the raw data for discussion


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Okay, because of that, here is some of the promised information. The aircraft received by the HMSO for both domestic production and those received from the US are attached.
> 
> In summary, in 1941, the HMSO received 20094 new aircraft from domestic production. At the same time 1712 were received from the US. However approximately half of these aircraft were rejected for operations in Europe, diverted to the Pacific, given the Dominions, passed to the Soviets as part of their lend lease. The domestic production figures also dont include new aircrafdt built in the Dominions, which amounted to several thousand more aircraft of various types.
> 
> ...




 Here we go again... How many american tanks in N.Africa? How many american planes in N.Africa? The only data on RAF strength i have come from ''The Source book of the RAF '' if i haven't made a mistake i count : 
April '42 - Burma 3 Hurricane sq , 1 Buffalo
India 1 P-36 sq 
Ceylon 2 Hurricane , 1 Catalina 
NEI - 1 Spitfire , 1 Hudson

that's 4 units with american equipment.

For May '41 Far East(kallang) : 2 sq Buffalo *only fighter units*.I'm sure you could do without them.

Now N.Africa : May '41 i only have 1 sq of Maryland bomber.
April'42 : 13 Hurricane sq 
*7 *Kittyhawk
plus 2 Boston ,1 Fortress , 1 Hudson ,1 sunderland going by authorized strength that's ~35% of SE Fighters and ~21% of Bombers.I don't know how those numbers change between those dates.
The only allied tanks in N.Africa that could go face to face with the improved PzIII and PzIV were the american Grant and Sherman but i guess you could do without those too

Oh i should note that i don't have information on the other airforces Australian and S.African.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

I think that we have a known disagreement concerning the strategic effect if lend lease. But the source of that disagreement stems from the degree of support lend lease was giving to the brits in the course of 1941. My figures relate to aircraft only. we can digress to other munitions if you like, but the disagreement is there, and should therefore try to restrict th debate to known facts. The best source on the degree of US aid, in terms of aircraft has been given. You cannot beat the HMSO records, they are the bible of miltary hardware receipts, and they tell the story you need to look at. 20094 to 1712, with over half of that latter number not remaining under RAF control. Just to give you an example...most of the Buffalo squadrons in malaya in 1941 werent manned by the RAF, they werent paid for by the RAF. Most were colonial squadrons, paid for, manned and controlled by the Dominions. These countries, before Lend Lease were buying aircraft direct from the USbefore LL, and would have continued if LL was not there. alternatively they could have built more of their own (unlike Britain, these countries, including my own were well in the black, with economies going gangbusters....there was plenty of unused capacity in their economies to absorb greater load, as event 1942-5 were to prove)

The same story occurs in the middle east, I know of at least 3 of those 7 squadrons of P-40s were manned and controlled, and paid for by the Dominions. I can assure you that it was a LOT more than that.

I dont agree with your comments about Grants and Shermans, being the only tanks capable of taking on MkIIs and IVs (specials). There was a great thread on this very issue, and i was surprised at some of the statistics that people knew on this very subject. Note also that the Sherman arrived very late in the piece. I have a complete OB and the numbers of aircraft received from 1940 through to the end of 1942, based on staff studies completed at the RMC and Sandhurst, when there were various challenges to simulate the campaign For North Africa. I will try to dig them out and give a number on the aircraft received in that theatre of operations.

We are back at this point of banging heads on the importance of LL. Neither of us are going to concede the point, i can see that, so it gets down now to trying to determine just how much aid was received . I have oodles of stuff on this and can go all day on it. Wouldnt mind seeing what you have as well. We dont need to argue about the effects of Lend lease, that seems rathr pointless to me, but we might still get information out there that is useful to ourselves and the resers of this thread


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I think that we have a known disagreement concerning the strategic effect if lend lease. But the source of that disagreement stems from the degree of support lend lease was giving to the brits in the course of 1941. My figures relate to aircraft only. we can digress to other munitions if you like, but the disagreement is there, and should therefore try to restrict th debate to known facts. The best source on the degree of US aid, in terms of aircraft has been given. You cannot beat the HMSO records, they are the bible of miltary hardware receipts, and they tell the story you need to look at. 20094 to 1712, with over half of that latter number not remaining under RAF control. Just to give you an example...most of the Buffalo squadrons in malaya in 1941 werent manned by the RAF, they werent paid for by the RAF. Most were colonial squadrons, paid for, manned and controlled by the Dominions. These countries, before Lend Lease were buying aircraft direct from the USbefore LL, and would have continued if LL was not there. alternatively they could have built more of their own (unlike Britain, these countries, including my own were well in the black, with economies going gangbusters....there was plenty of unused capacity in their economies to absorb greater load, as event 1942-5 were to prove)
> 
> The same story occurs in the middle east, I know of at least 3 of those 7 squadrons of P-40s were manned and controlled, and paid for by the Dominions. I can assure you that it was a LOT more than that.
> 
> ...


 
Debate what? That 1 out of 3 fighters was foreign made? Forces in the UK had almost 100% British equipment but in Africa and Far East american equipment was vital.You can go all day about 1.712 of 20.094 and i'll remind you 1/3 in N.Africa is P-40.Also Coastal Command used large number of B-24 and B-17 VLR bombers.I have somewhere the strength of Brit army in W.Europe in '44 , for December 1944 British tank numbers with Units:
472 Churchill 
1,168 Sherman 75mm
605 Sherman 17-pdr
59 Sherman 76mm 
522 Cromwell 
31 Comet


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

I wil post the actual reinforcement rates for aircraft into the NA TO which will show that 1 in 3 aircraft were not foreign. You are also failing to acknowledge that it was not 1 in 3 for the RAF, it was 1 in 3 for the allies, and there is absolutely no reason why the cashed up dominions would not be able to continue to buy foreign aircraft. I am speaking very slowly now, so you can understand....the Dominions were different countries to england and did not have the same cash flow issues as she did. That means they can either build planes themselves, buy them off England (who had massive reserves by then) or purchase them off the Americans directly......


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I wil post the actual reinforcement rates for aircraft into the NA TO which will show that 1 in 3 aircraft were not foreign. You are also failing to acknowledge that it was not 1 in 3 for the RAF, it was 1 in 3 for the allies, and there is absolutely no reason why the cashed up dominions would not be able to continue to buy foreign aircraft. I am speaking very slowly now, so you can understand....the Dominions were different countries to england and did not have the same cash flow issues as she did. That means they can either build planes themselves, buy them off England (who had massive reserves by then) or purchase them off the Americans directly......


 
I'll also speak very very slow so you can understand.You need FOREIGN exchange to buy stuff.That FOREIGN exchange can only come though trade .In the middle of a war it is a bit difficult to build and sell goods all over the world ,you see normal trade routes break down.I must admit that i didn’t know the Dominions were swimming in dollars, you truly are a human encyclopedia.So why didn't they offer to fund the war effort with their unlimited funds ? Think it over a bit ,really really slow...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Here we go again... How many american tanks in N.Africa? How many american planes in N.Africa? The only data on RAF strength i have come from ''The Source book of the RAF '' if i haven't made a mistake i count :
> April '42 - Burma 3 Hurricane sq , 1 Buffalo
> India 1 P-36 sq
> Ceylon 2 Hurricane , 1 Catalina
> ...



The problem with these stats, Ctrian, is that all aircraft you list for 1941 were paid for by the UK Govt and not lend lease, and I suspect even the figures for Apr 42 included paid-for rather than LL assets. As for the Buffalo sqn in India in Apr 42 it consisted of 5 aircraft, the rest having been lost in the defence of Burma - but they were all bought and paid for using gold reserves. Also, the stalling of the Japanese offensive had less to do with defensive forces in India and more to do with geography - getting to western Burma already hugely extended Japan's supply lines and they had no means to continue the offensive into India proper.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Debate what? That 1 out of 3 fighters was foreign made? Forces in the UK had almost 100% British equipment but in Africa and Far East american equipment was vital.You can go all day about 1.712 of 20.094 and i'll remind you 1/3 in N.Africa is P-40.Also Coastal Command used large number of B-24 and B-17 VLR bombers.I have somewhere the strength of Brit army in W.Europe in '44 , for December 1944 British tank numbers with Units:
> 472 Churchill
> 1,168 Sherman 75mm
> 605 Sherman 17-pdr
> ...



You're forgetting the minor point that without active US involvement in the war there likely wouldn't have been a D-Day.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> The problem with these stats, Ctrian, is that all aircraft you list for 1941 were paid for by the UK Govt and not lend lease, and I suspect even the figures for Apr 42 included paid-for rather than LL assets. As for the Buffalo sqn in India in Apr 42 it consisted of 5 aircraft, the rest having been lost in the defence of Burma - but they were all bought and paid for using gold reserves. Also, the stalling of the Japanese offensive had less to do with defensive forces in India and more to do with geography - getting to western Burma already hugely extended Japan's supply lines and they had no means to continue the offensive into India proper.


 
Excuse me for using wikipedia but : _''It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of the European war in September 1939, but nine months before the U.S. entrance into the war in December 1941''_.

How can aircraft in '42 in N.Africa and Far East be bought and paid for by the Brits?

Regarding your second post that's my entire argument that Britain was simply unable to continue the war without active US involvement one part of which was LL.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Here we go again... How many american tanks in N.Africa? How many american planes in N.Africa?



 Here we go again...

How about we keep this on topic! If you all want to address Lend Lease start a damn thread for it! If the LL has to do with who has the best airforce, that is fine, but this is getting way off topic and I am sick and tired of it! That goes for everyone! If it does not have to do with *Best Airforce 1939-1941* start a new thread! Tanks do not fly!
Who cares where the aircraft were built! That has nothing to do with the capability of an airforce.




ctrian said:


> I'll also speak very very slow so you can understand.



Careful...

Snide insulting remarks will not be tolerated as well. All of you quit the childish bullshit!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'll also speak very very slow so you can understand.You need FOREIGN exchange to buy stuff.That FOREIGN exchange can only come though trade .In the middle of a war it is a bit difficult to build and sell goods all over the world ,you see normal trade routes break down.I must admit that i didn’t know the Dominions were swimming in dollars, you truly are a human encyclopedia.So why didn't they offer to fund the war effort with their unlimited funds ? Think it over a bit ,really really slow...




I cannot speak for all the dominions, but I can tell you a little about my own country. In WWI, Australias Prime Minister had said, "we will fight for Britain to the last man and shilling" And very nearly did. In the lead up to WWII, the Australian economy was raidly industrialising. If 1936 is taken as the base year, with an industrial index of 100, then by 1945, that index had grown to over 1500. We were still mainly an agricultural nation, but we could not grow enough sheep and cattle, shear enough wool, harvest enough wheat, mine and smelt enough iron, dig enough coal or aluminium or copper to meet our domestic and world markets. In 1940 we posted a surplus of over 35m pounds. In the second world war we approached the war from the standpoint of not fighting to the last man and shilling. We would do what was posible with no pain or hurt to the domestic economy however there were never any difficulties for Australia in terms of trade or balance of payment figures. Where we came up short was in manpower. We chose not to invest our surpluses in capital infrastructure. Some of the surplus went to purchase of foreign military equipment, a mix of British and American stuff mostly. But with a surplus the size we had, it was easily within Australias capacity to increase our defence expenditures, and that meant purchase of foreign equipment. We could easily have doubled or tripled our foreign purchases of US equipment, and still not be i too much trouble. That is demonstrated in our 1941 and 1942 expenditures. in that year, the only year that we felt significantly threatened, we really did triple our foreign purchases, as well as increasing domestic production by 1.6 times. And still we did not eat into our reserves. 

Australias trade routes were never more threatened than anybody else really, and our balance of payments were certainly never threatened by it. In 1942, when it looked for a time that allied shipping was in trouble, due to the stupidity of Ernest J King, and also because of a Japoanese submarine campaign down the east coast of Australia (that sank 250000 tons of local shipping) plans were well under way to build close to amillion tons of replacement shipping. It was never needed. our brothers in Canada did produce over 1.3 million tons of shipping, and I understand they still had spare capacity as well. It was not needed, and given that the Americans had the economies of scale, the most effieicient industrial base in the world, we fell back into simply payting them for what we needed

Moreover I am certain that the other dominions were in similar good shape financially . There was easily the capacity in the dominions to take up the slack of cash and carry, if the lend lease deal had not been signed. What may have happened with this increased committment earlier in the war is that our economic growth later in the war might have slowed, because of a lack of investment. I dont see that as a big issue however...how many times can you shoot your enemy.....

After the war broke out our first premier, Menzies, wanted to increase our commitment to the ETO, but were overruled, in part I think because the Americans were seen as providing assistance to the British empire. if that support had been witheld, by not signing the LL agreement, I dont think it all unreasonable or unrealistic to assume the Australians, and the other dominions, to increase their wartime committments and simply buy what the british could not. It was well within their capabiliies, based on the figures I have posted. 

I can only repeat what I have been saying to you for a while now. Lend lease was a mutual assistance package that helped everyone....the some of the parts together amounted to more than the sum of the parts separately. There would have been some pain if the LL agreement had not been signed, but there was never the slightest chance of the catastrophic collapse that you keep rabbiting on about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Der adler is correct we need to move out : http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/lend-lease-britain-29474.html
Oh and adler nice thing to notice my remark but not his.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> :
> How about we keep this on topic! If you all want to address Lend Lease start a damn thread for it! If the LL has to do with who has the best airforce, that is fine, but this is getting way off topic and I am sick and tired of it! That goes for everyone! If it does not have to do with *Best Airforce 1939-1941* start a new thread! Tanks do not fly!
> Who cares where the aircraft were built! That has nothing to do with the capability of an airforce.



Hi Adler


I was going to post the aircraft reinforcements for the North African TO, by type and nationality. I thought that was still on topic, but I do agree we have lost our way. Do you think what I am intending is sufficiently relevant to follow through? 

I know this is turning into a bit of a bloodfest and I am partly to blame, but there is still some good stuff coming out of this. I would like to try and improve on that.

Your call


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 24, 2011)

"..... Tanks do not fly!.."

Not for lack of trying .... 

MM

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

thats hilarious MM...thanks I needed that.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Der adler is correct we need to move out : http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/lend-lease-britain-29474.html
> Oh and adler nice thing to notice my remark but not his.


 
I noticed everyones remarks.

I commented on yours because I already gave a generic warning to everyone. You seem to ignore it, and are doing so in several threads.

May I do my moderating job? If so, act like an adult and move on...



parsifal said:


> Hi Adler
> 
> 
> I was going to post the aircraft reinforcements for the North African TO, by type and nationality. I thought that was still on topic, but I do agree we have lost our way. Do you think what I am intending is sufficiently relevant to follow through?
> ...



As long as it is relevent to the topic it is fine.



michaelmaltby said:


> View attachment 171034
> "..... Tanks do not fly!.."
> 
> Not for lack of trying ....
> ...



Smart ass...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

Okay, this was for Buffnut, whom I promised I would post some details about deplyment by nationality.

The purpose of the post is to put into some sort of perspectve the contribution of Lend lease to the North TO. It goes to how well or bad the effect of lend lease would be to a particular theatre

The figures are from 9/40 through to 5/41:

9/40: 3 Fulmar, 2 Hurri
10/40: 30 Blen, 6 Skua, 4 B17D
12/40: 12 Blen, 40 Well, 
1/41: 44 Hurri, 12 Blen, 1 Well
2/41: 30 Hurri, 38 Blen, 2 Well, 2 Maryland
3/41 13 Hurri, 24 Blen, 16 Well, 6 Lys, 2 P-40C, 6 Maryland
4/41, 66 Hurri, 28 Blen, 27 Well, 6 Lys, 25 P-40C, 6 Maryland
5/41 165 Hurri, 9 Blen, 15 Well, 16 Beaf, 21 P40C, 7 Maryland
6/41 136 Hurri, 35 Blen, 6 Well, 12 Lys, 15 Beaf, 10 Glad, 41 P-40C, 6 Maryland

By my calculation, aircraft of British origin accounted for 825 airframes, whilst the LL aircraft accounted for 120 airframes. Lend lease represented 12.7% of the total air strength. There were 495 fighters supplied to the theatre, of which 89 were US. That represents 17.9% of the total, or roughly 1 in 6 airframes. 

I really did not want to post the figures for the entire campaign, since this whole discussion began about this early 1941 period, when I believe subtle changes to the balance of power between the air forces of Germany and Britain were occurring. In other words I am trying not to derail the thread.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 24, 2011)

It has to be the Luftwaffe.

The reasons are the quality of the aircrews, the quality of the aircraft and the applied tactics and the fact that along with the German Army the whole of continental Europe fell under German control.

RAF is a close second though since for the first time such an integrated air defense network was developed. It would not be enough to save Britain from invasion and defeat without the German leadership blunders but still it was an innovation.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> It has to be the Luftwaffe.
> 
> The reasons are the quality of the aircrews, the quality of the aircraft and the applied tactics and the fact that along with the German Army the whole of continental Europe fell under German control.
> 
> .... It would not be enough to save Britain from invasion and defeat without the German leadership blunders but still it was an innovation.


 
I would not be so sure of that if I were you. Invasion possibly, successful establishment of a beachhead maybe, subjugation of the U.K. doubtful. This would not be the same as the Norman's in 1066 invading to fight a poorly organized and exhausted Kingdom. I agree the Luftwaffe was tops but only by a slight edge as I have stated earlier.


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I would not be so sure of that if I were you. Invasion possibly, successful establishment of a beachhead maybe, subjugation of the U.K. doubtful. This would not be the same as the Norman's in 1066 invading to fight a poorly organized and exhausted Kingdom. I agree the Luftwaffe was tops but only by a slight edge as I have stated earlier.


 

Even if the Germans had landed a force somewhere on the south coast and dared to invaded our green and pleasant land the whole idea of actually subjugating the British people is improbable to say the least.
We are not just not used to some ghastly foreign army trampling across our land.
Cheers
John


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 24, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I would not be so sure of that if I were you. Invasion possibly, successful establishment of a beachhead maybe, subjugation of the U.K. doubtful. This would not be the same as the Norman's in 1066 invading to fight a poorly organized and exhausted Kingdom. I agree the Luftwaffe was tops but only by a slight edge as I have stated earlier.


 
My perspective on the invasion issue is based on the fact that air power played a key role towards coastal invasions throught WW2. In the case of an invasion of Britain, I am thinking that the Luftwaffe under a competent leadership would be able to provide air cover to the landing troops and denial to the RN to interfere in the channel without horrific losses. British terrain is suitable for tank warfare and operations of highly mobile armored units. Add to that the location of many British airbases, near the southern coast, which the Germans could capture and fly in reinforcements and extend the range and loiter time of their short-legged Me109.
Consider also that the spine of the RAF air defense system, the radar antennas, were mostly located along the southern coast, not inland, therefore once those had been neutralized the Fighter command would have a much reduced awareness of the situation compared to the channel front operations.
So the Battle of France outcome could be repeated in Britain, it is perhaps fortunate that Luftwaffe was lead by Goering who himself answered to Hitler. English are so much smoother to the ear as a second language than German  -no offense to my german counterparts in here  -


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> My perspective on the invasion issue is based on the fact that air power played a key role towards coastal invasions throught WW2. In the case of an invasion of Britain, I am thinking that the Luftwaffe under a competent leadership would be able to provide air cover to the landing troops and denial to the RN to interfere in the channel without horrific losses. British terrain is suitable for tank warfare and operations of highly mobile armored units. Add to that the location of many British airbases, near the southern coast, which the Germans could capture and fly in reinforcements and extend the range and loiter time of their short-legged Me109.
> Consider also that the spine of the RAF air defense system, the radar antennas, were mostly located along the southern coast, not inland, therefore once those had been neutralized the Fighter command would have a much reduced awareness of the situation compared to the channel front operations.
> So the Battle of France outcome could be repeated in Britain, it is perhaps fortunate that Luftwaffe was lead by Goering who himself answered to Hitler. English are so much smoother to the ear as a second language than German  -no offense to my german counterparts in here  -



A very reasonable and plausible argument unless you consider the German history of major amphibious landings from the sea and major airborne assault against alerted and strong defense. The former as far as I know was almost non-existent (England is no Norway) and the latter as Crete showed was extremely expensive in lives against no where near as much opposition as would occur in England. It is my understanding that after Crete Hitler forbade anymore large Airborne attacks. Considering the difficulties the Allies with enormously more resources had in carrying off Overload and the uncertainty at the time of its success, I think it doubtful a German invasion would succeed. Perhaps the biggest problem the supporters of Sealion had was grasping the fact that crossing The Channel is not just a scaled-up river crossing. It is my understanding that even with complete Luftwaffe success the German Navy and Army commandeers believed they did not have enough resources and were very relieved when Sealion was cancelled.


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> British terrain is suitable for tank warfare and operations of highly mobile armored units.


 
Not all of Britain is as suitable as you suggest....
The Germans did not have it in them to make the assault. D Day took the combined resources of the allies and years of planning to achieve.
I prefer French as a second language
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> I prefer French as a second language
> Cheers
> John


 
John are you a Frog-o-phile? Excuse me, I mean Francophile?


----------



## ctrian (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Okay, this was for Buffnut, whom I promised I would post some details about deplyment by nationality.
> 
> The purpose of the post is to put into some sort of perspectve the contribution of Lend lease to the North TO. It goes to how well or bad the effect of lend lease would be to a particular theatre
> 
> ...


 
Yet by mid '42 1/3 fighters is P-40 and 1/5 bombers is Hudson ,Fortress and Boston.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

not likely. I can do the same analysis for any period up to the end of 1942. It will be nowhere near that figure, I can assure you


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> A very reasonable and plausible argument unless you consider the German history of major amphibious landings from the sea and major airborne assault against alerted and strong defense. The former as far as I know was almost non-existent (England is no Norway) and the latter as Crete showed was extremely expensive in lives against no where near as much opposition as would occur in England. It is my understanding that after Crete Hitler forbade anymore large Airborne attacks. Considering the difficulties the Allies with enormously more resources had in carrying off Overload and the uncertainty at the time of its success, I think it doubtful a German invasion would succeed. Perhaps the biggest problem the supporters of Sealion had was grasping the fact that crossing The Channel is not just a scaled-up river crossing. It is my understanding that even with complete Luftwaffe success the German Navy and Army commandeers believed they did not have enough resources and were very relieved when Sealion was cancelled.


 

Very good points to consider Lightning  There are as many factors that could thwart a German invasion as those that could give it a chance to succeed, especially regarding airborne operations, as we saw in the Battle of Crete, D-Day and Market Garden It is also correct that experience from such operations was non existent for the Germans but throught the war good commander of all sides have shown remarkable adaptiveness to different circumstances and resource levels (Rommel, Zukov, Patton to name a few). I was mostly thinking that Luftwaffe was up to the task of offering complete air dominance in that scenario if the Army and Navy played their part successfully as well.

Readie even in the case of a British capitulation the outcome of WW2 would not change, so your peculiar affection to the French language would still be safe 

A short comment on LL and air forces...Isnt it irrelevant where the assets of an air force are coming from? We are discussing the best air force, not the best air-force formed by domestic airframe designers  How much LL has affected each of the Allied nations is an issue of a separate thread as it has been stated a few posts back.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

the problem is, that the argument being put forward is that the british AF was completely and 100% dependant on "US charity" You cannot get to the right conclusions from that point. If you accept it, then you will come to the wrong conclusions Fore example, if that position is allowed to stand, then it can be argued that all the Spitfires and Hurricanes etc that were built, might as well have not been built, because they have no military worth.

I know its a stupid argument, but the discussioon cannot move forward until the stupidity is withdrawn


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> the problem is, that the argument being put forward is that the british AF was completely and 100% dependant on "US charity" You cannot get to the right conclusions from that point. If you accept it, then you will come to the wrong conclusions Fore example, if that position is allowed to stand, then it can be argued that all the Spitfires and Hurricanes etc that were built, might as well have not been built, because they have no military worth.
> 
> I know its a stupid argument, but the discussioon cannot move forward until the stupidity is withdrawn



Very true, looking at things out of context always leads to wrong conclusions. RAF, as other parts of the armed forces, was assisted by convoys and LL equipment but its them that did what had to be done in the air to defend their homeland. In that struggle, Hurri and Spit played important roles, regardless if the steel used in them came from UK or the US.. What woul stop the British from designing an all-wooden Spitfire for example?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> Very true, looking at things out of context always leads to wrong conclusions. RAF, as other parts of the armed forces, was assisted by convoys and LL equipment but its them that did what had to be done in the air to defend their homeland. In that struggle, Hurri and Spit played important roles, regardless if the steel used in them came from UK or the US.. What woul stop the British from designing an all-wooden Spitfire for example?



Uh, the fact that England had darn little wood left? 

Seriously. Aircraft grade wood is not that easy to come by and hard as it may be to believe, large areas of England had been deforested at times in the last 400 or so years, While the trees grow back a lot of second and 3rd growth wood is more twisted and knotty than"original" growth. One reason the British went to "all metal" aircraft (all metal could still mean fabric covered, the frame was all metal) in the early 30s was a shortage of suitable wood, while it may still have been available the cost of suitable wood was rising to the point of being more expensive than metal construction. Basically you need a lot of Spruce and some other selected woods. The Balsa that went into the "Sandwhich" on the Mosquito had to be imported. Balsa doesn't grow in England.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 25, 2011)

There was one or two 'plastic' Spits made.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 25, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> Very good points to consider Lightning  There are as many factors that could thwart a German invasion as those that could give it a chance to succeed, especially regarding airborne operations, as we saw in the Battle of Crete, D-Day and Market Garden It is also correct that experience from such operations was non existent for the Germans but throught the war good commander of all sides have shown remarkable adaptiveness to different circumstances and resource levels (Rommel, Zukov, Patton to name a few). I was mostly thinking that Luftwaffe was up to the task of offering complete air dominance in that scenario if the Army and Navy played their part successfully as well..



Your very comments are why I used the word doubtful and not the word impossible. Another reason why I just do not believe it would be a successful invasion is that unlike the Poles and French the British now knew how the magic trick was performed and knew the consequences of failure. The amount of resistance from not just the uniformed military would be enormous and I think pressed to the point of suicidal. We are talking about a populous that has no concept of capitulation to an occupier. Poland and France had centuries of foreign occupations of their soil. Until Nazi occupation no one knew how much worse it would be than anything in the history of Western Europe. Even though the worst of Nazi occupation in the West was yet to come, important leaders in Britain had some idea of what was to come. Now I do know there was a part of the political class that still entertained the idea that an accommodation could be made with Hitler and there was a small part of the civilian population with Nazi sympathies, but neither of these would have swayed John Bull to accept domination without near extermination. The whole lend-lease fandango from this thread to the new thread was started by a poster who vastly underestimated the remaining strength of the U.K. Yes with an impotent RAF there would have been hell to pay from the Luftwaffe, but much of the Luftwaffe's success on the continent hinged on the ultimate air superiority of the Heer placing a tank on the enemy's airfield. That task would have been orders of magnitude more difficult for the Heer. Many British resources not located in the South would have now been able to concentrate on the invaders. The invaders would not have the surprising speed used against a poorly armed Poland or the mask of the Ardennes to surprise a poorly coordinated, dispersed force of multiple opponents using two different languages to in-fight among themselves as much as plan against the enemy. The Royal Navy while suffering the greatest losses in History would still be very a difficult obstacle for the Germans. Have you ever read about the havoc a few German Scnellboats caused to a D-day rehearsal? The casualties in men and ships were all out of proportion to the attacking force. The news of event was suppressed and immediately classified by the Allies to prevent adverse affects to Overload. Imagine the bulk the RN making attacks without concern for preservation of the Fleet. The Germans let the Genie out of the bottle on the Continent. The British now knew what the bottle and cork looked like and despite being greatly weakened would do whatever it took to put the Genie back in the bottle, tamp in the cork, and throw it back into the Sea. I have very little doubt of that. I wonder how many more times some nation will through number crunching determine military weakness and yet fail because they underestimated the resolve of John Bull?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, the fact that England had darn little wood left?
> 
> Seriously. Aircraft grade wood is not that easy to come by and hard as it may be to believe, large areas of England had been deforested at times in the last 400 or so years,
> 
> The Balsa that went into the "Sandwhich" on the Mosquito had to be imported. Balsa doesn't grow in England.



Yea, if it wasnt for the Armada and Napoleon we could have made wooden Spitfires.

Seriously making a wooden aircraft is a completely different skill, de Havilland had experience of it which is how they could make the Mosquito, I am sure Supermarine could have got a wooden spitfire in the air if we could wait until 1941.

If you use the mosquito as an example it used Balsa and some very special laminates from the USA I believe, Equadorean Balsa Canadian Birch and a lot of other special glues etc. Using wood saves on using expensive metal alloys but it isnt as simple as walking into a forest with an axe and emerging a week later with a plane. The technology is just as difficult to master.


On the subject of operation sealion, another poster said that Adolf and some others considered crossing the channel as a glorified river crossing, it simply isnt.
The plan to supply the invading force with towed barges is simply off the wall. I read the speed of some towed barges was 2 knots, the currents in the channel frequently run at 8 knots or more. With an invasion planned in September unless the British capitulate immediately the army would be left without supplies. One Autumn storm in the channel would wipe the supply fleet off the map. After D Day one Mulberry harbour was wiped out in a storm and that was in late June. Hitler was a soldier he had no concept of naval operations neither did many in the Sealion plan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> the problem is, that the argument being put forward is that the british AF was completely and 100% dependant on "US charity"



I do not think there is anyone said that. I think what was pointed out that Britain was heavily dependent on US. Fuel I know was from US to large extent. No fuel, planes do not fly.. If money is not spent on fuel, Shermans, C-47, it can be spent on other planes etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Yea, if it wasnt for the Armada and Napoleon we could have made wooden Spitfires.
> 
> Seriously making a wooden aircraft is a completely different skill, de Havilland had experience of it which is how they could make the Mosquito, I am sure Supermarine could have got a wooden spitfire in the air if we could wait until 1941.
> 
> If you use the mosquito as an example it used Balsa and some very special laminates from the USA I believe, Equadorean Balsa Canadian Birch and a lot of other special glues etc. Using wood saves on using expensive metal alloys but it isnt as simple as walking into a forest with an axe and emerging a week later with a plane. The technology is just as difficult to master.



That it is. Back in the 1700s The British were importing trees for mast and spars from what is now the state of Maine, after the American revolution they imported a lot of masts and spars from the Russia (the Baltic states?) In both cases special transport ships were needed to handle the lengths of wood. 

Some of the glues/resins were needed in large quantities and raw materials for them might have to be imported. Some US and Russian "wood construction" methods required parts to baked for hours in large ovens or autoclaves. Large scale wood production is not as easy as it may appear. And with spars, ribs and skin all having to be thicker there may be a lot less room left inside the wing. 

As far as "expensive metal alloys" goes. Suitable wood can get pretty expensive since the wastage can get really high. You have to by an awful lot more than you really need because a lot of it won't pass inspection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I do not think there is anyone said that. I think what was pointed out that Britain was heavily dependent on US. Fuel I know was from US to large extent. No fuel, planes do not fly.. If money is not spent on fuel, Shermans, C-47, it can be spent on other planes etc.


 
If that was what was said, I would not be kicking up the fuss that I have....but unfortunately that is NOT what was said. infact this was the start of the debate

_Originally Posted by ctrian 
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . *Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight **because they would run out of everything *,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none._T 

And you are wrong about the fuel. it actually came from two sources Curacao and Kuwait. What did happen is that for certain Higher Octane rated fuels, the US processed that oil for Britain. I have no idea what that cost


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> And you are wrong about the fuel. it actually came from two sources Curacao and Kuwait. What did happen is that for certain Higher Octane rated fuels, the US processed that oil for Britain. I have no idea what that cost



Actually both sides produced high octane fuels which created problems as high octane fuels can be corrosive it took some time to standardise so that both sides could use each other without serious damage.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Some of the glues/resins were needed in large quantities and raw materials for them might have to be imported. Some US and Russian "wood construction" methods required parts to baked for hours in large ovens or autoclaves. Large scale wood production is not as easy as it may appear. And with spars, ribs and skin all having to be thicker there may be a lot less room left inside the wing.
> 
> As far as "expensive metal alloys" goes. Suitable wood can get pretty expensive since the wastage can get really high. You have to by an awful lot more than you really need because a lot of it won't pass inspection.



Good points shortround. I wasnt trying to say that wood is a cheap option I dont think the mosquito was cheap. The attraction of the mosquitos wooden construction was more to do with labour. The war meant there were thousands of people un employed from the furniture and other industries whos skills were more easily adapted to making a wooden plane than a metal one. Happily it also meant it could be modified with a drill and a saw

De Havilland didnt choose wood as a cheap option but as the best option. Saying a mosquito was made of wood is a bit of a misnomer which makes it sound primitive. If you say it was made of laminates and composites it sounds advanced. The fact that the laminates and composites are actually wood is just a coincedence. De Havilland used the "precious resources" handle as a selling point it wasnt why he actually chose it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Saying a mosquito was made of wood is a bit of a misnomer which makes it sound primitive. If you say it was made of laminates and composites it sounds advanced. The fact that the laminates and composites are actually wood is just a coincedence. De Havilland used the "precious resources" handle as a selling point it wasnt why he actually chose it.



The laminated wonder doesnt quite work though does it

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 25, 2011)

By the time of Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada wood of sufficient size and quality for ship building was so critically in short supply that almost all of it was imported from Russia if I am not mistaken. If I am also not mistaken Francis I of Spain annihilated the forests of Spain making the Armada thereby ending any chance of replacement with indigenous timber.

When you think about it, using wood to build a Mosquito is a more advanced technology than building one out of metal. No one succeeded in making something comparable in metal, and Focke Wulf even with out the hinderance of having their glue supplier bombed out of existence was unlikely to succeed using wood to make their Moskito comparable to the Mosquito.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2011)

I think as a night/all weather-fighter the Ta 154 could have more then matched the Mosquito, but then again it was built primarily for that role.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 26, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think as a night/all weather-fighter the Ta 154 could have more then matched the Mosquito, but then again it was built primarily for that role.



Germans didnt have the necessary time to properly develop the Ta 154 , delays cause by engine development, composites and glue factories being bombed, accidents that caused prototype crashes..

It was a recognition of the Germans of the effectiveness of the Mosquito, some application of humor in the naming of it, but above all an aircraft that "could have"m it never did..


P.S. Which is fortunate for the beautiful forests still remaining in Europe in 1940s!!! Imagine Hitler attacking Soviet Union not only for the oil drills in the Caucasus region but for timber as well!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 26, 2011)

The Ta 154 was smaller and heavier than the Mossie with over a 100 sq foot smaller wing this leads me to think that maybe the structure was a lot heavier. Does anyone know how the Ta 154 was built wiki just says plywood fuselage with metal cockpit.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> Germans didnt have the necessary time to properly develop the Ta 154 , delays cause by engine development, composites and glue factories being bombed, accidents that caused prototype crashes..



It was stated that "even without the glue factory being bombed" so that removes it from the equation. 

_Warplanes of the Third Reich_ by Green has a pretty good write-up about it. The first batch of 15 pre-production aircraft were performing quite well (with a few accidents - nothing unusual) and further development of the aircraft were already on the drawing boards, the Ta 154C and Ta 254, with the Ta 254 being more of an equivalent to the Mosquito. 

IMO the only thing that really killed the project (beyond the glue issue) was politics.



fastmongrel said:


> The Ta 154 was smaller and heavier than the Mossie with over a 100 sq foot smaller wing this leads me to think that maybe the structure was a lot heavier. Does anyone know how the Ta 154 was built wiki just says plywood fuselage with metal cockpit.



From the book mentioned above, page 242:

""...a wooden oval-section fuselage built in one piece from the front bulkhead to the axis of rotation of the rudder, and a one-piece two-spar wooden wing.... Apart from the forward fuseloage and the engine nacellas, which were covered by duralumin panels, and the elevators, which had fabric skinning, the entire aircraft was covered by laminated plywood. The ailerons, the variable -chamber slotted flaps, the rudder and the elevators were of light metal contruction."

Of course, the 12mm 8mm cockpit armour was metal as well.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> the problem is, that the argument being put forward is that the british AF was completely and 100% dependant on "US charity" You cannot get to the right conclusions from that point. If you accept it, then you will come to the wrong conclusions Fore example, if that position is allowed to stand, then it can be argued that all the Spitfires and Hurricanes etc that were built, might as well have not been built, because they have no military worth.
> 
> I know its a stupid argument, but the discussioon cannot move forward until the stupidity is withdrawn


 
*That's the point *it doesn't have to be 100% to be vital only someone really stupid would think that .LL to the SU was 10-15% of the war effort but it was vital because it covered things that could not/would not be built by the Russians.If the figure is 25% for Britain even you can understand that there can be no room for discussion.Look up 
Liebig's law.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> *That's the point *it doesn't have to be 100% to be vital only someone really stupid would think that .LL to the SU was 10-15% of the war effort but it was vital because it covered things that could not/would not be built by the Russians.If the figure is 25% for Britain even you can understand that there can be no room for discussion.Look up
> Liebig's law.



I would never argue that US production was not vital, but this was not your point of claim. your point of claim was/is that the british would have to capitulate without "US charity". The basis of your argument was that Britain was bankrupt, and could not afford to purchase any further equipment from the US. You also claimed that the dominions were also bankrupt, and that they lacked the industrial and technological basis to do anything other than shear some sheep and harvest some corn.

Your argument changed over time, however, initially it was that Britian would collapse if Lend Lease was not put into action from 4/41. Then it changed, to what might happen if the US productive output were removed from the equation. The two propositions are, however, entirely different from each other.

I dont have any problem with agreeing that a 25% reduction in imports would cripple the UK. This could only happen if Britain were actually bankrupt in the modern sense. an example of a nation nearing bankruptcy is greece (no cheap shots, its just a very good example of what a bankrupt state looks like).

Britain in 1941 was nowhere near that. It was running out of cash reserves, which meant it had to secure a line of credit, or find another way to continue the flow of goods from North America. It was nowhere near bankruptcy, as Andrew Clark points out. he is supported in this by the famaus Historian / economist, Overy. I suggest you read him. The British government was running short of liquid assets, but Britain itself was still a net creditor nation. Britain even today is one of the banking and finacial hubs of the world, and has been since the mid 1700s. There were huge investments in overseas pieces of infrastructure that the UK was still receiving cash credits for throughout the war. Britain was still a substantial exporter of goods to the world in 1941. So, whilst they might not be able to purchase quite as much as they would receive as a lend lease assistanc package, they would still continue to receive a portion of that. And, if you look at the amount of aid received, it was not 25% for the duration. It reached a peak in 1944, at around 25%. In 1940, it was 0%, since ther was only cash and carry in 1940. In 1941, it was around 8%, since a portion of the 12% of aircraft received (using aircraft received as a surrogate measure of assistance) were still cash and carry items. In the years of 1942 and 1943, the amount of aid received, as a fraction of the domestic production was about 15% in 1942 and about 20% in 1943. If we disregard the part years of 1939 and 1945, the average amount of lend Lease Aid for the duration was about 13.6% give or take.

If we assume that a cash and carry policy can secure 1/2 what a lend lease arrangement can secure, then the British military hardware availability only drops by about 6% or so.

However, this model does not take into account the response by the dominions. I think it has been pretty well comprehensively shown that the dominions had no real liquidity problems, and had considerable untapped potential in their respective economies. They had the technological basis, the industrial capabilty to increase domestic production considerably. They also had considerable ability to increase their share of foreign purcahses (ie direct cash and carry purchases from the US) to make up the shortfall in place of the UK. faced with a decreased level of support from the US, as a result of the non-signing of the LL agreement, I think it entirely likley that the Dominions would either increse their direct purchases from the US, or increase domestic production, or a mixture of both

And finally, of course, any unused output not taken up by either the dominions or the UK is going to be absorbed and used domestically by the US. This would mean, almost certainly, that the US would be able to mobilise faster and get into the war quicker than she did historically 

So, my opinion is that whilst Lend Lease was a good efficiency and mutual assistance package with the US, it cannot at all be argued that it would lead to a collapse, or even a reduction in operational; strengths or capabilities by the allies, or britain, or any other cockeyed permutation that you would care to serve up. 

lastly, your argument that the US was fulfilling a "niche market" in the materiel it was supplying is a nonsense also. If anything the "niche markets" in military outputs were being filled by the British and the dominions. The US could mass produce the main items of hardware in greater volume and more cheaply that anybody, which explains why Australia did not produce more sentinels and why the majority of tanks in the british army in 1944 were of American manufacture. It makes a lot of sense to standarise, and who better to standardise with than th tank most easily produced and the most numerous. The same logic could be applied across the whole range of miltary purchases. But The US was not especially important for supplying specialist equipment...perhaps in the case of the Soviet Union to a very limited extent, but only to an extremely minor extent for US's western allies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2011)

One last time. There is a thread to discuss the merits of the Lend Lease. This discussion needs to be moved into that thread.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think as a night/all weather-fighter the Ta 154 could have more then matched the Mosquito, but then again it was built primarily for that role.


I would have cast my lot with the Heinkel He219 "Uhu" instead of Kurt Tank's "Moskito" as it was further along in development and had pretty impressive performance (the latter variants)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One last time. There is a thread to discuss the merits of the Lend Lease. This discussion needs to be moved into that thread.



My apologies. Honest mistake to be frank. I thought I had clicked on that thread, but ended up here. Having some acces issues at the moment. 

I will cut and past Ctrians comment, and my reply to that thread.

Once again, my apologies for that


----------



## slaterat (Jun 27, 2011)

This is really a tough poll to answer.To me the only two obvious picks are the RAF or the Luftwaffe. The Americans and the Japanese aren't ready for prime time and really neither is the VVS. In the BoF the Luftwaffe fought the battle it was designed for, and won. In the BoB the RAF fought the battle it was designed for and won. I'd call it a draw but since can only vote for one, I chose the one that flew the Hawker Hurricane.

Slaterat


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> By the time of Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada wood of sufficient size and quality for ship building was so critically in short supply that almost all of it was imported from Russia if I am not mistaken. If I am also not mistaken Francis I of Spain annihilated the forests of Spain making the Armada thereby ending any chance of replacement with indigenous timber.
> 
> When you think about it, using wood to build a Mosquito is a more advanced technology than building one out of metal. No one succeeded in making something comparable in metal, and Focke Wulf even with out the hinderance of having their glue supplier bombed out of existence was unlikely to succeed using wood to make their Moskito comparable to the Mosquito.



Perhaps the biggest leap taken by De Havilland was not installing defensive armament. If NAA applied the technology of the P51 to a twin engined bomber with a crew of two Im sure they could have been close to or even better than a mosquito.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Perhaps the biggest leap taken by De Havilland was not installing defensive armament. If NAA applied the technology of the P51 to a twin engined bomber with a crew of two Im sure they could have been close to or even better than a mosquito.


 
I would also place my bet on NAA. Hawker certainly didn't do it with the Whirlwind. It is my understanding that the few Ta 154 flying at operational weights would be at most comparable to the Mosquito. The He 219 was a contender but I have also read that a special light weight version was required to be a real threat to the Mosquito. There are many stories of designers and half developed designs promising to match or exceed the performance an existing operational type. Most of these stories in reality are just stories and never deliver that performance under operational conditions. P-82s operational in January 1944 would certainly be hell for German night fighters.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I would also place my bet on NAA. Hawker certainly didn't do it with the Whirlwind. It is my understanding that the few Ta 154 flying at operational weights would be at most comparable to the Mosquito. The He 219 was a contender but I have also read that a special light weight version was required to be a real threat to the Mosquito. There are many stories of designers and half developed designs promising to match or exceed the performance an existing operational type. Most of these stories in reality are just stories and never deliver that performance under operational conditions. P-82s operational in January 1944 would certainly be hell for German night fighters.


 
The Whirlwind was by Westland, not a bad plane but dogged by its engines, not eveything trundling out of rolls royce was pure gold

I am sure NAA could have done it. A great advantage of the mosquito was its surface finish which NAA were getting with attention to detail. The problem is getting someone to order it The british ordered it initially as a recon plane, they dithered for ages mainly just over the concept. In 1938/39 a bomber without guns was seen as a strange idea requiring meds and a padded room.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The Whirlwind was by Westland, not a bad plane but dogged by its engines, not eveything trundling out of rolls royce was pure gold



Yep, you're right it was Westland. That's what happens when I start writing before finishing my coffee. Thanks for bringing to my attention the mistake of writing Hawker instead of Westland. Even with good engines I am not sure how much of a success the Whirlwind would have been. Perhaps Shortround6 will weigh in as he mentioned a possible engine substitution in another thread.

My Great Uncle probably owes his life to the additional speed that high finish gave the Mosquito.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Yep, you're right it was Westland. That's what happens when I start writing before finishing my coffee. Thanks for bringing to my attention the mistake of writing Hawker instead of Westland. Even with good engines I am not sure how much of a success the Whirlwind would have been. Perhaps Shortround6 will weigh in as he mentioned a possible engine substitution in another thread.
> 
> My Great Uncle probably owes his life to the additional speed that high finish gave the Mosquito.




The Whirlwind was actually very good with the proviso that its engines didnt perform at altitude, it was as fast as a spitfire and those 4 cannon were exactly what the RAF didnt have but needed in the BoB.

Hawkers spent much of the war trying to sort the Typhoon


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2011)

One can wonder what if (  ) the Gloster F.9/37 or Whirlwind was 'given' in some way, as a design, to the Aussies and/or Canadians, in order to mount Twin Wasps aboard.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 27, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> One can wonder what if (  ) the Gloster F.9/37 or Whirlwind was 'given' in some way, as a design, to the Aussies and/or Canadians, in order to mount Twin Wasps aboard.


 The Brits thought that Canada was unable to build "complex " aircraft it was a thought that perservered through the powers to be in the UK much like Harris calling us "black troops" because we were not up to RAF standards


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The Whirlwind was by Westland, not a bad plane but dogged by its engines, not eveything trundling out of rolls royce was pure gold


 
Well, Rolls was trying to peddle the Vulture 

the actual record of the Peregrine is confusing. For an engine that was supposedly troublesome ( and all new engines are troublesome) and with a limited production run of just about 300 engines to support 114 twin engined fighters (just under a 50% replacement ratio which actually Normal) the planes using these engines last until the late fall of 1943 in front line service although I don't know how intensely they were used.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

PB, regarding this: "... The Brits thought that Canada was unable to build "complex " aircraft it was a thought that persevered through the powers to be in the UK .."

The Minister of Aircraft Production in Churchill's cabinet was Max Aiken aka Lord Beaverbrook - very much a Canadian .

MM


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> PB, regarding this: "... The Brits thought that Canada was unable to build "complex " aircraft it was a thought that persevered through the powers to be in the UK .."
> 
> The Minister of Aircraft Production in Churchill's cabinet was Max Aiken aka Lord Beaverbrook - very much a Canadian .
> 
> MM


 
I`m talking about 1938-39 I believe we wanted to make the Spitfire and they tossed us the Hurricane


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2011)

The 2 squadrons that used the Whirlwind 263 and 137 used them on low level Rhubarb missions some of the hardest missions flown by RAF aircraft. For 2 squadrons on the front line to fly for 3 years without large losses shows the airframe and engine must have been pretty good. With only 114 produced there cant have ever been more than about 100 airframes available for squadron issue it would be interesting to see how many were in hand when the type was made obsolete in 1944.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

"... I`m talking about 1938-39 I believe we wanted to make the Spitfire and they tossed us the Hurricane"

Which used more wood ...? 

M


----------



## Readie (Jun 27, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> The Brits thought that Canada was unable to build "complex " aircraft it was a thought that perservered through the powers to be in the UK much like Harris calling us "black troops" because we were not up to RAF standards



There was also the 'unskilled' American workers entrusted to build the Merlin/Packard...
With an attitude like this I'm surprised we have any friends....
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

Never mind, Readie, Hitler called us Canadians worse. He thought if you gave every Canadian a motorcycle and a bottle of whiskey they'd kill themselves. . Or maybe that was a "bunker joke" in Berlin, circa 1944. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

I think the rate at which technical and industrial capability was developing in nthe dominions caught the British (and others) off guard. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that outside Europe, the US and Japan (a distant third) there was no significant technical or industrial ability. It was a common misconception


----------



## Readie (Jun 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Never mind, Readie, Hitler called us Canadians worse. He thought if you gave every Canadian a motorcycle and a bottle of whiskey they'd kill themselves. . Or maybe that was a "bunker joke" in Berlin, circa 1944.
> 
> MM


 
Very good MM. I bet those winter evenings flew by in the Berlin bunker, joke after joke


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

.... and no one allowed to smoke. 

MM


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, Rolls was trying to peddle the Vulture
> 
> the actual record of the Peregrine is confusing. For an engine that was supposedly troublesome ( and all new engines are troublesome) and with a limited production run of just about 300 engines to support 114 twin engined fighters (just under a 50% replacement ratio which actually Normal) the planes using these engines last until the late fall of 1943 in front line service although I don't know how intensely they were used.



The peregrin fell foul of the necessities of war Rolls had to rationalise and settled on the merlin and griffon, the peregrin was only 21 litre so it was always going to be behind larger engines.

If Adolf had tried to launch Operation Sealion maybe the Whirlwind would be as iconic as the spitfire, those four cannon would make a mess of a towed barge.


----------



## Readie (Jun 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> .... and no one allowed to smoke.
> 
> MM



Just following orders....


----------



## METTATON6662 (Mar 14, 2021)

I apologised for misclicking the VVS, my choice would be the US airforce as it had both extremely efficient planes and a powerful economy to keep producing them

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 14, 2021)

Seeing as how this thread has been resurrected, and assuming Imperial Japanese Air Force is the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force, I went with the RAF. 
Spitfire, ‘nuff said.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2021)

METTATON6662 said:


> I apologised for misclicking the VVS, my choice would be the US airforce as it had both extremely efficient planes and a powerful economy to keep producing them



In 1939, 1940, 1941?

At any rate, my pick is the Luftwaffe here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 14, 2021)

From the beginning of 1939 to the end of 1941 saw massive changes. Before Barbarossa the Soviet air force had more planes than all the rest combined (stated in the BBC documentary series "The World at War"}. The RAF had few Spitfires in service in Jan 1939 and little of anything else, the USA was the same. Over the period, in my opinion the LW was the best, but when Barbarossa came to a halt the world had seen the high point of its strength.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Mar 16, 2021)

Well, the JP and US were not players till 41! Also I do not know much about 3 last ones (FR, IT and RU) ... that "other" option if includes Iran, it is a big no! The rumors say that DE tore apart GB in battle of Britain and Fall of France, but GB became winner! What really I see in the Poll, is Just DE vs GB! But which one is best? I do not know really!

If you know, let me know too!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 17, 2021)

Leadership being part of combat efficiency, I'd say the RAF earned its stripes in 1940. Good equipment comes into play; both sides had that. Awareness matters, too, and with CH radar, that was another advantage. Airmanship probably skewed to the Germans, given their experience garnered from Spain with both bombers and fighters. Slight edge to the RAF in my book.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 17, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Well, the JP and US were not players till 41! Also I do not know much about 3 last ones (FR, IT and RU) ...


The Empire of Japan had been at war since 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria.
It would be over ten years until Japan drug the US into WWII.
In Europe, Germany started "annexing" territories in the middle/late 1930's, but their attack on Poland in September 1939 started the war in Europe.
Coincidently, the Soviets were allies of Germany at the time of the attack on Poland, so they may be considered at war in 1939, although within two years, they will be invaded by Germany.
France was drug into WWII in 1940 with Germany's expansion westward, culminating in the Battle of France.
Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and Greece in 1940, so they had been at war for some time.


----------

