# What minor nation did the best job of putting together and deploying an air force?



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2008)

That's it folks. All things considered, from the list I give you, which minor nation did the best job with the resources they had available at building (or buying) and deploying an effective air force? I am not including Commonwealth nations, since they had the automatic support of Britain.


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 21, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I am not including Commonwealth nations, since they had the automatic support of Britain.



More like Britain had the automatic support of the Commonwealth.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 21, 2008)

Well from your list I'm gonna go with Finland....certainly made their presence felt with the resources at their disposal.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 21, 2008)

from your list there is only one answer the Finns as the remainder did it with support from the Britain


----------



## ccheese (Jul 21, 2008)

How about Switzerland ? Her air force was whatever landed in Swiss
territory and was interred for the duration ! She had aircraft from all
the european nations plus the U.S.

Charles


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 21, 2008)

Germany is a real small nation..And had alot of rules on it from WW1..??


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2008)

Finland for me. I agree cchees point about Switzerland but since they didn't engage in the war, except for occasional attacks on US aircraft seeking neutral sanctuary, Finland fits the bill of small/tough/resourceful for me.

Having said that - with deference to relative 'small in resources and population' in contrast to 'minor', all the Commonwealth nations except India (air force) did a huge job - especially Canada and Australia and New Zealand.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2008)

Alos not included, for reasons that evade me is the hungarians, the spanish, the Thai, Brazilian, and the swedish air force. all of these are worth consideration.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 21, 2008)

Finland for sure!!!

edd


----------



## marshall (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree with the majority, Finland. But I want to make a small remark that while Polish Air Force didn't do much, Polish Airman did quite well later in ranks of other air forces.


----------



## seesul (Jul 21, 2008)

Yep, like Czechs. Our Air forces had no chance to fight but our pilots got this chance in Poland, France and RAF. And they used it damn good!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2008)

I have to go with Finland.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

For the record, I chose nations whose air forces actually saw combat, but you're right I should have included Brazil, Mexico, Hungary, maybe. Other than that, I tried to eliminate some obvious ones that just didn't do much-- sorry, Estonia, Luxembourg, Denmark, uh, etc. Thanks for taking the poll!


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 21, 2008)

Count me for Finland also.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> More like Britain had the automatic support of the Commonwealth.



I mean technical support, ie, they had access to Britain's designs, ideas, and sometimes industrial power. I didn't mean moral support or manpower support, in that case you are very right!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2008)

well Finland certainly had an impressive flight record, but i am going to say no to it being the best. It did not achive all that much afte the 1941 offensive, other than to defend itself, and I dont think its indigenous production was all that impressive either.

Compare Finlands efforts to Rumania or Hungary. Hungary supported German production by producing something like 1300 airframes of various types. Rumania produced slightly fewer from memory, but did produce a good fighter, in the IAR series. Moreover, not many people realize, or acknowledge just how big a burden the air forces of these two quite small countries assumed on the eastern front. I recall reading that in the early months of 1943, something like just under 50% of the available fiighter foprces on the southern front in Russia belonged to these nations. Moreover they still had their share of aces. the top scorer in Rumanian AF claimed over 60 a/c shot down.

Here is a link that I found some time on the Rumanian AF with some intersting stuff in it. A good book on the subject is Axworthy's "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" 

WorldWar2.ro - Campaigns


----------



## Marcel (Jul 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Finland for me. I agree cchees point about Switzerland but since they didn't engage in the war, except for occasional attacks on US aircraft seeking neutral sanctuary



I remember to have read something about great battles between Swiss Bf109's and German ones. Don't remember where, but I'll try to find and post it.

I think most of the Finnland credits were from the first war with the Russians.

I saw someone vote for the Dutch LVA. While I do agree they did their best when attacked, they certainly were not put together well, missing quite some vital types, having no realistic view on modern warfare and having of many types just a little (23 G.1's come on).


----------



## Njaco (Jul 22, 2008)

Lots of choices.

Poles did an honorable job until Oct. 39 and then continued the fight flying with Britain....

from Raymond Helminiak and Radko Vasicek "White Eagles Over London"
"During their first 8 days (of the Battle of Britain), the Poles of 303 Squadron destroyed 27 German aircraft and damaged 9 more...... When Kellett led the squadron on its first official combat sortie on Aug. 31, the Poles showed that they could perform with nearly flawless discipline and teamwork. After that, Johnny Kent concluded; 'The Poles are playing the game for keeps far more than we were.'"

Spain also fielded a unit among the Luftwaffe in JG 27 that was fairly successful.

But I still went with Finland. To do what they did with what they had against who they fought - simply admirable and amazing.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 23, 2008)

Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical. Still for instance the Dutch (which I know best  ) managed to shoot down about 400 of the 929 German planes deployed against them. That's about 40% in 5 days, not bad eh. Don't know the exact numbers of the other 2 countries, though.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2008)

Marcel said:


> the Dutch (which I know best  ) managed to shoot down about 400 of the 929 German planes deployed against them. That's about 40% in 5 days, not bad eh.



Wow! I did not know that! Where did you get documentation for that? How many were shot down by each type of Dutch plane, and how many by A-A fire?


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 23, 2008)

Finland. No bones about it.


----------



## marshall (Jul 23, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical. Still for instance the Dutch (which I know best  ) managed to shoot down about 400 of the 929 German planes deployed against them. That's about 40% in 5 days, not bad eh. Don't know the exact numbers of the other 2 countries, though.




Germany 2000 aircrafts - 230 shot down
Russia 3200 aircrafts - 20 shot down (when Russians attacked Polish Air Force was already destroyed by Germans)
Poland 388 aircrafts in first line (142 fighters) - don't have exact number of lost planes but I think you can imagine...


I'm not sure if this numbers are correct but they show the scale.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 24, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Wow! I did not know that! Where did you get documentation for that? How many were shot down by each type of Dutch plane, and how many by A-A fire?



If you can read Dutch, you can get quite some info about this. I think most of these were AA victims. The rest was mostly shot down by D.XXI's, G.I's and T.V's. The majority of the lost planes were Ju52's who got a real beating. Fact is, the Germans decided to do an airborn attack, which proved to be very costly.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jul 24, 2008)

I have to go with my country on this one, although I must pay my respects for the Finnish Air Force. My country fought the Hungarians, Russians, Americans, British and finally the Germans.
"When Romania, allied with Germany, went to war against USSR, on 22nd June 1941, the Romanian Military Aviation had 621 airplanes; on the Eastern front Combat Air Group operated with 253 fighter, reconnaissance and bombing airplanes."
"Between 1941-1944, Romanian airplanes won 2000 air victories."
"From 23rd August 1944 to 12th May 1945, Romanian Air Corps accomplished 4200 missions, delivering 8300 sorties and flying 11000 hours. During those missions, crews launched 1360 t bombs shooting down 126 German and Hungarian airplanes. Other 228 airplanes were captured by Romanian airmen."

More info at History - Romanian Air Force


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 25, 2008)

Finland...
all the way


----------



## Juha (Jul 25, 2008)

Marcel
Quote: ” Poland, The Netherlands and Belgium faced a bigger disadvantage against the Germans then the Finns against the Russians, both numerical and technical.”

Now when the Winter War began in 30 Nov 39, there were 119 Finnish combat planes against 2318 Soviet combat planes and when it ended 13 March 40 force correlation was 166 vs 3818.

And during summer 41, when the Continuation War began 25 Jun when Soviet AF tried to destroy FAF a/c on their a/fs Soviet lost in a week some 50 planes, Finnish combat losses were only a few damaged. Also FAF fighters could give excellent air cover for Finnish ground troops for ex during river crossings.

And during the summer 44 when escorted by FAF Bf 109Gs over Karelian Isthmus FAF suffered no total bomber losses to Soviet fighters during Finnish bomber missions even if Soviet Union had concentrated over 1500 a/c against Finland. North of Lake Lagoda Finns lost few bombers to Soviet fighters because distances were too long for Bf 109s and Finns had to rely on Hawk 75As as escorts, Hawks were slower than the bombers (Blenheims and Ju 88s) they escorted and badly outclassed by La-5s and P-39Ns/Qs. Even if well flown Hawk 75A could survive and sometimes even achieve air victories relying its very good horizontal manoeuvrability it could not protect bombers adequately.

And while the Soviet Airforces were not LW, VVS had in Aug 39 wrestled air superiority from JAAF over Khalkin-Gol and a/c losses in that struggle had been rather similar on both sides. Also even if I-16s and I-153s were not Bf 109Es they were faster, climbed better and were more manoeuvrable than the Finnish AF main fighter during the Winter War, Fokker XXI. Fokker’s only trump card was higher V(max) and robust construction. I-153 and I-16 also had back armour for pilot already in 1939.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 25, 2008)

Why didn't the FAF use B-239's for longer range escort? (though I guess the performance was about the same as the Hawk 75A-3/6 it was better than the A-1/2, had a better armament, and was more maneuverable still)


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello Kool Kitty
I don't know but my guess is that because of area between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega was the operational area of the LeR1 whose fighter sqn was HLeLv 32 (the Hawk 75A sqn) they used HLeLv 32 as escorting unit there. B-239s were in that time in HLeLv 26, which had just got them from HLeLv 24 after 26's Fiat G.50s were given to a training sqn. HLeLv 26 operated over NE Karelian Isthmus behind frontline at that time and Finns probably thought that it wasn't worth of switching the units. Well worn B-239s were not so much faster than Hawk 75As. FAF Hawks 75As were in essence like A-1s or A-2s, 4-gun or 6-gun a/c with 1065 hp P&W. Those Hawks with Cyclones had their engines changed to P&Ws by Nov 41 and because of Finns didn't have 100 octane fuel but a very limited amount they got out even from R-1830-S1C3-Gs only appr. 1065 hp.

One clarification, Blenheim was faster than FAF's Hawks over 4000 m, at lower lever Hawk was faster. 

Juha


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

Juha said:


> One clarification, Blenheim was faster than FAF's Hawks over 4000 m, at lower lever Hawk was faster.
> 
> Juha



yes, I was going to say, I don't think there was ever a Blenheim in production whose max speed was faster than the max speed of any retracto-gear Hawk 75 (usually in the 300-312 range). Most of the Ju 88 bombers were slower than 300 mph, also, except for S series, which I doubt Finland ever had. 

The H 75 really was a useful little plane, I believe at least one P-36 shot down a JN a/c over Pearl Harbor, could be wrong about that.


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jul 26, 2008)

Switzerland!!!--- Had to keep the Luftwaffe, USAAF, RAF out of their Airspace during WW2!!


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

Hello Oreo
Now Finns thought that Curtiss clearly overstated their figures in case of Hawk 75A. As Bell did with P-39. On the other hand Brewster's figures on B-229 were very exact. 
In the tests Finns found out that fully equipped Hawk 75A with 1065 hp R-1830-SC3-G had max speed of appr. 440 km/h TAS at 3000m and with 1200 hp R-1820 Cyclone appr. 480 km/h TAS at 3300 m. So FAF Blenheims were faster than FAF Hawks over 4000m altitude and Ju 88A-4/Rs were a bit faster.

And yes, Hawk 75A was an useful plane, it was the most successful fighter of French AF during 39-40 period and still in 44 FAF Hawks had positive exchange rate (19 victories to 6 air combat losses, victories are not claims but true Soviet losses) but pilots acknowledged that La-5s and P-39s were clearly better planes than their mounts. Of the victories 4 were over LaGG-3s, 6 over La-5s and one over P-39, one over Pe-2, one over Boston and one over U-2 bi-plane. Rest were Il-2s.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

A bit more info
Of the 6 Hawk 75As lost in air combat in 1944 3 were shot down by P-39s, 2 by LaGG-3s and one by Il-2. La-5s shot down at least one Hawk 75A but it was repaired, so not a total loss but still a legitime kill to La-5s. 2 La-5s surprised one Hawk which was just landing and hit it badly but the pilot made successful (wheels-up?) landing on Nurmoila a/f. In Hawk 75A one must switch off the radio before landing because otherwise selecting gear down would have blown the main fuse. Men in the control tower saw the La-5s diving towards the Hawk but of course the Finnish pilot could not hear their warnings.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

Oreo said:


> yes, I was going to say, I don't think there was ever a Blenheim in production whose max speed was faster than the max speed of any retracto-gear Hawk 75 (usually in the 300-312 range). Most of the Ju 88 bombers were slower than 300 mph, also, except for S series, which I doubt Finland ever had.
> 
> The H 75 really was a useful little plane, I believe at least one P-36 shot down a JN a/c over Pearl Harbor, could be wrong about that.



I believe the Finns had mostly A-1 and A-2 Hawks (with some A-3's and a mix od a few others) which had somewhat less powerful engines, plus they didn't have 100 octane fuel. So most would probably have been no faster than 300 mph. (closer to 290 mph by Finnish figures I think, though the A-3's may have made it a bit over 300 mph)


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I believe the Finns had mostly A-1 and A-2 Hawks (with some A-3's and a mix od a few others) which had somewhat less powerful engines, plus they didn't have 100 octane fuel. So most would probably have been no faster than 300 mph. (closer to 290 mph by Finnish figures I think, though the A-3's may have made it a bit over 300 mph)



Ah, true, the old octane problem. It always makes me wonder what some of the world's a/c could have done with 100 octane or better fuel-- I believe the Japanese, and most of the eastern front nations used 87 octane or similar-- in fact, which nations other than US did have access to 100 or more octane fuel?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

The German C-3 (synthetic) and C-2 (natural, but lest often used iirc) were roughly equivelent to the US 100/130 octane fuel.

And I believe the Russians used 100 octane. (at least they sometimes had it available, but I'm not sure if it was imported or not)


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

I suppose the British had it, too. What about Italians, French, etc?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

I think the Bristish got most (if not all) of theirs from the US.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 26, 2008)

X

Wrong thread...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And I guess the Miles M.20 doesn't count. But it would probably be the "best."



I don't think it saw combat-- then I guess the D.510 didn't either, that I'm aware of. I put the D 510 in just to round out the numbers-- it did at least see squadron service, whereas I don't believe the M.20 did. I think the D 510 was a good contemporary for the P-26. I would like to see a good comparative analysis of those two-- would have been neat if they had seen combat against each other in some backwater.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 26, 2008)

Finland for me. Taking the F2A Buffalo and using to an advantage.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I don't think it saw combat-- then I guess the D.510 didn't either, that I'm aware of. I put the D 510 in just to round out the numbers-- it did at least see squadron service, whereas I don't believe the M.20 did. I think the D 510 was a good contemporary for the P-26. I would like to see a good comparative analysis of those two-- would have been neat if they had seen combat against each other in some backwater.



This is the wrong thread, oops... My fault.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

oops, my bad. I don't know how that happened. It was supposed to be in fixed gear fighter thread.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 27, 2008)

My fault, I posted in the wrong thread, and you responed.


----------

