# Best WWII Air-Force



## Desert Fox (Feb 17, 2007)

Out of all the combatants of WWII, which had the best air force?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> Out of all the combatants of WWII, which had the best air force?


Being as impartial as i can I believe the USAAF/USN were the best air arms of WW2 I really can't see any argument to point towards any other air arm. Numbers Quality and Logistics made them the winning combination


----------



## Desert Fox (Feb 17, 2007)

Good point, but I believe that the RAF was the best, considering they beat back the German onslaught during the Battle of Britain, outnumbered enormously


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2007)

could the RAF accomplish the same thing as the USAAF in all theatres of the war . The Usaaf the dominant force in both the ETO and PTO what else can you say .That is something I don't think any other force could say


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

*FINLAND!!!!*


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 17, 2007)

> Good point, but I believe that the RAF was the best, considering they beat back the German onslaught during the Battle of Britain, outnumbered enormously


If the US didnt enter the War in Europe, the Brits would be speaking German and the Eifel Tower would be flying the Swastica...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

I've asked myself this question since I was 10 years old.

I could almost say the Brits just for the Battle of Britain, truely a monumental feat whose glory belongs to *humanity *not just the British.

The American's list of world-beating attributes is much too long list but the fact is that they didn't hit their stride until mid 1943.

The Germans on the other hand were consistently fearsome from start to finish. Lack of resourses in the face of over whelming numbers and convoluted high German Command strategy were their demise. 

The poll is not "what nation had the economy to support a massive air force" Imagine the Luftwaffe with the GMP of the USA behind them!

I hate to say it but the Germans have it for innovation, tenacity, creativity and effect from start to finish.

Yes Flyboy---The Finns get honorable mention


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> If the US didnt enter the War in Europe, the Brits would be speaking German and the Eifel Tower would be flying the Swastica...




Our Allied friends are tired of hearing that...

And if the French didn't help out the Contenental Army, Americans would be speaking English.... I mean Starbucks would be known for its tea and "Americans" would be known for their terrible food.


"Lafayette we are here!"


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

> Our Allied friends are tired of hearing that...


Too bad, cause its the truth...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Too bad, cause its the truth...





LES: Yes, but imagine a never-ending onslaught of "we saved you"...

It's as tiresome as the jackass in the Louvre taking flash photos of the Mona Lisa while wearing a Hawaiian shirt and shouting ”we saved your asses!”

Our histories are intertwined..... No debt... no allegiance... friends don't thank friends.

The French dudes saved us way back when! now they're pricks....

But we owe thanks... Now there is China... lets rock


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 18, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Well here is how I look at it. I think the Luftwaffe had the best aircraft and innovations as Comiso said. However my vote has to go to the USAAF for only one reason and one reason alone. 

It was able to take the battle to the Germans. Without that, the Luftwaffe may have prevailed in my opinion.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 18, 2007)

I would agree Alder the Germans had the best aircraft but in terms of logistics etc there were no match for the USAAF (or the RAF to a lesser extent). Thus overall I will go with the USAAF for the ability to take the battle to the Germans as well as having the best logistical back up to keep them flying.


----------



## powerslave (Feb 18, 2007)

What about Russia air force!? In my opinion they had best airplanes, after luftwafe, on the allied side!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

powerslave said:


> What about Russia air force!? In my opinion they had best airplanes, after luftwafe, on the allied side!!


The Soviet Air force got mauled not only by the Germans in the opening days of WW2, but by Finland who's air force was one tenth her size.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

What aircraft did the Russians have that were better than the Luftwaffe, RAF, and USAAF? Can you please inform me of this because I can think of any really...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

I dont expect a truthful answer backed by facts, by the way...


----------



## MacArther (Feb 18, 2007)

> What about Russia air force!? In my opinion they had best airplanes, after luftwafe, on the allied side!!


Its nice to have good planes, and a huge airforce, but if many of your pilots and officers are basically the air equivalent of suicide charge people then all's for naught, because many will be lost for little gain in the begginning.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 18, 2007)

The USAAF was definitely the most powerful airforce in the world in 1945. But I think they had a lot of outdated and mediocre planes in 1941 when they got involved with the war. They were not very well prepared for it. So if this is only about 1944/45 I would vote the USAAF, but not for the whole length of the war.

The Russians won because they were willing to sacrifice more men then any other country in the world. That makes you victorious, but does that make you good? I don't think so.

The Luftwaffe was very good indeed, but they lacked any strategic capability and suffered a lot from bad strategic decisions.

The Japanese airforce quickly showed they were not up to the task and couldn't defend their country from US bombers.

Italian... hmm, don't know much positive about them, but maybe you can teach me. The had some nice planes later in the war, but that alone also doesn't make you the best overall.

Most of the "Royals" mentioned here I usually see as something belonging to the RAF. But then again, I might need some eduction on that.

Chinese got beaten by the Japanese. Needed help form US volunteers and RAF to survive.

That leaves the RAF. At the start of the war they had some of the most modern planes of the world (just like the Germans). Contrary to the germans, they developed a huge strategic capability during the war, and also close air support. So I'll vote for them.

By the way, Les, I think europe would have spoken Rusky if it wasn't for the US. Russia would eventually have beaten the germans after some time due to sheer manpower


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Someones padding the results for the Germans in this Poll... This morning it was 7-1 USA to RAF.... Now look at it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Hmm unfortunatly it is not a public poll where you can see who voted for what.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Yup.... 
*
NOTE TO EVERYONE, MAKE ALL FUTURE POLLS PUBLIC!!!*


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

Although I love German aircraft and pilots, the Luftwaffe is a no-go what I'm concerned because of bad leadership and vision. That the Luftwaffe did so good was because it was innovative before WW2. After that, bad decisions, dropping training quality and not getting the most out of their aircraft industry, started to push the Luftwaffe back in favour of the RAF and USAAF. 

I also have to go for the USAAF because everthing was in tune, the perfect mix, training, doctrines, technical support, leadership, logistics, ...

An honourable mention for the Finnish Air Force though, an example of making the most (and more) out of little. 

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Someones padding the results for the Germans in this Poll... This morning it was 7-1 USA to RAF.... Now look at it...



I'd be happy to pad the results for the USAAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

We know you would...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2007)

Regia Aeronautica. But you all knew id put that right


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> The USAAF was definitely the most powerful airforce in the world in 1945. But I think they had a lot of outdated and mediocre planes in 1941 when they got involved with the war. They were not very well prepared for it. So if this is only about 1944/45 I would vote the USAAF, but not for the whole length of the war.



Yes Marcel.. The pole was not "Which Air Force , at it's peak, was the best." or "Which was the best at the end of the war." The USAF had few bright spots until mid 43 - 44. 

The Germans suffered from poor leadership and not a very well rounded inventory, but they were dangerious from start to destruction.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 18, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Yes Marcel.. The pole was not "Which Air Force , at it's peak, was the best." or "Which was the best at the end of the war." The USAF had few bright spots until mid 43 - 44.



That's what I figured.



comiso90 said:


> The Germans suffered from poor leadership and not a very well rounded inventory, but they were dangerious from start to destruction.



Were they? Maybe I'm misinformed, but I thought the western allies didn't see a lot from the Luftwaffe after Normandy until the battle of the Bulge. And after that there I thought was even less activity.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> If the US didnt enter the War in Europe, the Brits would be speaking German and the Eifel Tower would be flying the Swastica...



Sorry but this satatement is just plain wrong. I am aware how indebted this country is(or should be) to the US. But lets not forget if things got any worse than they did the RAF could use strategic depth to counter the Luftwaffe(Same as they did to RAF when it went on the offensive). It would have been to the USA eternal shame if they let the last ray of hope in europe die out. The BOB forever broken the back of the Luftwaffe.

As for the best airforce. Hmm I couldn't vote. Early on without doubt its the Luftwaffe(training, tactics). BOB RAF Luftwaffe evenly matched but leadership/planning goes to the RAF. Africa eventually the RAF. USAF bombing campaign was the most successfull. Pacific USA.

You can't base the desicion on best planes/training(RAF pilots had little or no training in how to shot during the BOB concentrated on formation flying) at the forces best showing. Other factors such as the competentancy of officers at strategic or even tactical level, logistics, what % of planes where combat ready at any one time etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

What am trying to say is it took the combined effort of all the allies to turn the war around. The RAF couldn't have done it on its own, but equally USSR couldnt have been supplied if GB fell or the USAF wouldnt have waged its superb bombing campaign without GB bases.

Talking of training dosn't the expression "One a day in Tampa Bay" refer to the horrendous B29 losses due to poor training?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

It was a joke, aka A Fish Called Wanda...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Were they? Maybe I'm misinformed, but I thought the western allies didn't see a lot from the Luftwaffe after Normandy until the battle of the Bulge. And after that there I thought was even less activity.



Yes, they were largely decimated but pound for pound, in a tactical sense they were still a threat... except for the depletion in experienced pilots


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

bigZ said:


> .... The BOB forever broken the back of the Luftwaffe.



Incorrect. The Luftwaffe wasnt "broken" untill the fighters went on the offensive throughout Germnay in 1944.



> What am trying to say is it took the combined effort of all the allies to turn the war around. The RAF couldn't have done it on its own, but equally USSR couldnt have been supplied if GB fell or the USAF wouldnt have waged its superb bombing campaign without GB bases.



by 1944, when the US aircraft industry hit its speed, the training programs were sending out thousands of pilots that had a good chance to succede, then it can honestly be said the USAAF became the most powerfull air force in the world. Everything from well designed planes, good training and tactics, good leadership and industrial suprememcy.



> Talking of training dosn't the expression "One a day in Tampa Bay" refer to the horrendous B29 losses due to poor training?



It was the B26 that had issues. And once the pilots were shown how to fly on single engines, the loss rate went way down. In fact, the B26 turned out to have one of the most solidly constructed airframes of the war, giving its aircrews the lowest loss rate of any type.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> It was the B26 that had issues. And once the pilots were shown how to fly on single engines, the loss rate went way down. In fact, the B26 turned out to have one of the most solidly constructed airframes of the war, giving its aircrews the lowest loss rate of any type.



"Flak Bait"

Flak Bait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Everyone it really is stupid to say that one country "won" the war. It was an allied effort. All of them played there role and part and together they defeated Germany and Japan.

It is safe to say though that the US production capacity is what sped up the end of the war. Without the war most certainly would have dragged on longer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Everyone it really is stupid to say that one country "won" the war. It was an allied effort. All of them played there role and part and together they defeated Germany and Japan.
> 
> It is safe to say though that the US production capacity is what sped up the end of the war. Without the war most certainly would have dragged on longer.


Yep!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> Good point, but I believe that the RAF was the best, considering they beat back the German onslaught during the Battle of Britain, outnumbered enormously


Too true, but then you'd have to include members of the RCAF, RAAF, and RNZAF, along with Free French and Polish Air Force survivors in the mix as well. Particularly the Poles. They were downright vicious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Dont forget about the Czech pilots who flew in the RAF.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

Good point. You beat me to my edit. 
The Norwegians too for that matter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

And the Dutch and Belgium pilots as well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

And if you wanted to get _really_ technical, a few Americans as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Were talking about the best AF in the war, not whether it won the war single handidly or not.

The USAAF turned into the most powerfull by the summer of 1944, and by early 1945, it was a few magnitudes better than the 2nd place AF.

And just think how much more powerfull it would have been if the USN didn't require its share of material and pilots to build their own massive air force.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Were talking about the best AF in the war, not whether it won the war single handidly or not.



No it got way off topic and people started discussing who won the war by themselves.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

All things being considered, I'm with sys and pb here. The USAAF was the best all round air force of WWII, from about mid war onward. Size, supply, production, training, tactics, overall quality, decent leadership...They had it all, and as was said, dominated practically every theatre of the air war by the end. Pretty hard to knock that.

The air arms of the USN and USMC didn't exactly suck either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

I agree too, that is why I voted for the USAAF.


----------



## Desert Fox (Feb 18, 2007)

Yes, I shouldve put the Finnish Air Force in, they did do some extraordinary things, even though they were vastly outnumbered. But remember, if it wasnt for the RAF (yes, im including the polish, aussies, kiwis, belgians etc in there as well) winning the Battle of Britain, then Europe would have been lost to the Germans. The US, strong as they were, could not have beaten the Germans by themselves, even with the help of Resistance and Partisans


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

I agree but by 1944 as stated by other no nation could match the abilities of the USAAF. I am not saying that the RAF and Luftwaffe were not good airforces.

The Luftwaffe had great planes but not eneogh of them...

The RAF had great aircraft but it was the USAAF that ultimatly took the fight to the Germans.

The sheer numbers of the USAAF and the help of the RAF was too much for the Luftwaffe to overcome.


----------



## Desert Fox (Feb 18, 2007)

Agreed, it was a good effort by all. It was certainly needed to defeat the Luftwaffe, they did advance in leaps and bounds in the field of aeronautical engineering.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> Yes, I shouldve put the Finnish Air Force in, they did do some extraordinary things, even though they were vastly outnumbered. But remember, if it wasnt for the RAF (yes, im including the polish, aussies, kiwis, belgians etc in there as well) winning the Battle of Britain, then Europe would have been lost to the Germans. The US, strong as they were, could not have beaten the Germans by themselves, even with the help of Resistance and Partisans


The single biggest problem I could see for the USAAF in getting a foothold, in the event of a British defeat in the BoB, would have been bases, obviously. A place to call home. The Russians wouldn't have been much help there.


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 18, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> I think the problem here is are we judging by the
> 
> a) planes they flew
> b) quality of pilots
> ...


But you guys did marvelous considering what you were up against - shoot, I think the Russians are still scared of you folks!!!!


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 18, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> .......
> But anyways, when judging by all matters combined, I think USAAF and Luftwaffe come quite even... US planes were fit for combat, not so very sofisticated at all the times, ....



In January 1945:
The US had four heavy bombers in service and production, the B17, B24, B32 and B29. The B29 was undoubtably the most sophisticated aircraft of WW2.

There were no equivalents in the LW.

The US single engine fighters had ranges exceeding 1000 miles.

Again the LW couldnt match it.

The US also had three main transports in service that were superior to anything the LW had. The C47, C46 and C54. 

Now what were you saying about the US aircraft not being sophisticated?


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

The B-29 was a damn marvel of engineering!

Cyrano - I would, however, tend to argue that unnecessarily sophisticated equipment is a weakness, not an advantage. Murphy always wins. Basic day VFR operations did not require particularly tech savvy A/C.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> The B-29 was a damn marvel of engineering!
> 
> Cyrano - I would, however, tend to argue that unnecessarily sophisticated equipment is a weakness, not an advantage. Murphy always wins. Basic day VFR operations did not require particularly tech savvy A/C.



And without some of those gizmo's, when its nighttime or inclimate weather, your AF would be sitting on the ground doing nothing.

Gizmo's for gizmo's sake is not smart engineering. But when its value added and increases your capability, then its a good thing.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 19, 2007)

Again have to go home grown As father served in the RAAF during WW2 and in peace time


----------



## Glider (Feb 19, 2007)

As a statement of fact is has to be the USA. 
However they had the unique advantage of building their aircraft in essentially benign environment. No concerns over supplies, raw materials, bombing raids, fuel, plus having the huge advantage of a highly developed mass production ethos which they applied to everything that they did.
The other unique advantages that the USA had was that they were able to learn from the war in Europe apply those and take advantage of the technical advances and tactical lessons from the UK which were freely shared.

If it was a matter of the Best Airforce with what they had available then I wouldn't like to chose between the Germans and the British. In 1939/40 no other airforce could touch either of them. The 109 and the Spitfire even the Hurricane could take on any other fighter in service. The Wellington, HE11 were the best in their class and the Ju88 had no equal. The use of Radar in both countries was well ahead of the rest of the world as well as the technical quality. 
As the war developed choices were made the British didn't build many transports, we had the designs (e.g. York) but it was agreed that we would rely on the USA for this requirement. Germany didn't have the facilities to replace the Ju52, again they had the designs but not the infrastructure to deliver. Germany didn't have any long range bombers, but that was a tactical choice.
All through the war, the British and Germans always had the best nightfighters and were ahead of the game re Jet engines, the Germans having a clear lead in aerodynamics over everyone.

That said, as I said at the begninnng if the question is who had the best airforce then it has to be the USA from 1942 onwards.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 19, 2007)

But then again, USAAF was the best airforce after 1943. So if you're looking at the end of the war, all people who voted USAAF are right. But if you're looking at performance from the beginning to the end, I'm not so sure who would be the best.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 19, 2007)

Ok. here is the number of British and Commonwealth Bomber Crew Airmen lost in the Air War of Europe. Out of 125,000 Aircrew that Bomber Command had during WW2. Bomber Command lost approximately 62,000, Either Killed in Action Died of Wounds Missing in Action Prisoners of War or Killed During Training Accidents. You can say the USAF was the best equiped or you can say the the US had the manufacturing areas of supply. And yet the USAF suffered heavy losses in Air Crew as well as the RAF RAAF RNZAF or RCAF etc etc. Having said that. it doesn't make one Air Force better than the other. Including the Russian Air Force or the Germans or Italians or even the Japanese etc. But when it came right down to it. I believe it was committment which made each and every Air Force in this poll equally up to the challenge at hand. If not even unique in aspects all their own etc

My personal choice is that of the Royal Australian Air Force was well and truly up to the rigors of battle. Not only in European Air War but also in North Africa Middle East and the Pacific. But the same can be said of all Allied and Axis Forces as well. for me its personal, as my Father flew with Bomber Command and the RAAF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> In January 1945:
> The US had four heavy bombers in service and production, the B17, B24, B32 and B29. The B29 was undoubtably the most sophisticated aircraft of WW2.
> 
> There were no equivalents in the LW.



They were on the defensive. They did not need those.



syscom3 said:


> The US single engine fighters had ranges exceeding 1000 miles.
> 
> Again the LW couldnt match it.



Again by 1945, the Germans did not need those. The 109s and 190s were just fine, just in too little numbers. They needed those longer ranges back in 1940 though.



syscom3 said:


> Now what were you saying about the US aircraft not being sophisticated?



I dont think he was saying that the US was not sophisticated but that the quality of the aircraft for the most part was about the same but that the superior numbers was overwelming.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *FINLAND!!!!*



Hah a! Yeh, okay, that made my day there.
RAF, mainly because they had good pilots/plains/ etc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Why do you think that is funny. The Finnish Airforce was actually highly successful.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2007)

As stated earlier, for what they had and what they accomplished they must be on the top 3. I know their Buffaloes had the best kill ratio of the war, it wouldn't surprise me if the same is said for their Air Force...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2007)

Definitely an accomplishment. That small, relatively ill-equipped bunch of men held the line for a quite a while against the vastness of the Red Army/VVS. Let's not forget their deeds of the Winter War of 1939/40. Anyone who'd laugh at the Finns should look up a little history me thinks.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

The Finnish armed forces' performance was a testament to human tenacity and determination. By all measures they should have been easily brushed aside, yet they ran an amazingly successful campaign - although they simply could not overcome the sheer numbers.


----------



## Erich (Feb 19, 2007)

the best air force ? my gosh so many possibilities and with different tactics involved, offense, defense and .... ? too much

Keine Ahnung


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> Definitely an accomplishment. That small, relatively ill-equipped bunch of men held the line for a quite a while against the vastness of the Red Army/VVS. Let's not forget their deeds of the Winter War of 1939/40. Anyone who'd laugh at the Finns should look up a little history me thinks.



I agree. That is why I asked if he was laughing.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 19, 2007)

Who is voting for Luftwaffe???

Yes they had their highlights but to say they where the best?? 

Still contend that the RAF put them through such a mauling during the BOB that they never fully recovered. Had to go and "fight a proper war" in their words after getting their sorry asses kicked. By the end of 1941 monthly production of British aircraft alone surpased the Luftwaffes. 

Not denying they were a dangerous opponent after the BOB. But look at the disastous course pilot training took. Even upto 1942 it was still conducted in a relaxed atmosphere with skining jollies untill the demand for replacement pilots would cause the numbers of hours training to dwindle to a fraction of any allied pilots. Instructors and student fritted away in doomed operations. Night fighters with their specialist experience used in daylight defence. Goring as its leader. Performance drop of the 190 at altitude. Failure of leadership to gear up production earlier etc, etc.

If this poll was 1944-45 I would go with US airforce as its equipment was carefully planned, fighters with high ceiling and range, bomber formations with great strength of defensive armament, large bomb load and penatration. A bombing strategy that would force the Luftwaffe to fight and cripple the economy. decent training program. A competant Tacticical airforce with close cooperation with ground and air forces etc, etc. But this is a vote for the entire war so I am still undecided.

Finns put up a good show no matter who they fought. How did the Yugoslav airforce get on with their 20 licensce built Hurris?


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 20, 2007)

Never mind what I said,I was thinking somthing else...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 21, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As stated earlier, for what they had and what they accomplished they must be on the top 3. I know their Buffaloes had the best kill ratio of the war, it wouldn't surprise me if the same is said for their Air Force...



I knew the finns were highly successful but highest kill ratio of the war? Better than the Corsairs 11:1 ?

Another post says the Buff had a ratio of 26:1.. difficult to believe. Are there any built in means of inflation ie. lots of transport aircraft shot down, ground "kills"?

I'd like to read more about that..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I knew the finns were highly successful but highest kill ratio of the war? Better than the Corsairs 11:1 ?
> 
> Another post says the Buff had a ratio of 26:1.. difficult to believe. Are there any built in means of inflation ie. lots of transport aircraft shot down, ground "kills"?
> 
> I'd like to read more about that..



Nope - the Finns really stuck it to the Ruskies and I doubt any of their claims are inflated. 

Finnish Air Force History


----------



## Bernhart (Feb 21, 2007)

have to agree, think the finns probably were the best, considering equipment,


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2007)

Put it into perspective.

The Finns didnt have any designs of their own, no manufacturing capacity and didn't employ them in massive numbers like the other main combatants.

The US dwarfs all the other powers when it is subjectively compared in 1945.


----------



## k9kiwi (Feb 23, 2007)

So I voted for the RNZAF.

What the shyte did ya expect me to vote for?

Pacific, Africa, Europe.

We were flying there before you knew where the stuff they were on the map.

Jam your subjectives where the monkey stores his peanuts.


----------



## ndicki (Feb 23, 2007)

I'd vote for the R(X)AF and SAAF - never mind what the X stands for or whether it is there at all, the main thing is to keep in mind that the RAF and the Dominion Air Forces should really be (other than in a few cases such as the RNZAF in the Pacific) considered as ONE big multi-role, multi-speciality Air Force with some of the world's most effective aircraft, and some of the world's best air and ground crews, not to mention tactics of all kinds. Sorry for the Yanks, but they don't come close. Tonnage may be one thing, but it helps if the tonnage in question actually hits the target, and not just the general area. Forget the Luftwaffe - no strategic capability.

Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest
Mosquito, Beaufighter, Meteor
Lancaster

Says it all, really.

OK, you have to admire the Finns for fighter ability, but they had no long-range potential for doing the enemy serious evil, either.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2007)

ndicki said:


> I'd vote for the R(X)AF and SAAF - never mind what the X stands for or whether it is there at all, the main thing is to keep in mind that the RAF and the Dominion Air Forces should really be (other than in a few cases such as the RNZAF in the Pacific) considered as ONE big multi-role, multi-speciality Air Force with some of the world's most effective aircraft, and some of the world's best air and ground crews, not to mention tactics of all kinds. Sorry for the Yanks, but they don't come close. Tonnage may be one thing, but it helps if the tonnage in question actually hits the target, and not just the general area. Forget the Luftwaffe - no strategic capability.
> 
> Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest
> Mosquito, Beaufighter, Meteor
> ...


Although I appreciate your sentiments about the commonwealth Air Forces there is no way they had the ability or tools to compete with the US . I also don't believe the leadership of the commonwealth forces was on par with the USAAF/USN . I will concede that the special purpose units like 617 or the units running out of Tempsford were better then the Usaaf but once the US got moving in 42 there was no equal


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 24, 2007)




----------



## ndicki (Feb 24, 2007)

pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.

The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2007)

ndicki said:


> pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents!



The US pilots and aircrew were just as capable as their empire equivalents. 



> Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following.



The US pilots in the PTO and CBI were quite capable navigators in going on missions over the vast reaches of the pacific. In fact, the longest missions of the war were flown by indivdual B24's at night, hitting a a relatively small target 1600 miles from base, something the RAF never accomplished. And youre a bit mistaken that the navigators in the "box's" were along for the ride, as they all had to know their positions in case they were seperated from the formation or had to take the lead.



> RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.



Yes, and the B29's brought that a level higher.



> The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again.



In 1941 and 1942, the lesson from the RAF was to not send lightly armed or armoured bombers, flying at middle altitudes, in small formations. The B17 and B24 were going to do things different. Through out 1943, they were doing fine, untill the LW began hammering them with new eqmt and tactics.



> That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.



Tactics were worked out by both AF's and the end result was aerial supremecy. Remember, untill the forward operating bases in France were established, it was only the AAF bringing the fight to the LW.

Nikki, look at it this way..... the US had an abviously better industrial base in which to design and build aircraft. And when it came to logistics, we were magnitudes above everyone. For pilot skill, the Empire had hundreds of excellent pilots. The US had thousands of "good" pilots of which hundreds became excellent pilots. Just from shear numbers alone, the US rated above the Empire in being able to produce aircrews for the planes we built.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 24, 2007)

Great I can see this now. A pissing match at whos country has the biggest balls. Oh yeah my country can kick your countries ass... Oh yeah my countries daddy is bigger than your countries daddy...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

I can see syscoms agruments as being very valid ones... I dont think there really is a way of determining which Air Force was the better, as each had their own attributes...

But I will say this... Without the aid, manpower and determination of the 8th, 9th and all the other American Air Corps in the ETO, the Western Allies would have been in a different battle for the skies over Germany...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Great I can see this now. A pissing match at whos country has the biggest balls. Oh yeah my country can kick your countries ass... Oh yeah my countries daddy is bigger than your countries daddy...



Not at all.

If you have to look at this in macro sense.

1) Did the country have a scientific base in which to develope totally new weapons?

2) Did the country have a technological base in which to convert scientific advances into a usable product?

3) Did the country have an industrial base in which to build a lot of products without going bankrupt?

4) Did the country have the capacity to change production in the middle of a "run" and incorporate the newest changes , all without shutting the line down?

5) Did the country have the capacity to train lots of pilots that had a good chance of surviving their first missions in combat?

6) Did the country have the capacity to maintain all the planes in the field?

The US excelled so much in the production of aircraft and pilot training, that it dwarfs the runner up(s).

I would also say that the USN carrier pilots were arguably the best in the world. And there were so many of them, they would have qualified as being a whole seperate AF in the ranking.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 24, 2007)

ndicki said:


> pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.
> 
> The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.


and the reply was for the best I don't really think that Harris matched up to Spaatz nor Arnold what did the RAF ignore daylight bombing big deal the reason the RAF/we didn't is because we couldn't stand the losses of equipment or men
. The RAF/we didn't crush the LW it was the USAAF with their daylight missions over Europe 

Trust me I'm quite proud of our accomplishments and would like to believe as you think but being realistic I can't honestly back that theory


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 24, 2007)

I voted for the USAF and the RAF. What other Airforce could man over a 1,000 plane raids every day? The US Air Force. The British were close but such a number was exhausting for them to keep up on a daily basis, no offence. I admit, the United States is lucky in being so big and with a lot of mechanically minded people. We made our war machine simpler than any others and so we made a lot, a lot, a lot, more than was needed. 

The RAF with the Battle of Britain, second Battle of Britain, Defeat of Rommel in Africa, Firebombing cities better than the Germans, earns it a place along side the USAF.

I think the Luftwaffe was great, but Hitler made Goring do dumb things and it never was operated to it's best capacity. Look at Africa. Kesselring couldn't give Rommel good air support. Even if he had decided that Malta was more important than Africa, why didn't he destroy it's defences? Because the Luftwaffe didn't hit Malta with all it got, The Germans lost Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, and Italy. 

The Luftwaffe was handled poorly in supporting Nazi troops at Stalingrad. The whole "Air Bridge" idea out of Gorings brain didn't work. 
Where was the Luftwaffe on D-day? 
Couldn't the Luftwaffe have done any better in preventing the Eighth Force from sacking Germany the way it did? The bloodied the bombers very well, but I still wonder.

The Luftwaffe had all the weapons and men to fight well but if leadership is bad those men stick to bad orders.
Japan had good pilots and planes deadly to themselves and others, but a poor factory line hurt them. 
The Italian Air Force did ok, but it should have conquered Malta.

I know the Allied Air Forces made a lot of mistakes, but at least they were quicker on their toes to fix the situation. When Ira Eaker had to go, he went. Doolittle took his place. 
The terrible losses of the Allied Bombing campaign might be considered as a setback, but at least everybody tried to run the missions effectively and didn't mess around with a good plan like Goring did a bit in the BOB.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2007)

ndicki said:


> pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.
> 
> The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.





pbfoot said:


> and the reply was for the best I don't really think that Harris matched up to Spaatz nor Arnold what did the RAF ignore daylight bombing big deal the reason the RAF/we didn't is because we couldn't stand the losses of equipment or men
> . The RAF/we didn't crush the LW it was the USAAF with their daylight missions over Europe
> 
> Trust me I'm quite proud of our accomplishments and would like to believe as you think but being realistic I can't honestly back that theory



While ndicki brings up the negatives of the 8th AF bomber campaign, The bombing of Germany needed to be accomplished round the clock for the end result. Although it seemed like there was a huge loss of US men and equipment, that was situation we were placed in was the cost of war and the US was able to accept those losses. Based on the equipment of the day I think the 8th AF did a fine job, but as always stated the bombing campaign of Germany wouldn't of been a success without the continual bombing by both RAF AND USAAF.

ndicki - we had the same Nav equipment you guys did and navigating across vast portions of the South Pacific was no picnic as well.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 24, 2007)

Just a few comments:
Ndicki: With regard to the lead plane leading the formation and every other soul following blindly - that makes no sense. If you are a single piloted aircraft flying wing off your lead - you absolutely are entirely consumed in flying your position you can't do much of your own navigation. However, with a crew such as the B-17, with a pilot, CP, bombardier, and a nav - you have a lot of heads to back up the plane that is flying lead. Also, in formation flight, you follow your lead. You don't break off and go on your own way.

Sys: don't forget the USMC pilots! We're naval aviators too, and go through navy flight training as well!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 24, 2007)

Now if I was to be Nationalistic I would say the RCAF which went from 4000 men and 12 Hurricanes as our frontline equipment to arguably the 4th most powerful air force in 6 years with 78 squadrons not including the BCATP which trained 167,000 aircrew I'll give the RCAF second . But one must agree the USAAC, USN, USMC could and did project air supremecy whereever they went it was the force . Now Finland certainly deserves accolades for its accomplishments including the production and development of fighters but not the best


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 25, 2007)

Three Cheers for the Canadians!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Not at all.
> 
> If you have to look at this in macro sense.
> 
> ...



You are barking up the wrong tree here syscom.

I allready gave my vote to the US 40 posts ago...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 25, 2007)

Perhaps I’m insane but the notion of selecting the best AF of WW2 is freaking silly. 

The Awards go to:

Most Consistent Quality… RAF
Most Adaptive … USAAF
Most Innovative … Luftwaffe
Best Naval Overall… USN
Most Defiant … Finnish (Honorable mention Malta and Wake Island) 
Best Naval Air Power 1937 – 1943 Japanese
Best Naval Air Power 1943 – 1945 USN
Best daylight strategic bombers … USAAF
Best night strategic bombers … RAF
Best anti-armor … Soviets
Best overall 1943.5 – 1945 … USAAF
Best Problem Solvers … RAF
Most unfulfilled potential.. Italian Air Arm
Most effective Interdiction … RAF
Best Interceptors … Luftwaffe
Best High Altitude Long Range Escort ... USAAF
Most Improved … USAAF
Best Ground Support Pacific ... USMC
most cool markings ... Romainia
most women pilots ... ruskies


>>>>>>>>>> The options are endless!

Best Navel.... Veronica Lake


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Perhaps I’m insane but the notion of selecting the best AF of WW2 is freaking silly.
> 
> The Awards go to:
> 
> ...



Now condense it into which AF was the best.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 26, 2007)

Ok, let's look at this at a critical and empirical point of view ...



condensing ...  




condensing ...  




"most women pilots ... ruskies"




A ha!! 




!! Russian AF!!
 


Kris


----------



## bigZ (Feb 26, 2007)

Pilots from the Russian 586th Women's Fighter Regiment. Kris your welcome to them.


----------



## fat flyer (Feb 26, 2007)

The best airforce in WW2 in the US. The US brought the fight to the enemy and emerged at the end of the war as undisputed in air supremacy.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

Damn, BigZ!  

Well, I found on the Marina Raskova and the Soviet Women Pilots of World War II website some more 'ugly' women but let's just stick to the beauties, agreed?










Miss Natlya Meklin flew 840 missions! 

Kris


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 28, 2007)

hey, haven't been in here in a while, just post my opinion. 
my vote goes to the USAAF, though I would've voted Finns if they were on there.


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 28, 2007)




----------



## YakFlyer (Mar 3, 2007)

interesting stuff, I'd go with USAAF if it weren't for the fact that they were so far behind innitially, but they did catch up quickly. 

RAF is my pick.


----------



## Herr_Scheiker (Mar 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree too, that is why I voted for the USAAF.



Air forces are part of armed forces, so can not be considered alone.

USAF against Luftwaffe Alone? With the Germans not having to divide their forces? Can not compare, for me the Germans where the best, they had to fight the russians, the RAF, USAF, Polish, French, Greeks, Dutch, Canadian, etc. and were able to do it during 5 years, and they did it with no resources, while suffering civil population bombardement, industrial destruction, fighting 5 fronts, etc., period.


----------



## Glider (Mar 4, 2007)

Whilst there is no doubt that the German Air Force did well compared to what they were up against, its also true to say that they were on the defensive from 1942 onwards. Defensive single engined fighters are much easier to produce that bombers let alone 4 engined bombers and transport planes.

To decide on the best air force you need to consider all the requirements placed against that nation. Only the USA met the requirements in both quality and quantity to fulfill those needs.

The Germans lacked transport, Recce, maritime recce, naval aircraft and strategic bombers in particular.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 4, 2007)

Scheiker you talk correctly of the air forces being integrated with all the other armed services but then screw it up by trying to divorce it from the strategic reality.

A serious shortcoming of the Luftwaffe is its leadership above mid level. USAF beats it handsdown.The Luftwaffe was primarily tacticial airforce due to geographical location and a lack of materials pre war which fortunately meant it could not wage a strategic campain anyway near the same level as the USAF. An example of incompetence at high level was the fall of France which released an abundance of raw materials/factories/manpower which the Luftwaffe did not capitalise on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2007)

Herr_Scheiker said:


> for me the Germans where the best, they had to fight the russians, the RAF, USAF, Polish, French, Greeks, Dutch, Canadian, etc. and were able to do it during 5 years, and they did it with no resources, while suffering civil population bombardement, industrial destruction, fighting 5 fronts, etc., period.


And they lost....

Would of could of should of....


----------



## bigZ (Mar 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And they lost....
> 
> Would of could of should of....



Damn right. 

Because of the lack of decent arguments for the Luftwaffe. I get a feeling that most people are voting for Luftwaffe just on the basis of a range of sexy aircraft towards the end of the war and the high scores of the aces.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2007)

The luftwaffe was on its heals after the 8th af started to seriously attacking the Germany proper in a head to head challenge in 1944 the USAAC beat down Luftwaffe strength and became the prey no longer an attacking force but one that was cornered fighting for its very existance. I believe the air force that was 2nd best would be a better poll. The luftwaffe never had a strategic component worth talking about and although they tried the transports and coastal forces were totally lacking


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 5, 2007)

Herr_Scheiker said:


> Air forces are part of armed forces, so can not be considered alone.



What are you talking about? The Army and the Navy have nothing to do with what is the best airforce? Sorry...

Granted a good military can use its Airforce and Army combined in joint operations but tanks on the ground and infantry and the Battleships on the seas do not determine what is the best airforce.



Herr Scheiker said:


> USAF against Luftwaffe Alone? With the Germans not having to divide their forces? Can not compare, for me the Germans where the best, they had to fight the russians, the RAF, USAF, Polish, French, Greeks, Dutch, Canadian, etc. and were able to do it during 5 years, and they did it with no resources, while suffering civil population bombardement, industrial destruction, fighting 5 fronts, etc., period.



Bit off more than they could chew.

The Luftwaffe had great aircraft but the best aircraft in the world are not going to save you from the massive numbers of allied aircraft in the air.

Combine that with poor leadership, and lack of specialized aircraft such as strategic bombers and a better strategic cargo and transport for logistics and inferior numbers they were certainly not the best.

I love Luftwaffe aircraft and think that the best aircraft of the war were German but I will not kid myself into believing that the Luftwaffe was the best airforce in WW2. From 1939 to 1942 I would say yes they were, but after that it went downhill real fast.


----------



## Udet (Mar 6, 2007)

These sort of topics deserve special treatment. It is in a way similar to those "Best/Worst" "Fighter/Bomber/Bomber Destroyer" type of aircraft. 

In the end the allies reached the adequate balance of ingredients in the recipe to defeat the enemy:

(i) A huge red army that proceeded ahead with complete disregard for losses; this is probably one of the most critical elements within the allied chain: the guys of the US Army and British Army were simply not willing to spend too much of their own blood -ask the U.S. Army after getting gutted by Rommel in the Kasserine experience-; if you have an ally that simply does not give a crap about any number of his own dead, wounded or missing, better impossible. Make a smart use of such condition, but also respond to his whining urging you for more support -opening more fronts-; sure, support him, but in the manner that suits you better.

Still, all that size and willingness to loose soldiers and war materiel is of very little use for the USSR if the USAAF is not in the air farther west Europe, and if the U.S Army and Brits do not land in North Africa/Mediterranean/Normandy.

(ii) A good and powerful combination of naval assets in the atlantic (USN/RN);

(iii) A large, powerful and competitive USAAF making the bigger part of the aerial work, and also a RAF and a less competitive VVS.


Still, my vote goes for the USAAF, hands down.

Although there are many aspects regarding the overall perfomance of the USAAF in the ETO that are way too much overhyped also featuring an interesting and juicy menu of myths (Mustangs, "Big Week" type of battles, accuracy of bomber missions, etc.) it is simply the best overall aerial branch in the war.

Without the type of display of the USAAF in the ETO the poor RAF goes nowhere and the aid of the soviet air force is simply not enough either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> In the end the allies reached the adequate balance of ingredients in the recipe to defeat the enemy


Bingo!


----------



## Lex McAulay (Mar 7, 2007)

Given the state of the various air arms in 1939 and in 1945, it has to be the USAAF/USN, with enormous air fleets in the war theatres backed by a huge training program and an engineering and logistics support endeavour across the globe, with aircraft that were consistently at the leading edge in performance, improved as time went on, and also supplied their allies. 
Very few clunkers in the line-up, unlike the Brits.
Apart from the insistence on unescorted bomber formations, through to October 43, the USAAF/USN was flexible and willing to learn and showed the other side what air power was all about.
Unlike the Germans and Japanese, the US air effort was commanded by people who understood what air power could do, and were backed by a great collection of engineering design offices. 
People like Galland were basically ineffective in high command because they were not heeded by the very highest command folks who were yes men to the Fuhrer. No way to run an air force at war. (In Vietnam, different situation but same result from political stupidity.)
1939-1945, consider the size of the air forces and locations of operations and it has to be USAAF/USN.


----------



## MAV_406 (Mar 8, 2007)

USAAF simply because when a mustang and B-17 were over berlin the germans lost the war


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 8, 2007)

They lost the War before that...


----------



## Udet (Mar 8, 2007)

Even with all its organizational and managerial flaws, the Luftwaffe is ranked second.

The RAF performance was mediocre during the so called Battle of Britain, and although it managed to survive, it was badly battered and in real bad shape. 
Keep in mind the Luftwaffe put the most brutal pressure against them during only a very few months; since Great Britain was not the plan, the Germans put their eyes in the east, even if aerial operations over England were maintained until the spring of 1941.

Although British keepers of the truth love mingling, twisting and manipulating the "official dates" for the occurrence of the BoB, the periods of most intensity of the German aerial offensive are only a fistful of months.

I would have liked to see the RAF fighting against two or three enemy air forces at the same time; if against the Luftwaffe their performance was mediocre, enough to survive though, not forgetting Germany was not seeking anything like "complete surrender" of Great Britain, rather trying to make peace.

Put the RAF to fight two or more enemy air forces and they do not last a month.

RAF organization and management was not any better than the Luftwaffe. The Spitfire Mk. V was still the main stay of the RAF when the Luftwafffe had already phased out the F series having the Gustav as the mainstay. And the Bf 109 G was clearly better than the Mk. V.


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 8, 2007)

Okay you folks are gonna get my nickels worth, ("inflation"). A lot of folks think Britain was victorious over Germany and that the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. The truth is America defeated Germany. The RAF were getting their butts kicked and America bailed them out. Anyone remember the Lend Lease program. By the way did the Brits ever pay the Americans back?
I "100%" agree that the concentration of equipment and manpower defeated the Luftwaffe. But to say it was the best airforce is an exercise in patriotism.
If the Luftwaffe had attacked Britain and not fought on so many fronts the RAF would have been destroyed. But the leaders of Germany bit of more then they could chew. And America would have been hard pressed to fight a battle in Europe without British bases. And if I remember correctly Hitler did not want to tangle with the US anyway. That was Tojo who started the fight with America. A fight that would not have lasted as long if America had not had to split its forces.
Of course this is an argument that will go on forever. But if you study the history of the conflict. It was simply a matter of money. The US had more. The war the American Air Force fought was fought on foreign soil. And the American industrial complex was safe from attack. Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.





Rall


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would of, could of, should of.....


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 8, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> Okay you folks are gonna get my nickels worth, ("inflation"). A lot of folks think Britain was victorious over Germany and that the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. The truth is America defeated Germany. The RAF were getting their butts kicked and America bailed them out. Anyone remember the Lend Lease program. By the way did the Brits ever pay the Americans back?
> I "100%" agree that the concentration of equipment and manpower defeated the Luftwaffe. But to say it was the best airforce is an exercise in patriotism.
> If the Luftwaffe had attacked Britain and not fought on so many fronts the RAF would have been destroyed. But the leaders of Germany bit of more then they could chew. And America would have been hard pressed to fight a battle in Europe without British bases. And if I remember correctly Hitler did not want to tangle with the US anyway. That was Tojo who started the fight with America. A fight that would not have lasted as long if America had not had to split its forces.
> Of course this is an argument that will go on forever. But if you study the history of the conflict. It was simply a matter of money. The US had more. The war the American Air Force fought was fought on foreign soil. And the American industrial complex was safe from attack. Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
> ...



Well lets see here:

Yes, USA had the greatest b/c : 

- B/c its industries were not under attack by air or land. The best bomber there is, is a tank sitting right on top of an enemy's plant.

- It had the greatest industrial base in the world, no one was even close.

- It's planes were of the finest quality (not always the best but very very good), top quality.

- It had the best long range bomber in the world.

- It had bucket loads and very highly trained pilots.

- It had the BOMB, that no one else had.

- It adapted proven tactics quickly.

The end.

Next you said the LW was "could" of defeated RAF...? When in the BoB? During all of WW2? When are you talking about?

Next you said USA defeated Germany. How? During the air war? In WW2? 

Actually it does not matter when you were talking about in this case. USA did not defeat Germany by herself. The Allies defeated Germany, thats including Russia, USA, UK (including all her allies also) they defeated Germany together.

To end this post I agree with Joe:

Would of, could of, should of.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> Okay you folks are gonna get my nickels worth, ("inflation"). A lot of folks think Britain was victorious over Germany and that the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. The truth is America defeated Germany. The RAF were getting their butts kicked and America bailed them out. Anyone remember the Lend Lease program. By the way did the Brits ever pay the Americans back?



That is rediculous! Sorry but you are wrong. The RAF was able to defeat the Germans in the BoB without the US. I will go as far as saying the Luftwaffe was better than the RAF during the BoB but the simple fact remains the Luftwaffe did not win airial superiority and did not win the BoB. So how did the US defeat Germany in the BoB? Come on now...

Yes it is true the allies could not have done it without the US lend lease but when it came to fighting the war, it was an allied effort. THE ALLIES DEFEATED GERMANY.



JG57_Rall said:


> Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As others stated Could have, Should have.....did not.

The Germans realised the need for heavy Strategic bombers when it was too late.


----------



## Udet (Mar 9, 2007)

Wold you guys agree with the notion it was the entrance of the U.S.A. in the war that sealed the destiny of the conflict?

If for some reason the U.S.A. remains isolated, i do not think Germany can be defeated.

What´s interesting is the fact there are people in the west who gets pissed off at the idea of USAers believing it was the USA who won the wat "alone".

If most of these guys could visit or stay in Russia for a while, they´d be likewise pissed off to discover the bulk of the russians do believe and affirm it was the USSR who won the war alone, and that any sort of contribution made by UK and USA is either marginal or non-existant.

They´d be discovering an entirely new approach to the matter. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Wold you guys agree with the notion it was the entrance of the U.S.A. in the war that sealed the destiny of the conflict?


 To a point I agree...


Udet said:


> If for some reason the U.S.A. remains isolated, i do not think Germany can be defeated.


That's what Joseph Kennedy (Ambassador to the UK) wanted.


Udet said:


> What´s interesting is the fact there are people in the west who gets pissed off at the idea of USAers believing it was the USA who won the wat "alone".


Rightfully so - the US involvement was certainly a "deal sealer" but we didn't or couldn't do it alone



Udet said:


> If most of these guys could visit or stay in Russia for a while, they´d be likewise pissed off to discover the bulk of the russians do believe and affirm it was the USSR who won the war alone, and that any sort of contribution made by UK and USA is either marginal or non-existant.
> 
> They´d be discovering an entirely new approach to the matter. 8)



I met people from Russia who knew little or nothing about the war in the Pacific. It seems that part of history was conveniently left out of their history books.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

I would say it was a mixture of the entrance of the US and the invasion of Russia that sealed Germany fate. Germany could not fight both of these massive nations in terms of equipment and man power.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> Wold you guys agree with the notion it was the entrance of the U.S.A. in the war that sealed the destiny of the conflict?
> 
> If for some reason the U.S.A. remains isolated, i do not think Germany can be defeated.
> 
> ...





-Yes USA sealed the deal, the last nail in the coffin.

-Not sure about Germany being beaten by UK and Russia alone. But damn it would of been alot more Russians killed thats for damn sure. It would of been a real slobber nocker, drag out fight. Very hard to call who would of won.

-Yes I also have read, seen and talked to people from USA who believe "they won" the war for the allies. Russia also believes that without Russian involvement the allies would of lost.

I will say this, if one or the other, USA or Russia, were not on the allied side then the war would of been much harder for the allies to win. Russia and USA were both HUGE help to the allied effort, which did more to aid the allies win? Thats a different thread, but a good one to debate.


----------



## Udet (Mar 9, 2007)

Flyboy and hunter: agreed.

Being the member of a family highly involved in the military is that as boy, all i had heard was USSR did it all by itself.

It was not until i grew out of childhood and going to live abroad that i commenced hearing others stories.

I recall a small party we had at the appartment of a big friend of mine in Moscow a few years ago; with me was one of my Brit cousins, visiting Russia for the first time. Of course he did not -and does not- speak russian and to one point the lengthy conversation branched out to ww2. The debating increased the heat in the room, and my cousin asked me, "what the hell are they saying?" my response was "they are pissed off at the americans who claim to have won the war all by themselves".

Then, one of the other russian guys who handles english repeated the same thing to my cousin, but added "that is a lie...WE WON THE WAR ALONE!!!"

My cousin was with his eyes wide open to hear the comment. He already had issues with the notion of USAers saying they won the war alone, but that night he learned something new, from the other guys -and felt deeply pissed off to know of one of the parties claiming to have baked the cake all by themselves-. 8)


----------



## bigZ (Mar 9, 2007)

Hell everyone knows John Wayne won WWII single handed. Seriously though the whole Team America "We saved your ass" crap from certain individuals does tend to piss the few Brits with some national pride left. Even on the outbreak of the BOB their were some US journalists who gave us 6 weeks at most.

I am very much aware/indebted to the US contribution to the war but don't try pissing on are chips by taking away the victories achieved by both the RAF and her allies pre 1941 and their subsequent involvement.

In terms of numbers of Germans killed on the eastern front, the Russians could claim to have done more to defeat them. In terms of the land war German tank design should give us a pointer in who the Germans thought where the main threat post 41.

In the end it was a victory for all the allies apart from the Polish. But all paid the price in blood.

PS. Me264 in greater numbers than the B-17 never gonna happen even in a thousand years.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 9, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Even on the outbreak of the BOB their were some US journalists who gave us 6 weeks at most.



It was not just US journalists who thought that, pretty much everyone thought that. Very few people actually thought UK would hold out vs the Germans. That was not just US feelings on the matter but a very widely held opinion at the time.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 9, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Hell everyone knows John Wayne won WWII single handed. Seriously though the whole Team America "We saved your ass" crap from certain individuals does tend to piss the few Brits with some national pride left. Even on the outbreak of the BOB their were some US journalists who gave us 6 weeks at most.
> 
> I am very much aware/indebted to the US contribution to the war but don't try pissing on are chips by taking away the victories achieved by both the RAF and her allies pre 1941 and their subsequent involvement.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Without us winning the Battle of Britain and securing the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" the later half of the war wasn't going to happen the way it did. We needed the Americans, the Americans needed us and the Russians needed both of us and we needed the Russians. It was a team effort (as has been said repeatedly).


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 9, 2007)

Well BigZ,
Why did America get involved in a fight in Europe anyway? Is it because England and the other countrys could not defeat Germany alone?It was the Japanese that started the war for the US and it was because of the alliance between Italy, Japan and Germany that America got involved.
The ground war was what it was but it was airpower not ground pounding that put an end to the war. But most of all it was the US industrial might and wealth that put an end to the war. Your right about the Me-264 its never gonna happen. Bet your glad it did`nt.

DerAdlerIstGelandet,
You hit it on the nose. It was the fact that Germany took on more then it could handle. Fighting Russia and America at the same time.

Hunter 368,
As far as I know, the best long range bomber in the world was not built at the American entrance into WWII. It seems to me that the B-17 was developed and given to England after Pearl Harbor. As well as the B-52 being developed after that. But I don`t know what was considered the best Long range bomber before that. I know it was`nt the Lancaster, maybe the Dornier.
And about "the Bomb", America got that from the Germans and developed it well after the american involvement began.

FLYBOYJ,
No not a woulda shoulda coulda situation. Just an observation, Kinda lucky for the free world that they never produced it.

To all,
As for the lend lease program, I still wonder if the Brits are ever gomnna pay the US back.

The Luftwaffe was the best trained and best equipped air force of its time. The pilots were the most experienced. This is a fact. It can be argued about till the end of time and the Victors of WWII can claim they were better but it will never change the truth.
The Germans war in europe was lost by the leaders. A bunch of crooks criminals and nuts. In my Opinion!
Also in my Opinion, I believe if the Nazi`s had followed the old Domino theory and captured one country at a time there was no standing Airforce in Europe that could stand before the battle hardened Luftwaffe.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 9, 2007)

America got involved in the fight in Europe because the German's declared war on them... 

The American's certainly didn't get the bomb from the Germans (why??), the were given an insight by British scientists and were given these papers as well as a Cavity Magnetron (remarkable piece of engineering).

What ifs are kind of pointless in this thread as it is about the best with what they had overall and the case for Germany was time and time again too little too late.

Lead Lease was agreed to be free, the loans we have paid back in full with 2% interest were from the Marshall Plan. We are not going to pay the American's back for lead-lease especially this late after the war...

Agreed, the Germans had the best aircraft. On the pilot front each nation had well trained pilots (with the exception of the Japanese at the end of the war and most of the Russians), yes the Germans had experienced pilots because they were forced to be in combat without leave, the Allies took leave thus less time in combat. As for training the Germans didn't have a program at the end because of Allied air superiority and so for overall training program it has to be the American's and the Commonwealth.

The German war in Europe was lost because of lack of numbers and equipment with poor leadership playing only a part. The Germans did follow the domino theory until the ran up against the British whom the failed to defeat with the majority of the Luftwaffe. Hitler having felt he a nullified the threat turned his attention to Russia and we know how that went...

The Allied airforces stood up to the Luftwaffe perfectly well. Just because you have the best pilots and best aircraft doesn't mean you can win against superior numbers of slightly inferior aircraft and pilots of a similar calibre. The Allies did stand against the Battle hardened Luftwaffe despite them using the domino theory so that last sentence is bullsh*t...


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 9, 2007)

As far as lend lease goes (as given by Glider on another thread)

End of Lend Lease
Just picked an interesting point, which is in December this year the UK will pay the final installment of the Lend Lease debt incurred during and after WW2. The original debt was I believe around $31,000,000,000 dollars and the final $80,000,000 will be paid off at the end of the year.

No one from the UK Goverment has offically said what the final bill will be, as interest was added from the start, but the final figures, will we are told, be broken down at the end of the year. Should be interesting.

Its complicated as other debts were added to the lend lease bill which had differing rates of interest. The original lend lease was at 2%. The December Payment is the final payment for all the UK debts to the USA.


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 9, 2007)

Yep the allies stood against Germany. But again no one country in Europe could have stood against the German Luftwaffe. It took several to defeat them.

And I could of sworn it was Pearl Harbor that brought America into the war.

I guess history books are different where you are.

As to the Lend Lease program. An old debt is still a debt. And a welcher is always a welcher.

And "The Bomb", I guess you never heard of New Mexico or Verner Von Braum?

Rall


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 9, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> As far as lend lease goes (as given by Glider on another thread)
> 
> End of Lend Lease
> Just picked an interesting point, which is in December this year the UK will pay the final installment of the Lend Lease debt. The December Payment is the final payment for all the UK debts to the USA.



~S~ Hunter
I had not heard that.
Thanks for the info.
Rall


----------



## bigZ (Mar 9, 2007)

Ral this may make some intresting reading.

Britain and the atomic bomb Brian Cathcart - openDemocracy

As reagrding debts and old scores. If I was to use your mentality. How about us Brits claiming £10,000 plus compound interest for criminal damage in 1773. Wasn't that all about not wanting to pay your dues? 

This country is very much indebted to Roosevelt and the US people regarding the Lend Lease and the Marshall Plan please dont try and degrade it with your ill informed opinion. Without both of these Europe would have plunged back into a Post War depression which would have effected Americia.

Verner Von Braun had nothing to do with the A bomb.

Sorry to admin and all other members for straying.


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 9, 2007)

BigZ,
I`ll take a look at that URL.
My mentality,and ill informed opinion. Haha,hehe.
Whats the matter? Am I rubbing you the wrong way, I sense that ol, colonial slave mentality creeping up.
When the American revolutionary war was fought it was fought over taxation without representation. Against an oppressive Imperialistic nation. The Americans just stopped paying tribute to King George.
Funny though, Even two hundred years ago America was kicking ass on tyrants.
Rall


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

Gnomey...."The Allied airforces stood up to the Luftwaffe perfectly well. Just because you have the best pilots and best aircraft doesn't mean you can win against superior numbers of slightly inferior aircraft and pilots of a similar calibre. The Allies did stand against the Battle hardened Luftwaffe despite them using the domino theory so that last sentence is bullsh*t..."

The Allies had just as many skilled pilots as the Luftwaffe. Just because your a German pilot doesnt automatically make you a superior pilot. 

Plus the allies had plenty of types of aircraft that were better than their German counterparts DEPENDING ON THE MISSION.

The LW was completely overwhelmed by atrition, poor leadership and misplaced industrial policies.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> BigZ,
> I`ll take a look at that URL.
> My mentality,and ill informed opinion. Haha,hehe.
> Whats the matter? Am I rubbing you the wrong way, I sense that ol, colonial slave mentality creeping up.
> ...


Not to rub you the wrong way Rall but I take a little exception to your view of historyyou certainly wouldn't hurt yourself by reading some


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

Lets get back to the subject matter.

Anyone who thinks the best AF of WW2, wasnt the US, lets hear your reasons (even if its again).


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 9, 2007)

Okay guys,
I got Von Bruan mixed up with Oppenheimer. It was a Brit that discovered the power in the Atom. I guess since its been over 20 years since I read about the Manhatten project, my memory of what I read has become clouded. Oops! Guess I will be reading a bit, LOL
I still say one on one the Luftwaffe would have been able to defeat any aiforce in existence. It was the combination of several countrys air forces that defeated the Luftwaffe. I read about airpower quite a lot and that is fresh in the old mind.
Rall


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Gnomey...."The Allied airforces stood up to the Luftwaffe perfectly well. Just because you have the best pilots and best aircraft doesn't mean you can win against superior numbers of slightly inferior aircraft and pilots of a similar calibre. The Allies did stand against the Battle hardened Luftwaffe despite them using the domino theory so that last sentence is bullsh*t..."
> 
> The Allies had just as many skilled pilots as the Luftwaffe. Just because your a German pilot doesnt automatically make you a superior pilot.
> 
> ...



Read further on and I say the allies had pilots of the same calibre. Every nation has good pilots and pilots.

Agreed but in terms of interceptors and bomber destroyers the Germans were the best.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 9, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> As far as lend lease goes (as given by Glider on another thread)
> 
> End of Lend Lease
> Just picked an interesting point, which is in December this year the UK will pay the final installment of the Lend Lease debt incurred during and after WW2. The original debt was I believe around $31,000,000,000 dollars and the final $80,000,000 will be paid off at the end of the year.
> ...



You need to read Gnomey entry right before yours. Lend Lease for war effort was forgiven. What was paid back was post war recovery money borrowed by Great Britain.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Agreed but in terms of interceptors and bomber destroyers the Germans were the best.



I will agree with you on that.


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, that is a good point. Also, technology wise the Germans definetely are on top. The Messerschmitt Me262 was a brilliant aircraft, but Hitler didnt realise its potential soon enough.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> Yes, that is a good point. Also, technology wise the Germans definetely are on top. The Messerschmitt Me262 was a brilliant aircraft, but Hitler didnt realise its potential soon enough.



But there is more to what makes an air force superior besides having a 6 month advantage in jets.

The US and/or Britain also had crucial technological leads in manufacturing, radar, high octane avgas, computing gunsights, gee suits, long range navigation aids, carrier technology, transports, blah blah blah.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2007)

Agreed 100% sys...


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

I would liike to close this thread with the comment

*GOERING WAS A BIG FAT IDIOT...*

And Rudolph Galland would agree.. (slamming his medals down on the desk)-
nuff said..


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 10, 2007)

The JAPANESE Airforce was TOTALLY the best!They had honour,guts,and good planes!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> The JAPANESE Airforce was TOTALLY the best!They had honour,guts,and good planes!


AND THEY LOST!

next.........


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 10, 2007)

I hope that guy was trying to be funny, otherwise I'd say he was worthy of a 24 hour suspension for stupidity.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 10, 2007)

Im in agreement with u sys...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

Me too...

I think we should redeem him if he voluntarily hits himself in the head with a claw hammer.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

He could have gone to the Udvar Hazy center (Smithsonian @Dulles) and at least gotton a photo of the real thing

Kugisho Okha 22


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

I cant believe that guy! Wow! I allways think I have heard it all and then someone else comes along!
Udvar Hazy Center is great. Went there on vacation a few years ago when I got back from Iraq.


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 11, 2007)

Jackson,
Your certainly right about that. Did you know that his position was not even a miltary rank but a political appointment. Of course the problems with the Luftwaffe were not soley his fault. Hitlers interference in the development of the Me-262 was a prime example of the ineptitude of German leadership and their lack of understanding of what real air power is.

BTW it was Adolf Galland not Rudolf! 

About the Japanese Suicide bomb. A friend of mine is designing one for CFS1. Its not ready for release yet. But, I tested it and its a fun plane to fly.

And I thought maybe you guys might like to see a pic of one of the german sicide planes.

Rall


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

The Luftwaffe never used any suicide planes as far as I know.


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2007)

there were NO German suicide planes, this is a bogus V-1 experiment. It was talked and even in the planning stages. If anything suicidal it was the stupid Rammkommando Elbe mission and the last of the silly missions against the Oder bridges to keep the Soviets out


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

Well, there was Kommando Elbe...


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2007)

but the original plan was not to be suicide. it is the same with the written document for the Sturmgruppen pilots that the Gruppenkommandeurs did not force their pilots to sign ....... at all costs bring down a heavy bomber even by ramming as the last cause. The pilots were too valuable the a/c were not. Kornatski who came up with the insane idea later became leader of II.Sturm/JG 4 falling in their second mission so it is just as well the guy was a certified kook.

the for the Rammkommando Elbe it was volunteer to shave the tails off the B-17's and bail out. there may have been 4 kills if that on the April 45 mission most were shot down as they were only armed with mg 131's and no cannons. I've had very lengthy conversations with my friend F.M. who was part of this crazy idea and who has a wealth of info on the mission and the participants


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Yes but with that the pilots were supposed to bail out before impact with the bomber. The Germans were not keen on suicide like the Japanese.


----------



## Udet (Mar 11, 2007)

Japanese air force the best...Rudolph Galland...

Ummm, what the hell is going on here? Was there some party or gathering where legal and illegal substances were distributed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

Udet said:


> Japanese air force the best...Rudolph Galland...
> 
> Ummm, what the hell is going on here? Was there some party or gathering where legal and illegal substances were distributed?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Sure seems like it huh.


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2007)

Received a message from someone who read my comment saying the Red Army with its huge size was essential in the balance attained by the allied nations to in the end defeat Germany.

He told me that in all 61 divisions were fielded by the U.S. Army in the ETO alone, which is by no means a "small" presence. I agree, and also those divisions were used to open new fronts in North Africa/Mediterranean and later in Normany, giving a great aid to the Red Army.

Still, the ones willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIAs were the soviets, but the remark is accurate and welcome.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2007)

Udet said:


> Still, the ones willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIAs were the soviets, but the remark is accurate and welcome.



I never dimish Russia's role in final victory in WW2 (not saying you are). But to say they were "willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIA" not sure if I 100% agree with that or I would perhaps ask you to explain that comment in more detail. I think they were forced to suffer like they did do to the nature of their army, AF and the fact that the Eastern front was so brutal, it was kill or be killed. 

It is an interesting idea to think about actually, why was it so brutal compared to the western front (list reasons why I think but lets see what others think also)?


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2007)

A lot of people seem to think that the BOB was the sole reason that Hitler gave up any plan to invade England. I don't mean to deprecate what the RAF accomplished in the BOB. The effort was magnificent but they did not decimate the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical air force and was not really suited to the task it undertook. The factor that saved Britain from invasion was the age-old English channel and the Royal Navy. In 1940 the German Navy had not the ability to protect an invasion fleet from being sunk by the Royal Navy as long as the RAF could put up even a small amont of support for the Navy. If the RAF during the BOB had been in dire enough straits they could have withdrawn the bulk of their fighters out of range of the Luftwaffe until they were needed to help counter a cross channel invasion. Even without air support it is not a foregone conclusion the Royal Navy couldn't have defeated a German invasion force. I think the German planners realised this and the cool headed ones always realised they had not much of a chance to invade the British Isles.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2007)

That has been discussed indepth before renrich. The saviour of the British Isles in 1940 was the English Channel and RAF. The Royal Navy did not need to partcipate because the Royal Air Force deprived Germany of the air support. 

In my opinion there are only two air forces that could be in the running for number one spot; that would be the USAAF and RAF. Even disregarding the actions of these two forces they provide the framework for a well-rounded, well-organised air force. 

Both the USAAF and RAF had tactical and strategic force in mind. This generated effective ground support for troops and devestating strategic bombardment. No other air force provided strategic arms like these two did and, in fact, no other air force except the Luftwaffe provided tactical organisation on the level of the 9th US Air Force and 2nd Tactical Air Force. 

Taking the tactical side alone the USAAF and RAF provided much better support to their troops than any other air force. And could operate in the battlefield for a longer time due to the two party movement system with the battlelines. The Luftwaffe never did this so when a group moved, it would all have to move which took it out of the battle for a few, maybe crucial, days. 
No other air force had the organisation of these tactical forces. The Ninth Air Force, as well as 2nd TAF, were organised in a manner that left them seperate from any strategic attacks on the enemy. Given transport, light bombers, medium bombers, fighter-bombers and fighters these units were from one command that co-ordinated the operations to near perfection. 

While the tactical side offered pure tactical support, the strategic arm of these forces act seperately but with equal skill and determination. It is this strategic arm that no other air force could match. Without the heavy bombers with doctrine, organisation and fighter escort to support - no other air force could be recommended for No.1. 

The logistics provided to both these forces was immense and amazing. Both countries kept their forces supplied throughout the globe from Duxford to Ramat David to Rangoon. From Los Angeles to Kiska to Iwo Jima. 

No other air force could do this. No other air force rounded itself to the task of strategic and tactical support, no other air force operated in every task in every theatre. 

So, it's close between them both. But I have to vote for the USAAF because while it was behind the RAF in 1939 - overall it achieved something the RAF never did. The USAAF operated both tactical and strategic arms in every theatre it was fighting in, the RAF only operated tactically except in North-West Europe.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 21, 2007)

k good, im not the only who voted RCAF, i voted USAAF and RAF too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

And you can only vote once so I will take one of those away. Knowing you, you want to keep RAF though correct. If not let me know and I will change it to the USAAF.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 21, 2007)

oh so were being generalizing now eh? lol yeah well change it to USAAF, because its true


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

No problem.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 4, 2007)

I would go USAAF as it was able to beat back air power in the Pacific and the European Theatre Of War at the same time. Of course it had help but by and large the USAAF was a big part in helping win WWII. Aircover was especially important in D-Day and the move through Europe. It stopped the German tanks getting through in large numbers. Also in the Pacific it devastated Japanese positions and supported the invading forces in their island hopping.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

Jeez - I didn't see a catagory for JNAF and JAF or RAF and Fleet AF or LW and Kriegsmarine?

Anybody for looking at American Air Force and ready for a Debate?

Any Air force whether seaborne, England based, italy based, Pacific island based, Carrier Based, China based and America based compare to USA after 1942? Not disputing RAF or USSR ot LW or Japanese strength in 1943 but where were they globally and in what strength (and quality)? 

Relative to 1942 can you illustrate a national air presence that accomplished the quantum leaps from 1942 to 1943 to 1944 like America?

Is there any question - really?

I know - I'm breathing my own air again...

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

Sorry for interrupting fellow intellectuals.... I might have missed it but, how many of these operated under all the worst conditions? Luftwaffe you found in the desert, freezing winter in Russia, in the hot and humid djungle, don't think so. USAAF, you found in the djungle, desert but not in the freezing Russian winter... How would USAAF have handled the winter with temperatures below -30 and -40 and how would Luftwaffe have handled djungle fighting? As you fellas know I'm here to learn and share a few steady more or less legal flowing.....well you know.  Who's buying the next round?

Just remembered, Aleutians(?) were they comparable with the easternfront weatherwise? You also found the USN out in the Atlantinc, you know what I mean.


----------



## flojo (Jun 5, 2007)

To make a point for the Luftwaffe I want to remark that the V2 was the only modern strategic strike capability available to any nation at the end of WW2. It could reach GB unpunished while the allied offensive with heavy bombers against Germany made a massive air superiority with respect to escort fighters necessary to work. Of course startegic rocket forces were in a state of infancy at that time but as history had shown it was the direction to develop further (and unfortunately the thing every mad dictator all over the world is also longing to possess today).


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Sorry for interrupting fellow intellectuals.... I might have missed it but, how many of these operated under all the worst conditions? Luftwaffe you found in the desert, freezing winter in Russia, in the hot and humid djungle, don't think so. USAAF, you found in the djungle, desert but not in the freezing Russian winter... How would USAAF have handled the winter with temperatures below -30 and -40 and how would Luftwaffe have handled djungle fighting? As you fellas know I'm here to learn and share a few steady more or less legal flowing.....well you know.  Who's buying the next round?
> 
> Just remembered, Aleutians(?) were they comparable with the easternfront weatherwise? You also found the USN out in the Atlantinc, you know what I mean.



The RAF operated in all these environments and USAF aircraft operated in Russia although operated by Russia, so I don't see any difficulty in the USA also operating in these conditions. Also I don't see why Germany should have any difficulty operating in the Jungle, the difference in mainly tactics and the Ju87 would have been almost ideal for accurate GA work in the Jungle.

Any reason why they shouldn't be able to?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

Not at all Glider. If you're gonna compare Air Forces, I just wanted to see if they operated under similar conditions you know....
Feel free to cerrect me if I'm wrong here, but I think that the Russian anf Finnish Air Force were the only ones operating close to and above the Polarcircle, right?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2007)

flojo said:


> To make a point for the Luftwaffe I want to remark that the V2 was the only modern strategic strike capability available to any nation at the end of WW2. It could reach GB unpunished while the allied offensive with heavy bombers against Germany made a massive air superiority with respect to escort fighters necessary to work. Of course startegic rocket forces were in a state of infancy at that time but as history had shown it was the direction to develop further (and unfortunately the thing every mad dictator all over the world is also longing to possess today).



Thankfully Flojo the US had a 'modern' strategic capability (that trumped the LW V2) that was never used more than twice... and every mad dictator and terrorist wants one of those even by 1945 standards, even more than the V2.

I didn't mention it in my earlier post but does any AF discussed, relative to WWII, have the strategic power of one US XXI BC B-29 named the Enola Gay on the morning of August 6, 1945? 

If the Poll Question was "Which AF was greatest on 3 September, 1939 versus which one was most powerful on September 2, 1945" I would have a different answer

But the world view of what airpower "meant" changed very dramatically on 6 August, 1945 

Respectfully,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Not at all Glider. If you're gonna compare Air Forces, I just wanted to see if they operated under similar conditions you know....
> Feel free to cerrect me if I'm wrong here, but I think that the Russian anf Finnish Air Force were the only ones operating close to and above the Polarcircle, right?



The US had the 11th AF in Alaska.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

Ok, cheers Syscom...


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Not at all Glider. If you're gonna compare Air Forces, I just wanted to see if they operated under similar conditions you know....
> Feel free to cerrect me if I'm wrong here, but I think that the Russian anf Finnish Air Force were the only ones operating close to and above the Polarcircle, right?



Almost, but not quite. The RAF flew with the Russians for a while, initially to show them what the RAF aircraft could do and then assist the Russians with the influx of British leand lease aircraft.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 5, 2007)

ok, cheers Glider...


----------



## flojo (Jun 6, 2007)

I expected that somebody immediately would refer to the A-bomb in reaction to my post drgondog. If the question would have been which military force was the most powerful I would of course rate the A-bomb as much more important than the ballistic rocket. But I think that an A-bomb in principle is no airforce device per se but could be also used by Navy, Army etc. Ballistic missiles on the other hand traditionally afaik belong to the air force branch in most countries. Nevertheless, I my opinion this poll is senseless in the way that we never will all agree which air force was best mainly because we not even will agree on the criterions to decide this. But this poll is very worthy to surface new aspects not everybody has thought before. Because of that I wanted to mentioned that since the beginning of 1944 there were also other possibilities to gain a strategic strike capability besides the classic heavybomber force.



drgondog said:


> Thankfully Flojo the US had a 'modern' strategic capability (that trumped the LW V2) that was never used more than twice... and every mad dictator and terrorist wants one of those even by 1945 standards, even more than the V2.
> 
> I didn't mention it in my earlier post but does any AF discussed, relative to WWII, have the strategic power of one US XXI BC B-29 named the Enola Gay on the morning of August 6, 1945?
> 
> ...


----------



## Schmeck (Jun 6, 2007)

I say Luftwaffe they fought well for being outnumbered most of the war, also they got some good aces.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

Schmeck said:


> I say Luftwaffe they fought well for being outnumbered most of the war, also they got some good aces.



But the LW was lacking in the following area's:

1) Naval aviation in all catagories
2) Transports
3) Heavy bombers
4) Training large numbers of pilots
5) A strategic doctrine


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Flojo - you have good points about ballistic missles and also about the framework of the debate.

What I would have said in the context of 'Best' is that the debate could have been framed along the lines of Best by Different Categories as a function of time.

But having said that no matter how you rank it as long as you are objective (about production, performance, numbers, etc) in each category the existance of the V1, as important of that manefestation of technology was for good and bad for mankind) was barely and marginally describable as 'strategic. 

Certainly the A4 extends the footprint and certainly possession of the nuclear capability to couple with the A4 ,(wasn't that the multiple stage version? - CRS) that would then change the dynamics of a poll like this but I don't see how it alters the results for a snapshot in time (during WWII).

If a debate like this reduced to some boundary conditions proposed by Syscom even the most ardent despiser of US airpower ranking at the end of 1944, much less 1945 could not conclude otherwise.

In contrast with Germany (forget about numbers for the moment) US had the most powerful fleet arm, capable of projecting great power away from land range of US Army, offensively and defensively (against the U-Boat); 

it had a great Logistics Command capable of the Berlin airlift in the foreseeable future with same mix, it had massive delivery of airborne divisions (and the Only Airborne Divisions that never suffered defeat in WWII - east or west); 

it had strategic bomber force (I will concede the He177 Finally as an excellent bomber but sadly never viewed by the luftwaffe in that way - dive brakes for crissake!) which only the RAF could remotely come close to - and that was in comparison with 8th AF alone

It had strategic escort fighters and interceptors on par or close in performance if beaten individually

It had great TACair, again which the USSR and/or RAF could approximate in mix and quality

I won't bore you as I already have with discussion of the medium bomber strike forces (in number alone Army/Navy/USMC combined) starts to approximate the tonnage capability of than RAF Bomber Command in 1945)

I would say Luftwaffe wins hands down September 1939 with Japan second
, RAF third, US and maybe Italy fourth and USSR last.

In 1945 I would rank US, RAF(combined w/Empire) , USSR, LW, Japan 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Good post.

I agree with you fully. 

In 1939 the Luftwaffe was the premier air fleet, but by 1945 the best was the US hands down. It certainly had the best bomber fleet and it did have the long range escorts to follow them.

If you count the US Navy in with this the US Air fleets could be projected litterally anywhere in the world.

I am not talking aircraft here per say but just the capabilities of the air forces. 1945 US has it hands down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2007)

Agree.......


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

Same here....


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Agreed here as-well.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 7, 2007)

And here.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would say Luftwaffe wins hands down September 1939 with Japan second
> , RAF third, US and maybe Italy fourth and USSR last.



This is the only bit I would disagree with. Remembering that in 1939 the Japanese had no Zeros's or Ki43's they would be a distant third behind the Luftwaffe and the RAF.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

The LW also continued to be the best until 1942-43 where numerically they just couldn't keep up anymore. The fact hat the LW lacked carriers I don't see as such a big minus until the USSR was defeated, after which a fleet of carriers would be of importance.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Glider good point. Soren I have zero problem conceding Luftwaffe superiority thru 1942 - all of 43 debateable but ?? dunno

Glider, I positioned the Japanese 'Air' because they did have formidable Carrier ability - ahead of the RAF who were still not totally accepting the notion (until Ark Royal? and Prince of Wales)

The greatest relative discussion I have seen so far about Britain's State of Readiness is in Churchill's Gathering Storm volume. He was the only leader pounding the table in 1938.. but I don't feel passionate enough on the difference to argue your point of view

Regards,

Bill


----------



## flojo (Jun 10, 2007)

Thinking about this poll it came into my mind that the RAF was probably the airforce in WW2 managing to incoporate the most foreign flyers into it's ranks (not sure if perhaps USSR had more). Especially at BoB time with the highly refined air-ground coordination the RAF fighter force had this was a remarkable achievement. But o.k. - if I would be a national command authority somewhere and could choose one of the airforces from 1945 including their industrial base and logistic support services I of course would decide for the US.


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider, I positioned the Japanese 'Air' because they did have formidable Carrier ability - ahead of the RAF who were still not totally accepting the notion (until Ark Royal? and Prince of Wales)
> 
> Bill



Make it a close third then


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2007)

I'd still like to see Soren explain the LW's dominance in the following fields:

Long range fighters that were effective in their role.

Heavy bombers

Transports, both tactical and long range (for the era)

Long range maritime patrol

Industrial and production methodologies that could build a single factory to build a 4 engined bomber at a rate of 1 per hour

Industrial and infrastructure capability to not only build two types of existing heavy bombers by the hundreds per week, but also design and put into mass production a 3rd heavy bomber that was "next generation"

Training infrastructure that could produce thousands of decent pilots per month.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I'd still like to see Soren explain the LW's dominance in the following fields:
> 
> Long range fighters that were effective in their role.
> 
> ...



I too am in the conclusion and have allways been that the US was the best airforce of WW2 but just to answer a few of the above things:

Transports, both tactical and long range (for the era): Luftwaffe had many good transports:

Junkers Ju 52
Arado Ar 232
Gotha Go 244
Junkers Ju 290
Messerschmitt Me 323

Long range maritime patrol:

(Lots of maritime patrol aircraft but I will only list the long range types)

Blohm Und Voss BV 138 (range 4,023km (2,500 miles)
Blohm Und Voss Ha 139 (range 3,075 miles (4948km)
Blohm und Voss Bv 222 (range 6100km (3,790 mph) and an endurance of 28hr)
Blohm Und Voss Bv 238 (range: 3,790 miles (6100km)
Dornier Do 18 (range: 2,175 miles (3,500km)
Dornier Do 22 (range: 1,429 miles (2,300km)
Dornier Do 24 (range: 2,950 miles (4750km) *INHO was better than the Catalina, and she is also very beautiful! 8) *
Dornier Do 26 (range: 7100 km (4,412 miles)
Heinkel He 115 (range: 3,300km (2,050 miles)


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well here is how I look at it. I think the Luftwaffe had the best aircraft and innovations as Comiso said. However my vote has to go to the USAAF for only one reason and one reason alone.
> 
> It was able to take the battle to the Germans. Without that, the Luftwaffe may have prevailed in my opinion.



I truly agree but would also add that US also took the Battle to Japanese everywhere including homeland when no other Airpower could.. with one hand tied behind the back while the bigger hand was in ETO. (And the USMC and the USN has to be counted in the AirPower equation with its marvelous little floating airfields)

I am not downplaying the role of ANZAC forces or RAF in Pacific - they simply were not equipped for long range daylight assaults nor did they have the material resources.

Actually in 1943 you could easily debate RAF/Germany/US Airpower as "strongest" then the US pulls away in late 1943. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Actually in 1943 you could easily debate RAF/Germany/US Airpower as "strongest" then the US pulls away in late 1943.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



I agree


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 13, 2007)

But still the USAF was fighting on both the European Front and the Pacific Front of the war and winning. Surely that makes them a better airforce than the Germans who were fighting on one front and the Japanese who were fighting on another front. That is equivalent to taking on two big tough opponents and wiping the floor with them what the US eventually did. Sure it did get a bit of a bruising early on but it overcame two major airforces at the same time!


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> But still the USAF was fighting on both the European Front and the Pacific Front of the war and winning. Surely that makes them a better airforce than the Germans who were fighting on one front and the Japanese who were fighting on another front. That is equivalent to taking on two big tough opponents and wiping the floor with them what the US eventually did. Sure it did get a bit of a bruising early on but it overcame two major airforces at the same time!



I think you may have forgotten the Russian front


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> But still the USAF was fighting on both the European Front and the Pacific Front of the war and winning. Surely that makes them a better airforce than the Germans who were fighting on one front and the Japanese who were fighting on another front. That is equivalent to taking on two big tough opponents and wiping the floor with them what the US eventually did. Sure it did get a bit of a bruising early on but it overcame two major airforces at the same time!



I think that if you go and read the threads you will see that almost everyone is in agreement that the US had the best airforce of WW2.

However as Glider pointed out the US was not the airforce that was fighting on several fronts.

*Luftwaffe*
West Front
East Front
Med/N. Africa Front
Atlantic

*RAF/Royal Navy*
West Front
N. Atlantic
Med/N. Africa Front
Pacific
Burma

RAF was fighting the Japanese, Germans, Italians and several other Airforces

Luftwaffe was fighting the RAF, US, Russians and basically everyone else that was not Japan or Italy.

Japan was fighting the RAF, US and a slew of other countries as well.

See what I am getting at...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2007)

USAAF was fighting in:

Med: 12th and 15th AF
Western Europe: 8th and 9th AF

PTO: 5th, 7th,11th and 13th AF
CBI: 10 and 14th AF

20th AF over Japan.

And these totals dont include the air transport service that wasnt officially part of any AF (in the theaters). And it also doesnt include the naval units in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean that flew 4 engine bombers on sub hunting patrols.


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 16, 2007)

I went for RAF. My grandpa (who was JABO starting in 1943) always said that the battle of britain was were they screwed up big-time and affected the entire outcome. Although now that I think about it the USAAF was better (planes, tactics)... Damn.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 17, 2007)

Ok, but you have to admit that the weight of US Airpower in both sectors at once did affect the outcome quite substantially. Also I take the Best WWII airforce to mean the one that can best achieve its outcomes so that would be the US.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2007)

And I voted for the US as well, but if u think in terms of the entire conflict, the Germans completely ruled the skies in the beginnings of the War... 

The Stuka in its prime????

Come on...

Had the LW been run by someone other than The Fat One, things really could have worked out differently in the latter years of the War... I think everyone knows that already but....


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 19, 2007)

The LW would have really had a rough time later on as they were really getting out-classed due to smaller potential aircraft flights. It would have required the Germans not losing the oil-fields of Potez to be able to continue to carry out their offensives. The Stuka was past its prime, so was the He-111, the Bf-109 was okay but it was starting to just about hit the wall in terms of potential performance upgrades in 1944-1945. Also if we are assuming history stayed relatively similar up to a point, the Germans had no chance really without oil. That was why the Battle Of The Bulge was launched- a last dying attempt to snatch a stalemate from the jaws of defeat which failed. Also they were losing experienced pilots to US escort planes and bomber crews. These pilots weren't quite as easy to replace due to problems with getting the oil through to run these aircraft and bombers. Therefore once the oil fields were bombed, in 1943, the LW really didn't have that much of a chance of outright victory.


----------



## trackend (Jun 20, 2007)

I am undecided. In terms of equipment and organization I say the US the Commonwealth forces where so intermixed I think its hard to pick one for example my uncle was a Wellington pilot flying with the RAF. English he was trained in Canada and had a mixed crew at one time or another of British ,Australian Canadian It was very much a joint effort .
The Luftwaffe although excellent for Blitzkrieg never had the force in depth required for an extended campaign so IMO lacked the Organizational requirements so aptly displayed by the US.
As for pure pilot ability no overall nation comes out on top, each having good and poor flyer's. The BOB was a major turning point but I believe as much credit has to go to the organization of the tactics and that 20 odd miles of water as should go to the pilots for the victory.
So overall I probably lean slightly in favour of the US


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2007)

trackend said:


> I am undecided. In terms of equipment and organization I say the US the Commonwealth forces where so intermixed I think its hard to pick one for example my uncle was a Wellington pilot flying with the RAF. English he was trained in Canada and had a mixed crew at one time or another of British ,Australian Canadian It was very much a joint effort .
> The Luftwaffe although excellent for Blitzkrieg never had the force in depth required for an extended campaign so IMO lacked the Organizational requirements so aptly displayed by the US.
> As for pure pilot ability no overall nation comes out on top, each having good and poor flyer's. The BOB was a major turning point but I believe as much credit has to go to the organization of the tactics and that 20 odd miles of water as should go to the pilots for the victory.
> So overall I probably lean slightly in favour of the US



Slightly?

The US completely dominated all the other nations when it came to production and supply of aircraft of all types, not to mention the training of tens of thousands of pilots and ground crews that were of overall good quality.


----------



## trackend (Jun 20, 2007)

That's what I said sys best and size are not in separable.


----------



## Paul Krumrei (Jun 21, 2007)

Acutually should it not be the USAAF? Not the Air Force?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2007)

Paul Krumrei said:


> Acutually should it not be the USAAF? Not the Air Force?



People are taking in a informal general way about the Airforces (Army, Navy, and Marine Corps) of the US therefore Air *Force* as in Forces of the Air.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2007)

I have to bud in here..

How do you define the *best* airforce of WWII ??:

1. The best performing AF of the war ?
2. The most advanced AF of the war ?
3. The best equipped AF of the war ?
4. The most successful AF in terms of the total outcome of the war ?
5. The largest AF of the war ?

In my opinion its very hard to define which AirForce was the *best* of the war as its a combination of many things. The US no doubt held the advantage in terms of numbers of aircraft available, but Germany fielded better more advanced a/c and Britain did in some areas as-well - the British, Japanese and US fielded carriers though. Other things that have to be taken into account is pilot training, service field service of a/c, AF doctrine etc etc... how else do you define the *best* airforce of WW2 ??

Perhaps the title should be the most powerful airforce of WW2 ??


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 21, 2007)

> 1. The best performing AF of the war ?



The US incorporated all theories (pre-war and "during the war") of air warfare into a successfull doctrine. The LW was lacking in strategic vision and logistics.



> 2. The most advanced AF of the war ?



For every advanced weapon the LW had, the US had others. Want to talk bombers Soren? Tell me about the LW 4 engined bombers that were the equivelant of the Lanc/B17/B24/B32 and B29. Long range fighters? What was the LW equivelant of the P38 and P51 (and of course the P47N) in terms of range and being able to fight with a good probability you wouldnt be shot down. Want to talk about long range navigation? LORAN was a US invention. Did Germany have anything similar? Aviation Fuels? The US was mass producing hi octane av gas by the tanker load long before the Germans did.



> 3. The best equipped AF of the war ?



The USAAF was so well equiped from 1944 onwards, it dwarfed the other combatants. Soren, did you know that in 1945, B24 groups in the Pacific were told not to waste to much time fixing the damaged bombers as it was easier to get a brand new one than repair them.



> 4. The most successful AF in terms of the total outcome of the war ?



The B29 with an atomic bomb sort of proves the USAAF was on top for your comment.



> 5. The largest AF of the war ?



By 1944, the USAAF was the largest in the world in 1944. In 1945 it was even larger. Then figure in how many aircraft were built for the navy (of which Germany didnt have to use resources for), and the size of the combined army and navy air forces was staggering.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2007)

Soren said:


> I have to bud in here..
> 
> How do you define the *best* airforce of WWII ??:
> 
> ...



The best airforce should be the one that has the most capability and can project its power the most.

In the beginning of the war that would have been the Luftwaffe but by the late parts of the war the US takes its place and never lets go and has been the most powerful, most capable and most projectable force the world has ever seen.


----------



## trackend (Jun 22, 2007)

Sorry guys if I pushed the thread off in a bit of a tangent.


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 22, 2007)

go the RAAF, even though it was all USAAF in the pacific,europe,north africa etc.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The US incorporated all theories (pre-war and "during the war") of air warfare into a successfull doctrine. The LW was lacking in strategic vision and logistics.



Thats very untrue and you can't back it up one bit.



> For every advanced weapon the LW had, the US had others.



Complete and utter BS on your part Syscom3 !

The US had NO answer to the Me-262, Ar-234 Ta-152H-1 just to name a few. 



> Want to talk bombers Soren? Tell me about the LW 4 engined bombers that were the equivelant of the Lanc/B17/B24/B32 and B29.




Sure:

Ju-388
Ju-390
Ju-290

He-277 - top speed 570 km/h !:






He-177 Greif - top speed 565 km/h ! (Twin engined):





Both able to carry a bigger bomb load than any Allied bomber.




> Long range fighters? What was the LW equivelant of the P38 and P51 (and of course the P47N) in terms of range and being able to fight with a good probability you wouldnt be shot down.



The Ta-152H-1 beats them all on a massive scale.



> Want to talk about long range navigation? LORAN was a US invention. Did Germany have anything similar?



Ever hear of Naxos Z ???

Also want to talk about infrared equipment, accoustic homing torpedoes, guided misiles bombs, AA misiles, homing AT misiles, rocket science, Jet science, motion detection sensors ?? Thats right, the Germans were way ahead in all areas !



> Aviation Fuels? The US was mass producing hi octane av gas by the tanker load long before the Germans did.



Christ Syscom3 

The Germans were using synthetic fuel ! (Which the Allies were eager knowing how to make btw)

Oh and besides the lower octane figure take a look at the power levels achieved by German engines, thats right they superceded any Allied engine - and thats not all, the German engines could be run for over 10min on full boost, the Allied engines for only 5min or you'd risk wrecking the engine.



> The USAAF was so well equiped from 1944 onwards, it dwarfed the other combatants.



I don't think you understand what well equipped means - well equipped means you have a good and dependable tool for every necessary action.



> The B29 with an atomic bomb sort of proves the USAAF was on top for your comment.



No it doesn't, the Germans knew about this long before the Americans, however again Hitler didn't like the Idea and rejected it, the Americans had to ship German scientists to fully understand the theory and realize it.



> By 1944, the USAAF was the largest in the world in 1944. In 1945 it was even larger. Then figure in how many aircraft were built for the navy (of which Germany didnt have to use resources for), and the size of the combined army and navy air forces was staggering.



The USAAF was definitely the largest AF no doubt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2007)

Soren how many of the Ju-388, Ju 390, Ju 290, and He 277s were bombing allied targets?

Sorry the Luftwaffe did not have anything to match the B-17, Lancasters and B-24s.

The bombers they did have that were just as good they did not have eneogh of.

So yes syscom is correct, the Luftwaffe did not have anything on the large bomber type aircraft that could compare.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren how many of the Ju-388, Ju 390, Ju 290, and He 277s were bombing allied targets?
> 
> Sorry the Luftwaffe did not have anything to match the B-17, Lancasters and B-24s.
> 
> ...



We weren't talking numbers Adler.

The He-177 He-277 were both superior to any Allied bomber of WW2, that there weren't enough is another matter.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> We weren't talking numbers Adler.
> 
> The He-177 He-277 were both superior to any Allied bomber of WW2, that there weren't enough is another matter.


Better in the fact they made better holes in the ground you must admit that the LW did not possess any credible Stategic or Heavy bombers I do believe even Canada fielded a larger heavy bomber component


----------



## Glider (Jun 24, 2007)

I think that the case is being pushed a little hard. The He177 as we all know had a large number of problems, some self inflicted (coupled engines) others forced on the design team (Dive bombing) and shouldn't be considered the equal of the B24/B17/Lancaster. It just had too many bugs.
The He277 is what the He177 should have been all along, a bit like the Manchester to the Lancaster and I do not doubt that it would have been a very capable bomber. However to say that it matched the B29 is going too far, its more similar to the Lincoln development of the Lancaster


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2007)

Soren, their was absolutley no strategic vision in the LW. Period. End of story. 



> The US had NO answer to the Me-262, Ar-234 Ta-152H-1 just to name a few.



The US had the P80, P47N and P51H. (And I will let the RAF experts counter with the advanced Brit types).

What impact on the war did the Me262 have? Ta-152? Ar-234. None.



> Ju-388
> Ju-390
> Ju-290



Numbers built, sorties flown and quantity of bombs dropped?

[quoteThe Ta-152H-1 beats them all on a massive scale.[/quote]

An excellent plane no doubt. In fact, potentially the best fighter plane in the last month of the war in the ETO. Now what impact on the war did it have?



> Ever hear of Naxos Z ???



Actually no. But since the LORAN was further devolped after the war, and used by almost everyone, meant it was the superior system.



> infrared equipment,



Used by the LW?



> accoustic homing torpedoes,



Used by the LW? By the way, USN and RN had their own verisons that worked quite well.



> guided misiles bombs, AA misiles, homing AT misiles, rocket science, Jet science, motion detection sensors ?? Thats right, the Germans were way ahead in all areas !



Yes, advanced.... but.... impact on the war? 



> The Germans were using synthetic fuel ! (Which the Allies were eager knowing how to make btw)



Low octane synthetic fuels, that needed additional refining steps to make it hi octane to keep up with the allied mass production of high quality fuels. And the allies didnt need synthetic fuel technology during the war did they?



> Oh and besides the lower octane figure take a look at the power levels achieved by German engines, thats right they superceded any Allied engine - and thats not all, the German engines could be run for over 10min on full boost, the Allied engines for only 5min or you'd risk wrecking the engine.



Plenty of allied pilots ran their engines over the 5 minutes and flew home to tell the mechanics about it. But then, it didnt matter because the allies were building engines by the tens of thousands and it was easier to replace an engine than repair it.



> I don't think you understand what well equipped means - well equipped means you have a good and dependable tool for every necessary action.



So the inferior allies flying inferior aircraft, flown by inferior pilots ended up shooting down the whole LW?



> No it doesn't, the Germans knew about this long before the Americans, however again Hitler didn't like the Idea and rejected it, the Americans had to ship German scientists to fully understand the theory and realize it.



The facts are clear. The allies developed the A bomb and the Germans didnt. This thread is about the here and now, not the should have, could have.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren, their was absolutley no strategic vision in the LW. Period. End of story.



Wrong. Goering had a limited strategic vision, which held back the LW many times. To say the LW had no strategic vision is to just plain lie - Britain nearly fell hadn't it (again) been for Hitler.



> The US had the P80, P47N and P51H. (And I will let the RAF experts counter with the advanced Brit types).



The P-80 wouldn't fly properly until 1946, and even then it was inferior to the Me-262a1. The P-47N and P-51H are no match for the Me-262a1, just gunfodder.

And no a/c had a hope catching the Ar-234, it would be far far away from the point of radar detection to intercept.



> What impact on the war did the Me262 have? Ta-152? Ar-234. None.



Thats the thing about you, you don't give the slightest thought as to how, cause you're one of those people who fool themselves by saying *The allies won so everything they made must have been better*.

FACT: The LW was grossly out-numbered in the air - sure they had a good number of a/c at their disposal, the big problem was however a huge lack of trained pilots and most crucially fuel ! If you had just the slightest idea of how the shortage of fuel affected the LW - many LW pilots could only watch from the ground as the Allies flew over, there simply wasn't anywhere near enough fuel for all a/c to get airborne.

The Me-262 would also have had a far greater impact on the war had Hitler not have it act primarily as a fighter/bomber, a role it wasn't at all built for, it was a pure fighter and should've had this role from the beginning.




> An excellent plane no doubt. In fact, potentially the best fighter plane in the last month of the war in the ETO. Now what impact on the war did it have?



How are less than 50 a/c going to affect the war nomatter how good they are ?? Esp. if only half of them or less can take off because of fuel shortage.



> Actually no. But since the LORAN was further devolped after the war, and used by almost everyone, meant it was the superior system.[]



Wrong. 



> Used by the LW?



Yes, extensively.



> By the way, USN and RN had their own verisons that worked quite well.



Waay to small and only effective at low depth - plus easily countered. The German Torpedoes were far better, but they also started out way earlier in this field.



> Yes, advanced.... but.... impact on the war?



Again think about the odds...



> Low octane synthetic fuels, that needed additional refining steps to make it hi octane to keep up with the allied mass production of high quality fuels.



Wrong, C3 wasn't needed, even with B4 fuel the German engines out-performed their Allied counterparts.



> And the allies didnt need synthetic fuel technology during the war did they?



Could've saved them alot of expense...



> Plenty of allied pilots ran their engines over the 5 minutes and flew home to tell the mechanics about it.



Ten maybe ?? Far more didn't even attempt it or wrecked the engine trying.



> But then, it didnt matter because the allies were building engines by the tens of thousands and it was easier to replace an engine than repair it.



Can you call that "effective" ?? No, a utilization of superior industrial capacity.




> So the inferior allies flying inferior aircraft, flown by inferior pilots ended up shooting down the whole LW?



Huh ?? No, well trained Allied pilots flying medicore aircraft defeated the grossly out-numbered, later poorly trained, starved of fuel Luftwaffe pilots flying equal or superior aircraft.



> The facts are clear. The allies developed the A bomb and the Germans didnt. This thread is about the here and now, not the should have, could have.



Yes the fact ARe clear, fact is Hitler rejected the Idea and therefore "robbed" the Germans of the A-bomb - fortunately so.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> The He-177 He-277 were both superior to any Allied bomber of WW2, that there weren't enough is another matter.


So they didn't make a difference and doesn't even rate in this equation.

And although both aircraft were superior in their own rights we know the operational problems that plagued both of them. I would guess had there been 100 He 177s ready to bomb a strategic target in the Soviet Union, half of them would not of been fully mission capable for one reason or another.

But again that is only hypothetical...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2007)

Soren, "Naxos Z" is a radar detector, not a navigation aid.

I give you the opportunity to clarify what the German equivalent was to LORAN.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> We weren't talking numbers Adler.
> 
> The He-177 He-277 were both superior to any Allied bomber of WW2, that there weren't enough is another matter.




No they were not. The He 177 had potential but it never achieved it. So by the end of the war it was not better. The 277 was only a prototype so no it was not better either.

You and syscom are like peas in a pod. 
He thinks that everything the US made was the greatest since bread and butter and you think the same about Luftwaffe aircraft.

It really is amusing. Why cant people just like aircraft because they are aircraft not because they were made by a specific country.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You and syscom are like peas in a pod.
> He thinks that everything the US made was the greatest since bread and butter and you think the same about Luftwaffe aircraft.



Not true.

The JU88 was shown to be the best medium bomber (but I'm not convinced about it being better than the Mosquito for night fighter).

The Lanc the 2nd best bomber of the war.

The Spitfire the best point defense fighter.

The Seafire the best post war carirer fighter.

The -190 was a great all around fighter, equal to the Mustang.

Now what did you say about me being biased?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2007)

I applaud you syscom!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Not true.
> 
> The JU88 was shown to be the best medium bomber (but I'm not convinced about it being better than the Mosquito for night fighter).
> 
> ...



*OMFG - I'm Hyperventaliting!*

* *


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2007)

I forgot... Budweiser is still #1


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2007)

Only in your dreams..


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren, "Naxos Z" is a radar detector, not a navigation aid.
> 
> I give you the opportunity to clarify what the German equivalent was to LORAN.



Naxos Z was made to counter LORAN Syscom3, hence my mentioning of it. The Germans used no apparatus comparable to the LORAN, they had no need for it. (I'm not talking Jamming here)

The Germans btw had the Sunne System which was so effective that it stayed in service long after WWII..


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they were not. The He 177 had potential but it never achieved it. So by the end of the war it was not better.



Ever wondered why ? The war had turned defensive, and the only problem of the He-177, the engines, were later fixed - it was too late however, trained pilots and fuel were not in enough supply to have them fly as often and as they should.



> The 277 was only a prototype so no it was not better either.



It reached completion before the end of the war though, so it wasn't a prototype.



> You and syscom are like peas in a pod.
> He thinks that everything the US made was the greatest since bread and butter and you think the same about Luftwaffe aircraft.
> 
> It really is amusing. Why cant people just like aircraft because they are aircraft not because they were made by a specific country.




Am I really that biased ? 

Someone has forgotten all the praise I've given the Spitfire F4U-4 Corsair it seems...



> Not true.
> 
> The JU88 was shown to be the best medium bomber (but I'm not convinced about it being better than the Mosquito for night fighter).
> 
> ...



The Me-262a1 and Ta-152H are both far better defensive fighters than the Spitfire, and the Bf-109 proved the equal, and the Fw-190 proved slightly superior initially and in the end. 

Agreed about the Seafire, and have always done so.

The FW-190 was a far better defensive fighter than the Mustang, the Mustang a better long range fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2007)

Soren, LORAN is a navigation system that provided unprecedented accuracy for its time. NAXOS was a radar detector system that was passive.

As far as I know, the aerial version of LORAN in WW2 was only carried by B29's.

There could be others that carried it. If anyone knows let us know.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Not true.
> 
> .......
> The Seafire the best post war carirer fighter.
> ...



Oooopsss

Typo... I meant the Seafury.

Sorry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ever wondered why ? The war had turned defensive, and the only problem of the He-177, the engines, were later fixed - it was too late however, trained pilots and fuel were not in enough supply to have them fly as often and as they should.



Correct but that still means that the Luftwaffe had no strategic bomber force comparable to the USAAF or the RAF. Who cares if they had some, they were not going to accomplish anything with them.

Its not that hard to see...



Soren said:


> It reached completion before the end of the war though, so it wasn't a prototype.



Correct aprox 15 were built and 7 of them were not prototypes however none saw any largescale operations so therefore they do not even add into the equation.

You can have the best bomber in the world but if you are not using it what good does it do.

We are not talking about "what ifs" here we are talking what really happened and in that case the Luftwaffe did not have any strategic capability compared to the USAAF and RAF.



Soren said:


> Am I really that biased ?



You sure make it seem so...


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2007)

Yes Syscom3, its the Seafury - we both missed that one.



syscom3 said:


> Soren, LORAN is a navigation system that provided unprecedented accuracy for its time. NAXOS was a radar detector system that was passive.
> 
> As far as I know, the aerial version of LORAN in WW2 was only carried by B29's.
> 
> There could be others that carried it. If anyone knows let us know.



I know Syscom3, but LORAN wasn't unique, despite what I thought earlier the Germans actually did have a similar apparatus to the LORAN and as early as in the 30's, it was called "Lorenze" (it wasn't as capable as the later developed LORAN though and was later succesfully Jammed by the British), and later the "Elektra Sonne" which was just as capable as LORAN and remained in service long after the war - Elektra Sonne isn't well known as it didn't play any crucial role during WW2, there simply wasn't enough trained crew to operate it and fuel shortage meant that the few a/c that carried it rarely took off.

____________________________

*Adler,*

I can agree with all you said (Except me being biased), but we're trying to define the best airforce, which isn't necessarily the most powerful.

The German airforce was better equipped, the most advanced and featured excellent doctrine training (Training suffered imensly in the late war period though)

The US airforce was well equipped, advanced, featured good training doctrine, was very large featured a carrier force, but it lacked some special purpose a/c.

The British airforce was also well equipped, advanced, featured good training doctrine, but it was small only featured a small carrier force, and it as-well lacked some special purpose a/c.

The Japanese airforce wasn't as well equipped as any of the above, and only its fighter designs were as advanced as its opponents, but it was medium in size, had very long legs featured a good carrier force - it mostly relied on its excellent single seat fighters though.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Soren, lets look at each catagory of what makes up a nations AF and compare it to others.

I will start with Heavy Bombers.

US bombers in production in quantity:
B17
B24
B29

Germany production in quantity:
(none)

The USAAF gets the thumbs up in this, with bonus points for having the B32 ready for production to replace the B17 and B24.

The USAAF also gets bonus points for being able to not only mass produce the aircraft (B24 was being built at Willow Run at a rate of 1 per hour, B29 peak production was 375 per month in July 1945 using four plants) but also to train the pilots needed to fly them.

The USAAF also gets bonus points for being able to formulate a strategic bombing doctrine that actually ended up working.

LW gets negative points for not having a strategic bombing doctrine in place at any time in the war AND providing the strategic bombers to do the job.

Soren, the B29 and its supporting industrial and technical infrastructure was so advanced for its age, it dwarfed anything Germany could do. Not even the RAF "Lincoln" came close to the B29.

In the category of heavy bombers, the rankings would be:

Types:
USAAF: 70/100 points
RAF: 30/100 points
LW: 0/100 points

Production:
USAAF: 85/100 points
RAF: 15/100 points
LW: 0/100 points

Technical Capability (1945)
USAAF: 65/100 points
RAF: 35/100 points
LW: 0/100 points

Supporting Industrial and Technical Infrastructure (1944)
USAAF: 75/100 points
RAF: 25/100 points
LW: 0/100 points (for 1944 only)


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 26, 2007)

I agree with that assessment. It seems the Japanese were even further behind the Luftwaffe in assessing their aircraft and having replacements ready when necessary in sufficient numbers. The Luftwaffe at least assessed their needs and had better aircraft as the FW-190 ready in 1943 when they needed it. As said they were struck hard by the air-raid on Potez and thus were a shadow of themselves. Although one wonders how the USAF bombers managed to get through the curtain of air defences around Potez because considering that it was an oil-field that was important, I would have thrown rings of air-defence around it to protect it. Despite this however, the USAF bombers managed to punch through and take out their target...


----------



## evangilder (Jun 27, 2007)

It's not Potez, that's a French aircraft manufacturer. It's Ploesti, which was bombed _several _times by the allies. Each time, it was costly. The air defense around it was as good as there was in those days.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 27, 2007)

Opps, yes, I got the wrong name. The key factor though evanguilder is that as good as the air defence around the oil-fields was, it was not good enough to keep the oil-fields from being wiped out by the Allies and therefore leading to defeat of the Axis by the Allies. The Axis had some great aircraft for different purposes, however, if they didn't have enough fuel then they may as well not have had them as they were just left sitting on the ground. This was the main area where the Axis were defeated, logistics and supply destruction. The Allies were destroying a lot of the German supply columns and a lot of German Tanks and Artillery just wasn't getting through to Normandy as well as vital supplies such as ammunition, food and water. Very few of the German supply convoys seemed to get through and the Luftwaffe if there were any in the area didn't seem that capable of fighting off the Allied air-power in the vicinity of the invasion...


----------



## evangilder (Jun 27, 2007)

Read up on Ploesti. It took SEVERAL raids to put Ploesti out of action. Early raids damaged the facility which was quickly rebuilt and put back into action. It wasn't just fuel that Germany ran out of. The oilfields at Ploesti were important to try and take out, yes, but that was but a small piece of the overall strategy.

The first Ploesti raid took place in in June of 1942 with a squadron sized attack on the oilfields with no significant damage. The big raid in August of 1943 did do some damage, but was very costly (Almost 1/3 of the attacking aircraft were lost!). Some attacks were perfect; one major refinery was closed down for the duration. Others missed their target completely. On the whole, some 40% of Ploesti's capacity was knocked out. However, Ploesti was only operating at 60% - the actual effect on its output was negligible.

There were an additional 8 high altitude raids against the oilfields of Ploesti in 1944. Another costly low-level raid was also attempted by P-38s in June of 1944. 

So, what actually took the Ploesti fields out of the formula? Soviet forces took the area and forced Romania to change side in late August, 1944.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> At the start of the war this is true, but by the end of 1941 Germany were well behind in bomber design and by mid 1942 its training had been overtaken by other allied airforces. At the end of the war the Germans had some very advanced aircraft 262, Arado 340 but its to little too late.
> 
> I would suggest that the USA had one area were it was always way ahead of the rest of the world and that is transport. Often forgotten but always vital.
> 
> It also had one area where an unassailable lead from 1942 onwards and that is of course Naval aviation. Before then the Zero, Val and Kate were a good match for the Wildcat, Dauntlass and Devastator.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Adler,*
> 
> I can agree with all you said (Except me being biased), but we're trying to define the best airforce, which isn't necessarily the most powerful.



And none of that was the Luftwaffe from the middle to the end of the war.

Look Soren I am Luftwaffe fan as well but I will not kid myself what was the best of the war. 1939 to 1943 is not the best of the whole war. YOu have to look at the war as a whole.



Soren said:


> The German airforce was better equipped,



In the beginning of the war. I dont care what you are equipped with if you dont have the fuel to fly the aircraft.



Soren said:


> the most advanced



In the ares of Fighters and Jet technology yes. But in the areas of bombers ans strategic planning, no that goes to the USAAF.




Soren said:


> and featured excellent doctrine training (Training suffered imensly in the late war period though)



And the USAAF had excellent doctrine adn training throughout the whole war.



Soren said:


> but it lacked some special purpose a/c.



What special purpose aircraft did it lack?

They had mass quantities of:

Strategic Bombers (needed to win the war, the Luftwaffe did not)
Tactical Bombers 
Escort Fighters
Fighter Bombers
Attack aircraft
Transports (probably the 2nd most important aircraft required)
Sea Planes 
Recon aircraft.
Carrier Aircraft (Germany had none... Dont tell me they had any because what carrier were they operating off of)

What special purpose aircraft are you talking about?

What were they missing that were needed to win a war?


The point that I am making while the Luftwaffe had some great aircraft they were lacking what was needed to win the war, did not have the strategic capability of the USAAF and therefore were not better than the USAAF.

No matter what the Luftwaffe did the bombers got through to there targets and the Luftwaffe was defeated therefore it was not the best airforce.

I really dont see how this is hard to comprehend.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2007)

Not to dispute your point Adler, but also the US was not the best during the entire war. At the end (1944-1945) yes, but when the US got involved in 1941 it was lacking in equipment. Their main fighters, the P39 and P40 were a nice planes but hardly a match to the contemporary Spitfire of Messerschmitt. Also the US had a lot of catching up to do in airforce tactics at that time. Luckily they learned fast. So if you're talking about the time from mid 1943 to the end of the war, I would say, yes, the USAAF was the best airforce in almost every aspect (except maybe in the area of jets). They had equipment, that was at least as good as everything the enemy had and they had a lot of it. But not so in 1942.
It's probably hard to say which airforce was best during the entire war. The germans were the best in 1939-1942. The americans after 1943. If I would point out an airforce that was very good during the entire war, it would be the RAF. Maybe they were never the best at any point, but they kept their high standard of modern, competative planes in decent numbers during the entire war, best on average I would say.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

If you go back and read the posts you will see that I said from 1939 to 1943 the Luftwaffe was the best but from that point on the the US took over.

Overall the best airforce of the war was the US if you look from where they started to where they finished.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Not to dispute your point Adler, but also the US was not the best during the entire war. At the end (1944-1945) yes, but when the US got involved in 1941 it was lacking in equipment. Their main fighters, the P39 and P40 were a nice planes but hardly a match to the contemporary Spitfire of Messerschmitt. Also the US had a lot of catching up to do in airforce tactics at that time. Luckily they learned fast. So if you're talking about the time from mid 1943 to the end of the war, I would say, yes, the USAAF was the best airforce in almost every aspect (except maybe in the area of jets). They had equipment, that was at least as good as everything the enemy had and they had a lot of it. But not so in 1942.
> It's probably hard to say which airforce was best during the entire war. The germans were the best in 1939-1942. The americans after 1943. If I would point out an airforce that was very good during the entire war, it would be the RAF. Maybe they were never the best at any point, but they kept their high standard of modern, competative planes in decent numbers during the entire war, best on average I would say.



Your arguments are fine when talking about the first few years of the war. No argument. But its who's standing at the end that counts.

In 1944, the USAAF became the dominate AF in the world.

By the end of the war in 1945, it was getting more powerfull at an exponential rate.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2007)

Exactly, the US the best of the war at the end, no dispute here. The LW the best at the beginning of the war, again no dispute here. But both a part of the war is what I'm saying. The RAF was at no particular point the best, I agree, but they could get along, fight the LW in 1940 and win and were still going strong in the end, maybe not the best, but always competative during the entire war, in my opinion, that's why I say "on average"


----------



## trackend (Jun 27, 2007)

I think the USAAF was probably dominate before 1944 SY the production, development and training capabilities was not effected by bombing or lack of materials to anywhere near the extent that most other air forces had been.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2007)

That's true, it's probably why the ended up being the mightiest airforce in the end, but in 1942.. I don't know.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2007)

trackend said:


> I think the USAAF was probably dominate before 1944 SY the production, development and training capabilities was not effected by bombing or lack of materials to anywhere near the extent that most other air forces had been.



Untill the P51's and P38L's came into being, then I would say the LW was slightly better than the USAAF. 

Once those fighters began roaming Germany almost at will and systematiclly hunting down the LW, then the ending was clear.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2007)

Syscom3,

The B-29 was certainly an up to date design, no doubt, but again it wasn't more advanced than the newest German designs, the He-177 He-277 both being competitive able to carry a larger load (Btw, just like the He-177 the B-29 suffered engine troubles as-well) - and on top of this the Germans were fielding the much more advanced Jet fighters bombers as-well as better more advanced piston engined fighters. 

In terms of technology the Germans were well ahead by wars end, and this has been admitted many times by the Allies. The Allies however possessed a far greater industrial capacity, and could therefore mass produce many able designs in such huge numbers that the German lead in technology was more than made up for. 

Take the war on land for example, the tank being absolutely decisive, the German tanks were far far superior to the Allied tanks, but with a numerical advantage of over 6 to 1 the Allies again simply overran the grossly outnumbered Germans - quantity over quality. 



syscom3 said:


> Untill the P51's and P38L's came into being, then I would say the LW was slightly better than the USAAF.



P-38L ?? The Germans thought of it as a pig and it didn't do very well against the LW fighters at all - all it did rather well was pound the German ground forces. The P-38 did well as a fighter in the PTO where it was significantly faster than its opponents, in the ETO however it wasn't fast or maneuverable compared to the single seat fighters and it did poorly.

The P-51 on the other hand was a great asset to the US airforce as it had long range and was very competitive at the altitudes where the bombers operated, and the fact that in the air it was present in far greater numbers than the dedicated LW fighters generally was piloted by better trained pilots proved very decisive as-well. 



> Once those fighters began roaming Germany almost at will and systematiclly hunting down the LW, then the ending was clear.



The P-51 proved very important because of its range performance at high alt, the P-38 had no appreciable impact on the war, the P-47 Tempest both did much better.

Lets all just be thankful that the LW didn't get the Me-262 in 1943 as planned, that would've changed the course of the war dramatically.


_______________________________

Adler,

All your pointing out is that the US airforce was the most *powerful*, not that it was the *best* - the fact that the LW lacked trained pilots means it wasn't the best by late 1943 and onwards, despite its advantage in aircraft design equipment.

The RAF is infact as strong a candidate in 1944 to 1945 as the USAAF.

As to which special purpose a/c the Allies lacked, well, what equalant special purpose a/c did the allies have compared to the Me-323 Hs-129 for example ?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Syscom3,
> 
> The B-29 was certainly an up to date design, no doubt, but again it wasn't more advanced than the newest German designs, the He-177 He-277 both being competitive able to carry a larger load (Btw, just like the He-177 the B-29 suffered engine troubles as-well) - and on top of this the Germans were fielding the much more advanced Jet fighters bombers as-well as better more advanced piston engined fighters.



You must be the only person in the world that thinks the -177 and -277 to be superior airplanes compared to the B29. And those engine troubles on the B29 were pretty much solved (from an operations point of view) in 1944 so that B29's were flying missions at a pretty decent sortie rate.

Do you have any mission summaries you would like to share with us to prove your assertion the German bombers were superior? And ummmm....... a few airplanes at the of the war, that hardly worked as advertised, does not make them superior.




> In terms of technology the Germans were well ahead by wars end, and this has been admitted many times by the Allies.



Agree'd but for one caveat..... none of those advanced weapons made it to the mass production stage and/or changed the outcome of a battle. 



> The Allies however possessed a far greater industrial capacity, and could therefore mass produce many able designs in such huge numbers that the German lead in technology was more than made up for.



To put it simply, the allies mass producing weapons that in some cases were superior to what the Germans fielded, and in other cases, they were slightly inferior but were fielded in such massive numbers, the Germans could not gain the advantage. That means the Allied industrial capability was so immense, it negated the Germans advantage where it counted.



> Take the war on land for example,



This is about the war in the air.



> P-38L ?? The Germans thought of it as a pig and it didn't do very well against the LW fighters at all - all it did rather well was pound the German ground forces. The P-38 did well as a fighter in the PTO where it was significantly faster than its opponents, in the ETO however it wasn't fast or maneuverable compared to the single seat fighters and it did poorly.



You're thinking about its capabilities as a dogfighter, not in a macro sense. Of course it was an inferior dogfighter. But it was good enough as an escort fighter to keep the LW fighters away from the bombers. Mission accomplished for that. And then theres the range issue of the P38 vs the -109 and -190. The Lightning could fly to any point in the Western Europe, strafe, bomb, intercept.... and return home. The LW did not have that option.

And in the Pacific, its range did make all the difference n the world regarding what was the best fighter in that theater. The 109 and 190 didnt have the range needed to compete. So, the USAAF gets points for having a wide variety of fighters that could perform any misison, anywhere in the world.



> The P-51 proved very important because of its range performance at high alt, the P-38 had no appreciable impact on the war, the P-47 Tempest both did much better.



See, youre thinking only in terms of the ETO and MTO. It was the P38 that won the air war in the SW Pacific and flew the 1600 mile radius missions.



> Lets all just be thankful that the LW didn't get the Me-262 in 1943 as planned, that would've changed the course of the war dramatically.



That is a reflection of one of two things..... faulty technology and pushing an airplane into operation before it was ready.... or.... even worse...... a flawed command system that didnt know it had a first class interceptor and didnt use it wisely.


_______________________________



> Adler,
> 
> All your pointing out is that the US airforce was the most *powerful*, not that it was the *best* - the fact that the LW lacked trained pilots means it wasn't the best by late 1943 and onwards, despite its advantage in aircraft design equipment.
> 
> The RAF is infact as strong a candidate in 1944 to 1945 as the USAAF.




Soren, you remind me of someone in hockey who complains to the ref that the other team is playing to rough.

And just what did the RAF possess in those years that made them as strong as the USAAF?



> As to which special purpose a/c the Allies lacked, well, what equalant special purpose a/c did the allies have compared to the Me-323 Hs-129 for example ?



C47, C46, C54 and, P47 and Typhoon for the other.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 28, 2007)

> And just what did the RAF possess in those years that made them as strong as the USAAF?


Spitfire, Tempest, Lancaster, Mustang, C47, Typhone, Mosquito, Halifax


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2007)

Mustang, C47 ????


----------



## rpiereck (Jun 28, 2007)

Brazilian Air Force... Senta a Púa!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2007)

Thats just retarded...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Syscom3,
> 
> The B-29 was certainly an up to date design, no doubt, but again it wasn't more advanced than the newest German designs, the He-177 He-277 both being competitive able to carry a larger load


Multi-engine tail draggers - their configuration was out of date! 

The B-29 was light years a head of both aircraft, one of them being nothing more than a prototype and even with the B-29s teething problems it was still a way more capable aircraft than the 177 and it carried a bigger bomb load than both 177 and 277.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 28, 2007)

Glider said:


> Mustang, C47 ????



I know, american build  , but we're comparing airforces, not manufacturers. And the Mustang original was a British order.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> All your pointing out is that the US airforce was the most *powerful*, not that it was the *best* - the fact that the LW lacked trained pilots means it wasn't the best by late 1943 and onwards, despite its advantage in aircraft design equipment.



And you still have not answered my questions about how the Luftwaffe was the best airforce. In order to be the best you have to have all these things you mentioned.

Just because you have technological advances in some areas does not mean you are the best. If you dont have air superiority you are not the best. True Germany did not have the industrial capacity to field as many aircraft but you know what this is not about who had the most industrial capacity. It is about the best airforce.



Soren said:


> As to which special purpose a/c the Allies lacked, well, what equalant special purpose a/c did the allies have compared to the Me-323 Hs-129 for example ?



Germany did not need these so called "special purpose" aircraft to win a war. If they did they would have won the war. 

As for the Me-323 it is not a "special purpose" aircraft. It is a heavy transport. What good did it do to the Luftwaffe to have this very slow aircraft? Nothing. The USAAF did not have it because it was not needed. The Luftwaffe proved it was not needed, it had not effect in winning the war for them.

As for the Hs-129 again it is not a "special purpose" aircraft. It is nothing more than a ground attack aircraft/tank buster and this the USAAF did have.

They had plenty of aircraft that were just as good at destroying tanks and ground attack and support, ie....P-47 Thunderbolt, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, etc...

They all were better performers than the Hs-129 anyhow. I really like the Hs-129 and think that with better engines it could have been the best ground attack aircaft of the war, but without those engines it was underperforming armoured flying vehical. Nothing else. Nothing special basically.

Besides the Hs 129 was only good if it was protected by fighters and the fighters were too busy shooting down bombers.

USAAF was the best airforce by the end of war and overall do to its position at the end of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

rpiereck said:


> Brazilian Air Force... Senta a Púa!!




You are kidding right?


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2007)

I am always amazed at what Finland achieved with what little airpower she had.

If you can make the Brewster Buffalo into a successful fighter then top marks to them.

USAAF wins easy.

B-29s armed with atomic weapons and escorted with P-51s. 
I call that best air force in my book.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Multi-engine tail draggers - their configuration was out of date!



What ?!



> The B-29 was light years a head of both aircraft, one of them being nothing more than a prototype



Thats incorrect, the He-277 wasn't just a prototype, it was finished well before wars end, the Fighter-defence program made sure both the He-177 -277 didn't see much action though and is the pure reason for the low service record - trained pilots and fuel was missing. And in the few mission carried out escorts were missing.

The B-29 wasn't ahead any way other than having a larger payload. 



> and even with the B-29s teething problems it was still a way more capable aircraft than the 177



Way more capable ? The He-177 -277 were both structurally more sound and could go just as fast their engine teething problems were solved as-well. And the He-277 had a much higher ceiling, a full 15km, thats just 100m short of the Ta-152H-1's ceiling. 

I'd sure like to see the Allies try to catch the He-277 going 500 + km/h at 15km ! - an impossible task for them. The B-29 on the other hand could easily be intercepted by German fighters.



> and it carried a bigger bomb load than both 177 and 277.



Yes you're actually right about the bomb-load, I got my reference wrong, the B-29 could carry a massive max bomb-load, 20,000 + kg's worth of bombs - the He-277 could carry roughly 20,000 kg's worth of bombs. The He-177 with its ~12,000kg max bomb-load could still carry more than the Lancaster, B-24 B-17 though, plus it was much faster, which is impressive.

Interestingly the Germans had the Ju-390 that beats all three with a max bomb load of over 26,000 kg !! Range is much longer than all of the above as-well, an incredibly long 6,039 miles ! And despite the huge bombload speed is an impressive 505 km/h and the ceiling 6km with full bomb load. This baby even reached the coast of the US during WW2.. (This could only be done with a very light bombload though)

Or what about the Me-264, with a speed of 560 km/h, a max bomb-load of 23,000 + kg, a range of 6,250 miles, and a service ceiling of 8km with full bomb-load. A very impressive aircraft, although cancelled with the initiation of the Fighter-defence program.

Another plus of the German bombers is they carried a better defensive armament consisting of 20mm cannons.

______________________________


Adler,

I didn't say the LW was the best by 1944-1945, I infact said it wasn't because of the lack of trained pilots fuel, despite its clear advantage in aircraft design equipment.

The RAF is a strong contender for the best airforce of 1944 to 1945.

As to the special purpose a/c - I'm sure the Allies would've liked to have the Me-323 very much, cause they could effectively escort it with their huge number of available fighters - nevermind the low speed, its a high load transport plane which can carry loads no other a/c of the era can.

The Allies didn't possess as good a tankbuster as the Hs-129, it was better armed, armored and a more stabile gun platform than any Allied ground attack aircraft. The problem with its engines were solved pretty early btw.

And to your other comment about the Hs-129's combat effectiveness, well any of the dedicated ground-attack a/c of WW2 were vulnerable unless escorted by fighters - so thats a pretty moot point to make.
Their combat performance was great on the eastern front where they proved absolutely essential tools to the LW.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 28, 2007)

This looks like its going to be fun.

Where is my popcorn damn it!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2007)

By WW2 a tail dragger multi engine aircraft was a dinosaur - a hazard to operate, from loading it with bombs to landing, it was an obsolete configuration. Right there both aircraft were off to a bad start.



Soren said:


> Thats incorrect, the He-277 wasn't just a prototype, it was finished well before wars end, the Fighter-defence program made sure both the He-177 -277 didn't see much action though and is the pure reason for the low service record - trained pilots and fuel was missing. And in the few mission carried out escorts were missing.
> 
> The B-29 wasn't ahead any way other than having a larger payload.


Fire control, pressurization, internal avionics, configuration were all superior to both 177 and 277. Not to say the Germans didn't have better of each, the B-29 just put it all together into one weapons' system that worked and that's what made it superior to both 177 and 277. Besides several hundred B-29s were able to be produced a month with ease, to even say Germany had the capability to produce the 177 or 277 in the numbers the B-29 was being produced is nonsense.




Soren said:


> Way more capable ? The He-177 -277 were both structurally more sound and could go just as fast their engine teething problems were solved as-well. And the He-277 had a much higher ceiling, a full 15km, thats just 100m short of the Ta-152H-1's ceiling.


You're speculating both aircraft "would of" operated as advertised and based on the 177 I find that unlikely.


Soren said:


> I'd sure like to see the Allies try to catch the He-277 going 500 + km/h at 15km ! - an impossible task for them. The B-29 on the other hand could easily be intercepted by German fighters.


 "Would of could of should of" - for that matter "IF" the 177 or 277 made it into significant numbers and deployed in a capacity where they were to be intercepted, then you might of had say a P-58 intercepting them, top speed in excess of 450 mph and specifically designed to take on aircraft like the He 177




Soren said:


> Yes you're actually right about the bomb-load, I got my reference wrong, the B-29 could carry a massive max bomb-load, 20,000 + kg's worth of bombs - the He-277 could carry roughly 20,000 kg's worth of bombs. The He-177 with its ~12,000kg max bomb-load could still carry more than the Lancaster, B-24 B-17 though, plus it was much faster, which is impressive.


It was and never deployed in numbers to mean anything...


Soren said:


> Interestingly the Germans had the Ju-390 that beats all three with a max bomb load of over 26,000 kg !! Range is much longer than all of the above as-well, an incredibly long 6,039 miles ! And despite the huge bombload speed is an impressive 505 km/h and the ceiling 6km with full bomb load. This baby even reached the coast of the US during WW2.. (This could only be done with a very light bombload though)
> 
> Or what about the Me-264, with a speed of 560 km/h, a max bomb-load of 23,000 + kg, a range of 6,250 miles, and a service ceiling of 8km with full bomb-load. A very impressive aircraft, although cancelled with the initiation of the Fighter-defence program.


All true but don't forget while the B-29 was in gestation the B-29D was being developed which took care of all problems first encountered with the B-29. the B-29D became the B-50... 

Crew: 8: Pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, radio/electronic countermeasures operator, 2 side gunners, top gunner, and tail gunner 
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m) 
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m) 
Height: 32 ft 8 in (10.0 m) 
Wing area: 1736 ft² (161.3 m²) 
Empty weight: 80,610 lb (36,560 kg) 
Loaded weight: 121,850 lb (55,270 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 173,000 lb (78,470 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney R-4360 radial engines, 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) each 
Performance
*Maximum speed: 395 mph (343 knots, 636 km/h) *Cruise speed: 244 mph (212 knots, 393 km/h) 
Combat radius: 2,100 nm (2,400 mi, 3,860 km) 
Ferry range: 5,000 nm (5,760 mi, 9,270 km) 
Service ceiling: 36,650 ft (11,170 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,225 ft/min (11.3 m/s) 
Wing loading: 70.19 lb/ft² (343 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.115 hp/lb (193 W/kg) 
Armament
Guns:

12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remote controlled turrets 
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon in tail 
Bombs:

*20,000 lb (9,100 kg) internally 
8,000 lb (3,600 kg) on external hardpoints *


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 28, 2007)

Yup I knew it. LOL

Damn I think I have ESP or something.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> By WW2 a tail dragger multi engine aircraft was a dinosaur - a hazard to operate, from loading it with bombs to landing, it was an obsolete configuration. Right there both aircraft were off to a bad start.



Well it doesn't seem there were any problems loading the He-177 or He-277, there being lots of space beneath it to load bombs.



> Fire control, pressurization, internal avionics, configuration were all superior to both 177 and 277.



I doubt that very much FLYBOYJ. Avionics certainly weren't better, fire control was neither (They were exactly similar infact), prezzurization I can't speak of but I'd guess its the same, just as with the internal configuration.



> Not to say the Germans didn't have better of each, the B-29 just put it all together into one weapons' system that worked and that's what made it superior to both 177 and 277.



I don't get what your saying here, as the He-277 was both faster, could go much higher and carry a similar bomb load compared to the B-29..



> several hundred B-29s were able to be produced a month with ease, to even say Germany had the capability to produce the 177 or 277 in the numbers the B-29 was being produced is nonsense.



Agreed.



> You're speculating both aircraft "would of" operated as advertised and based on the 177 I find that unlikely.



As advertised ? They actually did FLYBOYJ.



> "Would of could of should of" - for that matter "IF" the 177 or 277 made it into significant numbers and deployed in a capacity where they were to be intercepted, then you might of had say a P-58 intercepting them, top speed in excess of 450 mph and specifically designed to take on aircraft like the He 177



The P-58 has a max speed of 436 mph and can't even reach 12km FLYBOYJ, making the He-277 immune to it.



> It was and never deployed in numbers to mean anything...



Forget about the numbers produced, there's a reason for that, Germany was concentrating on fighters fighterbombers by 1944 -45, and the multiple front war coupled with Allied bombing raids put such a strain on the German industry that producing these a/c in large numbers was an impossibility.



> All true but don't forget while the B-29 was in gestation the B-29D was being developed which took care of all problems first encountered with the B-29. the B-29D became the B-50...



So ? The He-177, He-277, Ju-390 Me-264 were all ready to go the Germans were on the road to building jet bombers as-well.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2007)

*Me-264*






*Ju-390*





*He-177*





*He-277*


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Soren, if you bothered to read the thread on "the best bomber of WW2", you would have learned that every single bomber that dropped its payload at high altitudes, almost always missed its target.

So what if your bomber(s) flew at 40,000 ft. It wouldn't have hit anything just as the B17, B24 and B29 didn't.

Now about your statement about the German bombers had higher structural strength than the allied bombers is pure speculation bordering on the absurd.

We know how strong the Lanc, B17, B24 and B29 were, because *THEY FLEW 100'S OF THOUSANDS OF SORTIES IN COMBAT AND THE GERMAN BOMBERS HAD ONLY A HANDFULL.*

Don't make these ridiculous statements unless you have data to back yourself up on it.



> So ? The He-177, He-277, Ju-390 Me-264 were all ready to go the Germans were on the road to building jet bombers as-well.



They were hardly ready to go as like all of Germany's aircraft projects , they were rushed into assembly before their bugs were ironed out.

And none of the ones close enough to be thought of as being ready for operations still didn't come close to the B29 capabilities that was proven in combat and not on paper.

And please stop mentioning "jet bombers". Its completely irrelevant as none of them were produced in the war and they fall under the "paper air force category".


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Heres a nice website about fight tests of the Me-264.

Seems like this "wonder bomber" had serious flight issues that were never corrected and about the only extensive missions it flew was on paper.

Messerschmitt Me 264 Luft '46 Entry

When you look at its payload figures, its worthless. All that time and material to build a bomber that could only carry a paltry payload. And to top it off, only one prototype was built and it was still working out some serious problems while the B29 was beginning to approach mass production.

I think we can scratch this clunker off of the German "superior" bomber list!


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren, if you bothered to read the thread on "the best bomber of WW2", you would have learned that every single bomber that dropped its payload at high altitudes, almost always missed its target.
> 
> So what if your bomber(s) flew at 40,000 ft. It wouldn't have hit anything just as the B17, B24 and B29 didn't.
> 
> ...



Ha ! And thats coming from you ! 


I can easily back it up, the He-177 was made to be able to dive bomb, hence its structural integrity had to be much higher than a conventional bomber.



> They were hardly ready to go as like all of Germany's aircraft projects , they were rushed into assembly before their bugs were ironed out.



Pure BS, every new design has a high probability of having some bugs, the B-29 had its own to deal with.

The Me-210 wasn't a good a/c to begin with, but look at what happened with the introduction of the Me-410 - a completely excellent aircraft. 



> And none of the ones close enough to be thought of as being ready for operations still didn't come close to the B29 capabilities that was proven in combat and not on paper.



Thats completely and utterly untrue!

The He-277 was faster, could carry roughly the same bomb-load and had a much higher ceiling!

The Ju-390 Me-264 could both carry a far larger payload coupled with a longer range as-well.



> Heres a nice website about fight tests of the Me-264.
> 
> Seems like this "wonder bomber" had serious flight issues that were never corrected and about the only extensive missions it flew was on paper.
> 
> ...



For christs sake read what is written Syscom3 ! The 3,000 kg payload figure isn't the max bomb-load figure ! The max bomb load figure is above 23,000 kg !!

The 3,000 - 5,000 kg bomb-loads are for long range missions.


----------



## Glider (Jun 29, 2007)

Can I just ask one question. If the He177 had such good structural integrity and was so robust, why did it catch fire so easily. If produced in numbers and deployed there is every chance that it would have been a latter day Betty. Long range, heavy defensive weapons and lit like a torch every time.

Also about intercepting the He277, can I suggest the much maligned Meteor. Easily fast enough, decent range and very well armed, as well as being in production and service.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 29, 2007)

Ernst Heinkel hated the He-177...blaming Udet for the stupid dive bombing requirements.

The Fw200 Condor was far better. Because it was available and did something. But not built in the numbers required and far too easy to fall apart. But it was there and earned its medals. 

Did the aircrews love to fly the He-177? Nope. Says it all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well it doesn't seem there were any problems loading the He-177 or He-277, there being lots of space beneath it to load bombs.


Sure there is, but your loading bombs on and aircraft resting at an angle, it's a lot easier if the aircraft has a nose landing gear, but that's only one minor issue. Bottom line a tail dragger multi-engine bomber was just an operation accident waiting to happen, and the proof of this is that there were no large multi engine tail draggers built in the postwar years.



Soren said:


> I doubt that very much FLYBOYJ. Avionics certainly weren't better, fire control was neither (They were exactly similar infact), prezzurization I can't speak of but I'd guess its the same, just as with the internal configuration.
> 
> I don't get what your saying here, as the He-277 was both faster, could go much higher and carry a similar bomb load compared to the B-29..


And how many were built and what was its impact? I know - "fighter defence." Would of could of should of...We're talking about a whole Airforce here. What good is the weapon when you cant use it to its capacity and both the 177 and 277 were prime examples of this...


Soren said:


> The P-58 has a max speed of 436 mph and can't even reach 12km FLYBOYJ, making the He-277 immune to it.


The 277, if it was built in numbers and if it was put in a position where it "would of" been intercepted would not have been bombing with any accuracy or effectiveness at it higher operating altitudes, as evident in the B-29.




Soren said:


> Forget about the numbers produced, there's a reason for that, Germany was concentrating on fighters fighterbombers by 1944 -45, and the multiple front war coupled with Allied bombing raids put such a strain on the German industry that producing these a/c in large numbers was an impossibility.


And that's history, something that's not being changed...




Soren said:


> So ? The He-177, He-277, Ju-390 Me-264 were all ready to go the Germans were on the road to building jet bombers as-well.


So was the B-50, and although the allies were lacking jet bombers they still defeated Germany with their "marginal Air force." Quantity vs. Quality?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2007)

Here's a comparison between the He 277 and the B-29. Not much difference.

Specifications (He 277B-5)
General characteristics
Crew: 7 
Length: 22.14 m (72 ft 8 in) 
Wingspan: 31.43 m (103 ft 1¾ in) 
Height: 6.66 m (21 ft 10½ in) 
Wing area: 100.00 m² (1,076.39 ft²) 
Empty weight: 21,800 kg (48,060 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 44,500 kg (98,105 lb) 
Powerplant: 4× Daimler-Benz DB 603A 12-cylinder inverted-vee engine, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: 570 km/h at 5,700 m (354 mph at 18,700 ft) 
Cruise speed: 460 km/h (286 mph) 
Range: 6,000 km (3,728 miles) 
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,210 ft) 
Armament
8 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in forward and rear fuselage barbettes 
3 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in two dorsal turrets 
1 × 15 mm or 20 mm MG 151 cannon in nose 
up to 3,000 kg (6,612 lb) of disposable stores 

B-29 General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar observer, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner 
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m) 
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m) 
Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.5 m) 
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²) 
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg) 
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each 
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241 
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 11.50 
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h) 
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h) 
Combat radius: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) 
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km) 
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m) 
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.5 m/s) 
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg) 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8 
Armament
Guns:

12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remote controlled turrets 
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail (removed shortly after put into service) 
Bombs: 20,000lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000lb (10,000kg) T-14 'Earthquake' bombs

I had to use Wikipedia because some of the other sites for the He 277 information were very lacking.

Internal equipment? The B-29 carried "liaison set, radio compass, marker beacon, glide path receiver, localizer receiver, IFF (identification friend or foe) transformer, emergency rescue transmitter, blind bombing radar (on many aircraft), radio countermeasures, and static dischargers."

I see nothing listed for the He 277.

I'm not saying the He 277 WOULD OF been a formidable aircraft. It was just as fast as the B-29 and could fly higher. It's defensive armament was impressive but the B-29 had the most advanced and effective firecontrol system of any WW2 aircraft (and admittingly it did have some teething problems). That combined with its internal equipment made it the best bomber of WW2 period. Over all the 277 was close but no cigar....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> What ?!



He means the standard configuration was tricycle landing gear....



Soren said:


> Thats incorrect, the He-277 wasn't just a prototype, it was finished well before wars end, the Fighter-defence program made sure both the He-177 -277 didn't see much action though and is the pure reason for the low service record - trained pilots and fuel was missing. And in the few mission carried out escorts were missing.



And that still means that since it was not being used to bomb targets it is not a factor therefore is not part of the equation and therefore does not matter and as you called my point "moot" makes the He 277 a moot point to make...



Soren said:


> The B-29 wasn't ahead any way other than having a larger payload.



Actually its fire control system was ahead of anything in use at the time. The B-29 in all actuallity was the first "modern" heavy bomber. 



Soren said:


> Way more capable ? The He-177 -277 were both structurally more sound



Please prove this? What sources do you have to say so. Have you taken a B-29 and a He 277 and He 177 apart and studied the structures at detail.

If you can prove this, then please do so. If you can not then dont assumptions please...



Soren said:


> Interestingly the Germans had the Ju-390 that beats all three with a max bomb load of over 26,000 kg !! Range is much longer than all of the above as-well, an incredibly long 6,039 miles ! And despite the huge bombload speed is an impressive 505 km/h and the ceiling 6km with full bomb load.



And how many Ju 390s were actually built and used as bombers? None there were 2 prototypes built. 26 were ordered but never delivered. I dont think any of the 2 prototypes was actually flown with a bombload anyhow.



Soren said:


> This baby even reached the coast of the US during WW2.. (This could only be done with a very light bombload though)



And that is also debatable. It can not be proven or disproven.

Read the book KG 200 The Luftwaffes Most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley. Interviews with Luftwaffe pilots from FAGr 5 state that this flight never happened. It was planned but never happened. 

Also read the book Luftwaffe Over America The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in WW2 by Manfred Griehl. It also shows evidence that it never happened as well.

FAGr 5 unit records also do not prove or disprove whether this flight actually took place.

FAGr 5 records state that the first prototype V1 (GH+UK) did not fly the mission which only leads us to the second prototype V2 (RC+DA) and Rechlin Test pilot, Oberleutnant Eisermann who also was flying (RC+DA) said that the second prototype did not fly the flight either.

Now having said all this. I believe the Ju 390 could have been a marvelous bomber (this is just my opinion though) but could have, should have, would have are all different things.



Soren said:


> Or what about the Me-264, with a speed of 560 km/h, a max bomb-load of 23,000 + kg, a range of 6,250 miles, and a service ceiling of 8km with full bomb-load. A very impressive aircraft, although cancelled with the initiation of the Fighter-defence program.



Again they never had anything other than prototypes. Therefore this aircraft is a moot point as well...



Soren said:


> The RAF is a strong contender for the best airforce of 1944 to 1945.



How was it better than the USAAF in 1945? 



Soren said:


> The Allies didn't possess as good a tankbuster as the Hs-129, it was better armed, armored and a more stabile gun platform than any Allied ground attack aircraft. The problem with its engines were solved pretty early btw.



That is not true. The Allies had many fine tank busting aircraft.

And the Hs 129 still did not have that great of performance. Sorry it is true. I like the aircraft and agree it could have been the best in its role but it was not a "special purpose aircraft" in that sense and the allies had tank busting aircraft so this point is moot as well...



Soren said:


> And to your other comment about the Hs-129's combat effectiveness, well any of the dedicated ground-attack a/c of WW2 were vulnerable unless escorted by fighters - so thats a pretty moot point to make.



Negative the P-47 could take care of itself just fine so could the Tempest and the Typhoon and the ground attack versions of the Fw 190. Whether you want to realize it there were dedicated ground attack and tank busting versions of these aircraft so whos point is moot now...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ha ! And thats coming from you !
> 
> 
> I can easily back it up, the He-177 was made to be able to dive bomb, hence its structural integrity had to be much higher than a conventional bomber.



Okay but have you actually tested the structural integrity of the B-29. What you just said up there is still speculation that the He 177 was stronger than the B-29. 

Unless you have done tests and taken them apart and studied them, you are only speculating as syscom has said. This point is moot....

You see I can use the word moot as well....


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I had to use Wikipedia because some of the other sites for the He 277 information were very lacking.



The top speeds are very close but they don't matter much, what matters is the difference in cruise speed - check that out - The He-277 is a good deal faster than the B-29 at cruise speed; 460 km/h > 350 km/h. 



> Internal equipment? The B-29 carried "liaison set, radio compass, marker beacon, glide path receiver, localizer receiver, IFF (identification friend or foe) transformer, emergency rescue transmitter, blind bombing radar (on many aircraft), radio countermeasures, and static dischargers."



And the He-177 He-277 carried about all of that as-well + infrared equipment.



> I'm not saying the He 277 WOULD OF been a formidable aircraft. It was just as fast as the B-29



Faster at the all important cruise speed.



> It's defensive armament was impressive but the B-29 had the most advanced and effective firecontrol system of any WW2 aircraft (and admittingly it did have some teething problems).



I don't believe the B-29 firecontrol system was any better than that carried on the He-177 or He-277, as far as I can see they have exactly the same functions.



> That combined with its internal equipment made it the best bomber of WW2 period.



The B-29 had the advantage of not having its IFF equipment jammed, thats about all that made it superior, the He-177 He-277 both carried pretty much the same equipment with very few exceptions.



> Over all the 277 was close but no cigar....



I believe that had the LW invested trained men fuel in this machine then it was just as good if not better than the B-29 - but as it looked there just wasn't any fuel or trained crew to spare, and the huge numbers of Allied fighters certainly didn't make life any easier.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2007)

And as to Jet-bombers:

*Ju-287*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> The top speeds are very close but they don't matter much, what matters is the difference in cruise speed - check that out - The He-277 is a good deal faster than the B-29 at cruise speed; 460 km/h > 350 km/h.


 Agree, but what about range?



Soren said:


> I don't believe the B-29 firecontrol system was any better than that carried on the He-177 or He-277, as far as I can see they have exactly the same functions.


Weren't some of the guns still hand operated in the 177? The only "hand gun" was the tail gunner on the 29 and in some cases that worked to an advantage.



Soren said:


> The B-29 had the advantage of not having its IFF equipment jammed, thats about all that made it superior, the He-177 He-277 both carried pretty much the same equipment with very few exceptions.


Agree




Soren said:


> I believe that had the LW invested trained men fuel in this machine then it was just as good if not better than the B-29 - but as it looked there just wasn't any fuel or trained crew to spare, and the huge numbers of Allied fighters certainly didn't make life any easier.


Agree there, but both aircraft were still taildraggers, recipes for disaster especially for green pilots. If there was a slight chance of either aircraft coming close to being operational, I think you would of had just as many losses to ground loops as you would of had to enemy fire.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2007)

B29 vs He-277:

Armament for He-277
* 8 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in forward and rear fuselage barbettes
* 3 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in two dorsal turrets
* 1 × 15 mm or 20 mm MG 151 cannon in nose.

Look at that: 8 rifle caliber MG's compared to the B29's twelve .50's.

Plus the -277 *DID NOT* have a CFC system like the B29. The -277 guns were manually aimed, or mechanically controlled using traditional optical sites.

The B29 gets the points for having not only heavier firepower, but superior fire control.

Now for bombing radars:
The B29: Its tarted the war with the AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set, and then was upgraded to the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit was used. Note - the Eagle antenna was mounted in a wing-shaped housing installed underneath the forward section of the fuselage. 

The -277 had exactly what? And what was the IR set for?

The B29 gets the points for having aproven radar bombing set. The -277 gets no points simply because no reference is given to what avionics suites were used. And unfortunatly for the LW, as the war progressed to its final year, attaching radar bomb mechanisms to airframes and getting them to work became a lower and lower priority, while the converse was true for the RAF and AAF.

Production numbers:
He-277: Eight. And I didnt see any reference to any combat missions flown. 
B29: Three thousand eight hundred ninety five (3895). Missions, I have to look it up tomorrow, but to say it was over 100,000 would not be an overstatement.

So Soren is comparing an airplane that was inferior in many area's, and was essentially never built or flew a mission, to one of the all time great bombers of WW2. Plus hes complaining that the LW didnt have the resources or fuel to get it to work as planned.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 2, 2007)

Regarding *that* famous Junkers Ju 287V1 prototype.

It was just a large lash up, roughly the same size as the eventual bomber but made up of of bits of other aircraft. The objective was to test the forward swept wing (FSW) at low speeds. Surely it would have been better to build a high-speed testbed so that a scaled wing could be tested at _all _ speeds?

The Ju287V1 used a fuselage based on that of an He 177, a tail from a Ju 388, main wheels from a Ju 352 and two nose wheels from captured B-24 Liberaters!
To avoid cutting into the wing the main gears were fixed and spatted, though the wing box was cut open to receive the legs and bracing struts. The fixed nose gears were also spatted, and mounted side by side under the He 177 type cockpit. Four Jumo 004B turbojets were used, two on the sides of the nose and two under the trailing edge of the wing, where under high g loads they twisted the wing the wrong way.

This ungainly contraption first flew on 16 August 1944. Bill Green says it was once dived to 404mph; they were pushing their luck. It certainly showed that at *low speeds* an FSW aircraft could fly well, but that was never questioned. Even at speeds around 300 knots it was found that wing deflection was causing serious problems. Junkers decided with the Ju 287V2 -which may have completed by the Russians-to use six Jumo 004Bs in triple clusters hung _ahead_ of the wing, to try stop it twisting. But with traditional metal wings the whole idea was an impossibility, unless the wing was almost solid!

'Back to the Drawing Board'-Bill Gunston 1996.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> And as to Jet-bombers:
> 
> *Ju-287*



And did they actually have these bomber, let alone in any significant numbers?

No just like any of the other heavy bombers.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2007)

No matter what, eventually all threads will become a best bomber thread


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2007)

Because ultimately, fighters are mainly defensive weapons of war, bombers are the offensive arm of any air force.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 2, 2007)

Musing and wondering if Soren believes anything American during WWII deserved any respect by the LW? Its Ok to disdain Americans in General as brash and cocky but do you really believe that the American bombers were inferior to German bombers?

The one universal opinion (ok maybe 99%) is that the LW failed miserably in their approach to long range strategic airpower - both escort and bomber force - and it cost them the Battle of Britain and it prevented them from attacking Soviet industry. 

They had no approach to even attack (repeatedly and successfully) airfields in Britain during 1943-1945 while even USAAF fighters roamed at will throughout Germany - and the LW could do nothing to stop them.

But we are here debating whether the B-29 was inferior to the vaunted German He and Me series that were never effective, couldn't operate and didn't contribute the the German war effort.

The He277 was as effective as the B-36 (meaning not effective at all) and inferior in design to the B-36 which would first fly one year after WWII was over.

The LW never put out a heavy bomber that was the equal of the B-17 much less the Lancaster or B-29. They have to function reliablly, operate and at least pose a concern to an Allied planner to be compared, shouldn't they? 

Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?

Soren - to your opinion that the RAF was the best in 1944 and 1945 how do you set the boundary conditions to make that judgement? Do you consider the relative strength of the 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th in the ETO against the RAF in its center of Gravity as a start? Would you postulate that the entire RAF was the equal of those four USAAF Air Forces? In numbers, in aircraft mix, in aircrews, in ability to project force from airborne drops and logistics support to long range fighter sweeps deep in Germany or Austria, to bombing oil targets ranging from Ploesti to Posnan? 

Do you compare the RAF in the Pacific or even RAF plus RNZAF plus RAAF flying quite a few USAAF aircraft like P-51s, P-47s and B-25s against the USAAF? Do you consider the USN and USMC as 'excluded' from the concept of most powerful Airpower in 1944 and 1945?

Do you want to match tonnage dropped on tactical or strategic targets or number of GAF a/c destroyed? Or Japanese?

How do you arrive at your conclusion? Could you even make your point using just the United Army Air Force in the ETO/MTO in contrast to all the RAF, RNZAF, RAAF world wide?

Regards,

Bill

PS - Forgot to mention that the mainstay of the USSR Strategic Bomber Fleet for many years Post WWII was the exact copy of the B-29.. wonder why they didn't pick any of the many superior LW bombers to copy and produce instead of the lousy ol B Two Nine? Dumb Russians!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?


Bulls-eye!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2007)

Have to agree as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2007)

Yes. Well said.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2007)

Sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2007)

*Bill*, 

I have never disdained the Americans at all and so I'm going to have to ask where you've got that from ?? Its way too easy to just off-handedly condemn someone as biased, you're going to have to present some evidence.

As to why the He-177 He-277 didn't have as successfull a career as the B-17, Lancaster, B-29 etc etc, you can completely thank the huge numerical superiority enjoyed by the Allied airforces for that - this made sure that there wasn't enough fuel, trained crew or at all escorts for the German bombers to operate as intended.

In the air the Allies simply dwarfed the LW in numbers.

*FLYBOYJ,*

We are pretty much in full agreement.

*Syscom3,*

Check your sources please, the He-177 He-277's defensive armament is almost completely remote-controlled, the MG-81 pointing through a small circular opening in the cockpit glazing being manually aimed.

PS: Many German as-well as Italian bombers featured remote-controlled defensive armament far earlier than this.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Syscom3,*
> 
> Check your sources please, the He-177 He-277's defensive armament is almost completely remote-controlled, the MG-81 pointing through a small circular opening in the cockpit glazing being manually aimed.
> 
> PS: Many German as-well as Italian bombers featured remote-controlled defensive armament far earlier than this.



I did check my sources, and not one of them mentioned a Computerized Fire Control (CFC) system like that used on the B29.

*YOU* provide us with a source to prove your assertion.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2007)

> I did check my sources, and not one of them mentioned a Computerized Fire Control (CFC) system like that used on the B29.



No Syscom3 and thats cause you haven't got a single source besides Wikipedia, read "Heinkel 177,277,274." by Manfred Griehl Joachim Dressel, ISBN: 1853103640. I just recently borrowed this book, its excellent and describes the enormous potential of these aircraft.

The He-177 He-277 both featured remote controlled defensive armament, and so did many other German designs (Ex. Condor) as-well as some Italian designs - the Piaggio P-108B being one. Just like the B-29 these all used a electric-hydraulic system to control their defensive armament.


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> I just recently borrowed this book, its excellent and describes the enormous *potential *of these aircraft.



The key word


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2007)

Hadn't it been for the huge number of Allied fighters, the lack of fuel trained crew, and the fact that no escort was available then you can be absolutely sure that *potential* would've been excellently demonstrated.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2007)

Oh forgot to explain why I think the RAF is a strong contender to topic title at the end of the war.

The RAF possessed better defensive fighters ground attack a/c, and it featured Jets which could be used. The USAAF had good escorts, carrier fighters bombers. Its close..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hadn't it been for the huge number of Allied fighters, the lack of fuel trained crew, and the fact that no escort was available then you can be absolutely sure that *potential* would've been excellently demonstrated.



Thats the thing Soren. You can have all the potential you want for ever and ever and ever, if you cant turn that potential into superiority it does not matter. Potential is just that, it does not mean you are going to be superior. They never got past potential. 

I dont care that there no fuel, I dont care that there were no trained pilots or inferiour numbers. 

You have to have fuel to be the best, you have to have trained pilots to be the best. You have to have numbers to be the best.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren, if you desire to include "potential" into your rankings, then you must also include the RAF's and USAAF's potential as well.

Did you know that when the war ended in August, over 1000 B32's were cancelled. And its "potential" as the bomber was already in small scale production and the factories were tooled up and ready to go.

Plus with the cancellation of the B17's, B25's, B26's and A20's, those plants were available to build whatever aircraft the AAF or USN wanted. And that includes more B29's or 'potentially", B50's and B36's.

So what ever potential you want to add for the LW, the same is applied to the RAF and AAF.

And one little thing you seem to forget...... only the AAF had the resources to build vast fleets of bombers *AND* fighters *AND* transports *AND* and have the crews to fly them.

Now regarding the CFC for the -277..... just in case you dont know what it is..... it was a computerized system that took optical and mechanical aiming data from specialized sighting mechanizisms located at five different locations in the plane and it allowed a single gunner the capability of controlling his gun or all of the guns, while controlling the turrets for az/el and target range.

The -277 did not have that feature, nor have enough gunners to effectively defend the plane.

Any way you look at it, the -277 was inferior to the B29. What counts is not whats on paper or prototypes, but what actually flies and goes on missions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

Potential didn't win WW2.....


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Oh forgot to explain why I think the RAF is a strong contender to topic title at the end of the war.
> 
> The RAF possessed better defensive fighters ground attack a/c, and it featured Jets which could be used. The USAAF had good escorts, carrier fighters bombers. Its close..



This is a decent example of what I perceive as bias on your part re; bias against things American. You could have said the same things about the LW at the end of the war - but having those features were useless against the power brought against them

The Americans had the BEST Escorts, at least three of the top Ground Attack Fighters - all equivalent to Tempest (the F4U, the P-47 and the P-38 ) in far greater numbers, and a little better than 'good' bombers. The B-29 was the BEST bomber. Had the BEST transport aircraft in the C-47s and C-54s, perhaps the BEST training aircraft in the AT-6 which was used in great numbers by all the Allies except Russia, had the BEST Medium Bombers in the A-26, B-26, B-25. 

It supplied USSR Attack aircraft (P-39s and P63s) RAAF and RNZAF with P-47s and B-25s, RAAF built P-51s under license, RAF with C-47s, B-24s, PBYs, F4fs and F6Fs, etc, etc. 

The Mosquito was perhaps the BEST multi role a/c and could have challenged title of Best medium bomber but that doesn't assign any weight to the BEST Air Power.

As to BEST defensive a/c? The P-80 was an excellent design, arrived in ETO in Italy in January 1945 but simply wasn't needed in ETO or Pacific but better than the Meteor and on par with the Me262 performance wise... and had a much higher ceiling. Had anyone had a bomber equivalent to B-29 it could have been re-armed with 4 20mm easily, but it was an escort or air superiority fighter. The F7F was deployed to PTO before WWII ended and would have been superb defensively against even the B-29.

But the BEST defensive aircraft were Luftwaffe, not RAF, in 1944-1945. As to the requirement for BEST defensive Fighters? How much tonnage did the LW or Japanese Air Forces drop on US Targets - so the argument about Best Defensive Fighter is not even relevant - the US Defensive capabilities were 'more than adequate' - in contrast with the best defensive aircraft (Luftwaffe) which were not 'good enough'

America had the MOST power, and could project it EVERYWHERE with relative impunity - land or sea based from late 1943 through today. 

Soren - respectfully, it was not 'close' in 1944-1945. It (American Aipower) shouldered the Strategic load in both the ETO and the PTO, it broke the back of Luftwaffe and JNAF and JAF in both theatres, it destroyed the Japanese Fleet, and bombed German and Japanese industry into oblivion - without the Atomic Bomb. 

No other Air Power can make those claims - not the RAF and not the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAAF combined can make those claims.

If you were objective about 'America' this is one argument even you could support.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## trackend (Jul 3, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Soren - respectfully, it was not 'close' in 1944-1945. It (American Aipower) shouldered the Strategic load in both the ETO and the PTO, it broke the back of Luftwaffe and JNAF and JAF in both theatres, it destroyed the Japanese Fleet, and bombed German and Japanese industry into oblivion - without the Atomic Bomb.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...



I agree Bill that the USAAF was the best but I'm not totally convinced that in the ETO the Strategic load was shouldered by the USAAF eg: may 1944 38,000 tonnes dropped on Germany 29,000 on other targets by Bomber command as a prelude to the D day invasion. in the ETO I believe it was a joint effort,


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hadn't it been for the huge number of Allied fighters, the lack of fuel trained crew, and the fact that no escort was available then you can be absolutely sure that *potential* would've been excellently demonstrated.



The fact remains that Germany didn't have the escort, fuel, crews, production capacity etc and without those things, you cannot be the best airforce in WW2.

If you want to start a thread on the best potential airforce, then that is a different debate.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> The fact remains that Germany didn't have the escort, fuel, crews, production capacity etc and without those things, you cannot be the best airforce in WW2.
> 
> If you want to start a thread on the best potential airforce, then that is a different debate.



According to Soren, the RAF and AAF get points deducted for unfair fighting in a war.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

trackend said:


> I agree Bill that the USAAF was the best but I'm not totally convinced that in the ETO the Strategic load was shouldered by the USAAF eg: may 1944 38,000 tonnes dropped on Germany 29,000 on other targets by Bomber command as a prelude to the D day invasion. in the ETO I believe it was a joint effort,



Trackend - love your avatar.

My perspective is that defeating Germany was a three way effort - take nothing away from RAF and Commonwealth or USSR. 

Having said that, the RAF wasn't doing much on Aircraft and Oil or Ball Bearings until very late - in the context of precision bombing - and the RAF had developed what might have been the best precison bomb sight plus the radar bombing equipment and techniques.

Hence my comment on the Strategic load assumed by 8th, 12th and 15th AF which, combined, was the pretty close to the equivalent of the RAF in its entirety.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2007)

The Fokker GI was potentionally one of the best twin engined fighters, the G2 was "more potentionally" an even better aircraft, so I'll vote for the LVA being the best  

Okay, I admit, I'm biased  

But seriously, I still think it's unfair to say that the USAAF was the best only because of the latter part of the war. IMHO the USAAF was really not so good when they got into the war in 1942. Okay, they catched up really fast and from 1944 but if being the best in only a part of the war does qualify for being the best of the total war, then the LW could easily be called the best as well, as they were the best in the first 3 years. So it's not so easy to say which one was best, probably none at al, the war was won by a joined effort, not one single country/army/airforce!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Marcel said:


> But seriously, I still think it's unfair to say that the USAAF was the best only because of the latter part of the war. IMHO the USAAF was really not so good when they got into the war in 1942. Okay, they catched up really fast and from 1944 but if being the best in only a part of the war does qualify for being the best of the total war, then the LW could easily be called the best as well, as they were the best in the first 3 years. So it's not so easy to say which one was best, probably none at al, the war was won by a joined effort, not one single country/army/airforce!



Few disagree with the assesment that untill late 1943, the LW was the best.

But in 1944, the AAF pulled ahead and by January 1945, was magnitudes better than the LW.

For all practical purposes, the LW had collapsed by that month and was no longer a fighting force.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2007)

Okay, but so could the USAAF have been if they had had to fight the whole world as long as the LW did. The fact that it only happened in 1945 is really amazing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Okay, but so could the USAAF have been if they had had to fight the whole world as long as the LW did. The fact that it only happened in 1945 is really amazing


Agree and that's a tribute to the LW, although many here identified the USAAF as the "best" no one is taking anything away from the LW.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

Soren sez -"*As to why the He-177 He-277 didn't have as successfull a career as the B-17, Lancaster, B-29 etc etc, you can completely thank the huge numerical superiority enjoyed by the Allied airforces for that - this made sure that there wasn't enough fuel, trained crew or at all escorts for the German bombers to operate as intended."*

When the He 177 came into production in mid 1943, the Luftwaffe did not have escorts (and never really did) but had plenty of fuel and trained crews available to transition from the Fw 200, the Do 217 and He 111's - all of which were successful even if not heavy bombers

Had it been a reliable aircraft it could have operated similarly to the Lancaster at night and obviated the need for the escorts which didn't exist. The Allies did not have Overwhelming air superiority in night fighters, or even day fighters over Germany until summer of 1944.

But it was neither reliable nor successful as a result of its design. It was designed before the B-24 or Lancaster and look at the contrast in results - before the Allies had air superiority.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

drgondog said:


> .The Allies did not have ..... day fighters over Germany until summer of 1944.



P38's were flying over Germany (in small numbers) in Nov 1943.

P51's also had their first misisons over Germany in Dec 1943.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren, if you desire to include "potential" into your rankings, then you must also include the RAF's and USAAF's potential as well.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Dead on Syscom - the P-80 and P-51H and F8F and F7F were all in production before VE day as well as the B-32. The P-51M was cancelled which had the H frame but the 2300 hp engine, the P-82 was coming and the B-36 was in tooling phase. Ditto the RAF with their late war slate of fighters.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

Originally Posted by Marcel 

But seriously, I still think it's unfair to say that the USAAF was the best only because of the latter part of the war. IMHO the USAAF was really not so good when they got into the war in 1942. Okay, they catched up really fast and from 1944 but if being the best in only a part of the war does qualify for being the best of the total war, then the LW could easily be called the best as well, as they were the best in the first 3 years. So it's not so easy to say which one was best, probably none at al, the war was won by a joined effort, not one single country/army/airforce!

You are correct about a joint effort defeating Germany and Japan and I believe the LW was the best until 1943.

But in january 1943 the USAAF and USN were 1.) only airpower capable of carrying out daylight attacks on Germany, 2.) only airpower which had fighters (P-38 and F4U) capable of escorting bombers into Germany or deep into Japanese held territory, 3.) Training huge pool of pilots including RAF, in the US, 4.) supplying the Allies with Fighters (land and carrier based), Attack aircraft, Patrol aircraft, Medium bombers, Transport and Trainer aircraft 4.) starting production on P-51B and B-29...and 5.) deploying a flood of Carriers and Transport vessels to push Japan back to the homeland.

There is no question that the US did NOT have aerial superiority over Germany by Jan 43, but it had all the pieces in production to gain superiority 15 months later - with only 4 (8th,9th,12th and 15th) Air Forces of 21, and no real use of Naval Air 

Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944... while the RAF and USSR was essentially devoting most or all of their airpower against Germany. I know the RAF and RAAF and RNZAF were fighting in CBI but small in numbers compared to US presence.


Sometime in 1943 the USA had achieved the role of 'best' airpower and continues to be that today.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2007)

drgondog said:


> But in january 1943 the USAAF and USN were 1.) only airpower capable of carrying out daylight attacks on Germany, 2.) only airpower which had fighters (P-38 and F4U) capable of escorting bombers into Germany or deep into Japanese held territory, 3.) Training huge pool of pilots including RAF, in the US, 4.) supplying the Allies with Fighters (land and carrier based), Attack aircraft, Patrol aircraft, Medium bombers, Transport and Trainer aircraft 4.) starting production on P-51B and B-29...and 5.) deploying a flood of Carriers and Transport vessels to push Japan back to the homeland.



I see your point
A few "buts" just for the heck of it:
1. and suffered heavy losses, RAF was probably capable, but wasn't willing to
2. agree
3. I don't see what that has to do with being the best, it only shows that US soil was quite safe compared to the UK
4. Okay, but that is us industrial power, not the USAAF itself 
4. P51B was on request of the RAF
5. agree


drgondog said:


> Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944...


+RAF, VVS, RCAF, etc.




drgondog said:


> Sometime in 1943 the USA had achieved the role of 'best' airpower and continues to be that today.


Agree, there can be no agrue about that.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

Marcel said:


> I see your point
> 
> 
> *Originally Posted by drgondog
> ...



Marcel - Actually my thesis is that the key factor in breaking Luftflotte Reich (Germany) was 5 groups of P-51s (354FG in Jan, 357 in mid Feb, 4th in late Feb, 355 in early Mar and 352 in early April) plus two P-38 Gps (20th and 55th). These were the only forces escorting B-17s and B-24s to strategic targets in Germany and the only fighters the Luftflotte Reich (over Germany) had to deal with in that period. 

These were the ONLY fighters attacking Luftflotte Reich and the Primary factor in killing 1000+ experienced German Fighter pilots over Germany from February 1944 through April 1944 and decidedly did Not represent 'overwhelming air superiority' over Germany during that timeframe.

All other fights were over Russia, France, Italy and the Lowlands where the RAF, RCAF, VVS and P-47 equipped USAAF units had the range to engage. No question that P-47s were scoring in Western Germany plus Holland and Belgium but the 51s and 38s were the primary punishers of the LW in that short period of time.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

How far or long was the 8th AF bomber formations or how long would it take a raid to pass a given point


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> P38's were flying over Germany (in small numbers) in Nov 1943.
> 
> P51's also had their first misisons over Germany in Dec 1943.



Syscom - to me "Allies" were everybody else BUT the USAAF and they didn't get to fly over Germany until they had bases on the Continent after D-Day.

True, 51s flew missions in Decemeber 43 but the 354th wasn't officially operational until 11 January.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> How far or long was the 8th AF bomber formations or how long would it take a raid to pass a given point



Pb -In mid 1944, a 'standard' wing was 40-48 B-17s strung out 600-750 feet per squadron, but staggered in eschelon with High, lead and low squadrons in the Wing - so each Combat Group might occupy a volume 2500 feet deep by 1500-1800 feet long - the Groups were in trail. In the early 1944 timeframe each Bomb Division (three) usually put out 9-10 Groups each. Each Group was 1-5 miles from each other depending on route integrity SOP but often did not achieve that.

In March 6 1944 Berlin Mission all the bombers went to Berlin "area" (Berlin, Potsdam, Oranienburg, Wittenberg, etc) and the column of 670 bombers was close to 100 miles long over Dummer Lake because of separation between the Bomb Divisions.. with the Task Forces striking for different targets when they passed Brunswick. Each Group averaged close to 20+ bombers - roughly half of a Maximum Effort mission several months later

So the Forts and Libs cruised around 150mph IAS at 25,000 feet - maybe 200mph so 1/2 hour in this example?

On this mission the Jugs were truning back just past Dummer Lake.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2007)

drgondog said:


> This is a decent example of what I perceive as bias on your part re; bias against things American.



No it isn't, cause I pointed out that the US were equipped with better bombers, escorts Carrier a/c - so again you off-handedly condemn someone as biased without any evidence what'so'ever. And the funny part is you're most likely a very biased indivdual yourself, praising everything American, no ? - I can't remember post from you that ever showed any praise towards anything non-american.

I have praised the F4U Corsair many times on this forum as one of the very best fighters of the entire war, considering all the roles it could carry out only the FW-190 was really the equal of it.



> You could have said the same things about the LW at the end of the war - but having those features were useless against the power brought against them



Useless ?? You should take a look at the statistics my friend, approx. 80-85% of all German casualties were inflicted on the eastern front, the last 15-20% in the southern western fronts - so the Germans more than held their own, and mostly because of their superior equipment. 

The Germans back then just like today put quality over quantity and will rather build a few excellent products than alot of medicore ones, something which shows in pretty much everything they make - Only the Swiss are as thurough perfectionists as the Germans. 

The German obsessiveness with quality precision has made sure they've always been the leaders within the manufacturing of metals and lenses for example - the US army using ALOT of German equipment and direct copies in these areas - the US Abrams tank being equipped with the German 120mm L/44 gun designed made by Rheinmetall AG, the same company which built the famous 8.8cm Flak18 L/56 7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 for the Pzkpfw.V Panther. 



> The Americans had the BEST Escorts,



If you exclude the Ta-152H then yes, of not then most certainly not. The Ta-152H was the best prop fighter of WW2, and equipped with drop tanks the Ta-152H was the most lethal escort fighter of WW2. Again though the situation didn't allow for the Ta-152H to operate as an escort fighter only as a defensive fighter. 



> at least three of the top Ground Attack Fighters - all equivalent to Tempest (the F4U, the P-47 and the P-38 ) in far greater numbers,



The P-38 wasn't the equal of the Tempest and neither was the P-47, the P-38 suffered from some serious compressibility issues and the P-47 was a pig at low altitude. The F4U on the other hand is superior to all three.



> and a little better than 'good' bombers. The B-29 was the BEST bomber.



No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.



> Had the BEST transport aircraft in the C-47s and C-54s,



Agreed, the C-47 was a great a/c.



> perhaps the BEST training aircraft in the AT-6 which was used in great numbers by all the Allies except Russia,



Incorrect, Germany Japan used just as good training aircraft, a task which wasn't hard btw.



> had the BEST Medium Bombers in the A-26, B-26, B-25.



LoL and you call me biased ?! What about the Ju-88, Ju-188, Mosquito Ju-388 ?? All these were much better than the B-25, A-26 B-26 !



> It supplied USSR Attack aircraft (P-39s and P63s) RAAF and RNZAF with P-47s and B-25s, RAAF built P-51s under license, RAF with C-47s, B-24s, PBYs, F4fs and F6Fs, etc, etc.



And what point is it you're trying to stress with this ??



> The Mosquito was perhaps the BEST multi role a/c and could have challenged title of Best medium bomber



It must certainly was one of the very best, amongst the top 2 !



> but that doesn't assign any weight to the BEST Air Power.



Well thats just the thing, this topic isn't about *Air power* its about the best airforce, but you amongst others see it as if its about the most powerful airforce, well it isn't.



> As to BEST defensive a/c? The P-80 was an excellent design, arrived in ETO in Italy in January 1945



LoL, so excellent that it was restricted from military service in the ETO MTO yes, it was doomed dangerous to fly! It had many lethal bugs by 1945 and was no where near as servicable an a/c as the Me-262 or Meteor!



> but simply wasn't needed in ETO or Pacific but better than the Meteor and on par with the Me262 performance wise



And yet the Me-262 accelerated, climbed maneuvered better in comparative flights with the P-80 conducted in the US after the war.



> and had a much higher ceiling.



The later ones did, don't rely on the data from Wikipedia - the P-80 stationed in Europe weren't capable of such performance.



> Had anyone had a bomber equivalent to B-29 it could have been re-armed with 4 20mm easily, but it was an escort or air superiority fighter. The F7F was deployed to PTO before WWII ended and would have been superb defensively against even the B-29.



I disagree, the F7F was too heavy - the F8F is another story though, and is faster than what is written on Wiki.



> But the BEST defensive aircraft were Luftwaffe, not RAF, in 1944-1945. As to the requirement for BEST defensive Fighters? How much tonnage did the LW or Japanese Air Forces drop on US Targets - so the argument about Best Defensive Fighter is not even relevant - the US Defensive capabilities were 'more than adequate' - in contrast with the best defensive aircraft (Luftwaffe) which were not 'good enough'



What a load of complete utter rubbish Bill! The LW was hugely out-numbered in the air, they couldn't initiate an attack without having to oppose a force 5 times their own size - THAT is why the Allies made it through, superior numbers of able aircraft, the LuftWaffe's aircraft were excellent but there were way too few. And it was the exact same thing going on on the ground, where a single Tiger or Panther tank would often have to fight off 5 - 6 Sherman tanks at a time.



> America had the MOST power, and could project it EVERYWHERE with relative impunity - land or sea based from late 1943 through today.



No, you'll have to go abit further than 1943, mid to late 1944 infact. See the problem with you is that your eyes are completely closed to what the rest of the world possessed at that time, your ridiculous statement that the US could project its power everywhere with impunity in 1943 shows this clearly. Sail your carriers to the ETO in 1943 and your seriously risking loosing alot of them to the German U-boat force.



> Soren - respectfully, it was not 'close' in 1944-1945. It (American Aipower) shouldered the Strategic load in both the ETO and the PTO, it broke the back of Luftwaffe and JNAF and JAF in both theatres, it destroyed the Japanese Fleet, and bombed German and Japanese industry into oblivion - without the Atomic Bomb.



Again your eyes are closed! The US alone merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR UK had done - the USSR drained the German war-machine more than anything else during the war, and the RAF also certainly took its part in bombing the German industry, it wasn't all US bombers buddy!



> No other Air Power can make those claims - not the RAF and not the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAAF combined can make those claims.



Forget about the VSS ???



> If you were objective about 'America' this is one argument even you could support.



I am, but unlike you I'm also objective about the rest.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> The German obsessiveness with quality precision has made sure they've always been the leaders within the manufacturing of metals and lenses for example - the US army using ALOT of German equipment and direct copies in these areas - the US Abrams tank being equipped with the German 120mm L/44 gun designed made by Rheinmetall AG, the same company which built the famous 8.8cm Flak18 L/56 7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 for the Pzkpfw.V Panther.



What does this have to do with the events of WW2? 



> If you exclude the Ta-152H then yes, of not then most certainly not. The Ta-152H was the best prop fighter of WW2, and equipped with drop tanks the Ta-152H was the most lethal escort fighter of WW2. Again though the situation didn't allow for the Ta-152H to operate as an escort fighter only as a defensive fighter.



From the few sorties it made, it did look like the best by the end of the war in Europe. But only one problem Soren, It wasn't a magnitude better than other allied types so you were going to need to build huge numbers of them just to be effective. Its a plane that was too little too late. Unable to influence the battle when it counted.



> The P-38 wasn't the equal of the Tempest and neither was the P-47, the P-38 suffered from some serious compressibility issues and the P-47 was a pig at low altitude. The F4U on the other hand is superior to all three.



You're mixing apples and oranges. The P38L didn't have compressibility problems, the Tempest was not an interceptor/escort fighter, The P47 was a low altitude great fighter bomber and the F4U was a carrier fighter that was great in some roles and not so great in others.



> No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.



Inferior in defensive firepower, inferior in avionics, inferior in payload/range in actual combat enviornment, inferior in reliability, inferior in production numbers and inferior in combat record, blah blah blah. Can you tell anyone here about its most monumental combat missions?



> Well thats just the thing, this topic isn't about *Air power* its about the best airforce, but you amongst others see it as if its about the most powerful airforce, well it isn't.



Soren, air power is the ability of an air force to project power and destroy the enemy. If your air force can do neither, then its inferior. Your LW could neither project power nor did it influence the battle after 1943.



> LoL, so excellent that it was restricted from military service in the ETO MTO yes, it was doomed dangerous to fly! It had many lethal bugs by 1945 and was no where near as servicable an a/c as the Me-262 or Meteor!



Well, I do have to agree with you on this one.



> What a load of complete utter rubbish Bill! The LW was hugely out-numbered in the air, they couldn't initiate an attack without having to oppose a force 5 times their own size - THAT is why the Allies made it through, superior numbers of able aircraft, the LuftWaffe's aircraft were excellent but there were way too few



So you admit that the Allies were using good aircraft flown by good pilots? BTW Soren, in the first part of 1944, the US only had several P38 and P51 groups (using early model types) that had to cover all of the B17's and B24's. Yet they inflicted some nasty loss's on the LW. Thats a great indication that one of two things occurred.... the pilots were superior to the LW, or they were "good enough" but flew better fighters. Which is it?



> No, you'll have to go abit further than 1943, mid to late 1944 infact. See the problem with you is that your eyes are completely closed to what the rest of the world possessed at that time, your ridiculous statement that the US could project its power everywhere with impunity in 1943 shows this clearly. Sail your carriers to the ETO in 1943 and your seriously risking loosing alot of them to the German U-boat force.



So its 1944 that the AAF could do that. And it was the navy that did the sub hunting, not the AAF. By the way, the AAF gave the various naval air forces around the world a lot of B24's to go U boat hunting. Thats something the LW never had during the war.... a good 4 engine bomber for maritime patrol.


Soren, you still haven't come to grips that the US industrial supremacy was building 1st rate products on a massive scale. Training vast numbers of pilots and ground crews to a high quality standard. And then using the superiority of those air forces to destroy anyone opposing them.

Your LW was deficent in the following:
long range fighters
strategic doctrine
industrial techniques (untill it was too late)
training programs for new pilots
four engine bombers.
fighter bombers
command structure (Hitler and his minnions just couldn't keep their hands off, could they?)

Your LW was ahead in the following:
Jet technology
Night fighters
advanced concepts for the "next war"

The AAF and LW were equal in the following:
Fighters
medium bombers
avionics

And I'm sure the RAF experts would like to add a thing or two on portions of their AF that were superior to the LW.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

> No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.


And that was as good as not having the aircraft at all...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren you whole arguement is based off of what ifs and should have and could haves.

The problem, it did not....


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> What does this have to do with the events of WW2?



Taken out of context, nothing.



> From the few sorties it made, it did look like the best by the end of the war in Europe. But only one problem Soren, It wasn't a magnitude better than other allied types so you were going to need to build huge numbers of them just to be effective. Its a plane that was too little too late. Unable to influence the battle when it counted.



One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.



> You're mixing apples and oranges. The P38L didn't have compressibility problems, the Tempest was not an interceptor/escort fighter, The P47 was a low altitude great fighter bomber and the F4U was a carrier fighter that was great in some roles and not so great in others.



No no Syscom3, I'm not the one mixing apples oranges, Bill is, he compared the Tempest to these a/c, not me.



> Inferior in defensive firepower, inferior in avionics, inferior in payload/range in actual combat enviornment, inferior in reliability, inferior in production numbers and inferior in combat record, blah blah blah.



Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it. 



> Soren, air power is the ability of an air force to project power and destroy the enemy. If your air force can do neither, then its inferior. Your LW could neither project power nor did it influence the battle after 1943.



Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!



> So you admit that the Allies were using good aircraft flown by good pilots?



They mostly were yes.



> BTW Soren, in the first part of 1944, the US only had several P38 and P51 groups (using early model types) that had to cover all of the B17's and B24's. Yet they inflicted some nasty loss's on the LW. Thats a great indication that one of two things occurred.... the pilots were superior to the LW, or they were "good enough" but flew better fighters. Which is it?



Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.




> So its 1944 that the AAF could do that. And it was the navy that did the sub hunting, not the AAF. By the way, the AAF gave the various naval air forces around the world a lot of B24's to go U boat hunting. Thats something the LW never had during the war.... a good 4 engine bomber for maritime patrol.



Condor is the word. 

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.



> Soren, you still haven't come to grips that the US industrial supremacy was building 1st rate products on a massive scale. Training vast numbers of pilots and ground crews to a high quality standard. And then using the superiority of those air forces to destroy anyone opposing them.



And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale - the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.



> Your LW was deficent in the following:
> long range fighters



Wrong.



> strategic doctrine



Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?



> industrial techniques (untill it was too late)



German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.



> training programs for new pilots



Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).



> four engine bombers.



We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.



> fighter bombers



 You must be kidding me right ??!! 

The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!



> command structure (Hitler and his minnions just couldn't keep their hands off, could they?)



Agreed.



> Your LW was ahead in the following:
> Jet technology
> Night fighters
> advanced concepts for the "next war"



Agreed.



> The AAF and LW were equal in the following:
> Fighters



German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc



> medium bombers



Agreed, the Mosquito made sure of that.



> avionics



Agreed, they both featured some advanced products that the other didn't.



> And I'm sure the RAF experts would like to add a thing or two on portions of their AF that were superior to the LW.



Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 4, 2007)

Army Air Force, you dipstick.
BTW, the Kondor had a minor fault in that it's wings had a tendency to fall to bits on landing because it was originally a passenger plane and the heavy extra equipment made it too heavy for it's construction.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.



Better, but not fantastically so. The latest models of the Spit were comparable, and the P47N had similar high altitude capabilities. A generational difference would be similar to a Ta-152 vs a P47D.

In the end, it was a great airplane but it came on the scene right when the war ended and it had no impact.



> Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it.



Every stat I have seen on the -277 had it carrying several manually aimed light MG's compared to a CFC system on the B29 which controlled 12 heavy MG's. Avionics? Since when? Its developement stopped when the B29 was in production and being upgraded from time to time. Reliability? How do you know its reliability since it never went on a combat mission. Payload? There never was a WW2 bomber that actually carried its stated payload to maximum range simply because of weight growth.



> Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!



Care to tell us about the big bombing campaigns in 1943 that amounted to something?



> Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.



I was referring to 1944. Not 1943 when I would agree with you.



> Condor is the word.



That piece of crap? I would venture to say that even the -177 and -277 were superior to that. If even a F4F could shoot it down with impunity, then I'd say the Condor had no business flying into battle.



> And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.



CVE's had no problem doing it. Even sank more than a few U-boats, didnt they? Besides, that naval aviation, not AF stuff.



> And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale



If they were so good, why were they swept from the sky's before the summer of 1944? The LW also had the advantage of returning most shot down pilots back to duty while the AAF didnt. And yet the AAF kept producing air crews and airplanes.



> - the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.



And beginning in 1944, the LW began to collapse due to misplaced priorities and programs from the prior years.



> Wrong.



The LW had no theory or doctrine of strategic bombing. It showed that by not designing any long range bombers untill well after hostilities began, and then never fully supporting the concept and making sure the bombers were built and staffed.



> Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?



We are talking about 1944 and 1945, not the glory years of 1940 and 1941.



> German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.



Quicker production methods = better industrial techniques. Ever hear of Willow Run? 



> Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).



So youre saying that the LW had an inferior training program in 1944. That makes the US and allied trainigng programs better.



> We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.



You havent shown anyone where a single -277 mission proved they were better.



> You must be kidding me right ??!!
> 
> The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!



The LW had one, which was good. The AAF had three (P38, 47 and F4U)



> German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc



Individually, yes. As raw combat power, no.




> Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??



Ha!


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.


I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Ta152 only fought in very very limited numbers on the Russian front. If this is the case how can we be so certain that it was so much better?

Also its worth remembering that Germany was in a desperate situation. Had the RAF been in that position then the Hornet, Vampire would have been in service by then. For the USAAF the later P51's and P80s would have been in service.



> Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it.


Defensive firepower wasn't as good lacking the sophisticated controls and as for bugs. Don't assume that they would be easily sorted out.



> Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.


*German fighter pilot losses 1943.* 
Average strength 2105
Pilot losses 2967
*Loss ratio 141% * 

When the 8th Airforce cut back its daylight raids in November December the German fighter pilots losses reduced by a third.



> And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.


I must disagree with this. There were dozens of escort carriers operating in the ETO acting as escorts and assisting with landings. These were a top priority target for the germans and losses were exceptionally low. Can I ask how you back up this statement



> Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten



The RAF were never close to being beaten. Can I ask when this situation arose?
Remember that the LW only grew by around 15% in the entire war. The RAF went from 137 squadrons to 405, hardly the sign of a force on the verge of being beaten.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 4, 2007)

drgondog said:


> All other fights were over Russia, France, Italy and the Lowlands where the RAF, RCAF, VVS and P-47 equipped USAAF units had the range to engage. No question that P-47s were scoring in Western Germany plus Holland and Belgium but the 51s and 38s were the primary punishers of the LW in that short period of time.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



Of course you're right about the fact that the USAAF did most of the fighting over Germany, but I think the VVS did as much to break the LW's back. I agree with Soren on this. They are often overlooked in discussions like this as their planes were inferior, but the had so many of them and were so willing to sacrifice that they achieved considerable success. I think (but admitted cannot prove it at this moment, I'll read up on this) that the LW lost as many or even more planes to the VVS as to the USAAF.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> I can't remember post from you that ever showed any praise towards anything non-american.
> 
> *Check my posts more carefully - particularly when I stipulated that the Me262 was the Best aircraft (in my opinion) built and flown in combat during WWII and agreed the Ta152 as best piston engine Fighter and Interceptor (not P-51H or Spitfire or Meteor or F4U)
> 
> ...



Look up the numbers Soren. Just four of 21 Air Forces within just the USAAF dropped more tonnage and destroyed more German A/c than the RAF and VVS combined from Jan 1944 through the end of the war.. but you think it 'close' choice between US and RAF? And you think you are objective?

Define Objective please

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2007)

Soren no offense but Bill is right. The majority of your arguement is based on "If", "If It", "It almost", "Another few more months" and you state a lot of things but put down no sources or facts to back it up.

You say that best is not allways most powerful. Well I am sorry but the the most powerful in WW2 won and you can not base the quality of an Airforce off of "what ifs".


----------



## drgondog (Jul 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren no offense but Bill is right. The majority of your arguement is based on "If", "If It", "It almost", "Another few more months" and you state a lot of things but put down no sources or facts to back it up.
> 
> You say that best is not allways most powerful. Well I am sorry but the the most powerful in WW2 won and you can not base the quality of an Airforce off of "what ifs".




Chris - an interesting question is "Which Country would NOT trade their Airpower (all aircraft delivered, all aircraft on assembly lines that day, logistics, pilots, pipeline of trained crews) for the US Existing capability Worldwide on Jan1 1944?

Soren? Could you resist holding on to the Luftwaffe? Anyone think the RAF or VVS would stand pat?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

> Check my posts more carefully - particularly when I stipulated that the Me262 was the Best aircraft (in my opinion) built and flown in combat during WWII and agreed the Ta152 as best piston engine Fighter and Interceptor (not P-51H or Spitfire or Meteor or F4U)



Well I'd certainly like to see where you've said this.



> Read carefully when I say the Luftwaffe was the Best AF through 1942 and into 1943.



I agree, and I also agree it wasn't the best in 1944 - 45 but somehow you guys like making it sound like I do, again putting words into my mouth - a very bad habbit of yours Bill!




> Then see if you can make that statement. Your opinion - my written record on this forum.



Well considering that I have praised thew F4U as one of the top 3 best fighters of WW2 I'd certainly like you to claim that I am biased again Bill - *Your* opinion vs My written record on this forum.



> Actually the Tempest and the P38 were equal to the Fw190 in 'All the roles' even though the Tempest was not used as an Interceptor



No they weren't, the Tempest was much less agile than the Fw-190 and so was the P-38, the Tempest couldn't be used at high alt because of poor performance and the P-38 at low alt because of poor performance - the Anton suffered poor high alt performance.



> You made these bold comments before including the statement that the LW was deployed 85% on East Front. I debunked that using Price's Luftwaffe Data Book which you have yet to refute other than waving your arms and saying 'You must believe me!".



No I said that 85% of ALL german forces were deployed on the Eastern Front, and ~80-85% of all casualties were as-well.



> Well the 'situation' didn't permit the Meteor, P-80 or F8F or P-51H to fly escort either and the Ta152H never flew 'escort' missions to my knowledge - so no, you don't have a basis to make the claim as Best Escort Fighter



Again seemingly oblivious to you the reason for the fact that the Ta-152H never acted as escort or as a high altitude fighter was because of lack of fuel.



> LOL - the Pig certainly scored well against both the Dora 9 and other 'more agile' LW fighters on the deck



Really ??! Care to prove that claim ?? Remember we're talking LOW alt here !



> - no question about less acceleration on the deck but a superb Attack Fighter, nevertheless.



It dived well could take alot of punishment, plus it featured very good performance at high alt - thats it - at low alt it was a pig, and I've got German test-flight results to back that up as-well.



> If this, if that - you are all about 'IF". So, why did Soviets copy B-29 and produce instead of 'superior' He277?



Bad excuse Bill. The B-29 was used because the Russians had a captured example of it, thats why.



> Name one?



Sure, BF-108 Bf-109G-12 - thats two...



> Ju 88 and series were excellent a/c but noticably absent in 1944 through 1945 timeframe in Tactical or Strategic Bombing role..



And why the heck do you think ?!! No fighters to protect them or fuel was available !!



> On what basis would you describe the Ju 88 series as better than the A-26 or B-26 as Medium Bombers?



Sure, the Ju-88 Ju-188 were faster, could carry more bombs, higher ceiling, and had a longer range than the B-26. The Ju-388 was much faster in both cruise and max speed compared to the A-26 could carry a larger payload, plus it had a MUCH higher ceiling - infact all three LW a/c had a higher ceiling than the A-26.



> Cite missions and results please, along with performance with payload.



LoL, you're traying to bore me out of this discussion by me having to look up successful missions ! 

There's too many to cite on this page !



> So, an Air Force with one Fw190D, a Me262 a Ta152 and Ar234 becomes the nominated Best Air Force because of quality - not power? Is this how you have been 'objectively' judging the poll question? That would explain a lot.



Don't be stupid Bill, ONE of each ???? No wonder you see things your way 



> Do you think the LW would have traded its a/c and pilots for US in 1944? No?



Nope, but it would've happily traded its resources for Allied resources.



> You are correct - and the Fw190D-13 and Ta152H and He277 was flawless in the same timeframe? Look up the records for fatal accidents for those a/ in the January 1945-March 1945 timeframe.



No you tell me about these fatal accident please ?? Esp. those suffered by the Dora-13, I'd be very interested in hearing about them please !

:Rolleyes:



> The USA had the luxury of withdrawing the P-80 for two months while they fixed the fuel pump problem - but the LW did not.



So the fuel pumps was the only problem ?? Dream on.



> check your climb and manueverability comparisons again before making the blanket statement. Cite the facts not your opinion please



Right back at you ! I cited the facts, cause fact is that the Me-262A-1 out-accellerated, out-climbed and out-maneuvered the P-80 in post-war comparative flights made in the US.



> Disagree all you wish, facts please



I agree, facts please bill.



> I have cited the USAAF Fighter strength available to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany between January 1944 and April 1944 and the available single engine fighters for LuftFlotte Reich and you are completely wrong for the airbattles over Germany with respect to USAAF fighters available to fight LW Fighters. Quit using 5:1 or 8:1 figures until you cite the facts - The 8th AF P-38s and P-51s plus 354FG on loan from the 9th AF was the only Fighter force capable of intercepting German attacks past Frankfurt in that time frame. It is a matter of public record how many were available for both sides.



No Bill, all you have cited is the number of a/c available to the LW, NOT how many could actually leave the ground ! Remember you need fuel to go fly buddy 

The number of a/c available to the LW in the air was FAR less than that available to the Allies, so yes 5:1 - 8:1 scenarios were very common, esp. for the dedicated fighters.



> No I don't, not really. My thesis was "From late 1943 to the present, American airpower was/is the best" . I said with near impunity - and that comment was incorrect for perhaps 10 missions over Germany from December 1943 through the end of the war



Huh ?? Look up the bomber losses please - I certainly wouldn't refer to that as showing any signs of impunity!



> If you wish to deny the statement for the other 400+ missions it is ok with me but you might seem pretty foolish.



Deny ? No need for that, one only has to look up the bomber losses.



> As to the carrier fleets - there was no real purpose other than placing a few on convoy duty to assist in the eradication of the U Boat fleet.. ah, you don't happen to have an example of the US Navy losing a capital ship to U-Boats do you, particularly the 'vulnerable' carrier? I guess the German U-Boat wasn't all that effective in late 1943 and 1944 and 1945? Oh, I know - it was all about numbers not 'quality'



Again you don't know what you're talking about - by late 43 to wars end the German U-boats weren't operating near any US carriers.



> LOL Soren. So, the USAAF 'merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR and UK had done"?? Yes the RAF bombed hell out of Germany and forced round the clock approach to defense. Do you wish to present a thesis that the LW devoted more or even same fighter reaction to RAF bombing as USAAF from late 1943 onward? Do you wish to postulate that even the RAF and VVS COMBINED, destroyed as many German fighters as the USAAF? Go for it. Facts please. I suspect without proof that the P-51 destroyed more German aircraft in the last 15 months of the war than the the VVS and RAF combined -



LoL, the USSR and UK certainly both caused many more German casualties than the US - the USAAF stood for most of the bombing yes, but the damage caused by the bombing wasn't anywhere near as much as that caused by the war on the eastern front, its not even close ! 80 - 85% of all German casualties were on the Eastern front !



> I could be wrong but that number is around 9600.



And that figure is made up of pure guess-work and claims, the accurate figure is far less.



> No, but it did NOT destroy the Luftwaffe Fighter Arm nor did it inflict as many casualties as USAAF all by itself from Dec 1943 forward.



Combined the RAF VSS certainly did as much damage to the LW as the USAAF.



> Excuse me but I haven't yet noticed that quality about you



And I'm afraid I haven't seen that quality about you either - esp. regarding you complete lack of knowledge on the shortage of fuel in Germany by 1944 -45 and its consequences.



> Look up the numbers Soren. Just four of 21 Air Forces within just the USAAF dropped more tonnage and destroyed more German A/c than the RAF and VVS combined from Jan 1944 through the end of the war.. but you think it 'close' choice between US and RAF? And you think you are objective?



Its all about numbers again Bill, the USAAF was present in more numbers. And I'd really like to see you back up the claim that the USAAF destroyed more LW a/c than the RAF VSS did combined with reliable sources accurate figures instead of claimed ones.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2007)

drgondog said:


> You are correct - and the Fw190D-13 and Ta152H and He277 was flawless in the same timeframe?





Soren said:


> No you tell me about these fatal accident please ?? Esp. those suffered by the Dora-13, I'd be very interested in hearing about them please !


Willi Reschke talks about several accidents/crashes during III./JG 301's conversion to the Ta 152H.... Two off the top of my head were deadly for pilots Hermann Durr and Jonny Wiegeshoff, both from 12./301, one at Alteno and the other at Sachau... Both were due to unknown reasons...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 8, 2007)

Soren sez "No I said that 85% of ALL german forces were deployed on the Eastern Front, and ~80-85% of all casualties were as-well".

*That is what you said on this thread - but on a previous thread which I rebutted with Price's TO&E you stated 85% of Luftwaffe - I'll find the quote*

It dived well could take alot of punishment, plus it featured very good performance at high alt - thats it - at low alt it was a pig, and I've got German test-flight results to back that up as-well.

*What you have is the LW flight tests on P-47D-2RA 42-22490 YF-U "Beetle" captured when Roach ran out of fuel in November 1943 and captured intact. No Paddle blades, none of the hp boost that came with the -12 series and up. If that's what you want to use as 'your' LW tests it explains a lot about your fact based argument style. What 'figures' (facts) do you have to prove your position regarding Tempest and P-38 poor agility versus Fw190 on the deck?*

Bad excuse Bill. The B-29 was used because the Russians had a captured example of it, thats why.

*Lol - sure, they didn't evaluate the LW bomber types they captured, right?*

And why the heck do you think ?!! No fighters to protect them or fuel was available !!

*In other words, great potential but short on results?*

Sure, the Ju-88 Ju-188 were faster, could carry more bombs, higher ceiling, and had a longer range than the B-26. The Ju-388 was much faster in both cruise and max speed compared to the A-26 could carry a larger payload, plus it had a MUCH higher ceiling - infact all three LW a/c had a higher ceiling than the A-26.

*Ah, Soren - how many Ju388K's (the bomber version) were produced-10?? As I recall approximately 1000 Ju188s of ALL types were built near the end of the war. Good ships but? effective as medium bombers? No

The Ju88A-4/R with Jumo211J-1's was basically a 273mph(@17,500ft), 1500 mile range with normal fuel and bomb load- 650miles with max bomb load (2500kg~5500pounds), ceiling ~29,000 feet.

The A-26A w/P&WR-2800-52 was a 355mph (@5000 feet), Cruise 310mph, 1,400 mile combat radius, 4,000pound internal bomb load, 8,000 pound max bomb load and up to 16 50 caliber machine guns in attack config, 6 5-'s in bomber config. With lesser R2800's (w/o water boost) the A26A ceiling was considerably lower but max speed and cruise were about the same.

Pick another production Ju 88 as you wish. At least for this comparison the figures seem to bely your zeal for 'all things German"??*

LoL, you're traying to bore me out of this discussion by me having to look up successful missions !  There's too many to cite on this page !

*Name five or even 3*

Don't be stupid Bill, ONE of each ???? No wonder you see things your way 

*How could I even imagine to compete with your vast intellect? or logic?*

Nope, but it would've happily traded its resources for Allied resources.

*My turn to laugh*

No you tell me about these fatal accident please ?? Esp. those suffered by the Dora-13, I'd be very interested in hearing about them please !:Rolleyes:
So the fuel pumps was the only problem ?? Dream on.

*I'll dig up these next - of course the fuel pump was not the only problem - quality on turbine blades also an issue - but sorted out in February timeframe when the production P-80As started delivery to USAAF*

Right back at you ! I cited the facts, cause fact is that the Me-262A-1 out-accellerated, out-climbed and out-maneuvered the P-80 in post-war comparative flights made in the US.

*Once again your version of facts relies entirely on what you believe - flight test data please?*

No Bill, all you have cited is the number of a/c available to the LW, NOT how many could actually leave the ground ! Remember you need fuel to go fly buddy 

The number of a/c available to the LW in the air was FAR less than that available to the Allies, so yes 5:1 - 8:1 scenarios were very common, esp. for the dedicated fighters.

*Facts Soren - I presented TO&E of 8th FC, Alfred Price's 'effectives' for all LW units in LuftFlotte Reich and you babble/conjecture your version of 'truth' and facts - cite references please, Soren*

Huh ?? Look up the bomber losses please - I certainly wouldn't refer to that as showing any signs of impunity!

*Exactly 13 8th AF missions in which Luftwaffe flak and fighters shot down 5% or more of the bomber force from Dec1, 1943 through end of war. None after May 12. Roger Freeman Mighty Eighth War Diary. If you want another definition of heavy losses, specify for point of argument - and this time do your own researchz?*

Again you don't know what you're talking about - by late 43 to wars end the German U-boats weren't operating near any US carriers.

*In fact US escort carriers were in the Atlantic from 1943 forward and the much vaunted U-Boat were useless against them*

Combined the RAF VSS certainly did as much damage to the LW as the USAAF.

*Facts, Soren - what reference do you wish to cite?*

And I'm afraid I haven't seen that quality about you either - esp. regarding you complete lack of knowledge on the shortage of fuel in Germany by 1944 -45 and its consequences.

*BS Alert Soren - do you even know when the USAAF strategic Oil Campaign started or what the production figures were prior to, in the middle of the campaign? Speer certainly understood and published his thoughts, I have repeatedly stated and acknowledged the lack of fuel*

Its all about numbers again Bill, the USAAF was present in more numbers. And I'd really like to see you back up the claim that the USAAF destroyed more LW a/c than the RAF VSS did combined with reliable sources accurate figures instead of claimed ones.[/QUOTE]

*Do you have a source referencing all LW losses in 1944 and 1945 which is my claim period? My source for all aerial victories is USAF Study 85 plus 8th AF Victory Credits Board for ground destruction and the Strategic Bombing Survey post WWII. Name your sources please?*

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

*The Ju-88G-7*
Top speed: 626 km/h at 9000m
Cruise speed: 560 km/h at 9000m
Ceiling: 10,000m
Range: 2,250 km

Yes, even the Ju-88 is superior to both the A-26 B-26 Bill.

As to your so often claim that the LW had more a/c available in the ETO by 1944, a huge amount of those a/c couldn't even take off as there wasn't any fuel - hence why German pilots say they were out-numbered in the air.

Now as to why the Russians didn't copy the He-277 design, simple, they didn't have any ! - on the other hand they did have a B-29.

Now as to your claim that the Dora-13 suffered many accidents, please prove this claim ! Also only a few Ta-152's suffered accidents.


And as to the Me-262 P-80 debate; 

*USAAF Conclusion*
_"Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."_

*NACA*
_"Fowler-type high-lift flaps were provided at the trailing edge of the wing, and full-span slats were incorporated in the leading edges. The slats were actuated automatically by surface pressures at the leading edge when the angle of attack exceeded a prescribed value. The use of these devices gave the aircraft acceptable landing and takeoff performance with a wing loading of about 60 pounds per square foot. (Within limits, the higher the wing loading, the smaller the wing area and drag area; thus for a given thrust level, the higher the maximum speed.) In addition to improving takeoff and landing performance, the slats improved the high-g turning capability in maneuvering flight."_

Anything else ??


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2007)

Yea Soren, u seemed to ignore my post above Bills....


----------



## drgondog (Jul 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> *The Ju-88G-7*
> Top speed: 626 km/h at 9000m
> Cruise speed: 560 km/h at 9000m
> Ceiling: 10,000m
> ...



Sure - next time don't quote a Night Fighter version of the Ju88 (G-7) when you are trying to make a point about Medium Bomber?

*Specification : Ju88G-7b.
Year : 1944.
Type : night fighter.
Crew : four , pilot, observer , radio operator/gunner and gunner.
Power plant : Two Junkers Jumo 213E 12 cylinder , liquid cooled engines each developing 1725 HP.
Dimensions : span 65ft7in. , length 47ft.8in. , height 15ft.11in. , wing area 586.63 sq.ft.
Weights : Empty (equipped) 28,900lb , loaded (maximum) 32,350lb.
Performance : Maximum speed 270 mp/h at sea level ; 402 mp/h at 29,800ft. ; endurance, 3 hr 72 min at economical power ; climb rate 1665 ft per min ; service ceiling 32,800ft.
Armament : six 20 mm MG 151 cannons , four firing forward , two firing obliquely upward.
One 13 mm MG 131 machine gun on flexible mount in rear of cockpit.*

Aren't you cute bringing a Night Fighter Version to a Medium Bomber discussion? Well you have to try to win somehow, don't you.

Try again? Sigh


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Yea Soren, u seemed to ignore my post above Bills....



Sorry Les. 

Yes there were some crashes, but most were pilot error IIRC, and some haven't been explained. A few were the cause of technical problems.

*Bill,*

I didn't realize it was purely about bombing, but since it is according to you the Ju-88R was capable of dropping bombs, and it was just as fast as the G-7. But by 1944 the Ju-88's role had switched from bombing to night fighting, the bombing was mainly carried out by the Ju-188 Ju-388 which were both better medium bombers than any USAAF a/c.

PS: The Ju-88G-7B was even faster than 626 km/h, it would reach 647 km/h at 10,200m with MW-50.

And as to your so called "BS-Alerts", very funny, perhaps I should say that about some the ridiculous stuff you have claimed.

The Russians most likely didn't build the He-277 for a number of reasons:
A) They didn't know about this a/c
B) The manufacturing of this a/c was too complex for their industry (Wouldn't be a first)
C) They already had a B-29

Oh and btw, you can stop your ridiculous digging after sources that claim the Dora-13 suffered many accidents, you'll realize how ridiculous that claim of yours is when you realize just how many were actually made.


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

Oh and as for references:
ch11-2


----------



## The Basket (Jul 8, 2007)

The order to copy the B-29 was from Stalin not Tupelov. Tupelov would have rather designed his own plane. He wanted B-29s from USA but they wouldn't give him any so he copied the three that he had. 

Stalin wanted a strategic bomber force very very quickly. The B-29 was proven and the technology available. Bet on the winning horse for low risk and quick results.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2007)

OH NO, Quick Basket, get out of there, you just entered a *MINEFIELD!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Russians most likely didn't build the He-277 for a number of reasons:
> A) They didn't know about this a/c
> B) The manufacturing of this a/c was too complex for their industry (Wouldn't be a first)
> C) They already had a B-29



And was so complex about the assembly of the He 227? I see it no more complex to assemble than and other large 4 engine bomber of WW2.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 8, 2007)

The USAAC had something the Germans never quite mastered and that was the art or ability to strategic bomb. How many bombers could they put up on a consistent basis .They would have been smart to scrap any of their heavy bomber projects and invested the saved money in other endeavours. Let alone freeing up shopspace and trained manpower to enhance their fighter production .
If my info is correct the Steinbock raids of 43/44 were any example they started out with about 427 bombers and within 5 months and 29 raids the RAF had the LW down to 130 bombers .


----------



## drgondog (Jul 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> Sorry Les.
> 
> Yes there were some crashes, but most were pilot error IIRC, and some haven't been explained. A few were the cause of technical problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2007)

drgondog said:


> *Point made on Ta152 but more to come. Your point made on Fw190D-13 - I misspoke and meant Fw190D program but I accept that -13s didn't have troubled history except for 3 stage carb that didn't work very well.*


*

Finally..




Having said that my comment to you is that the P-80 had some problems but really no more than the Ta152 and Fw190D. Stand by that comment!

Click to expand...

*
Err, yes it did - the FW-190 Dora didn't suffer any serious problems, and the Ta-512's equipped with the good batch of engines performed excellently with no troubles at all.



> *Ju388 - how many ships built? how many missions flown? Ditto for the 'Medium Bomber Choice de Jour version of the Ju188? versus the A26?*



101 + Ju-388's were produced, and ~1,230 Ju-188's were produced.



> *Yawn - it was a Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhtttttt Fighter with uprated engines heavy forward firing armament designed to shoot down Lancasters*



Still, find me a USAAF nightfighter that can go just as fast.



> *Soren - you went on the tangent to describe that the Ju88 was a better bomber with suprior performance to the A26. I simply rebutted it and then you brought in one of several Night Fighter versions to compare speed - works well in "BS" pot!*



The point was to compare the Ju-88's fitted with the BMW-801 G engines which were faster than the A-26, the bombers actually being much faster - the night-fighting equipment robbing around 25 km/h of the top speed.



> *Soren - you make me smile. The Soviets didn't KNOW about the mysterious He277. Germany MANAGED to keep this marvelous a/c hidden from USSR. B-29 simpler to copy and tool for than complex, secret, unknown He277?USSR 'children' unable to comprehend the complexities of the he277 so took second (or is it third or fourth) best heavy bomber of WWII*


*

I make you smile ??!

Cut the indirect bias accusations, it doesn't get you anywhere other than you being looked upon as a child.

What is it about the fact that the Russians didn't know about the He-277 that you don't understand ?? They never even had a look at one in the air ! And the Russians didn't acquire themselves an example of the He-177 either - they were gone.

And as to the complexity of the He-277 design, well it was likely a very complex design, it was after-all German, and the Germans have a habbit of over-engineering - OT example: The design of the 120mm L/44 Rheinmetall gun had to be simplified in order for US industry to be capable of producing it.




Having said that, it's important to note that that comparsion was allegedly between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimmensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was either one of the XP-80 ships remaining in England or one from Italy that went over in Nov 1944 or Jan 1945

Click to expand...


The Me-262 wasn't a recon version, all captured Me-262's which entered comparative testing were fighter versions. But would you be so kind as to tell me where you've heard the rumor that it was a recon. 

Also I'd very much doubt that the P-80 was a XP or YP prototype, it was much more likely a A series production model. But the XP YP prototypes were both lighter than the A series production model.




Is this the test you wish to make your case on versus the P-80A (which was not done head to head) which was in production in Feb1945? The pilots that flew both the P-80A and THAT Me262 described the P-80A as the "Best in the world"

Click to expand...


I'd have wondered if they didn't cause the captured Me-262's certainly weren't run at full power, and the pilots weren't used to it either, plus there's always some national pride. The German pilots who flew both a/c describe the Me-262 as the best, but again the same factors apply. All in all I believe that an excellent example Me-262 P-80 were overall equal to each other, the Me-262 being more maneuverable at high speed and possessing a higher critical mach number.




although proponents of the Meteor 4 could have something to say about that description!

Click to expand...


The Meteor Mk.4 was too slow though - an otherwise fine a/c though.




What is the USAAF Report number and date you are quoting from?

Click to expand...


Its the same as yours I'd presume.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2007)

I can allready see this thread is going to be marred with insults and everything and get the thread closed, which is going to ruin it for everyone else because people are going to stop acting like adults.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2007)

OK, to get things back on track.....

I was wondering what the rest of you think about how Germany's obvious lead in advanced aerial weapons really counted in the equations of WW2.

I was dwelling on this today as I flew back from Dallas to OC, and came to the conclusion that it shouldn't even be counted, as these were weapons for the future, not for the "here and now" reality of 1939-1945.

For instance, the jet bombers were still a couple of years away from being in production (sorry Soren, but its obvious that the LW was going to rush many prototypes into service before they were fully tested and made ready) and couldn't even be considered weapons of WW2. They flew no missions and had *ZERO* impact on the war besides scaring the crap out of the allies.

Ditto the same for the rockets...... too little too late. Would have been a big factor had the war in Europe dragged on for another year or two.... but like I said, we're talking about the actual war years, not a "what if or could of" scenario.

I was also thinking about the real impact of the Me-262. Just what did it really do besides showing to the allies that the Germans were in the forefront of jet technology? I dont recall it shooting down masses of bombers, and it seems that the kill per sortie rate wasn't too impressive.

Your thought's?


----------



## Soren (Jul 10, 2007)

The Me-262 certainly wasn't rushed into production, it was massively delayed, it was ready already in 1943. And its the same story about many other German machines, so forget your little prototype theory.

As to the Me-262's service record, its excellent considering the situation under which it operated, and it acquired itself a very nice kill ratio in terms of shoot downs vs losses due to aerial combat. Counting losses from all causes the Me-262 has a 1.5 to 1 kill/loss ratio.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Me-262 certainly wasn't rushed into production, it was massively delayed, it was ready already in 1943. And its the same story about many other German machines, so forget your little prototype theory.
> 
> As to the Me-262's service record, its excellent considering the situation under which it operated, and it acquired itself a very nice kill ratio in terms of shoot downs vs losses due to aerial combat. Counting losses from all causes the Me-262 has a 1.5 to 1 kill/loss ratio.



You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2007)

Marcel said:


> You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.



Exactly Marcel.

Personally I feel the LW would have been better served by concentrating on only -190 and -262 production.

But when you look at the actual war record of the -262, for having an aircraft a whole generation better than the allied types, scoring only 1.5 kills isn't really that impressive. The LW was needing to knock down hundreds of bombers at a time and they could only shoot down this number?

Soren.... "delays" are nothing but excuses. Several key AAF airplanes had delays, but no one here is arguing "if only.....".


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2007)

Marcel said:


> You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.



I have to admit this is a very good point. As well as increased numbers had the development effort on the Me262 been put to use, you may well have had the 190D six months earlier and the 152. This could easily have made quite a difference.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2007)

I find it ineteresting how something that was still having major engine problems in 1945 was ready to go in 1943. Seems to me it still needed some work.

I agree with Marcel that the Luftwaffe would have been better served with more 190s and 109s.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I find it ineteresting how something that was still having major engine problems in 1945 was ready to go in 1943. Seems to me it still needed some work.
> 
> I agree with Marcel that the Luftwaffe would have been better served with more 190s and 109s.



Maybe even get the -152 flying late in 1944 when it could have made an impact.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Maybe even get the -152 flying late in 1944 when it could have made an impact.



Hard to imagine it making a bigger impact than the 262. 

To fight it still had to come down to bomber/escort level, probably needed some relative mass in numbers and not far enough ahead of a 51 or Spit or P-47 at 30,000 feet to completely dominate - 

For the sake of argument it could have an altitude advantage as long as the command and control gave them enough warning to take off and climb.. But the same existed for 109G-6A/S and subsequent very good high altitude performance fighters. They did not even achieve parity despite having altitude advantage and role responsibility for protecting the Fw190A8s and Me410s.

The Experten still existed in significant numbers but even that didn't prove much in JG44 with an incredible airplane - so why does the Ta152 change the equation?

Elements of JG26 and III./JG54 had the 190D in Dec 1944, as good as it was, and lost some devastating fights with 51s and Spits in the December-January 1945 timeframe, flown by some very good pilots. Why does anyone think the Ta152 would somehow out class the 190D by an order of magnitude in that timeframe?

Pilot skill was still the dominant factor and the balance had long before swung to Allies - at least as far as average skills are recognized?

I may be wrong but in my opinion Boddenplatte put the final stake in the LW heart as it lost far too many irreplacable pilots - even though the air war was really lost at that point.. and German industry was pounded. 

As I re-read the histories of JG54 and JG26 so many Fw190D-9s seemed to have been lost to mechanical (engine) failures - just like the 262 - and the P51Bs in Jan-April 1944. Doubt if the Jumo 213's in the Ta152 could have been brought into reliability any faster?

I suspect that the RAF and 8th AF and 12th and 15th could have ceased all bomber operations at that point, assigned every Fighter Group in RAF and 8th Free Lance Sweep duties and mopped up the Lufwaffe even earlier without changing one milestone in the ground war.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2007)

Ok, so lets look at it this way for the time period beginning June 1 1944.

1) Leadership.
The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

2) Strategy.
Again the AAF is a magnitude better than the LW because the US had a vision for strategic bombing, formulated a doctrine and built and produced heavy bombers to achieve that goal before the war even started. The LW had the chance to do it, but failed. Playing catch up in the middle of the war was a case of too little too late. The AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

3) Global Reach.
The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US *DID* fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.

4) Industrial capabilities.
Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes *AND* produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.

5) Strategic Bombers.
Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all). And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.

6) Long range fighters.
The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none. The AAF is a magnitude better than the LW on this. Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.

7) Fighters.
Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.

8 ) Fighter bombers.
AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.

9) Light/Attack bombers.
Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due. 

10) Medium bombers.
Slight edge to the LW on this one. The JU-88 definatly was better than the B25 and B26 in the medium bombing role. Although the B25 was probably better than the JU88 in the low altitude gunship role as used in the Pacific.

11) Training.
The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck. 

12) Night fighters.
The LW gets the edge here. The JU88 was better than the P61, but not a magnitude better.

13) Avionics.
Equal.

14) Transports.
Edge to the AAF simply due to the C47 and C54 being among the legendary aircraft of all time.

15) Advanced weapons.
Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war. 

16) camoflauge.
The LW was definatly better than the AAF in coming up with cool looking paint schemes (for us modelers).


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 10, 2007)

Gotta agree with everything Bill posted up above...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 10, 2007)

I'd like to see how the people who chose the RAF, came to their conclusions.

RAF vs AAF

RAF vs LW


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 10, 2007)

I couldn't for the RAF but almost could for the RCAF but common sense took over and I voted USAAF. We should declare the USAAC and C47 best of class and debate who's second


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I couldn't for the RAF but almost could for the RCAF but common sense took over and I voted USAAF. We should declare the USAAC and C47 best of class and debate who's second



I actually have enormous respect for Britain (and Germany) and their capabilities to move both technologies and power to the levels achieved. 

What happened is that Germany chose its allies and foes poorly and the Brits didn't. Nobody went from parochial 2nd Class World Power slightly in category of Italy in 1939 to the juggernaught air power of 1944 like the US... or army like the Soviets in the same time frame.

The analogy might be the 90 pund strongman kicking the 350 pound out of shape sumo wrestler's ass for first 10 seconds of a fight... from an industrial and enginerring talent standpoint as US and USSR "re-adjusted priorities" from razor blades and movies and baseball and tractors to aircraft, carriers, merchant ships and a horde of well armed and increasingly well trained human beings.

Ta 152s and V-2s and He277s and Me262s were irrelevant - only the A-bomb early could have made a difference for Germany.

Speer had that argument with Hitler and Goering in 1941 urging Hitler not to a.) declare war or b.) underestimate us. Yamamoto failed also.

The rest, as they say, is history


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Ok, so lets look at it this way for the time period beginning June 1 1944.
> 
> 1) Leadership.
> The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.
> ...



Good post and I have to agree with it.


----------



## Soren (Jul 11, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> 1) Leadership.
> The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.



Agreed. The man calling the shots for the LW wasn't the right man.



> 2) Strategy.
> Again the AAF is a magnitude better than the LW because the US had a vision for strategic bombing, formulated a doctrine and built and produced heavy bombers to achieve that goal before the war even started. The LW had the chance to do it, but failed. Playing catch up in the middle of the war was a case of too little too late. The AAF is a clear and decisive winner.




Strategy was influenced by Hitler Goering, so yes I agree.



> 3) Global Reach.
> The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US *DID* fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.



Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.



> 4) Industrial capabilities.
> Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes *AND* produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.



Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.



> 5) Strategic Bombers.
> Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
> No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all).



The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

So I'd say they're equal.



> And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.



Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.



> 6) Long range fighters.
> The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none.



The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.



> Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.



What a load of rubbish! The P-38 was a turkey compared to the fighter in the ETO, the only reason it did well in the PTO was because it was much faster than its opponents.



> 7) Fighters.
> Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.



Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.

In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.



> 8 ) Fighter bombers.
> AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.



Could the P-47 or P-38 carry a 1,800 kg bomb ?? No! So the LW might only have one really good fighter-bomber but, its better than those of the USAAF - So again the LW is better.



> 9) Light/Attack bombers.
> Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.



Wow! Being generous are we ? 



> 10) Medium bombers.
> Slight edge to the LW on this one. The JU-88 definatly was better than the B25 and B26 in the medium bombing role.



Agreed.



> 11) Training.
> The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.



Its not tough luck, its what happens when an incompitent man is calling the shots for you and you cannot question his decision.



> 12) Night fighters.
> The LW gets the edge here. The JU88 was better than the P61, but not a magnitude better.



Agreed.



> 13) Avionics.
> Equal.



Agreed.



> 14) Transports.
> Edge to the AAF simply due to the C47 and C54 being among the legendary aircraft of all time.



Agreed.



> 15) Advanced weapons.
> Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.



Again a complete load of rubbish from Syscom3!

The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this.

The fact that the US acquired the A-bomb first (By the help of German scientists espionage) doesn't at all mean they were ahead in advanced weapons - firstly because the splitting is a rather simple concept, one first thought of carried out by the Germans btw but again rejected by Hitler, and secondly because its just ONE thing - its really the only important advanced weapon deployed by the US - all the while the Germans were deploying MANY more advanced weapons.



> 16) camoflauge.
> The LW was definatly better than the AAF in coming up with cool looking paint schemes (for us modelers).



Come on!


----------



## The Basket (Jul 11, 2007)

The germans did have their own weapon of mass destruction and was called Sarin. It is a nerve agent.

The Manhattan project was absolutely huge but so was the V2 project.

But if given a choice between an atomic bomb, Ta-152, Me-262 or V-2...I would go for me mushroom cloud.


----------



## bigZ (Jul 11, 2007)

"The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this."

I agree in terms of advanced projects the Germans where far ahead of the allies. But a lot were far from production with little or no chance of being used due to the detoriating situation at best. 

The V2 program was a huge drain on resources especially in the area of electronics/instrument technology that could been better used elsewhere(might have had a succesful Gyro site in full production before war end etc). The V1 on the other hand was indirectly more successful as it did mange to tie down squadrons and AA for a fraction of the cost and disruption to other projects.

The german research demonstrated time and again the waste of resources and manpower compared to the allies. Just one example of many is a huge tunnel built specially to see how a bullet is effected by crosswinds when fired from a bomber turret. The allies on the other hand simply tracked a bullet from a bomber in flight. 

In my opinion the Luftwaffe where the best tactical airforce upto 43. But fortunately missed their window of oppurtuninty and their limited strategic capabilty definately made them 2nd rate. Even if they somehow managed to hold on till 46 do you really think as Hitler that it would change the course of the war with the new wonder weapons?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 11, 2007)

I agree that the Germans had great plans for wonderful weapons but drawing them on a napkin is much easier then building them


----------



## drgondog (Jul 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.
> 
> *Your knowledge of world history beyond England-Germany Russia is faulty.
> 
> ...



Yeah, roll those eyes. Syscom is pretty much dead on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.



However this is reality and the allies had Carriers therefore the Global reach of the alies was farther than the Luftwaffe.

Facts are Facts. History is History...



Soren said:


> Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.



Have to disagree with you. The techniques the US was using were the future and better than those in Germany. Was Germany going to be able to put out Bombers in numbers like the US was. 

If they could, please show me facts proving this and I will believe you.



Soren said:


> The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.
> 
> So I'd say they're equal.



How can you call it even. I dont care if the Luftwaffe did prioritize fighters or not. They did not have the strategic bombers that the US did? Therefore it is not even. The Luftwaffe was far behind in Strategic bombers compared to the US. 

Fact is Fact, History is History, you can not rewrite history...





Soren said:


> Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.



Yes it is a fact, and a fact that hindered the Luftwaffe and contributed to it no longer being the best in the last few years of the war. FAct is fact, history is history, it can not be rewritten.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

drogdog said:


> Japan was first bombed by B-29s from China.



Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.



I was going to mention that since the B25 was carrier capable as compared to the JU88, it made it a better medium bomber. But I figured you and Flyboy would slap me down for it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

Yes we most certainly would have.....


----------



## The Basket (Jul 12, 2007)

To my knowledge only the Germans had nerve agents during WW2. German invention,see.

The UK had huge stockpiles of mustard gas which we would fired at any invading army.

British scientists were shocked at what the Germans really had. They assumed they had old WW1 gases as well. 

Dammit...I'm having flashbacks to all those CW drills...sure not nice in summer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2007)

The Basket said:


> To my knowledge only the Germans had nerve agents during WW2. German invention,see.



That is what I thought as well. The Germans invented Saren, Soran, and Tuban before and during WW2. 

The allies did not have Nerve Agents until after they captured them before the end of the war.

The same team that invented Saren, Soran, and Tuban invented Cyclosarin in 1949 after the war.

The British invented VX Gas in 1952 and later traded the technology to the US.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.



Chris - you are of course right - but my command of the English language failed me. What I intended by the sentence was that B-29's started bombing Japan from China before the Marianas (which required Carrier Task Force to secure). 

The intent was to demonstrate to Soren that all kinds of strategic strikes were carried out by USAAF without England or Carriers.

BTW - I was wrong about Sarin being in production in late WWII. It was only Discovered by US (and Britain and Soviets) at end of WWII.

Mustard Gas was the 'threat' by Allies if Germany used poison gas - apparently we were not aware of the Nerve Agents - only the Respiratory types until end of WWII. I believe GB had large stocks of Mustard from WWI still in Britain during WWII


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2007)

> 3) Global Reach.
> The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US DID fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.
> 
> Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.



The AAF fought in several theaters in the world, as well as having an operating sceduled intercontiental transport service (beginnings of the MATS?) The LW really only fought in one contienent. It doesnt matter if England wa sint he picture or not. The US could project its power to nearly any place on Earth. There was a B17 pilot in the forum that told us in 1943, his route to the war took him from Florida, to S America, acroos the Atlantic to Africa and then up to Italy. As far as I know, the LW didnt have that capability.



> 4) Industrial capabilities.
> Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes AND produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.
> 
> Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.



To some extent? The US had a vast pool of managerial, scientific, technical and engineering personell in which to draw talent to produce things. Plus we had a far richer economy in which to build more of them. Soren, the US industrial capacity was so vast, even for those progams and projects that wasted resources, it had no impact on the overall war effort. Show me where the Germans built more aircraft than the US after Jan 1 1944. The facts are indisputable. The US built far more aircraft and kept them supplied and in operation than anything the LW was capable of.



> 5) Strategic Bombers.
> Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
> No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all).
> 
> ...



I dont care about the excuses for fuel and "priorities". The US had the capacity to build vast numbers of fighters AND bombers AND transports AND naval aircraft. The LW didnt. End result, and its extremely clear on it..... in 1944, every week, the US had thousands of heavy bombers available, flying tens of thousands of sorties, dropping tens of thousands of bombs. The LW had only a few planes that were of dubious reliability, or existed only on paper.

Soren, in Dec 1943, tell us how many LW squadrons there were and the number of sorties they flew?



> And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.
> 
> Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.



No fuel = no training
No fuel = limited operations
Lack of materials = production and logistics issues.

Sorry Soren. Fuel is the number one sonsideration of any AF.

The size of an airforce is dictated by the number of pilots, and the amount of fuel that can be used for operations.



> 6) Long range fighters.
> The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none.
> 
> The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.



The P38 flew 2600 mile and 3200 mile missions. The P51 flew 2600 mile missions. Note that i used a plural form of "mission". The P47N had a design spec for 2000 miles. Now what were you saying about the Ta-152?



> Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.
> 
> What a load of rubbish! The P-38 was a turkey compared to the fighter in the ETO, the only reason it did well in the PTO was because it was much faster than its opponents.



The P38 was also used for recon, as a light bomber in "droop snoot" missions. It was the best fighter in the Pacific due to its range. It was good enough in the ETO for the escort role. And as was proven on many occasions in the air-to-air role..... a good P38 pilot flying a P38L, and keeping his aircraft in its best flight "envelope" could dish it out to the -109 and -190 pilots.



> 7) Fighters.
> Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.
> 
> Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.
> ...



I would agree that using the fighters in a purely defensive role would make them better. But defense is what cost you the war. Your fighters couldnt handle the ranges needed to go on the offensive.

And read many of the threads regarding what plane was the best. Many people proved that every single fighter had its optimum flight paramaters. And any pilot who kept his fighter in that envelope, and his opponant got out of his...... was probably going to shoot him down.

You think that your LW fighters were only the most maneuverable, fastest, heaviest armed and best climber/diver? Think again.



> 8 ) Fighter bombers.
> AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.
> 
> Could the P-47 or P-38 carry a 1,800 kg bomb ?? No! So the LW might only have one really good fighter-bomber but, its better than those of the USAAF - So again the LW is better.



The P38 was used as a light bomber on occasion. The P47 had the second strongest framework of any single engined fighter of WW2. Only the F4U had a stronger body. Speaking of which, if we include the Corsair, the AAF would have three fighter bombers.

The AAF maintains its edge.



> 9) Light/Attack bombers.
> Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.
> 
> Wow! Being generous are we ?



I call them as I see them.



> 11) Training.
> The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.
> 
> Its not tough luck, its what happens when an incompitent man is calling the shots for you and you cannot question his decision.



Its tough luck that you didnt have fuel to train your pilots. The AAF was giving its pilot-trainee's more and more hours, while the LW was cutting back.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2007)

> 15) Advanced weapons.
> Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.
> 
> Again a complete load of rubbish from Syscom3!
> ...



Wars are fought in the here and now, not in the future. If your advanced weapons were used in the conflict to effect the outcome of a battle, then I would give the LW credit. But they werent. If you want a seperate catagory for advanced wepaons for future use, I will be glad to make one for it. But then again, why waste energy in producing weapons for years down the road, when you only have months to live.

So tell us how the V1 and V2 swung the war in favor of the Germans? And tell us how many bombers were shot down by ME262's?

BTW, the atomic bombs were collarborative effort by many scientists and technicians, not just the German ones. You also forget that the US itself provided the vast ammount of industrial expertise to build the things in the first place. And dont you think an atomic bomb WAS the advanced weapon of all time?


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.


Neither the Germasn or the British had anything like Willow Run but to be fair there is one important difference. The USA wasn't under any real danger of attack. Had Germany built or tried to build a Willow Run type of factory it would have been wiped out by allied bombers before completion.



> The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.


This I fundamentally disagree with. To all intents and purposes the Germans didn't have any strategic bombers. The nearest they had, the 177, was built in very limited numbers, was dreadfully unreliable not to say dangerous and the only time it came to being used in this fashion (The Mini Blitz Jan to Mar 1944) it sufferred very heavy losses. 
It should also be noted that it only had to as far as London say 120 miles from base or 50 miles from the French coast. Not, many Hundreds of miles as undertaken on hundreds of thousands of sorties by B17/B24/Lanc/Halifax and others. 



> The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.


This doesn't matter at all. The post is about the best best WW2 airforce. A plane that only entered the war in the last few months when the war was already lost, in very very limited numbers, unless it did something remarkable is irrelevant [/QUOTE]



> Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.
> 
> In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.



If the LW had the best defensive fighters they would have won the air war over Germany. The 152, 190D and 262 were remarkable aircraft but were to late. The LW had already lost the war over Germany.


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2007)

> Your knowledge of world history beyond England-Germany Russia is faulty.



No it is not. 



> Ploesti, the most important single source of Petroleum for the 3rd Reich was bombed to oblivion from a former Axis state - Italy. Much of the SE Germany and Austria aircraft industry at Weiner-Neustadt and Regensburg and Augsburg and Leipzig was bombed (as well as England based 8th) by 12th and 15th AF from Italy. Italy was invaded from Sicily - not England.Japan was first bombed by B-29s from China. In short Global Reach far exceeding the LW even w/o carriers



LoL, Britain contributed to the invasion of Italy. The USAAF alone didn't have a longer reach than the LW, both depended on captured or Allied ground to reach out further.



> Name three LW plants combined that put as many a/c as Willow Run GM plant



You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas. The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict thurough - hence the longer production time hence why I said what I said.

And no I'm not saying that the Allies were building low quality products, not at all, however they weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans were.



> They prioritized Fighter production when it became clear in early 1944 that German industry would die from USSAF precison attacks - and German bombers weren't doing much against anybody



They prioritized fighter production because they realized they were hopelessly out-numbered in the air, which is also why German bombers weren't operating as intended. 

PS: USAAF bombers weren't very precise and no'more precise than the bombers of the LW or RAF, so forget your little precision-attack theory.



> Syscom 'not dealing well' with your world?



Insults from Bill again, how surprising, he seems to rely on these very much.

Ha! Syscom3 is not dealing well with reality if anything, but he's certainly dealing well with your world though Bill.



> Did it? Did it fly 100o miles? did it escort anything? - but it was 'the greatest escort fighter"? Perhaps in a different world of 'possibility' in which reality counts for nothing.



No it didn't, there wasn't enough fuel. But thats not the point, the point is the LW possessed a long range fighter a/c. 



> It was also faster than its LW opponents and solved its compressibility problems in mid 1944.



It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again. 

NO Bill, the P-38 was not faster than its LW opponents, the P-38 was slower far less nimble.



> The Ta152H got how many kills?



11 kills to 0 losses.



> The Fw190D got how many kills?



Plenty, and amazingly many considering the circumstances under which it had to operate.



> The Me262 was the best of all fighters that actually flew combat - including the Ta152 and Fw190D - what did it contribute to the war effort?



Too few, too late, too little fuel.



> So great that they were virtually driven from the skies beginning with mere defeat in early to mid 1944 when they had local air superiority over Germany, to complete disarray in early 1945 even with fighter vs fighter air superiority during Operation Bodenplatte?



Bill again demonstrates his excellent ability to completely ignore the fact that by 1944 trained men fuel was in scarse supply in the LW, and that the LW didn't enjoy local air-superiority AT ALL when you count how many LW a/c actually went airborne in that period. 



> So what. A 3000 pounder might be effective against Sub Pens but who cares re: fighter Bomber. I'd rather carry 3 x 1000 pounders like the P-38 and F4U and P-47



Bill again playing loosely with the facts..

The P-47 could NOT carry a bomb-load of 3,000 lbs, let alone 3x 1000 lbs bombs !! The P-38 could carry close 3,000 lbs in total but it could NOT carry 3x 1000 lbs bombs. 




> How far is far?? I forget. Multitude? Me 262 and Ar234 versus Meteor and P-80?



The Me-262 Ar-234 were both much superior jet aircraft. 

The P-80A was downright dangerous to fly, plus it was too slow sluggish compared to the Me-262A-1a.

The Meteor was a fine serviceable Jet aircraft but just waay too slow.



> Sarin versus Sarin and the A-Bomb. V-2s versus 4000 B17/B-24 plus 2000 lancasters with escort fighters? plus all the Medium bombers capablre of the same load actually Hitting the target instead of the cornfields?



The V-1 V-2 weren't inaccurate if thats what you're implying, they were infact amazingly accurate considering range travelled - London was hit with good consistancy by both weapons.

As to avanced weapons equipment, the German LW employed a/c AA rockets, self-guided bombs missiles, night-vision, auto-pilots, auto-engine prop management computers etc etc.. 

So yes the German were FAR ahead in advanced weapons equipment.



> The V1 was totally worthless and the V-2 essentially the same - indefensible against cornfield attacks







> Sarin was one - and the US had a stockpile in Colorado. Had Hitler used it against the allies there might not be much German spoken today



Both had this weapon so why mention it ?



> - any other weapons that 'might have made a difference' ??



Had there been enough fuel, many. The Allies would've been in a very dire situation had the Me-262 been deployed in 1943 as intended and there being enough fuel for it to operate in full numbers. There's no chance the Allies were going to set foot on mainland Europe then thats for sure.



> Think Soren, if anything you mentioned as the wonder weapon managed to extend the war in Europe three more months - what do you think Berlin would look like today - instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?



Says Bill who is clueless as to how short the war would've been had the Allies possessed weapons machines which could've matched the ones deployed by Germany on an individual basis. Also I have a feeling dropping a nuclear bomb in Europa wasn't going to be liked by many of the surrounding countries and would be seen as a very serious war-crime a no less serious crime against humanity - esp. considering the fact that it wasn't needed in order to come to terms with the Nazis, the Nazi party could be disposed of in many other ways had the war dragged on - Hitler wasn't a very well liked person during 44-45, even his own stab attempting to do dispose of him.



drgondog said:


> Yeah, roll those eyes. Syscom is pretty much dead on



No he is clearly not, he is infact almost completely wrong.


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2007)

> If the LW had the best defensive fighters they would have won the air war over Germany. The 152, 190D and 262 were remarkable aircraft but were to late. The LW had already lost the war over Germany.



Glider, just because you have the best weapons machines doesn't mean you're automatically going to win: Quality vs quantity. Numbers count for as much as quality in many situations.

The Germans fielded superior small-arms, AFV's aircraft throughout the war, yet they didn't win, the reason being they were fighting against too many at once from to many directions. 

What does it matter that you have far better tanks if you're losing them faster than you can build new ones ? And what does it matter that you have far better fighters if they can't land or take-off in safety and are lacking fuel trained pilots ? And what does it matter that you have better equipment if your army is simply too few in numbers for these to ever make up for this huge disadvantage in numbers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas. The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict thurough - hence the longer production time hence why I said what I said.
> 
> And no I'm not saying that the Allies were building low quality products, not at all, however they weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans were.



In some instances you're correct but in fact where "German quality inspections were also all a lot more strict thorough" there was also a lot of needless inspection which hampered "quantity" which was so desperately needed by the end of the war. In essence German quality turned out to be its own worse enemy...


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2007)

Very much agreed FLYBOYJ.


----------



## Soren (Jul 12, 2007)

Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again.


----------



## Hop (Jul 12, 2007)

> The V-1 V-2 weren't inaccurate if thats what you're implying, they were infact amazingly accurate considering range travelled - London was hit with good consistancy by both weapons.



The V-1 was certainly inaccurate.

RV Jones has a couple of maps in his book Most Secret War showing the impact points of the V-1s fired on the 16th July 1940. They are scattered all over southern England, covering more than 50 miles in bearing, more than 60 in range.

Jones notes in the text that 90 V-1 impacts are plotted on the map (I haven't counted them) and that of those, 30 are in the built up area of London.

Partly that's because the missiles were tending to fall short, but Jones points out even if the pattern was shifted so that the average range was correct, only 45 would fall within the built up area. And that's out of 200 fired that day, of which 144 crossed the coast, and only 30 were shot down (and 11 of those shot down actually fell in London)

That means far less than half the missiles fired hit London, even excluding the actions of the defences.

As to the V-2, Germans fired about 1350 rockets at London, of which just over 500 hit within the greater London civil defence zone. The zone was about 20 miles in diameter.

If You are firing at the largest city in the world and getting less than 50% hit rate, just how accurate can you claim to be?

And range doesn't seem to make much difference, to the V-2 at least. The other major target for the V-2 was Antwerp, with again well over 1,000 missiles fired, of which about 30% actually hit the city. Granted Antwerp is a lot smaller than London, but the range was much shorter as well.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 12, 2007)

Hop said:


> .
> 
> Jones notes in the text that 90 V-1 impacts are plotted on the map (I haven't counted them) and that of those, 30 are in the built up area of London.
> 
> .



Thats sounds about the same as bombing results for the USAAC and Bomber Command


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 12, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Thats sounds about the same as bombing results for the USAAC and Bomber Command


----------



## The Basket (Jul 12, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Thats sounds about the same as bombing results for the USAAC and Bomber Command


They were bombing London? The swines.lol.

The V weapons were not accurate at all. Interesting story is that British Intelligence ran double agents who told their Berlin Controllers that the weapons were falling short or too long. 

Now put a sarin warhead in a V2 and you got big trouble right there.

Far more deadly that a ton of explosive.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2007)

Soren, I just looked at the production figures for the US and Germany for the years up to 1944, and you were being swamped in every single catagory.

How can you say the US was not at least 2 to 3 magnitudes better than the LW in producing top notch aircraft?

Its obvious the US not only had sufficent industrial resources to build vast numbers of aircraft, but also had a huge technical and scientific pool in which to build high quality products. Many of which were equal to or better than what the LW could offer during those years.

I also contemplated the definition for the fighters, of "defensive and offensive".

I will concede that the LW had a great purely defensive fighter (years 1944 and 1945) in the -190. But it wasnt all the much better than the P51. Considering that the allied definition for success for a bombing mission is the LW did not get to the bombers, and the LW had to get to the bombers, then the P51 was proved to be more successfull. Ditto for the P38 and P47. All they had to do was keep the LW away from the bombers and its mission accomplished.

In the end it was offensive fighters that won the war, not defensive. A close and unbiased look at all the fighters of WW2 will show the following:
1) Each fighter had an optimal speed and altitude envelope in which it was dangerous.
2) Each fighter had good points which an opposing pilot ignored at their own peril.
3) In the Pacific, range was paramount. The P38 was highly successfull because of that.
4) Each fighter had a different role to perform, so their relative worth or ranking depends on what they were supposed to do and whether their air forces considered them to be a success.

Over all, I would continue my assessment of the fighters of both the LW and AAF were similar in success's and failures. In this catagory, both are equal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2007)

*Why I am even argueing with you in this thread I do not know because Soren is going to ignore my posts anyhow....*

Where to begin?




Soren said:


> LoL, Britain contributed to the invasion of Italy. The USAAF alone didn't have a longer reach than the LW, both depended on captured or Allied ground to reach out further.



And could still reach out further than the Luftwaffe. Allied fighters had much better range...

You can not deny this? Fact is Fact. You can not church it up....



Soren said:


> You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas. The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict thurough - hence the longer production time hence why I said what I said.
> 
> And no I'm not saying that the Allies were building low quality products, not at all, however they weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans were.



 

Soren please go back and read what you just wrote.

What is going to win the war?

*A.* A few things that have great quality?

*B.* Lots of things that have really really good quality?

Just ask yourself that question and go back and read your post again.

I really find this very funny.

Again fact is fact. History can not be changed. Dont church it up.



Soren said:


> They prioritized fighter production because they realized they were hopelessly out-numbered in the air, which is also why German bombers weren't operating as intended.



And what does that tell you? They were losing the war. You are not the best airforce (overall or at any point during the war) unless you have it all and the Luftwaffe did not come close.

Again I love the Luftwaffe. My favorite planes are Luftwaffe aircraft and I think that some of the best aircraft of the war were Luftwaffe aircraft but that does not change the fact that the Luftwaffe did not have:

* The Strategic Bomber Capability that the allies had. (I dont care why they did not, they did not have it. Period!)*



Soren said:


> Insults from Bill again, how surprising, he seems to rely on these very much.



Soren I am not trying to take sides here. I am just trying to debate something that I do not agree with you on. 

However go back and read all the threads that you have ever posted and you will see that you do the same thing. I have talked to you so many times about it.

Therefor what I am saying is this before you go and say things like that, quit doing it yourself...



Soren said:


> It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again.



You proved my point right there Soren. 



Soren said:


> 11 kills to 0 losses.



While I love the Ta 152 and I truely think that it was the best piston fighter built by wars end I have to ask you this.

What did 11 kills to 0 losses do for the Luftwaffe? 

Plenty, and amazingly many considering the circumstances under which it had to operate.



Soren said:


> Bill again demonstrates his excellent ability to completely ignore the fact that by 1944 trained men fuel was in scarse supply in the LW, and that the LW didn't enjoy local air-superiority AT ALL when you count how many LW a/c actually went airborne in that period.



And again you just proved the point that the Luftwaffe was not better than the allied airforces at that time. Thankyou very much...

Bill again playing loosely with the facts..



Soren said:


> The Me-262 Ar-234 were both much superior jet aircraft.



Who cares if they were superior? 

Its the end result that matters.... 



Soren said:


> The V-1 V-2 weren't inaccurate if thats what you're implying, they were infact amazingly accurate considering range travelled - London was hit with good consistancy by both weapons.



Soren I could hit something the size of London....

What you are saying does not prove accuracy.



Soren said:


> As to avanced weapons equipment, the German LW employed a/c AA rockets, self-guided bombs missiles, night-vision, auto-pilots, auto-engine prop management computers etc etc..



Those are great but did they win the war?

Again how do they make the Luftwaffe better? 



Soren said:


> Had there been enough fuel, many. The Allies would've been in a very dire situation had the Me-262 been deployed in 1943 as intended and there being enough fuel for it to operate in full numbers. There's no chance the Allies were going to set foot on mainland Europe then thats for sure.



Could have, Should have, you got it... *Did not!*

Why do you bring up things that did not happen. You can not change History Soren.

So again please stop bringing that up and lets talk about what actually happened.



Soren said:


> No he is clearly not, he is infact almost completely wrong.



Soren for as much as I hate agreeing with syscom, In my opinion you are the one that is wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *....
> Soren for as much as I hate agreeing with syscom, ...*


*

*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2007)

Well I will give credit where it is due.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jul 13, 2007)

Sure the USAF was great...sure the RAF pilots were great...sure the LW planes were great....but I'd like to remind you of a small country named Romania, who fought on both sides of the war and although our air force was not much our pilots still managed to shot down soviets, americans and later germans and hungarians.Our top ace Constantin "Bâzu" Cantacuzino managed to shot down 60 planes until the end of the war including a P51 Mustang.Almost every time outnumbered our pilots managed to do wonders with small numbers, outdated planes and a not so great logistic.It may not deserve the number 1 spot but it deserves to be remebered.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> LoL, Britain contributed to the invasion of Italy. The USAAF alone didn't have a longer reach than the LW, both depended on captured or Allied ground to reach out further.
> 
> *So, the LW had the same reach as the USAAF? and for example was able to bomb Britain from Berlin based He111 or Do17 types, or able to bomb Moscow from Berlin? and the fact that 'Britain' helped capture Italy or China let us base B-29s neutralized the range and payload advantages B-24s had over LW bombers - much less B-29s? Curious perspective Soren*
> 
> ...



Syscom wasn't wrong


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I was going to mention that since the B25 was carrier capable as compared to the JU88, it made it a better medium bomber. But I figured you and Flyboy would slap me down for it!



Yep!


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2007)

Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.

_*"Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again."*_

I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!

And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that. 

You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts. 

There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.



PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2007)

Bill,

Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself. 

As to the P-38, it was sluggish compared to the single engined fighters in the ETO, its top speed was a low 414 mph, the Bf-109 G-6/AS, G-10, -14, -14/AS K-4 all being faster, far more maneuverable and better climbers. The FW-190 Dora-9 is faster, climbs faster and is far more maneuverable as-well, the Me-262A-1a is much faster, climbs better and is more maneuverable at all but the slowest of speeds.

Also the P-38L cannot climb at 4,700 + ft/min, the max climb rate of the P-38L is ~4,100 ft/min - the 4,700 + ft/min figure is suspect and was only achieved in a single test, in which the a/c wasn't fully loaded.

And as to the Me-262A-1a and its superior acceleration and speed compared to the P-80, you should note that the Me-262's "official" performance figures are very conservative figures by Messerschmidt AG to Rechlin for placing a performance guarantee to avoid recieving complaints about performance not matching the listed figures - the performance of different batches of engines varying because of the lack of refined metals needed but not falling below the guaranteed figure. The British tested the Me-262A-1a post-war multiple times and established the top speed of the Me-262 to be in excess of 908 km/h (568 mph), demonstrating the performance when the engines were running as intended.



> Name an area of quality that the US 'sacrificed' in its production methods? You want to stress the 'quality of the He177' or the 'quality of the Me262 engines' as illustrative of emphasis by German production/design focus?



Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals. The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding. 


And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.



No I read everything but you just keep repeating yourself but not posting any sources or facts. You are only stating your opinion which happens to be a very biased one not based off of historical facts. You bring up a lot of what ifs. This is not about whats ifs. This is about what actually happening.



Soren said:


> _*"Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again."*_
> 
> I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!



Okay then why are you argueing the fact that the Luftwaffe was better than. Your whole arguement has been that. Go back and read it.

Here is basically how this whole debate has gone (and its been about 1944 to 1945, I will sum it up right here. This whole debate is very funny...)

*P.S. I have altered the convo a bit for humor factor.* 

*Soren:* I am not saying the Luftwaffe was the best in 1944 or 1945 okay.

*Bill:* The Luftwaffe did not have the strategic bombing capability the USAAF had.

*Soren:* That lies!!! The Luftwaffe had the He-177, He 277, Me 264, Ju 390 which were all superior to or equal to the B-29!

*Bill:* The He 277, Me 264, and Ju 390 did not reach operational status or were just prototypes. The He 177 had many many problems and was not built in sufficient numbers.

*Soren:* More lies from Bill! Those aircraft were ready! There was just no fuel or trained pilots and the Luftwaffe put priority on fighters!

*Adler:* Does that not mean they are not ready or can not used and therefore the Luftwaffe does not have the strategic capability of the USAAF?

*Soren:* Ignore

*Syscom:* The Luftwaffe did not really have a long range fighter.

*Soren:* No the Luftaffe had the Ta 152 which was better than any long range fighter that the allies could put in the air.

*Syscom:* Umm but that was the last few months of the war they did not accomplish anything...

*Soren:* Syscom not living in the real world! The Ta 152 was better! If they had eneogh fuel the allies would not have won!!!

*Bill:* The Luftwaffe did not have the global reach of the USAAF.

*Soren:* More lies from Bill! The only reason the allies could attack Germany was because of England!

*Bill:* Thats not the point Soren. If the Allies could reach thousands of miles into Germany from England and the Luftwaffe could barely make London and with only 30 min over England doesn't that mean the Luftwaffe did not have a bigger reach?


*Do I need to continue?*


So basically in a thread about *The Best Airforce* you are not argueing that the Luftwaffe is the best but everything that people say the Luftwaffe was weaker in you dispute saying the Luftwaffe was better.

That is saying the Luftwaffe is the best....




Soren said:


> And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.



Then I would like you to post sources that show:

*1.* How the Luftwaffe had a better strategic bombing capability.

*2.* How the Luftwaffe had a bigger global reach.

I wont ask any more because I can go on and on....

Now Sources please?



Soren said:


> You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.



Then show sources and hard facts. Lets go... 



Soren said:


> There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.



And those do not make you the best all around airforce.



Soren said:


> PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.



Go and read all your other posts.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself.
> 
> ...



Funding had nothing to do with the He177 design issues. Making it dive bomb capable had much more to do with the approach - Heinkel finally was able to get a four engine/four cyclinder design out and it was a good one.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.



Do you have a source saying the US finish and weldings were inferior?

Or is it the US quality was adequate for the job at hand and the German quality was far in excess of what was needed.

If thats the case, then the ratings for the German manufactoring techniques goes down for inefficency.

I was also pondering why the Germans had more inspection to begin with. Was it because of an over attention to detail (which really added nothing to the value of the product) or was it because the parts were coming from forced or slave labor? Either way, when it come to mass producing the weapons of war, the US totally swamped the Germans in every single catagory. As long as the quality is adequate, then it makes no sense to so further improve the quality that inefficiencies are introduced (or even maintainability).



> That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals.



So the Me-262 was not ready for combat was it?



> The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.



"Small"? Enough to hold up the whole project? The B29 had engine problems that were solved well enough. Sorry Soren, your bombers seem to have had too many flaws, limitations and lack of resources to be considered anything more than experimental.



> And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.



More than a few people are waiting for you to show us where I am wrong.

You dwell with to much on the micro sense of the war in Europe, and not on the macro sense of a global war.

BTW, I'm waiting for you to mention a few missions where your LW fighters flew on 2600 mile missions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.


In some cases German metallurgy was superior (but not by much) than found in the US. 24T was the common aluminum used for aircraft construction. German metallurgists used more zinc as an alloying element to make their equivelent of 24T slightly more durable and eventually the alloying process was used in "2024T" which is still used today. This was a slight advantage and just made certain structures either more durable or malleable but this was not a technology showstopper.

Welding? There you re dead wrong - the US was at the forefront of machine welding techniques as a result of the automotive industry, as a matter of fact by the time WW2 started the US had automated welding machines that were the anceastors of today's CNC welding machines. Toward the end of the war weldments found on many German aircraft were poor, probably due to using slave labor.

BTW - the first aircraft whose primary structure was mainly welded together? The Vought Kingfisher....A pre-WW2 design.

As stated, it was the same German quality that produced allegedly superior weapons that was also Germany's downfall. You don't need a bullet precisely .45673 to kill someone, just a .45, and it's because of this example I show why the US was able to produce thousands of "good" aircraft while Germany produce hundreds or "allegedly superior" aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2007)

Examples are almost endless. 
T34 wasn't up to German build standards but they destroyed a lot of German tanks.
The DB601 was built using sophistated shrink techniques which to a purist made it a better built engine than the Merlin. But the Merlin was at least its equal in performance, became a legendary engine and powered many tens of thousands of aircraft. It also made the 601 a very expensive engine in both cost and man hours build time for no extra gain.
The Panther was a superb tank but a nightmare to mantain and repair due to its over sophistication.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Welding? There you re dead wrong - the US was at the forefront of machine welding techniques as a result of the automotive industry, as a matter of fact by the time WW2 started the US had automated welding machines that were the anceastors of today's CNC welding machines. Toward the end of the war weldments found on many German aircraft were poor, probably due to using



Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?


----------



## bigZ (Jul 14, 2007)

So the germans where the best producers of aircraft?

Howcome they where using the almost the same allocation of aluminium in 43 as 38 but producing thousands more aircraft, but Milch still complained of the waste?

When did the Germans moblise the female population into making aircraft to meet the growing demand?

Quality did drop with the increase of slave labour and skilled workers being drafted into the army. But still you can't deny the germans built the finest bomber seats right upto the wars end and where still polishing the welds on 190 tailwheels till 43.

German production was hardly spectacular and Gorings insistance on higher production figures by sacrificing the availability of spare engine and parts also had a detrimental effect on front line serviceabilty.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
> Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?



When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1

The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird

Manufacturing is all about meeting spec with lowest cost, ACCEPTABLE quality.

SR71 much more demanding than UH 1E,H and J and Ive done 'em all.

This is an area that I believe Soren wishes he could take back - and still can..

How many Germans (even as percent of population) were driving low cost, high quality autos before WWII compared to US? That's all about high quality and low cost - General Motors and Ford and Chrysler had ZERO problem converting tons of steel to thousands of aluminum a/c per month


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Are we talking aluminium or steel products?


Both but mainly aluminum. The only significant steels being welded in the US were mild steels, 4130 and 4140 for steel tubing on fabric aircraft and for some structural parts on all-metal aircraft.


Graeme said:


> Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?


"Heliarc, and later "mig, tig" welding been around for a long time and was perfected in the late 30s early 40s. Hydrogen was used as the inert gas and the rod was tungsten but the form as many know it today wasn't really perfected until after the war where the process was slightly altered for easier use as well as cost.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 14, 2007)

Another example of American wartime fabricating ingenuity, the Budd Conestoga, the worlds first large *stainless stee*l aircraft.




(Thanks for the information FLYBOY and drgondog)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

drgondog said:


> When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1
> 
> The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird
> 
> ...



To add on Bill, most 7075 aluminum were used in major structural components (landing gear trunnions, wing attach points, etc.) 2024T3 (24T) was usually used for skins and 2024 T6 for structural components (ribs, intercostals, etc.) 6064 and 6061 aluminum was usually used for fluid plumbing and tubing.

The A&P school I went to had an old heliarc machine that looked like it was from the 40s or 50s. I was afraid to use it....


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2007)

*Adler,*

Make fun all you want, I cannot converse with somone who refuses to listen. 

I never claimed the LW possessed a longer global reach than the US, again that is something you made up yourself. What I said was the global reach of the LW was the same as that of the USAAF - Unless the USAAF had a base in Europe to operate from there was no way they could attack Germany, and its the same for the LW, unless the LW had bases to operate from in the America's then there was no way they could successfully attack the USA. The LW possessed long range bombers as-well, bombers with equal range bomb-load as those of the USAAF. These are facts Adler, but you're welcome to dispute them.

I never claimed the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, I even made it clear that it couldn't be because of its lack of fuel trained pilots - without these two it doesn't matter what a/c you possess. 

The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234 Fw-190 Dora-13 were the best of their kind category of WW2, this is fact. 

Now as to the He-177, He-277, Me-264 Ju-390, again I stand by what I have said before, they were the equal of the Allied bombers, they just didn't get to operate in the same fashion or enjoyed the same level of protection.

*FLYBOYJ,*

You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans - which turned out to be an advantage in the end.

So other than this were are like before in full agreement.

And as to slave labor, well this is a good point and also proved a nuisance to the Germans although it was mainly utilized in the production of ammunition during the end of the war, some slave labor was also used for the manufacture of the V-2 rockets aircraft. 

*Bill,*

If you're interested in the metals used during WW2 by each country, their manufacturing process quality then read the book "WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston, then you'll see just how much more durable German armor metals were in general compared to Allied plates metals - German armor was more carefully crafted and refined, hence for example the Tiger Ausf.E's amazing armor protection level despite its main armor surfaces being vertical - this is explained in the book as-well. And like FLYBOYJ pointed out the Germans also used more durable metals for use in aircaft production.

As to you're quouted incident, I don't see the LW being trashed here at all ! They infact did a marvelous job shooting down a good number of bombers, and considering that by far the majority of LW a/c in the air were heavily armed bomber interceptors the shoot down of 6 Mustangs isn't bad. As to the actual LW commitment losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.

*Glider,*

The T-34 was a shock to the Germans at the beginning of its deployment, however as soon as the better armed StuG's arrived the T-34's were being pounded badly, the new StuG in a short time period of time establishing itself kill loss ratio of over 10 to 1. And the arrival of Pzkpfw IV F-2 Pzkpfw VI Tiger pretty much turned the T-34 into pure gun-fodder for the Germans.

The T-34, like pretty much all Russian tank designs, relied purely on its advantage in numbers to simply swarm its opponents on the battlefield - the battle of Kursk being the ultimate example of this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> *FLYBOYJ,*
> 
> You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans.


Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.

The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.



I have to disagree abit here, a skilled welder can make as good or better welds than the early automated welding machines of the 40's, and close quarters small applications are many on a tank body or an airplanes airframe - There are stories of Allied welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas or of welded joints failing under even mild stress in the 1940's because of weak welds made by these early welding machines. Today ofcourse the welding machines can easily out do any welder in the sheer consistancy of perfect welds - a human welder is bound to make some mistakes or less perfect welds at some point.



> The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.



Roger that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> I have to disagree abit here, a skilled welder can make as good or better welds than the early automated welding machines of the 40's, and close quarters small applications are many on a tank body or an airplanes airframe - There are stories of Allied welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas or of welded joints failing under even mild stress in the 1940's because of weak welds made by these early welding machines. Today ofcourse the welding machines can easily out do any welder in the sheer consistancy of perfect welds - a human welder is bound to make some mistakes or less perfect welds at some point.


The reason why ship welds failed was becuase of inherent stress in the metal that was not relieved when the ship was completed, a very common thing on Victory Ships. The human hand cannot continually achieve a consistant perfect weld, especially over a long period of time and that's one of the reasons why welding machines were developed.

_"The advantages of arc welding -- low cost compared to riveting, speed of application and strength -- were apparent. One worker could do the work of two. Properly welded joints and seams were as strong or stronger than the surrounding steel. In spite of these advantages, however, welding was slow to supplant riveting. Not until World War II created demand for rapid ship construction did welding replace riveting as the principal means of joining steel. Automatic seam-welding machines and new alloys and welding methods added even greater speed to the process but also revealed some disadvantages. *Welded steel plates tended to buckle and warp more than riveted ones. Uneven heating could result in stress fractures. Use of improperly sized electrodes could produce weak joints. Stories of welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas, or of welded joints failing under even mild stress, were partly justified. *
A skilled welder can make a good solid seam almost anywhere, horizontal, vertical, overhead, angled. A novice welder, as many of the new shipyard workers were, had neither the skill or experience to match an old hand. Welding seams on flat deck plates with gravity helping the flow was simple enough but overhead welding was much more difficult. One solution was to position seams so that the welder could work in a "down-hand" position, that is, with the electrodes held at waist level or below to avoid fatigue. That often meant bringing the work piece to the worker. Large vertical parts to be welded were turned horizontal. Ceilings and overhead structures were welded inverted then reversed when completed. Scaffolding was built to place the welders in optimum position. Welding became the basic glue of steel shipbuilding, allowing for fabrication of almost any shape in any size. Without high-speed welding, much of the innovative methods applied to World War II shipbuilding would not have been possible."_

Sealift in World War II


----------



## Soren (Jul 15, 2007)

Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places. My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places. 

Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed. 

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> And as to slave labor, well this is a good point and also proved a nuisance to the Germans although it was mainly utilized in the production of ammunition during the end of the war, some slave labor was also used for the manufacture of the V-2 rockets aircraft.



We have a nice family story about my wife's grandfather working as a slave at the Fiesler factories. He sabotaged V-1's. Thus quality checks were absolutely nescessairy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places.


Agree, but no one was comparing welding machines of today to those used during WW2.


Soren said:


> My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places.


Welding machines were never meant to be used in narrow places or on small parts and assemblies. Even today small parts, tubing and ducting is mainly made by hand.


Soren said:


> Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed.


See above.....


Soren said:


> Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.


OK....


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill,[/B]
> As to you're quouted incident, I don't see the LW being trashed here at all ! They infact did a marvelous job shooting down a good number of bombers, and considering that by far the majority of LW a/c in the air were heavily armed bomber interceptors the shoot down of 6 Mustangs isn't bad. As to the actualy LW commitment losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.
> 
> *Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..
> ...


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.



Just to sum up, 
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back
The He177 tended to catch fire
The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide

I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 15, 2007)

Glider said:


> ....
> I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.



Good point.

One other little point.... the AAF fighter pilots had gee suits, the LW didnt.

Allied pilots could get more out of their planes.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.



The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure. 

The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)... 

During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"

The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.

In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away

The second issue was a lateral stability issue caused by putting the Merlin in w/o increasing length or tail - which didn't get truly fixed until the 51H. This was during high speed/high G maneuvers and boosting Rudder loads helped this issue

The third was the annoying and dangerous high speed porpoise effect due to installation of the 85 gallon tank.

If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!

What say you?


----------



## mkloby (Jul 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.



I recall early Bf109F's suffering from catastrophic structural failure of the empennage due to sympathetic vibrations caused by a certain RPM range of the engine...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Adler,*
> 
> Make fun all you want, I cannot converse with somone who refuses to listen.



I am not making fun. I am showing you what your conversations looks like and you are letting your bias get the better of you.



Soren said:


> I never claimed the LW possessed a longer global reach than the US, again that is something you made up yourself. What I said was the global reach of the LW was the same as that of the USAAF - Unless the USAAF had a base in Europe to operate from there was no way they could attack Germany, and its the same for the LW, unless the LW had bases to operate from in the America's then there was no way they could successfully attack the USA. The LW possessed long range bombers as-well, bombers with equal range bomb-load as those of the USAAF. These are facts Adler, but you're welcome to dispute them.



No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...

Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.



Soren said:


> I never claimed the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, I even made it clear that it couldn't be because of its lack of fuel trained pilots - without these two it doesn't matter what a/c you possess.



Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.



Soren said:


> Now as to the He-177, He-277, Me-264 Ju-390, again I stand by what I have said before, they were the equal of the Allied bombers, they just didn't get to operate in the same fashion or enjoyed the same level of protection.



Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):

1. Performance

2. Construction Method

3. Reliability


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2007)

Glider said:


> Just to sum up,
> The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back



Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.



> The He177 tended to catch fire



It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".



> The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide



No, however the Spanish Buchon had this problem - the exhausts sitting up higher and level with the cockpit.



> I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.



Agreed, but nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive military service suffered from any structural design errors - Esp. not the Bf-109 which structurally was one of the strongest fighters of WW2, its wings being capable of withstanding 13+ G.

___________________________

*Adler*



> No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...
> 
> Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.



So now the USAAF is the USN as-well ?? Sorry didn't know that...

Yes Fact is Fact Adler, and fact is the LW and USAAF both had the same global reach.



> Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.



Again its like you wont listen, cause now you're just not making any sense Adler. How can I be argueing that the LW is better in every category when I'm saying they lacked properly trained pilots fuel ?? 

The LW possessed better fighters, night-fighters medium bombers than the Allies, but thats it. Sure they had a few good heavy bombers, but they weren't better than the latest Allied one, the B-29, infact most were inferior in the overall picture - the He-277 being the equal.



> Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):
> 
> 1. Performance
> 
> ...



1. They were almost all better - only the B-29 was faster or equally fast.

2. Well the Allied methods were faster the German methods were slower, which is better, well, for war faster is always good.

3. Some suffered in this department, like the He-177, but so did the B-29 for example, so better no, equal yes. Also remember that later in the war maintenance wasn't possible as frequently in the LW spare parts were in short suplly as-well - so the operating enviroment was also tougher for the German a/c.

____________________

*Bill,*



> Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..



Ofcourse, cause incase you didn't know Bill shooting down the bombers was the main task.



> Remember, the thesis of our running argument is a.) that USAAF long range escort at the point of the spear where the 8th AF and 9th AF P-47s could not go, did in fact - or did not in fact encounter large German fighter strength in numbers such that the USAAF escorts were outnumbered, and b.) that the LW single engine fighter force was not - or was - outnumbered 8:1 or greater by the USAAF in those battles over Germany in the January1 -May 30, 1944.



I remember, and you have yet to provide evidence that the dedicated LW fighters weren't on a general basis out-numbered 8:1. The bomber-interceptors don't count cause they were easy pickings, the escorts simply coming down from above picking them off either as they attacked the bombers or before or emmediately after - now what is a FW-190A armed with gunpods going to do against a Mustang at 30,000 + ft ?? Not only is this well above the Antons FTH, but its also directly inside the Mustangs FTH ! And the Bf-109's, well if they were after the bombers they were equipped with gun-pods, otherwise they were there to fight the escorts. 

The only LW fighters who's job was always to attack the escorts was the Fw-190 Dora-9's, and they were always hopelessly out-numbered and yet they gave the P-51's some trouble (Willi Reschke writes about this in his book Wilde Sau, and German pilot accounts in Dietmar Hermann's book as-well)



> are you limiting the argument to the Me109G6-A/S? and excluding all Fw190s in that timeframe?



Does it sound like I am ??



> For the sake of definition I am talking about a.) aerial combat between the hopelessly outclassed Mustangs in that timeframe (the less nimble, slow rolling, slow climbing P-51B) - and I am talking about 'trashed' in the context of those outnumbered Mustangs shooting down far more LW fighters than they lost in turn



And b.) You're not being objective about any of it !

How do you suppose all those LW fighters got shot down Bill ?? In dogfights ?? Sorry but the answer is NO, nearly all were shot down never knowing what was coming whilst engaging the bombers. And again I ask you, what is a Anton armed with gun-pods, above its FTH, going to against a P-51 ? 

The bomber interceptors were easy pickings for the escorts, hence the number shot down. However as perfectly illustrated in your supposedly bad day for the LW the bomber interceptors did their work as-well, shooting down a good number of bombers, each of which holding a crew of 7-10 men. So how bad was that day really for the LW compared to how it was for the Allies ??



> At no time have I denigrated, or will denigrate the courage (throughout the war) or effective ness of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm against the B-17 and B-24. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that daylight bombing must have escort fighters to succeed.



No but you have denigrated the LW huge effectiveness against enemy fighters which considering the operational enviroment was unpresidented really, and esp. on an individual plane.



> Yes, the LW also 'trashed' 40 8th AF bombers that day in the 3 pronged strike - one of the last 3 in which the LW achieved 10% of the bomber force.



Percentages here percentages there, and you're complaining about "would have's" ?? Multiply 40 with 7 or 10 and see what comes up Bill, after having done that you might realize what catastrophy each bombing-run really was.



> But back to the thesis of LW s/e fighter force versus USAAF escorts in aerial combat with each other. Please don't comment until you have either verified or found a material discrepancy in each of the examples I give you about the strengths of both fighter forces in the engagements? Then we can move to next one



Agreed.



> The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure.



 You're the worst nitpicker of all..

The Ta-154 didn't see service with the LW, it didn't even go past its prototype stage. But if I wished to as much a nitpicker as yourself I could list several structurally unsound US prototypes a/c as-well.



> The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...



The Me-262 suffered NO structural failures or design flaws, it did however "suffer" the pitch down behavior in the transsonic speed region, however this region wasn't well explored and therefore this can't be seen as a design flaw.



> During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"



Read the Me-262A-1a POH as-well as this please: The Me262 and The Race to Mach1




> The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.
> 
> In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away
> 
> ...



And the third was the fact that the wings couldn't take more than 7-8 G's.



> If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!
> 
> What say you?



I say the P-51 Mustang did have flaws which weren't because of borderline science but were just a plain simple error. I'm not saying it was a huge flaw as 7-8G's wasn't reached that often combat seeing that most shoot downs were the result of bounces.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> Tended ?? On how many occasions ?
> 
> The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.
> 
> ...



_"Production continued immediately with the Fw 200C-l, which was planned as the definitive version although it still had a weak structure, very vulnerable fuel system (especially from below), no armour except behind the captain's seat and many inconvenient features." _

Focke Wulf Condor

_"An engineering defect in the aft fuselage tail section (the structural shortcomings contributed to many accidents) kept the Condor from reaching the legendary status like that of the Battle of Britain veterans - the Dornier Do 17 and the Heinkel He 111 (both detailed elsewhere on this site). Thusly the system was relegated it to the supplementary roles mentioned above."_

Focke-Wulf Fw 200 (Condor) Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance / Bomber - Military and Civilian Aircraft


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2007)




----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?

What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.

As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.


Anyways, back to the original point: Nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive service suffered any serious structural problems, the Condor, He-162 P-51 being the only three I can name. (The He-162 didn't see extensive service though)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?
> 
> What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.
> 
> As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.



In the line above your post was a quoted reply from Glider...



> Originally Posted by Glider
> Just to sum up,
> The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back



And you posted the following....



> Tended ?? On how many occasions ?
> 
> The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.



My mistake in bringing in the quote on the He 177 but I think my examples still answered your comments on the FW 200.


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2007)

Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?


If the aircraft was landed normally, absolutely - and there's no way to know how many other FW 200s that had structural damage and were repaired before they broke their backs as well. And this was reported by crews...

_"The crews also complained about inadequate armament and an vulnerable fuel system." _

8 Structural failures was enough for the Luftwaffle to modify the aircraft....

Bottom line the Fw 200C-1 was not well liked by its crews and it had problems that were never fully rectified.


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2007)

The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.

As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.

The Condor's biggest weakness remained its slow speed though, it was painfully slow, so slow that Hurries could be dispatched to shoot it down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.


Soren, do you think the Luftwaffe would of modified a whole production line over 8 pranged up aircraft if there wasn't a real problem??

BTW - you know how many FW 200s were produced? A whopping 278! How many were operational when those 8 aircraft failed? I'd guess less than 100.


Soren said:


> As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.


It had initial success but by 1943 Fw 200 crews were told not to attack shipping but only perform recon roles and by 1944 the aircraft was relegated only to transport roles....


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Tended ?? On how many occasions ?



The Fw200 had a couple of structural problems one of which was a weakness in its back. I don't have numbers but I have read a number of articles on the aircraft and this has always been mentioned. British pilots were even briefed on the problem and were reccomended to target this area. To name a few there was an article in Air Enthusiast, an article in Combat Aircraft and the following from Uboat.net
_But the Fw 200C-1 made itself very unpopular by breaking its back on landings. At least eight Fw 200Cs were lost when the fuselage broke, just aft of the wing. Obviously, the strength of the airframe was insufficient to cope with the additional weight and stress. The Fw 200C was always an improvised combat aircraft, with many deficiencies. The crews also complained about inadequate armament and an vulnerable fuel system_. 
There are others if you wish.



> Re the He177 It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".



It is a design flaw that was always with the aircraft. Any hit in the engine area was likely to set the plane on fire to a much greater degree than any other plane. The smallest leak could set it off.

I must also add that the most important part of the debate i.e. was the He177 a good strategic bomber tends to be forgotten when you reply. My statement that the only time the He177 was deployed as a strategic bomber it was a total failure. Can you tell us when it was a success?



> No, however the Spanish Buchon had this problem - the exhausts sitting up higher and level with the cockpit.


I think you will find that 109F pilots were under instruction to use oxygen at all times due to the danger of exhaust gases leaking into in the cockpit. A number of German pilots were lost in unusual circumstances where they were flying and then just fell away and hit the ground. Initially the oxygen system itself was suspected but later investigation wasn't the case.



> Agreed, but nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive military service suffered from any structural design errors


This I also disagree with, the Typhoon is an excellent example of a plane being deployed with design errors that cause losses.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2007)

The Typhoon did suffer some structural problems, you're right Glider. But as to LW a/c, well besides the He-162 Condor I can't really find any at all.

And as to the Bf-109F and exhaust fumes, well I really can't understand this as I've heard nothing of this before, only the Buchon suffered this problem because of the exhaust re-arrangement. Ofcourse I can't say that there might not have been a batch of a/c which suffered from leaking gaskets, the exhaust fumes escaping into the cockpit via the engine compartment.

Now about the He-177, well do you know what the actual problem was ? It wasn't that it was susceptible to catch fire if hit, it was oil dripping onto the exhaust manifolds which was the problem.


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2007)

The 109F could certainly have been a bad batch or something that was addressed. 

As for the 177 I do know what the problem was and it was caused by the complexity of the engine. Too many pipes, in too small a space, close to too much hot metal, a recipe for disaster. Any damage is more likely to start a fire than in most aircraft and as such, it was a problem. 
After all, if it wasn't a problem, then why switch to four individual engines for the He277?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2007)

All I can say is I am finished with this conversation. Soren you contradict yourself so much it gives me a headache.

Enjoy...


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2007)

No I do not contradict myself Adler, but if you believe so you should atleast provide an example.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Adler*
> 
> *Bill,*
> 
> ...



Soren, you can 'say it' as you often do, but you should occasionally back up your comments with facts and sources? And so, most shoot downs were the result of 'bounces' - what were the rest? And, despite the apparent design limitations that you state the Mustang had - it trounced its adversaries in spite of the so called 'design superiority of the Fw190 and Me109'???


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2007)

Quit dodging Bill, a FW-190 or Bf-109G with gun-pods, the story is the same, maneuverability performance is decreased and this no doubt did prove decisive on many occasions. Thats fact and sorry but nomatter how much you wish to forget this Bill, you can't get around it. 

By early 1944 allot of the 109's in service were G-6's with no form of boost available, but even with boost flying around with gun-pods serverely hampered maneruverability performance. Yes Bill, the Bf-109's present during the incident you presented were almost exclusively carrying Gun-pods - the prime goal was after-all the bombers. 

The Bf-109's Fw-190's weren't out-flown, fact is that most shoot downs were the result of bounces and the guy at the recieving end never knew what was coming. As for why many kills were on the deck, well std. practice for the bomber-interceptors was to hit the deck directly after their attack if Allied escorts were present, the dedicated fighters maintained altitude fought.

That the bomber interceptors hit the deck emmdiately after their attack wasn't stupid, the LW pilots knew their a/c were at a disadvantage because of their heavy armament. And so running away after having successfully attacked the bomber stream and live to fight another day was infact the smartest move.

As to the "Mustang killers" such as Steinmann who shot down 12, well that alone is more than the highest scoring P-51 ace in the ETO IIRC, but what this doesn't account for is that there are many other LW pilots with 1 to 2 to 3 Mustang kills who aren't listed. 



> They got shot down because they were outflown and outfought.



A romantic thought but so very wrong. 

By far the majority LW fighters shot down weren't out-flown, they were simply bounced shot down. 

And the dedicated LW fighters who stayed and fought were grossly out-numbered.



> The four Mustang pilots were shot down because they were outflown and outfought by Dahl and Bartels and possibly Stiglar - all superb LW Me109 Experten. The other two were downed by mid air collisions with Me110s. Nobody is making excuses about why the Mustang pilots were shot down



LoL you crack me up ! 

Bill you are made up of excuses, they were shot down by experten you claim ! 

Quit your glorification of the Mustang please, cause it was nothing special besides having better range than most fighters.
_________________________________

Another fact you so happily keep avoiding is the fact that fuel was in low supply for the LW, so low that a full tank wasn't always possible, which meant that is some cases LW fighters had to leave the fight in fear of running out of fuel. And on top of this the a/c who went flying were many times piloted by men who lacked sufficient training - but ofcourse in your imaginary world this has no significance at all 


__________________________________

As to the Me-262, 

You just qouted the flight results of a PROTOTYPE model !






Good luck next time Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Quit dodging Bill, a FW-190 or Bf-109G with gun-pods, the story is the same, maneuverability performance is decreased and this no doubt did prove decisive on many occasions. Thats fact and sorry but nomatter how much you wish to forget this Bill, you can't get around it.
> 
> *Has the Fw190 and Me109 that up-gunned now become a trainer, or a transport or light bomber - some other description other than 'Single Engine Fighter'?? Did the Luftwaffe give these two aircraft a difference classification?Is that your excuse?*
> 
> ...



Quite right, Soren, as you were describing the 'terribly' flawed YP-80 and X-P80's three fatal accidents in 1944 and early 1945. Dick Bong was killed in a P-80A in August, 1945. 

Are you, ah, now postulating that there were no accidents in the production Me262??

I was gleefully pointing the BS you attempt to propagate re: No accidents, No flaws in the superior designs of the LW with respect to structure, function and - gosh - just overall perfection.

When we have direct quotes from LW ace that flew the airplane and described the fatal consequences of compressibility dives - it suddenly becomes a novel thing 'testing the boundaries of science' - well, yeah - but in a P-47 or P-38 or P-51 encountering and solving compressibility issues, its all about flawed design??

Soren, you are just plain silly sometimes


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2007)

I think we can quantify that the AAF was at least 3 magnitudes better than the LW when it came to manufacturing and industrial capabilities.

The US completely swamped the LW in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. In 1943 alone, the US was producing nearly triple the number of aircraft (of all types) as compared to Germany. That means not only did the AAF have far more material resources, but indirectly, far more scientific and industrial expertise.

Soren also inadvertantly proved my case by his statement that German aircraft were built to higher standards. Well thats all fine and dandy for commercial products, and some types of weapons, but for a product that needs to be built quickly and has a lifetime measured in weeks, then its a flawed manufacturing concept. The Germans simply introduced inefficiencies into their system. The quality was there for no gain.

Soren also didnt provide any examples of AAF aircraft that were structurally flawed while in production and operations. Saying an aircraft had issues in the prototype or early production stages is one thing, but to suggest it existed at all times of its service life is quite preposterous.

Soren has also yet to prove that the -109 and -190 were superior to the P38, P47 and P51 in *every* catagory. He simply thinks in terms of fighter vs fighter in the LW planes optimal performance envelope and refuses to consider what would happen if those two planes were trying to fight inside the AAF planes optimal envelope. He even refuses to ackknowledge the P38 was the best fighter in the PTO simply because it would prove that the LW would have been inferior in this theater (thus "global" rankings).

Soren then is going off on a tangent saying that the LW had the best pilots even when many of their best aces had been shot down themselves on numerous occasions. Of course he completely ignores factual encounters when AAF pilots out flew their LW counterparts and shot them down, or he dismisses them as being lucky shots or "bounces".

Soren has not produced one iota of evidence proving that LW pilots were inherintley superior. Its a factual statement for me to say "any pilot of any AF that had lots of flight time and had demonstrated flying skill's was as good as his opponant with similar levels of ability".

I can say that when we compare the two AF's in:

Industrial Capacity: The US was at least three to four times better than Germany.

Pilot training with "if" resources present: Equal

Real world pilot training with resorces available: AAF was at least three magnitudes better by the end of 1944. (Sorry Soren, not having fuel available is just simply tough luck in the actual events of war).

Fighter quality: Even.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2007)

Syscom - good post. 

I would only comment that Soren states higher quality w/o demonstrating any facts. He 'states' a lot of things, backs up few statements with facts

High quality is a.) achieving or exceeding design and manufacturing standards and b.) attaining high standards of operability and reliabilty in service.

Where are Soren's facts or fact base? He is all over the map in every argument and can't stick to any one thesis to prove or disprove his cases.


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2007)

Its funny Bill cause you don't provide facts yourself, all you do is quote lines from already biased books on the subject.

Anyways keep on the dodging Bill, you're doing an excellent job at doing so so far.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Its funny Bill cause you don't provide facts yourself, all you do is quote lines from already biased books on the subject.
> 
> Anyways keep on the dodging Bill, you're doing an excellent job at doing so so far.



Soren - you made astonishing claims regarding Germany's fabled devotion to 'quality'. You were challenged with regard to facts and sources as well as definitions. 

Syscom and I both argued that US quality was high with respect to finish and reliability and wondered what basis you made your claim of superiority? Why must we research your claim?

When I make a claim and it is challenged by you I have quoted sources and references. - why not you?


----------



## Soren (Aug 7, 2007)

Bill,

I checked the history behind the incident you quoted earlier, and I can't believe I forgot to ask but, tell me Bill how many enemy fighters do you believe the USAAF bombers alone comitted to that area claimed that day ??

Suddenly the claims made by the Mustangs present that day don't seem all that credible...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

Lol - so the bomber claims were 'accurate'?? 

Soren - what else have you 'checked out' - Read any of the JG3, JG27 histories for that day and that battle?

Thanks to Kustcha for the following reference and tables

The Jagdgeschwader 26 Homepage


Source: O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978). 


Would you draw your attention to the day fighter strength and losses in Reich Defense for the period we have been debating - namely Jan-May 1944? The only forces acting against the Reich Defense were the heavy bombers and the long range escorts - which were outnumbered in that timeframe.

Is it conceivable that you will draw your attention to losses on Eastern Front in those periods and care to comment on your claim that "losses on Eastern Front far exceeded those in West"

Is it possible that you will explain the huge loss numbers in single engine day (forget t/e as they were too easy to shoot down) in Reich Defense for the period as both a percentage of ALL LW losses versus any and all other theatres? and explain that as the 8thFC Mustang strength grew from one to 6 Gruppen in the period - or the equivalent of 1/3 to 2 JG's?

Is it conceivable that you will provide sources and references someday? That would be refreshing.

This will be my last post to you on this subject Soren.


----------



## Glider (Aug 9, 2007)

Excellent posting and first class site, many thanks. For me the most telling line is at the and of the page containing these statistics.

_4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front._


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

Glider said:


> Excellent posting and first class site, many thanks. For me the most telling line is at the and of the page containing these statistics.
> 
> _4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front._



Dead on, Glider, and remember JG26 and JG2 are in the "West" (Kanalfront) column, not the Reich. 

Those poor bastards had to fight EVERYBODY inluding RAF, RAF TAC, 9th AF, and 8th AF P-47s during that period - whereas LW Reich was basically battling ONLY the 4th, 352nd, 354th, 355th, 357th Mustang Groups gradually building from one in January to five at end of April, plus 3 Lightning groups.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 10, 2007)

Facts are like bullets in an argument, if you don't have em' its like throwing stones...
That sounds good maybe i should be a philosipher.


----------



## Soren (Aug 10, 2007)

From the site you quoted from Bill:

_"The figures represent a remarkable ratio of claim v loss, especially when the hectic activities of the late war period are taken into consideration. Often outnumbered and fighting a defensive campaign against mass RAF and USAAF bomber formations escorted by hundreds of fighters, the "Schlageter" Geschwader did it's best to help stem the onslaught."_

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

The above doesn't exactly strenghten your little theory Bill.

Also you have yet to answer my question of how big a tragedy that day supposedly was for the LW considering that each USAAF bomber they shot down contained 7 or more men ? If you ask me the tragedy was alot more apparent at the USAAF.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2007)

The tragedy was with the LW.

The AAF had so many pilots coming out of flight school, the loss of a heavy bomber and its crew was just a statistic.

The loss of a single LW pilot was irreplacable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2007)

Sys has got a point Soren....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> From the site you quoted from Bill:
> 
> _"The figures represent a remarkable ratio of claim v loss, especially when the hectic activities of the late war period are taken into consideration. Often outnumbered and fighting a defensive campaign against mass RAF and USAAF bomber formations escorted by hundreds of fighters, the "Schlageter" Geschwader did it's best to help stem the onslaught."_
> 
> ...



Soren, the subject was not the tragedy inflicted on the bombers that day. I specifically stated that the Luftwaffe was manuevered with great skill to apply 200-250 s/e fighters into the bomber stream in a way that the two fighter groups were unable to stop them and shot down or forced down a lot of B-17s. Go back and re-read.

The subject and the constant subject is that a much smaller force of Mustangs DID inflict far more losses on the Me109s (plus Fw190 plus Me110s) than the German fighter pilots were able to inflict on the Mustangs.

Your constant thesis has been that the LW was only defeated (and by definition "defeatable') by overwhelming numerical advantage on part of Mustangs. I have shown and would continue to show specific examples, historically and fact based, in which small numers of Mustangs dealt terrible blows to Luftwaffe single engine fighters and pilots.

The author of the quote, Les Butler (and complimentary works by Tony Woods), has done a great job of researching Luftwaffe claims. Their works are the specific source for the 'claims' I cited for you to research when you derided me for stating that the three 355th FG pilots shot down, were probably (NOT 100% certain) shot down by Bartels and Dahl. I cited the Macr reports, the burial locations and the times and locations contained in the Macrs as the link between the losses and Tony Woods accounting of the LW claims by specific time and location. These three match exactly in both time and location.

What are YOU doing to cite and reference facts on this subject?

What are you doing to explain away the huge number of single engine losses for LuftFlotte Reich in January - May, 1944 timeframe? A time when only the Mustangs and 3 Lightning groups were available over Germany for daylight escort? At no time during that period were any other fighters, RAF or USAAF, available to meet and defeat German Fighters from Munster to the farthest reaches of Germany.

Where are YOUR facts, and tables, from corresponding researchers?


----------



## Glider (Aug 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Its funny Bill cause you don't provide facts yourself, all you do is quote lines from already biased books on the subject.
> 
> Anyways keep on the dodging Bill, you're doing an excellent job at doing so so far.



Soren
In case you are wondering, your silence in deafening and we are waiting for some quotes from your unbiased books. I presume you have some, or you wouldn't know that all the quotes from Bill and the others are biased.


----------



## Hop (Aug 11, 2007)

> What are you doing to explain away the huge number of single engine losses for LuftFlotte Reich in January - May, 1944 timeframe? A time when only the Mustangs and 3 Lightning groups were available over Germany for daylight escort?



Do you have complete figures for Luftwaffe strength and sorties in the time period?

Hooton gives Luftwaffe Reich strength as 562 day fighters at the end of December 1943, and 853 at the end of March 1944. Yet he gives day fighter sorties for Jagdkorps I, which as I understand it included all the day fighters in Luftflotte Reich, as:

Jan 3315
Feb 4242
Mar 3672
Apr 4505
May 3805

To put those figures in perspective, with a similar sized fighter force in the BoB, the RAF flew up to 5,000 sorties a week. They totalled over 15,000 fighter sorties in July, about 17,000 in August, about 14,000 in September.

So, do Jagdkorps I daylight fighter sorties include all Luftflotte Reich day fighter sorties? (Christer Bergstrom gives the same 3672 figure for March as the total for Luftflotte Reich).

If those figures are correct for Luftflotte Reich, why was the Luftwaffe maintaining such a low operational tempo in the face of the US attack? It averages about 5 sorties per fighter per month, or just over 1 a week.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 11, 2007)

Hop said:


> If those figures are correct for Luftflotte Reich, why was the Luftwaffe maintaining such a low operational tempo in the face of the US attack? It averages about 5 sorties per fighter per month, or just over 1 a week.



Lack of petrol? Lack of spare parts? Lack of ammunition? Lack of trained pilots? Bureaucratic mismanagement?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 11, 2007)

Hop said:


> Do you have complete figures for Luftwaffe strength and sorties in the time period?
> 
> Hooton gives Luftwaffe Reich strength as 562 day fighters at the end of December 1943, and 853 at the end of March 1944. Yet he gives day fighter sorties for Jagdkorps I, which as I understand it included all the day fighters in Luftflotte Reich, as:
> 
> ...



Hop - I do NOT have complete figures for sorties but LuftFlotte Reich, acording to Dr. Price, had approximately 812 Total, 446 Effective Single Engine Fighters in service on May 31, 1944.

Even though not necessarily a good assumption, using 3805 sorties for May divided by only the Effectives - we have only 8 1/2 sorties per s/e fighter for the month. On the other hand, there weren't that many days that the Luftwaffe chose to intercept in force... and when they did a typical force for a strong reaction was 150-200 fighters - or perhaps 1/3 of the available effectives?

Based on the various statements of Luftwaffe commanders, the senior commanders well knew that they could not win an attrition war with the Allies and chose the strategy of conserving strength by massing for isolated attacks at select points in the bomber stream to a.) minimize losses to US fighters and b.) inflict as much damage as possible to try to break the will of USAAF bomber commanders.

The Oil Campaigns starting in May forced the hand of the LW to resist aggressively against targets like Merseburg, Misburg, Posnan, etc.

In contrast the 355th FG flew 22 missions for May in which perhaps the Luftwaffe was seen 6 times by this one group of six operational P-51 wings at that time. I haven't yet bothered to do a precise sortie search but estimate 900-1000 sorties for this one fighter group in May, 1944.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Aug 11, 2007)

What am I doing to explain away the losses of the LW fighters Bill ?? 

Well let me repeat what I've being saying all along:

1.) The LW was low on fuel
2.) The LW was low on trained pilots
3.) The dedicated LW fighters were always massively out-numbered
4.) The LW interceptors weren't there to fight off fighters, they were there to take down the biggest thread, the bombers. It was the bombers which were pounding the German industry, not the fighters, therefore taking down the bombers was the no.1 priority - hence the losses caused by Allied escorts. Most of the interceptors were shot down attacking the bombers.
5.) The interceptors were heavily armed and therefore didn't stand much chance if caught by the escorts.

Now despite all of this the LW still managed a decent kill/ loss ratio, and as you can see JG-26 did very well under the tight circumstances.

I also really suggest you read Willi Reschkes book on JG-301 JG-302.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> What am I doing to explain away the losses of the LW fighters Bill ??
> 
> Well let me repeat what I've being saying all along:
> 
> ...



ROFLMAO - When they had fuel and were in the air, in the presence of Mustangs, in the period we are discussing - and, they got pounded.

If they didn't stand a chance - why not?

Prove your thesis that LuftReich s/e fighters were outnumbered by USAAF MUstangs - you haven't come close yet for the 1/1/44-5/31/44 timeframe

JG26 has very little to do in this discussion as they were not fighting the Mustangs over Germany - they were fighting the RAF and USAAF fighters over lowlands and France with JG2 - LuftReich is the force we are talking about - stay on topic Soren


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren, these are the number of P38 and P51 groups available at the end of each of the following months. And remember, the 8th AF had three bomb divisions that would attack multiple targets and the P38's and P51's often had to split up to cover them all. Many times the LW had local superiority, yet failed to defeat the AAF fighters.

Jan 1944: two P38 one P51

Feb 1944: two P38 two P51

March 1944: three P38 five P51

April 1944: three P38 six P51

May 1944: four P38 seven P51


----------



## Soren (Aug 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> ROFLMAO - When they had fuel and were in the air, in the presence of Mustangs, in the period we are discussing - and, they got pounded.



LoL, pounded ??!  Sure what'ever Bill, I guess those 200 + USAAF personnel shot out of the sky that day were all kamikazes right ?

I repeat Bill, the dedicated LW fighters were out-numbered big time ! And the interceptors although present in higher numbers were, I repeat, after the bombers NOT the escorts !! 



> If they didn't stand a chance - why not?



Tell me Bill how much of a drop in performance to you think the extra armament caused alone ??? The reason I'm asking is cause I know you're clueless. 

And to top that off the majority of the interceptors were carrying the ETC-501 rack, which alone robbed allot of performance.



> Prove your thesis that LuftReich s/e fighters were outnumbered by USAAF MUstangs - you haven't come close yet for the 1/1/44-5/31/44 timeframe



Wait a minute are you claiming that you've proven me wrong ?! Let me remind you that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your theory that the Mustangs weren't present in far greater numbers than the dedicated fighters of the LW !



> JG26 has very little to do in this discussion as they were not fighting the Mustangs over Germany - they were fighting the RAF and USAAF fighters over lowlands and France with JG2 - LuftReich is the force we are talking about - stay on topic Soren



LoL, stay on topic ?? Bill you're the one who brought up the JG-26 remember  

But ofcourse I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss the JG-26, the fact that it out-fought the Allied fighters on an individual basis hurts your case.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> Wait a minute are you claiming that you've proven me wrong ?! Let me remind you that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your theory that the Mustangs weren't present in far greater numbers than the dedicated fighters of the LW !



I am trying not to take sides here but please do me a favor.

I would like you to post facts as well. I want you to post:

a. Sources (that are not biased to either side)
b. Diagrams, Charts, Actual Loss Reports 
c. Mission Reports (from both sides)

Why do I ask this?

Because this is getting stupid. You keep asking Bill for the same things that I asked you above but you dont post them either.

When someone asks you for them you tell them not to change the subject. All they are asking you to do is please prove yourself and show the facts that you claim to be posting.

Come on now guys!


----------



## Glider (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> What am I doing to explain away the losses of the LW fighters Bill ??
> 
> Well let me repeat what I've being saying all along:
> 
> 1.) The LW was low on fuel.


In the third quarter of 1943 when the air battle over Germany was effectively lost Germany DIDN'T have a shortage of fuel. .


> 2.) The LW was low on trained pilots.


Wrong again. In 1943 the number of German pilots being trained increased from 1662 new fighter pilots in 1942 to 3276 new fighter pilots in 1943


> 3.) The dedicated LW fighters were always massively out-numbered.


Wrong again. The earlier postings proved that in Europe and over Germany in the third quarter of 1943 the LW a large number of pilots/planes easily outnumbering the small no of long range fighters available to the USAAF.


> 4.) The LW interceptors weren't there to fight off fighters, they were there to take down the biggest thread, the bombers. It was the bombers which were pounding the German industry, not the fighters, therefore taking down the bombers was the no.1 priority - hence the losses caused by Allied escorts. Most of the interceptors were shot down attacking the bombers.


The LW fighters were to deal with the threat that they failed indicates that their fighters were not up to the job


> 5.) The interceptors were heavily armed and therefore didn't stand much chance if caught by the escorts..


That the German fighters had to be upgunned (in particular the 109) to deal with the American bombers leaving themselves vulnerable to the escort fighters indicates that their fighters were not up to the job.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> I repeat Bill, the dedicated LW fighters were out-numbered big time ! And the interceptors although present in higher numbers were, I repeat, after the bombers NOT the escorts !!
> 
> *Yes the prime mission was to avoid fighters if possible and defend when not possible*
> 
> ...



Doesn't 'hurt' anything. JG26 was a very tough opponent - this isn't about 'weak' or 'tough'. 

This is about simple facts that Mustangs more often than not, met superior numbers of German fighters over the assigned targets from January 11, 1944 and May 31, 1944 and thrashed them.

I can only speculate that you a.) can't do the math, or b.) don't want to do the math.

Here 'tis.

Average TO&E for Mustang Groups in 1st half 1944 = 64 Mustangs
Average Mission Strength at Take Off = 48 (three squadrons of 16)
Average number of Effectives = 36 in Jan-Mar, 46 April - May by using Spares

Number of Mustang Groups in USAAF 

Jan 1944 = 1, the 354th FG 9th AF
Feb 1944 = 3, the 363rd FG 9th AF, 357th FG 8th AF
Mar 1944 = 5, the 4th (26Feb) and the 355th (28Feb)
Apr 1944 = 6, the 352nd (10th Apr)
May 1944 = 8, the 339th (30 Apr), 361st (12 May)

Now, multiply 36 x number of Groups for Jan-Mar to get number of Mustangs over the target in LuftFlotte Reich.

At the end of March a minimum of 180 Mustangs were flying Target Escort and roughly spilt to cover 35 Bomb Wings.

At the 24 of April (to get you back on track to isolate just that one mission-multiply by 46) to get to 276 Mustangs to cover 40 Bomb Wings

Now, leave LuftFlotte 3 out of the mix and assume they can't be added (that helps you, Soren) so just look at LuftReich. Ease back up to the tables and look at the single engine day fighter losses from 1/1/44- 5/31/44 for just LuftFlotte Reich... or just look for available Fighter Strength for Reich in that period. I showed you the figures for May31.

Some of those losses were due to weather, some to bombers, some to P-38's and some to P-47s on the very extrem west Germany- but by far the most to Mustangs.

Now, Soren. Find an arcane math to show that the total number of MUstang wings fighting the Luftwaffe over Germany in that time frame was more than 200 in March, or 300 at end of April. You can't but try.

Then Soren, show that more than two of those groups were ever able to engage a concentrated LW attack by s/e and t/e fighters. 

To prove your thesis of greatly outnumbered you will have to show that the LW NEVER put as many as 10-12 (roughly 1:8) fighters in the same space as the 92 Mustangs in the two groups. You with me so far? And you know that is just plain silly, right?

I just proved to you that the LW concentrated 200-250 s/e fighters, nearly all Me109s with far superior performance above 25,000 feet than the Fw190s, over Munich on 24 April, 1944. I am assuming Me109G6's - you prove otherwise.

Show me Your math, Soren.


----------



## Soren (Aug 12, 2007)

You have proven squat Bill !

Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.

The Bf-109's involved were std. G-6's yes, and therefore featured no boost, and again most were armed with MG-151/20 gun-pods for obvious reasons. 



drgondog said:


> This is about simple facts that Mustangs more often than not, met superior numbers of German fighters over the assigned targets from January 11, 1944 and May 31, 1944 and thrashed them.



Well the problem is you twist the facts Bill. Yes counting the Mustangs alone they met more German fighters in this incident, however by far the majority of those "fighters" were heavily armed bomber interceptors, there being only a handful of dedicated fighters.

You keep claiming that the Mustangs trashed the LW in this incident, yet the LW blew 200 + USAAF personnel out of the sky that day, so who really got trashed this day ?

The LW interceptors went for the bombers, were engaged by the USAAF escorts, an yet the LW interceptors still managed to hand out more damage than they recieved.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> ....
> You keep claiming that the Mustangs trashed the LW in this incident, yet the LW blew 200 + USAAF personnel out of the sky that day, so who really got trashed this day ?
> 
> The LW interceptors went for the bombers, were engaged by the USAAF escorts, an yet the LW interceptors still managed to hand out more damage than they recieved.



The AAF replaced all the lost aircraft in a single days production, and the pilot training programs made good the losses without letup.

WE ultimately won because the AAF made good its losses and the LW couldn't.

Soren, a single battle proves nothing. Look at the losses from a several week long period.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> You have proven squat Bill !
> 
> Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.
> 
> ...



Then show all your facts Soren. Dont just type them down, show the sources.


----------



## Glider (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> You have proven squat Bill !
> 
> Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.



I think you need to be reminded of a previous posting.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> You have proven squat Bill !
> 
> Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.
> 
> ...



Yes, on this day the 8th AF lost a lot more airmen KIA, WIA and POW than the LW over Munich - because of the skill of a female controller and the courage and tenacity of the LW pilots. But don't focus on how well they did against the bombers. It has long been agreed and proven that 8th AF could not continue taking huge losses, or continue daylight bombing over Germany, unescorted. Stick to the thesis.

This day would have two more days in which the LW would claw down 10% of the attacking bombers - 29 April and 12 May. These are the last days when the LW could take a toll on more than one or two Groups of American heavy bombers

Now, back on the thesis regarding the role of the Mustang in engaging and shooting down the LW Fighters independent of odds over German territory during daylight? The above ratio is approximately USAAF 5 to LW one for Mustangs over Me110s and USAAF 11 to LW one for Mustangs over Me109G6's. See the debate thesis above Soren. LW records admit to 60 a/c lost or more than 60% damaged, make no mention of a/c crash landed (but less than 60% damaged)

I don't want you (or me) to get hung up over 24 April - I can find worse cases for the LW than this.

Just for Your benefit, Soren - pick as many examples that you care to choose for engagements in which the LW fighters trashed USAAF fighters (or RAF) if you choose.. but cite the references please so we can compare notes? See how many engagements in which the LW destroyed say, more than 7 Mustangs or Thunderbolts or Lightnings in one fight. 

I actually know of several, particularly during the Normandy campaign where many fights took place on the deck, but there are less than five such examples for the 8th AF.


----------



## Stupid (Aug 12, 2007)

Heres what I'll say, not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but heres what I know.

By late 1944 there were aces like Eric Hartman and Adolf Galland still alive, but alot of the other pilots were new and unexperienced, and the LW planes were in poor condition. In early 1944, the LW had already been suffering losses in Italy and the Eastern Front. Speaking of the 'Oste Front', the LW in operation Barborossa did a fantastic job, they were outnumbered immensely and managed to destroy at least half of the Russian aircraft. What didn't help the Russians is the fact that alot of there aircraft were obselete compared to the newer BF-109 models, and also compared to German pilots, Russian pilots sucked. The Russian pilots who did survive the initial attack would either become good pilots and aces or die. The advantage of numbers helped the Russians survive. Around them middle of the war they changed tactics and became actually good, and by that time had better planes then the LW as well.

On that one thing, 200 bombers, if they were B-17's, would be 2,000 people KIA, or who became POW's, on the scale of humanity then the Americans were decimated.
When a P-51 and a BF-109 met it would all depend on the pilot. but the P-51 had an obvious advantage. With the VVS (and other Russian air forces such as the PVO), RAF (including Canadians and others) and the USAAF all against the Luftwaffe, they (the LW) were fighting a desperate battle along with the rest of Germany, like fighting a pack of Coyotes with a toothpick. It would have been hard for the LW to have any great victory over the Allies.


----------



## str8jax (Aug 13, 2007)

Any one watch dogfights on the history channel ? I know its not scientific but several of the fights shown are with 15 to 20 german fighters jumping 4 or 5 p47s or mustangs. I have yet to see one yet where its 15 U.S. against 4 german. from what i understand the luftwaffe was putting every fighter they had in the air in large hunting groups trying to stop the onslaught. It however only resulted in more german loses. They even tried Kamikaze type attacks against the bombers trying to stop them.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2007)

str8jax said:


> Any one watch dogfights on the history channel ? I know its not scientific but several of the fights shown are with 15 to 20 german fighters jumping 4 or 5 p47s or mustangs. I have yet to see one yet where its 15 U.S. against 4 german. from what i understand the luftwaffe was putting every fighter they had in the air in large hunting groups trying to stop the onslaught. It however only resulted in more german loses. They even tried Kamikaze type attacks against the bombers trying to stop them.



While I have enjoyed many of the History Channel reproductions, I have noticed a lot of errors - The actual accounts of what happened are`pretty accurate but the HC makes a lot of bold claims w/o research - notably matching up Egon Mayer to Bob Johnson's 'Bad Day'... as Mayer was KIA eight months later and wrote no account that I am aware of that matches the encounter from Johnson'd POV - It can't be proved or disproved.

Another thing that is amusing about the otherwise excellent graphics is that frequently the control surfaces are in exactly opposite the required position for a roll... i.e sometimes they have a left aileron up/right down for a right roll.

As to the odds part, there is no great interest or drama in outcome for the example of 12 Mustangs or Jugs bouncing 12 Ju 52's for example..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## str8jax (Aug 13, 2007)

drgondog said:


> While I have enjoyed many of the History Channel reproductions, I have noticed a lot of errors - The actual accounts of what happened are`pretty accurate but the HC makes a lot of bold claims w/o research - notably matching up Egon Mayer to Bob Johnson's 'Bad Day'... as Mayer was KIA eight months later and wrote no account that I am aware of that matches the encounter from Johnson'd POV - It can't be proved or disproved.
> 
> Another thing that is amusing about the otherwise excellent graphics is that frequently the control surfaces are in exactly opposite the required position for a roll... i.e sometimes they have a left aileron up/right down for a right roll.
> 
> ...


point taken, and im going to watch the ailerons next time and see if i can catch that ive never noticed lol


----------



## Glider (Aug 13, 2007)

The bravest attack that I know of by a German fighter unit, had nothing to do with the Defence of Germany.

On the 23rd December 1942 over the By of Biscay, 51 P38's were flying with a Boston acting as a navigator leader were bounced by 4 (yes four) Ju88C.

The Boston was shot down as well as one of the P38's, whilst three of the P38's were badly damaged one being destroyed on landing back in the UK, one crash landed in Portugal and another in Spain, others suffering light damage but continued to Gibralter. None of the attacking Ju88's were lost although another Ju88 who joined the battle after it started, was lost.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2007)

Glider said:


> The bravest attack that I know of by a German fighter unit, had nothing to do with the Defence of Germany.
> 
> On the 23rd December 1942 over the By of Biscay, 51 P38's were flying with a Boston acting as a navigator leader were bounced by 4 (yes four) Ju88C.
> 
> The Boston was shot down as well as one of the P38's, whilst three of the P38's were badly damaged one being destroyed on landing back in the UK, one crash landed in Portugal and another in Spain, others suffering light damage but continued to Gibralter. None of the attacking Ju88's were lost although another Ju88 who joined the battle after it started, was lost.



Pretty impressive Glider..which unit of P-38's?


----------



## Glider (Aug 14, 2007)

The Boston was from 47th BG flown by Capt Martz. 
The P38 shot down was from flown by Lt Green of 95th FS. 
Lt Broadhead of the 96th FS crash landed in the UK at St Eval.
Capt Strozier of the 96th FS made it to Portugal
Lt Miller of the 97th FS crash landed in Spain

Intestingly, a few days later on the 30th December, the same four German aircraft attacked 17 P39's from the 16th/68th observation groups but this time scoring was even, with one P39 lost and one Ju88.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2007)

Glider said:


> The Boston was from 47th BG flown by Capt Martz.
> The P38 shot down was from flown by Lt Green of 95th FS.
> Lt Broadhead of the 96th FS crash landed in the UK at St Eval.
> Capt Strozier of the 96th FS made it to Portugal
> ...



Interesting group, the 82nd - one of the few that flew P-38s all the way during combat ops and scored very well with it. It was on the way to Africa (obviously) to start ops, and started earlier than planned.

Thanks Glider for the little corner insight into history. Wonder if the German pilots survived the war?


----------



## str8jax (Aug 14, 2007)

one thing to say about having such huge odds against you. An isreali ace said this Only one plane can shoot you at a time there is not room for 2 or more to line up behind you. This pilot sorry forgot his name went up against 10 mig 21s by himself and in 10 minutes had shot down 4 of the ten only missing 5 because of a missile malfunction. The rest bugged out. Oh ya he was flying a mirage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

str8jax said:


> one thing to say about having such huge odds against you. An isreali ace said this Only one plane can shoot you at a time there is not room for 2 or more to line up behind you. This pilot sorry forgot his name went up against 10 mig 21s by himself and in 10 minutes had shot down 4 of the ten only missing 5 because of a missile malfunction. The rest bugged out. Oh ya he was flying a mirage.



Giora Even Epstein - Different War, Different Tactics and a wide gap in the skill of the pilots.


----------



## Soren (Aug 15, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Yes, on this day the 8th AF lost a lot more airmen KIA, WIA and POW than the LW over Munich - because of the skill of a female controller and the courage and tenacity of the LW pilots.



And because of the excellent quality effectiveness of the German a/c involved.



> But don't focus on how well they did against the bombers. It has long been agreed and proven that 8th AF could not continue taking huge losses, or continue daylight bombing over Germany, unescorted. Stick to the thesis.



I am sticking to the thesis Bill, it is you who isn't. You want to base the Mustangs quality on how well it did against heavily armed interceptors concentrating on shooting down bombers, heck the P-47 P-38 could've both done as good a job as the P-51 in this scenario - the interceptors were sitting ducks, and the few dedicated fighters present were massively out-numbered by the Allied escorts. Thats fact Bill, and you can read about it in countless after action reports, books, end of day statistics, loss records etc etc..

Forget Dr.Price...



> This day would have two more days in which the LW would claw down 10% of the attacking bombers - 29 April and 12 May. These are the last days when the LW could take a toll on more than one or two Groups of American heavy bombers



Funny how biased individuals love to talk percentages, it sorta camouflages or sugar coats the actual true events. 




> Now, back on the thesis regarding the role of the Mustang in engaging and shooting down the LW Fighters independent of odds over German territory during daylight? The above ratio is approximately USAAF 5 to LW one for Mustangs over Me110s and USAAF 11 to LW one for Mustangs over Me109G6's. See the debate thesis above Soren. LW records admit to 60 a/c lost or more than 60% damaged, make no mention of a/c crash landed (but less than 60% damaged)



First of all, if you think of this day as a direct matchup between the Mustang and the LW fighters you're awfully ignorant cause it was anything but that. The Mustangs were faced by (For the 100th time) heavily armed interceptors who were rightly focused on shooting down as many bombers as possible and then run for home. The only LW who would mix it with the Mustangs were the hugely out-numbered dedicated fighters.

Secondly, do you have the original German loss records in black white Bill ?



> I don't want you (or me) to get hung up over 24 April - I can find worse cases for the LW than this.



Well I wouldn't be surprised seeing that it really wasn't such a bad day for the LW if you consider the losses sustained by the USAAF, but despite this pleaase do refer to another incident if you like.



> Just for Your benefit, Soren - pick as many examples that you care to choose for engagements in which the LW fighters trashed USAAF fighters (or RAF) if you choose.. but cite the references please so we can compare notes? See how many engagements in which the LW destroyed say, more than 7 Mustangs or Thunderbolts or Lightnings in one fight.
> 
> I actually know of several, particularly during the Normandy campaign where many fights took place on the deck, but there are less than five such examples for the 8th AF.



Again the LW was usually grossly out-numbered, thats fact Bill, face it.

Fighting against heavy odds

And I can go on and on and on and on and on...


----------



## Glider (Aug 15, 2007)

Soren
I have read the article that you posted as your evidence but its all about the LW being outnumbered in the fighting over France after the Landings. No one will dispute the Germans were heavily outnumbered in these situations. Can I ask why you quote the situation over the landings and France as evidence that the same situation happened over Germany?

But the point being made is that the German fighters over Germany were not badly outnumbered in the first Quarter on 1944. In fact despite having all the advantages and fighting over their home country they incurred heavy losses far outweighing the losses they incurred on the USAAF daylight bombing raids and in particular the P51's.

Just to remind you the max no of fighters the USAAF could send up in March was 180 to defend hundreds of bombers and the Germans had about 900 fighters in homeland defence.


----------



## Glider (Aug 15, 2007)

Soren
If you want to talk about the losses in France you had better read the rest of that site in particular the following

Thus, while almost two Allied aircraft were lost for every German aircraft loss, these losses should be compared with each side's numerical strength. During this period, the Allied air forces performed 99,000 sorties over France (Clark, p. 98 ), while the Luftwaffe only flew 13,315 sorties over France (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 1051). Thus, the Allied loss rate was only around 1 % while the German loss rate was almost 5 %. 

Out of a total of 13,000 Allied aircraft on 6 June 1944, less than 10 % were lost over France between 6 and 30 June 1944. Out of 1,300 Luftwaffe aircraft in France (the peak number, reached on 10 June), around 50 % were lost between 6 and 30 June 1944.

You should also remember that a very large proportion of the allied losses were to AA fire not fighters.

If you want to stick to the topic and talk about the German losses over Germany then you read the first part of the piece that you posted as evidence to support your claims.

Without doubt, air superiority was a key to the Allied victory at Normandy in June - August 1944. This air superiority was based on both a qualitative superiority and a numerical superiority. 

The qualitative superiority manifested itself both regarding the technical field and pilot training. The Allied fighters generally were superior to the German Bf 109 G and Fw 190 A in service in 1944. _Moreover, at this stage, the quality of the Luftwaffe pilot standard was being worn down to a mere shadow of what it had once been, and this was the result of a terrible attrition in a long fight against numerically superior US formations over Germany. 

In March 1944, the German Luftflotte Reich had performed 3,672 combat sorties and lost 349 fighters. That equals a loss ratio of 9.4 %. (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 821) 

These 3,672 combat sorties were flown against approximately 18,000 sorties by US 8th Air Force (including 8,773 heavy bomber missions; I don't have totals for fighter escort missions, but usually by this time there were more escort fighters than heavy bombers on each mission), plus several thousand sorties over Germany and the Netherlands by the 15th AF and the RAF_. 

This seems to support the people who are disagreeing with you.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 15, 2007)

Glider does have a very valid point and info to back it up....
Meh GLider, Soren sort it out amongst yourselvs you have already taken over the thread.....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> And because of the excellent quality effectiveness of the German a/c involved.
> 
> *??? thou dost protest too much - this isn't disputed.
> 
> ...


*

Actually Soren, you are a.) quite right regarding your talents, and b.) dead on regarding your debate style, c.) your talent for changing subjects when you become confused, and d.) resorting to name calling when you perceive no other choices?

Why is it so hard for you to believe, that through either extremely bad tactics or fighting ability or flying outclassed fighters (has to be one of those I think) that LW was defeated - in context of achieveing and holding air superiority - by the USAAF long Range Fighters in the period 1/1/44 through 5/31/44 in circumstances in which the German Fighter Forces over Germany numerically exceeded the USAAF Fighter Forces over Germany.

No other nation or Air Force was attacking Germany in daylight in that period. No other nation was sending Spitfires or P-47s or Typhoons or MiGs or whatever over Germany then.

Only that handfull of Mustangs and Lightnings.

Go Figure!*


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 16, 2007)

i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 16, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
> If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...



I would guess you are quite close to the truth . . .

I don't have a lot of numbers figures statistics to back-up my arguments like everyone else seems to, but I do know that, due to Albert Speer, production of almost all armaments reached it's peak in late '44, particularly aircraft. If I remember correctly, under his leadership, production of aircraft quadrupled between 1942 and 1944. 

So, you're probably right, Aussie; and I think fuel was the critical factor in all of this. I know there was very little fuel available for training (if any) as it was all being diverted to the front lines, further handicapping the training of the new pilots coming into the LW. Synthetic fuel production was ramping up in '44, but it wasn't able to offset their losses in natural fuel production and refinement. My understanding is that, by the end of the War, the LW was using more synthetic fuel than natural fuel.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
> If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...



Aussie - no need to go humble on us. Whether I am right or wrong in the thesis I have argued with Soren, you can view Nazi Germany as a boat in a stream of time, the waters becoming more turbulent and the boat less capable of surviving - 1944 was a good year to illustrate that.

The German High Command was fighting a desparate battle in the East but actually holding their own in the air. The East air battles were no threat to German industry.

In the west it was a different story. While being pushed back in Italy, Germany was not despartate in the south.. but airpower was relentlessly striking at critical industries. Speer performed magnificently to increase production, de-centralize factories and keep the machine running.

But decentralization made him more vulnerable to transportation attacks and he could not decentralize or harden Misburg, Ploesti etc. 

Further, the LW could not afford to lose control of the air or the forthcoming Invasion would be impossible to stop.

So, realizing the greater threat to complete collapse he was able to join in with LW commanders and enable more LW fighter forces to be withdrawn into Germany and the LuftFlotte Reich was born late 1943/early 1944.. 

The Luftwaffe Fighter Strength based within Germany, in the context of concentration of skilled pilots and equivalent performing fighters was never higher than in January 1944.

Sometime between then and D-Day the Luftwaffe went from control of the air over Germany - inflicting prohibitive losses on the USAAF - to powerless to stop any attack on their industry... and specifically Oil which was the achilles heel. Speer said it best in his book when "he knew the end was in sight on May12, 1944 when the uSAAF started the concentrated oil attack's - or words to that effect.

So, back to the analogy of the river. 1944 was a time stream in which the LW started out strong and ended up gasping for survival. Somewhere in between it went from a position of strength - which are the root of my debate with Soren... to one of relative weakness, not only due to the blows from Long Range Fighters but even in the context of the relative numbers of fighters versus fighters over Germany

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2007)

Bill,

Just a question, why are you and Soren debating over the number of fighters vs fighters? It seems pointless and futile.

Without reading pages and pages of your guys debate, what in a nut shell are you both trying to prove or disprove? 

Thanks


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Just a question, why are you and Soren debating over the number of fighters vs fighters? It seems pointless and futile.
> 
> ...



Soren postulated a long time ago that the only reason Mustangs were successful was their ability to overwhelm by ratios of 8:1 or "12 to 1". 

I simply put out a BS alert and proceeded to give him the order of Battle for the 8th AF (and two 9th AF Mustang units) versus the Single Engine Fighter (and pilot) strength of LuftFlotte Reich - all based in Germany and the principal antagonists of the Mustang and Lightning Groups from 1/1/44 -5/31/44.

In other words I said, say and will say that Mustang units were outnumbered over Germany in that timeframe and that they (primarily) broke the back of LuftFlotte Reich. The Operational dates, the numbers available, the fact that they were spread out to be the ONLY target support, along with three less effective Lightning groups, for 35-40 Bomb Groups.

The very nature of the dispersion and the caution the LW controllers applied by ensuring as many Fighters as possible would be concentrated in one local area where the Mustangs "weren't" made most engagements between the German and Americans one in which the LW had Local numerical superiority!

In other words, Soren expressed beliefs that US technology and pilots could only defeat the Luftwaffe if the US had overwhelming numbers... a not uncommon belief held by more than a few Germans.

Interesting or not I had this same discussion, a respectful one on my part, with Ray Tolliver, Gunther Rall and Adolf Galland at the 1984 Fighter Aces meeting in Tuscon. I didn't position the discussion on the performance merits of the P-51 - only the strategic importance of performance equivalency plus the long range to disrupt German operations. They actually agreed with my thesis once I made it clear I wasn't talking about Allied Fighter strength - only USAAF fighter strength over central and eastern Germany.

It has never been about 'who is a better warrior' or more courageous - simply a matter of requesting respect for a pretty small bunch of guys who took the fight into Germany's home skies and defeated them, often outnumbered.

Each of the facts that I draw his (and your) attention to is published and a matter of record - all by noted historians looking at facts and doing the best they could to interpret them.

Hope this answers your question


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 16, 2007)

I have to agree with drgondog.

Soren cant grasp the fact that in early 1944, the LW was more than capable of having numerical suprememcy at a local level. There was not enough P38's and P51's to cover all of the bombers all of the time. 

In the end, it resolves itself into this:
1) Pilot quality was equal early on, untill the lack of trained pilots in the LW became apparent.
2) Fighter quality was even, as long as a skilled pilot kept his aircraft within its optimal performace envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake.

and 

3) Once the AAF figured out how to get the most out of their P38's and P51's, the LW paid a huge price. The AAF fighters and pilots were good and did the job.

Soren has not proven anything.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 16, 2007)

>>*drgondog*_I simply put out a BS alert and proceeded to give him the order of Battle for the 8th AF (and two 9th AF Mustang units) versus the Single Engine Fighter (and pilot) strength of LuftFlotte Reich - all based in Germany and the principal antagonists of the Mustang and Lightning Groups from 1/1/44 -5/31/44_

Soren made a point that i haven't seen addressed-- I may have missed a rebuttal if there was one. He is distinguishing between "Bomber killer interceptors" and "Fighters". In his opinion it is not fair to lump all single engine aircraft together.

>>*Soren*_First of all, if you think of this day as a direct matchup between the Mustang and the LW fighters you're awfully ignorant cause it was anything but that. The Mustangs were faced by (For the 100th time) heavily armed interceptors who were rightly focused on shooting down as many bombers as possible and then run for home. The only LW who would mix it with the Mustangs were the hugely out-numbered dedicated fighters._

The mission and configuration of the aircraft merits consideration.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2007)

Well I sort of agree with you both Bill and Soren.

P-51's did do a great job vs LW and it was not just b/c numbers advantage. Thats where I agree with you 100%.

Perhaps where I not so much agree with Soren so much as I just have a little different slant on it then him. I do not believe in any nation having naturally better born warriors then anyone else (I am not saying Soren believes this or not).

Yes during that period LW had more fighters (single engine) over Germany. But they were still did not have enough fighters to get the job done to stop USAF. Here were the problems (which I am just posting not b/c you don't know this already, not b/c I am trying to be difficult......but to make a list for myself to make sure it makes sense to me).

1) Despite radar, LW still had to successfully get many fighters into the air zone where the bombers were to shoot them down.....not easy. Needed a disproportinal large number of fighters to achieve success. There were many German fighter groups that missed their assignments b/c they never were able to find them.

2) Then to successfully inflict enough damage on a bomber box or stream to disrupt the attack or punish the attacking force so she would not able to attack again for some time.....not easy. Again a disproportinal large number of fighters were needed to be successful. This is all assuming there still is no USAF fighter escort.

3) Many of the LW single seat fighters were not great vs large 4 engine bombers that could absorb massive damage and return fire as good or better then she got. While the ME 109 of all types were good fighters through out the war......they were better suited for fighter vs fighter battles. They were not "great" at fighter vs large heavily armed and armored 4 engine bombers. Sure LW added armor and guns to the 109 to help vs bombers but that worked in reverse vs US fighters. Don't get me wrong I love and I mean love the 109, but it was being asked to do something that it was not designed to do. The FW 190 did a better job overall vs bombers but was available in fewer numbers then the 109.

4) By 1943 even Erich Hartmann said he noticed a decline in LW pilot quality being sent to the front as replacements. Shortened training times, too little fuel to train and increasing harder to find safe air space to train newbies all hurt new LW pilots quality (on average).

5) While during this period the USAF was just starting to increase the pressure on Germany, Germany's air defenses were just starting to get really built up also. Yes they were good before but they increased a great deal over the next 6-8 months. (including AA, radar, practice vs large day light attacks the likes the LW had never seen before, procedures, fighter tactics vs 4 engine bombers, etc etc)

6) The USAF choose where to attack and when to attack, its always harder to react to a attack then to attack. IMO 

7) The USAF was able to concentrate its attacking forces to take greatest advantage of the numbers it had available to it. It also used feint attacks to disperse defending LW fighters. Well done.

8 ) At this point in the war USAF pilots were receiving more training then LW pilots. They on average were better prepared for what was to come during their first few engagements. As many aces have said, surviving that first few battles is the key. Average USAF pilots at this point were as good or better then any pilots in the world.

9) The P-51 was a equal match on average to the 109 or 190 when talking real battle field conditions over Germany.

10) Just like other points in the war, with other nations.....Germany was defending at this point. Her fighters were to engage enemy bombers and avoid enemy fighters whenever possible. This will lead to a hand full of allied bombers shot down, very very few allied fighters.......vs 20-30 LW often shot down. Looks bad on paper for the LW but in reality it was their only choice.

I could keep going but I don't see it as being needed. I am not pro German or pro USA.........

Germany did a great job considering all the factors above and more.

USAF did a great job considering she had fewer fighters.

Both did a great job......I don't get involved in biased arguments. Germany failed over all, USAF succeeded overall.......the end. Allies succeeded more then they failed during the war or they would of lost the war. Numbers alone do not win wars, the side who commits the fewest errors wins most times.

There is my attempt at being unbiased, right or wrong thats my $0.02. 8) 

IMHO Hunter


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> 6) The USAF choose where to attack and when to attack, its always harder to react to a attack then to attack.



I like that Hunter..

That sounds like something Yogi Berra would say! I wanna put it on a T-shirt


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I like that Hunter..
> 
> That sounds like something Yogi Berra would say! I wanna put it on a T-shirt



Thanks feel free, I will only ask for 5% royalties on all shirt sales. 

Sales in dollars = 0 x 5% = $0.00 DAMN!

Wait a second here!!


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Thanks feel free, I will only ask for 5% royalties on all shirt sales.
> 
> Sales in dollars = 0 x 5% = $0.00 DAMN!
> 
> Wait a second here!!



Here you go!


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 16, 2007)

drgondog
Thanks i thought i was right.
I believe that Albert speer was a genius when i came to production of the planes, they just got nailed on the ground at the factorys and on their way to the airfields and even when they got there because they didn't have the fuel to get them into the air. Piliot training also had a big part in the equation. At the end of the war piliot training had been reduced to the point where the americans were shooting down complete novices who were encouraged to ram the bombers.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> At the end of the war piliot training had been reduced to the point where the americans were shooting down complete novices who were encouraged to ram the bombers.


I hear Soren, INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2007)

what I can't seem to find is how long was the formation of bombers I can find the formations used etc but I have no idea the overall length of the stream. . If its 40 miles long or 100 or whatever would help determine how concentrated the fighter cover was


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 16, 2007)

Flyboy explain please


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> what I can't seem to find is how long was the formation of bombers I can find the formations used etc but I have no idea the overall length of the stream. . If its 40 miles long or 100 or whatever would help determine how concentrated the fighter cover was



It depends (but you knew that). Each Group of 48 bombers in an average formation was about 2,000 feet 'long' . Separation between the groups within a Combat wing was in the mile to 2 mile range (planned versus reality) 

Most planning for missions in spring to summer 1944 would be in some form of trail stream until a decision point where different wings would break on different courses for different targets. When the Scouts came into being in late summer 44 they would range ahead to determine target weather and radio back to lead ships regarding 'go to primary' or 'divert to secondary' and the bombers would either proceed as planned or divert.

Escorts would normally pick them up at that point so no suprises should occur.

So for the first 1/2 to 2/3 the entire 8th AF might be in a stream to that point and then break into two or more (say, five or six in an extreme case) separate streams to drive to their targets with fighter escorts assigned to different Task Forces of several Combat Wings, each comprised of 1 or more bomb broups)

The first complete Berlin mission for USAAF on 6 March allegedly had a bomber stream 70+ miles long for the 670+ effective bombers on that mission - all going to the same place with 30+ bomb groups...and three Mustang Groups (4th, 354th and 357th) for a total of 100 for Target Escort.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Flyboy explain please



1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid!

2. Have you been reading Soren's posts????


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Nah i wrote soren off as soon as i saw how many people were against him !!!!!
You can't be right on a site like this with so many argueing with you....

1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid! 

Are you sure all the texts i have come across point towards the fact that the Germans were critically short on pilots ???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Nah i wrote soren off as soon as i saw how many people were against him !!!!!
> You can't be right on a site like this with so many argueing with you....
> 
> 1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid!
> ...



Although I believe Soren may have a different point of view in certain aspects of this discussion, he is still very knowledgeable and does bring up some valid points. With that said, there was one thing in shorter supply than Luftwaffe pilots - that being fuel. Don't believe the myth that the skies over Germany late in the war was filled with untrained rookies. By some of the losses the 8th AF took late in the war proved that parts of Germany were still a very dangerous place. Read some of the missions sited in this thread and you'll see what I mean...


----------



## Hop (Aug 17, 2007)

> 1) Despite radar, LW still had to successfully get many fighters into the air zone where the bombers were to shoot them down.....not easy. Needed a disproportinal large number of fighters to achieve success. There were many German fighter groups that missed their assignments b/c they never were able to find them.



It's interesting to compare the German defence with that of the RAF during the BoB.

The Luftwaffe had an advantage in this area, because they usually had much more warning. Even the closest German targets were 250 miles from the USAAF bomber bases, and most targets 300+ miles. In contrast, the Germans were typically 50 - 150 miles from their targets in the BoB.

Finding the bomber formations was easier too, both because radar had improved greatly in 3 - 4 years, because the RAF didn't even have radar coverage inland in 1940, and because the USAAF bombers tended to fly higher, and produce lots of contrails.



> Then to successfully inflict enough damage on a bomber box or stream to disrupt the attack or punish the attacking force so she would not able to attack again for some time.....not easy. Again a disproportinal large number of fighters were needed to be successful. This is all assuming there still is no USAF fighter escort.



Whilst the US heavy bombers were undoubtedly tougher than the German's mediums in the BoB, the German fighters carried cannon, against the rifle calibre machine guns used by the British in the BoB. The bombers also faced much longer return flights if damaged, often hundreds of miles over enemy territory, whereas the German bombers usually had less than 100 miles to get back to France.



> 3) Many of the LW single seat fighters were not great vs large 4 engine bombers that could absorb massive damage and return fire as good or better then she got. While the ME 109 of all types were good fighters through out the war......they were better suited for fighter vs fighter battles. They were not "great" at fighter vs large heavily armed and armored 4 engine bombers. Sure LW added armor and guns to the 109 to help vs bombers but that worked in reverse vs US fighters. Don't get me wrong I love and I mean love the 109, but it was being asked to do something that it was not designed to do. The FW 190 did a better job overall vs bombers but was available in fewer numbers then the 109.



That's certainly true. The 109 was under gunned without gondolas, performance suffered with them. But again, in 1940 RAF fighters fought with rifle calibre machine guns.



> By 1943 even Erich Hartmann said he noticed a decline in LW pilot quality being sent to the front as replacements. Shortened training times, too little fuel to train and increasing harder to find safe air space to train newbies all hurt new LW pilots quality.



It wasn't lack of fuel in 1943, or even lack of places to train, just the requirement to train extreme numbers of pilots to make up for the losses. As Williamson Murray points out, by the beginning of 1942 the Luftwaffe had lost two complete air forces, and their casualties continued to increase.

German aviation fuel supply (production, imports and captured stock):
1940 - 966,000 tons
1941 - 910,000 
1942 - 1,472,000
1943 - 1,917,000
1944 - 1,105,000

It wasn't until later in 1944 that lack of fuel became a major factor for the Luftwaffe. Jan to April 1944 they averaged production of 170,000 tons a month, it wasn't until June that production really dropped, to 52,000 tons a month.



> 5) While during this period the USAF was just starting to increase the pressure on Germany, Germany's air defenses were just starting to get really built up also. Yes they were good before but they increased a great deal over the next 6-8 months. (including AA, radar, practice vs large day light attacks the likes the LW had never seen before, procedures, fighter tactics vs 4 engine bombers, etc etc)



This is similar to the BoB. The RAF had committed much of their fighter force to France, flak defences were very weak, and the air defence network was entirely untested. Indeed, the whole network had been designed to counter unescorted German bombers approaching the east coast from Germany, instead it faced the bulk of the Luftwaffe 30 miles away across the channel on the south coast.



> 6) The USAF choose where to attack and when to attack, its always harder to react to a attack then to attack. IMO



The Germans had a decided advantage here over the situation in 1940. Targets in Germany meant penetrations of enemy airspace of hundreds of miles, in many cases. The British on the other hand were very close to the enemy bases, with far less time to react to an attack.



> 7) The USAF was able to concentrate its attacking forces to take greatest advantage of the numbers it had available to it. It also used feint attacks to disperse defending LW fighters. Well done.



This is something that was done during the BoB as well. 



> 8 ) At this point in the war USAF pilots were receiving more training then LW pilots. They on average were better prepared for what was to come during their first few engagements. As many aces have said, surviving that first few battles is the key. Average USAF pilots at this point were as good or better then any pilots in the world.



I think training is one of the keys to the difference in performance. 



> 10) Just like other points in the war, with other nations.....Germany was defending at this point. Her fighters were to engage enemy bombers and avoid enemy fighters whenever possible. This will lead to a hand full of allied bombers shot down, very very few allied fighters.......vs 20-30 LW often shot down. Looks bad on paper for the LW but in reality it was their only choice.



During the BoB the RAF were also ordered to focus on the enemy bombers. And yet fighter losses for the RAF were only slightly higher than fighter losses for the Luftwaffe, and overall losses were almost 2 to 1 in the RAF's favour in the BoB.

If you look at the performances during the USAAF daylight offensive and the BoB, then the Luftwaffe doesn't compare well. Their losses were very high, the losses they inflicted on the enemy relatively low, in both cases.

I suspect it was a matter of training for German pilots, and that their fighters were outclassed at the altitudes combats with the 8th AF took place. By the time they started getting higher altitude fighters later in 1944 it was already too late.


----------



## Glider (Aug 17, 2007)

Very good summary


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 17, 2007)

Hop,

1) Like I said radar was still far from "great". Also the difference between Battle of Britain and Battle of Germany as far as this point goes only: Germany AF had much more ground to cover then RAF did in BoB. Which makes defending much harder. You point about warning times is very valid but USAF also used tricks to help battle that point. Sudden turns, feints, fake raids, etc which helped reduce that Germany advantage, job well done by USAF.

Also USAF attacked at much higher altitude then LW did in BoB, which created a problem for LW to get defenders up that high in time to defend the attack. Also a small point that hurt LW was the limited endurance of its defending fighters. 

2) USAF did have longer return flights but she also used her allies/ neutral air fields to land in rare cases. Overall when comparing BoB bomber vs BoG experience I would say that USAF had a harder time of it when considering ranges. But USAF had other advantages over LW bombers never had.

3) UK fighters problem, in BoB, when talking about guns is not even close to LW problems in BoG. Many UK pilots pefered the rifles rounds compared to cannons in BoB.......they would not even think about using rifle rounds vs the huge 4 engine armored USAF giants. UK pilots would be begging for cannons also, which would of hurt their fighter performance vs other fighters. In BoB they did not have to worry about that problem.

4) I agree at the start of 43 it was not a problem talking about fuel. But part way through 44 like we are talking it started to become a problem and got worse and worse.....as did safe air space. 100% agree the problem in 43 was replacing their massive losses with quality pilots, they still had many experts......but air forces win wars. UK and USA was doing a far better job at this then LW.

5) Agree both were untested, just that LW in BoB lacked the ability to step on UK throat and hold her down......USAF had the ability and she did step on the LW throat and never let her back up. RAF did not face the USAF.......no one could stop the USAF once she got rolling in 44.

6) I agree with you to a degree. USAF had to fly deeper into Germany which was a problem for them, but they also had many more targets to hit....which created a problem for LW trying to defend.

7) Agree but in BoG it hurt more b/c of the sheer numbers of bombers and the weight they could drop with higher accuracy then LW could in BoB.

8) In 44 and 45 the average pilot quality was dropping for Germany and Allied qualities were increasing......LW could not hope to keep up. Again I will say this there were no magic way or race that created quality pilots. It took time, planes, fuel and safe air space and a massive amount of effort. USAF and UK did very good job in this field, much better then LW or Japan.

10) Again while what RAF did in BoB was impressive.....you can't directly compare that to BoG. Here is why: USAF bombers which much much tougher to bring down compared to LW bombers in BoB. Also USAF bombers could and did inflict many more LW fighter losses then LW bombers could ever inflict on RAF in BoB.

I don't agree with you when comparing LW losses in BoG to RAF losses in BoB.....simply I don't believe you can even compare them.....two very different battles with very different variables to compare. I think the only way to compare LW in BoG with anyone else's air force would be to ask this:

Could any other air force fighting on all the fronts, facing all the quality enemies, facing all those combined numbers, with all the same problems and variables that LW had......win that battle? 

My simple answer is.....no. No one could win under those conditions.

I am not taking anything away from UK and what she did in BoB which was impressive. I am not taking anything away from USAF in the BoG, she crushed LW in a matter of time. I am not trying to be pro German, I am just saying you can't compare what RAF did BoB with what LW was facing in BoG......its not fair.

RAF, USAF beat the LW thats the end of the story. I am not saying LW is some great air force that was undefeatable. What I am saying is that no one could of won BoG if they were facing the same odds and problems that the LW was. Germany had lost the war before BoG even started, without the addition of some "super weapon" by Germany the war was lost......BoG was just a loss of life........just a country trying to fight on when she did not even know she had already lost. But that often happens in wars.

Sad really when you think of all the lost lives, by all sides when the war was all but won already.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Hop,
> 
> Also USAF attacked at much higher altitude then LW did in BoB, which created a problem for LW to get defenders up that high in time to defend the attack. Also a small point that hurt LW was the limited endurance of its defending fighters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 17, 2007)

Thanks Bill,

Bill 100% agree with your post. I also agree to a degree with Hop on many of his points, the only things I added about his points was when he was compared BoG with BoB and thinking they were fair comparisions. I just think its unfair to directly compare BoB with BoG, both were very different battles with very different conditions variables.

I give 100% kudos to RAF in BoB and USAF in BoG, but I also say LW did about as good as job as anyone could fairly expect under such conditions.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 17, 2007)

Give it to the USAAF/USAF. Second would be the RAF. And not a very close second but definitely second.

USAF created an effective Heavy/Strategic bomber force. Only other airforce that did that was the RAF. Great difference was the USAF airforce fought in Daylight in the teeth of the Enemy's defenses. But, that, in and of itself is not enough to make it the best Air Force of the War. It was the best because it won. It won because it adapted and brought new aircraft to the forefront to destroy the Luftwaffe (the real threat, the IJA/IJN airforces were not in the same league as the Luftwaffe).

The RAF attacked and fought at night because it did not have the equipment to fight in the day. Everyone knows that. But they never went back to Strategic Day bombing. They never developed a long range fighter to go deep into Germany and destroy the LW. The US produced three (P38, P47, P51). The effectiveness of each of them varied, but they all fought over the enemy's airbases. That makes the air superiority fighters. Not interceptors as is found in the RAF and LW. Both airforces created aircraft that were point inteceptors or local defense fighters.

For an Airforce to be considered great in WW2, it had to have the ability to both bomb and dogfight effectively over the enemy's bases by day as well as destroy strategic targets. The LW tried it and failed in 1940, switching to night bombing. Same with the RAF. Only the USAF/USAAF managed to do it by day to the point of Air Supremecy. Granted, it was at the end of the war and they had help, but they did get it done.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 17, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Give it to the USAAF/USAF. Second would be the RAF. And not a very close second but definitely second.
> 
> USAF created an effective Heavy/Strategic bomber force. Only other airforce that did that was the RAF. Great difference was the USAF airforce fought in Daylight in the teeth of the Enemy's defenses. But, that, in and of itself is not enough to make it the best Air Force of the War. It was the best because it won. It won because it adapted and brought new aircraft to the forefront to destroy the Luftwaffe (the real threat, the IJA/IJN airforces were not in the same league as the Luftwaffe).
> 
> ...



Agreed


----------



## The Basket (Aug 17, 2007)

The RAF did try day bombing and it was a disaster. Must remember that the USAAC also suffered heavy losses in daylight bombing and it was only the new fighter escorts that saved the day.

Britain didn't develop a long range fighter because the need wasn't there and we could use American fighters when we did.

I wouldn't compare the Battle of Britain to the Battle over Germany. It is just so different. The Germans failed not for pilots or for aircraft types but for sheer scale. The Americans could build aircraft and train new pilots until hell froze. And the Luftwaffe had to fight the RAF and Soviets as well. They did very well just to keep flying combat sorties.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Britain didn't develop a long range fighter because the need wasn't there and we could use American fighters when we did.



No actually the need was there. They wouldn't have needed to jump to Nighttime sorties if they had had the long range escorts. Therefore there was a need for them.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Remember adler though it was great pressure being bombed around the clock imagine it nailed by the Yanks in the daytime and by the Pomes at night time. It would have been hell to be in berlin at the time...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Remember adler though it was great pressure being bombed around the clock imagine it nailed by the Yanks in the daytime and by the Pomes at night time. It would have been hell to be in berlin at the time...



Imagine the RAF quitting night bombing in early 1944, join the 8th and 15th and 12th, concentrating on all strategic targets including Dusseldorf, Koln, Munster - inside the radius of P-47s while USSAF going deep with Mustangs and Lightnings - and expanding their (escorted RAF heavies) radius as more Mustangs and P-38s came into theatre and RAF Mustangs joined.

In one stroke the twin engine fighters lose their effectiveness (both day and night) and even more pressure is put on daytime German pilots to fly multiple sorties a day trying to take on twice the bomber count - and worthwhile targets get pounded more efficiently.

THAT would have been the real nightmare...


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Did the americans have the planes to support and cover both the AAF and the RAF the raf bombers would have needed more cover because of their much decreased armament compared to the B17's, B24's and B25's the lancaster if i recall correctly had 8 .303 machine guns compared to something like the b17 with chin turrents which had something like 15 .50 cal machine guns.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 17, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Imagine the RAF quitting night bombing in early 1944, join the 8th and 15th and 12th, concentrating on all strategic targets including Dusseldorf, Koln, Munster - inside the radius of P-47s while USSAF going deep with Mustangs and Lightnings - and expanding their (escorted RAF heavies) radius as more Mustangs and P-38s came into theatre and RAF Mustangs joined.
> 
> In one stroke the twin engine fighters lose their effectiveness (both day and night) and even more pressure is put on daytime German pilots to fly multiple sorties a day trying to take on twice the bomber count - and worthwhile targets get pounded more efficiently.
> 
> THAT would have been the real nightmare...



Actually, I think the night bombing was more effective than the day bombing, as the RAF spent hours bombing their target, allowing fires to take hold.

The USSBS did mention this as a key to the better effectiveness of the RAF as compared to the AAF.

And then, the nightbombing does force the LW to divert significant resources to fight at night.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

My point exactly Syscom3.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2007)

I believe Syscom is correct the CEP was about the same between Bomber Command and the USAAC except the RAF was dropping a much larger load per aircraft . Now imagine if you had tied the Lanc instead of the Fort and Lib with the 51 that would have been the combo


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I believe Syscom is correct the CEP was about the same between Bomber Command and the USAAC except the RAF was dropping a much larger load per aircraft . Now imagine if you had tied the Lanc instead of the Fort and Lib with the 51 that would have been the combo



Well, that was thought of but the Lanc did have some key weaknesses that would not have allowed it to be as effective during the day as opposed to the B27/B24.

The Lancs element was during the night.

Now just imagine a Spitfire with drop tanks that would allow it to escort the bombers to berlin!


----------



## Hop (Aug 17, 2007)

> I just think its unfair to directly compare BoB with BoG, both were very different battles with very different conditions variables.



Of course they were, I'm not suggesting otherwise. Just pointing out that the "circumstances" of the two battles actually favoured the Luftwaffe, due chiefly to the distances involved. What it boils down to is the Luftwaffe had an air force 20 miles from the British border with 1940 radar technology (actually a bit older as CH was built in 1936/1937), whereas the USAAF had an air force 250 miles from Germany, with occupied territory in the way for most targets.

For that reason you can't excuse the Luftwaffe defeat by circumstance, because the circumstances were in their favour. (as they usually are for the defence).

Fwiw, I don't think the Luftwaffe had a hope in hell of winning either battle, Germany was just too weak militarily. I just think the Luftwaffe performance was poor in both cases.



> The RAF attacked and fought at night because it did not have the equipment to fight in the day. Everyone knows that. But they never went back to Strategic Day bombing.



They did. BC actually dropped about 27% of their total tonnage in daylight, 262,078 tons in day sorties, 691,858 tons at night.



> They never developed a long range fighter to go deep into Germany and destroy the LW. The US produced three (P38, P47, P51). The effectiveness of each of them varied, but they all fought over the enemy's airbases. That makes the air superiority fighters. Not interceptors as is found in the RAF and LW. Both airforces created aircraft that were point inteceptors or local defense fighters.



Not really true. The USAAF developed long range fighters when they found a need for them, in 1943. The RAF did the same, although the range requirement was never as great. The basic 85 gallon fuel tankage of the Spitfire was increased to 213 gallons in the Spitfire VIII with drop tank, 260 gallons in the Spitfire IX with rear tank and drop tank.



> For an Airforce to be considered great in WW2, it had to have the ability to both bomb and dogfight effectively over the enemy's bases by day as well as destroy strategic targets.



You could equally argue it has to be able to do the same at night. The USAAF never developed much of a night fighting force, for the simple reason that the RAF did most of the night fighting. But that hardly makes the USAAF incapable.



> The LW tried it and failed in 1940, switching to night bombing. Same with the RAF. Only the USAF/USAAF managed to do it by day to the point of Air Supremecy.



Well, the Luftwaffe was alone when it tried it, so was the RAF. The USAAF was one of three airforces fighting in 1944, and they were fighting an already badly depleted Luftwaffe. As Williamson Murray put it, by the beginning of 1942 they had lost two complete air forces. They lost another 1.1 in 1942, another one Jan - Jul 1943, and another Jul - Dec 1943. By the time the USAAF began their campaign to smash the Luftwaffe in late summer 1943 the Luftwaffe had already been destroyed 4 times over. By the time that campaign got in to high gear in 1944 the Luftwaffe had been lost 5 times over.

As Murray puts it:



> The attrition of pilots and skilled aircrews was perhaps the most
> important factor in the destruction of the Luftrvaffe as an effective fighting force.
> The rise in the attrition rate for pilots resulted in a steady reduction in the skills and
> experience of those flying German aircraft . While the losses among the fighter
> ...





> No actually the need was there. They wouldn't have needed to jump to Nighttime sorties if they had had the long range escorts. Therefore there was a need for them.



But nobody had an effective long range fighter at the time. The Luftwaffe had the 110 which proved itself incapable, the Japanese were still working on the Zero which got in to service a year later, but lacked vital equipment by European standards. 

Effective long range fighters required more powerful engines, which simply weren't available at the time.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Ho do you type that much man ???


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Ho do you type that much man ???



LOL

Finally some one else said it.. I have alot to say but I'm too lazy to type that much... I wish i could!


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Ditto


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 17, 2007)

I' greatful for the information and insights... keep on writeing!


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Agree again !!


----------



## Hop (Aug 17, 2007)

> Ho do you type that much man



Cut n paste


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 18, 2007)

Plagerising Bast**d !!!! (grin)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2007)

Hop said:


> But nobody had an effective long range fighter at the time. The Luftwaffe had the 110 which proved itself incapable, the Japanese were still working on the Zero which got in to service a year later, but lacked vital equipment by European standards.



Like anythink you have to develop them. The need was there, they could have done it.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 18, 2007)

The phrase "that there is nothing quite like war to give technolagy a kick in the ass " probably applies here.
Wherever there is a need for something bigger or better if the need is great enough sooner or later someone will come up with an answer.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 18, 2007)

If the RAF had built a long range fighter, for 1940...it most certainly would have been a Bf 110 lookalike. Engine power would have been tight and so twin was the way to go. Lockheed thought the same and built the P-38.
Also more fuel needs a big aircraft which needs more power and so on.

Of course, The RAF did have powerful twin fighters like the Beaufighter and the Mosquito but they weren't dogfighters.

It must be remembered that the P-51 was designed in 1940 when actual combat use was known. And any later technology added. The Spitfire was a 5 year old design then.

When the first prototypes first flew of the Spitfire, it was widely believed that the bomber would get through. Its speed and defensive armment would do the job. This of course turned out to be rubbish.

By the time the RAF realised they needed an single engined escort fighter...they didn't have one and any new design would take about 4 years to come through. So buy yank ones instead.

The Spitfire was always tight on range but with drop tanks could go quite far. Why this wasn't pursued was because of the new yank fighters.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Actually, I think the night bombing was more effective than the day bombing, as the RAF spent hours bombing their target, allowing fires to take hold.
> 
> *Rather than quibble over the phrase 'effective', are we talking about destruction of German industry or cities?
> 
> ...



Mixed bag on the latter. the plus is that that the LW could fight at night w/o dealing with escort fighters meaning they could use equipment that would not survive in the daytime, nor did they experience the losses. They were also relatively more effective per fighter assigned to night ops - always having far fewer fighters that Daylight ops.

The negative is that if the RAF had gone all daylight, in mid 1944, given escort fighters like a long range Spit or RAF Mustangs, those same ships (German Me 110's, DO 217s, Ju 88's and He 219s) that were so effective at night are useless against Tempests, Spits Mustangs, etc..and you then have to put more talented t/e fighter pilots and crews into daylight fighter ops where they get slaughtered or convert them to s/e, where most get slaughtered. 

I think (obviously my opinion only) the attrition on LW would have far exceeded the RAF incremental losses - and doubt that RAF would have suffered as much in daytime in 1945.. particularly if they started out bombing industry in the 300 mile radius and got all the support they needed from the available Tempests and Spits and Mustang III's. The primary force to resist over western Germany would have been primarily JG26 and Jg2 in LuftFlotte III - while Reich would have had their hands full with 8th and 15th AF deep in Germany on the same days?

What would you cite as examples of RAF strikes at night from June 1944 to end of war that were materially more effective (meaning speeding up collapse of German industry or shortening the war) than USSAF attacks during the day? I'm not saying they didn't exist - just am not aware of them.

So, the root question is whether shifting RAF ops from area bombing to strategic bombing would have quickened the collapse of Germany? I think it would have, but pure speculation on my part


----------



## lucanus (Aug 18, 2007)

One of the reasons the RAF daylight/night bombing was so costly was that they bombed _in train_, giving both nightfighters and flak ample time
to zero in.

America used the Blackwidow in Europe with success. 

My Uncle who was on the longest raid from the UK to Krynski, Poland,
to bomb aircraft plants...said that 'On that day the LW was sending
brand new JU-88s up....The planes didn't even have paint jobs '


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 18, 2007)

DRGONDOG:

I dont have it handy, as it is buried in a thread somewhere (I think it was the "most effective bomber" thread).

Flyboy and Deradler can vouche for it, as I was proven wrong in my assesment that daylight bombing made for better accuracy.

There is a segment of the USSBS on the oil plant attacks that clearly stated that bombs of 4000 Lbs or more were needed to destroy the industrial machinery in the plants. The 500 and 1000 pounders could bring down the roof and maybe the walls, but not inflict permanent damage.

The RAF method of bombing a target over a extended period of time was found to be far more usefull than the AAF daylight attacks due to all the repair crews (at the targets) having to stay in their bunkers for hours on end. 

I believe the accuracy of the RAF crews was better than the AAF due to them bombing at lower altitudes, and not relying on a single bombardier in a whole squadron to determine the bomb release points.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> DRGONDOG:
> 
> I dont have it handy, as it is buried in a thread somewhere (I think it was the "most effective bomber" thread).
> 
> ...



Again, are we talking about city area bombing or daylight attacks?

The lead crew concepts formulated and implemented by Curtis LeMay for 8th AF achieved major improvements to CEP from bombing and far fewer navigation errors. 

Of course when one lead crew screwed up the mission results were not as good. 

Low(er) altitude bombing with Oboe or other radio based techniques at night over blacked out cities or targets were not as effective as precision daylight bombing on days in which the targets could be seen. 

RAF daylight precision bombing was good to excellent -

So which approach are we discussing?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hop (Aug 18, 2007)

> Low(er) altitude bombing with Oboe or other radio based techniques at night over blacked out cities or targets were not as effective as precision daylight bombing on days in which the targets could be seen.





> So which approach are we discussing?



I think we're discussing bombing overall.

There's little doubt that in perfect conditions the USAAF could bomb very accurately. The problem is Europe rarely had perfect conditions, and German smoke screens made things worse.

The USSBS report Syscom referred to gave a sample of attacks on 3 large oil refineries, Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau, Zeitz. The plants covered a total of 3.5 square miles between them.

30,000 tons of bombs, 146,000 bombs in total. 

Air Force Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming	26.8%
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument	12.4%
8th AF, full instrument	5.4%
RAF, night Pathfinder technique	15.8%
Weighted average	12.6%

What you can see from that is that the USAAF was accurate when using visual aiming, poor when using radar aids, atrocious when using purely radar aids. The RAF was worse than USAAF visual methods, better than USAAF radar methods.

The overall average was below the RAF's average, which means the USAAF put fewer bombs on target than the RAF.We can't say how many fewer without knowing the amount of bombs each force dropped. 

However, 10% seems to be in the right ballpark.

If you look at just the USAAF figures, if they got 26.8% when using purely visual means, 12.4% using part visual and part radar, and 5.4% using radar, and the final figure was 10%, then you can see that they didn't drop many bombs visually.



> There is a segment of the USSBS on the oil plant attacks that clearly stated that bombs of 4000 Lbs or more were needed to destroy the industrial machinery in the plants. The 500 and 1000 pounders could bring down the roof and maybe the walls, but not inflict permanent damage.



From the USAAF summary on oil attacks:


> Small Bombs Stopped Production, but Did It the Hard Way
> 
> The small bombs generally used against German oü-chemical targets were capable of creating breaks in vital utilities systems, there temporarily shutting off plant production, but only very rarely were small bombs able to, destroy vital equipment. (During the oil offensive average size of all the 508,512 high-explosive bombs dropped on oil producing targets by the USAAF was 388 lb, and of the 263,942 dropped by the RAF, 660 lb. The average for both air forces was 480 lb.) Winning a war with small bombs requires a tremendous airforce, but this is possibly the only choice open if visual sighting is not possible or if vital aiming points are not chosen.
> 
> ...





> The RAF method of bombing a target over a extended period of time was found to be far more usefull than the AAF daylight attacks due to all the repair crews (at the targets) having to stay in their bunkers for hours on end.



Again from the USSBS:


> Larger Raids Would Have Been More Effective
> 
> The short duration of most USAAF raids enabled German defense personnel to leave shelter in time to deal with incendiaries and incipient fires before conflagrations were started. Because of the longer duration and lack of uniformity of RAF raids - each bombardier sighted his own bombs independently, whereas the customary practice in the Eighth Air Force was for pilots to release their bombs on a signal from the lead plane - RAF attacks were. By almost unanimous agreement among the Germans interrogated, more terrifying and more damaging. Had it been found possible, with the limitations imposed by operational considerations, to vary the length and pattern of USAAF raids, greater results would have been achieved for the same expenditure in bombs.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> DRGONDOG:
> 
> I dont have it handy, as it is buried in a thread somewhere (I think it was the "most effective bomber" thread).
> 
> ...



Again, are we talking about city area bombing or daylight attacks?

The lead crew concepts formulated and implemented by Curtis LeMay for 8th AF achieved major improvements to CEP from bombing and far fewer navigation errors. 

Of course when one lead crew screwed up the mission results were not as good. 

Low(er) altitude bombing with Oboe or other radio based techniques at night over blacked out cities or targets were not as effective as precision daylight bombing on days in which the targets could be seen. 

RAF daylight precision bombing was good to excellent -

So which approach are we discussing?

Regards,

Bill


_ Syscom - just found these excerpts from the Survey - still nothing on night attacks achieveing higher precsion 

"In the latter half of 1944, aided by new navigational techniques, the RAF returned with part of its force to an attack on industrial targets. These attacks were notably successful but it is with the attacks on urban areas that the RAF is most prominently identified. 

The city attacks of the RAF prior to the autumn of 1944, did not substantially affect the course of German war production. German war production as a whole continued to increase. This in itself is not conclusive, but the Survey has made detailed analysis of the course of production and trade in 10 German cities that were attacked during this "

_]


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

Hop said:


> I think we're discussing bombing overall.
> 
> There's little doubt that in perfect conditions the USAAF could bomb very accurately. The problem is Europe rarely had perfect conditions, and German smoke screens made things worse.
> 
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 18, 2007)

One thing is for certain in the ETO, and that was clear sky's for effective daylight bombing were far and few between.

The 8th AF war diary (By Roger freeman) indicates that most of the attacks were not visual, and many times the primaries were obscured and the secondaries were attacked.

As for bomb hit percentages..... I'm still looking for that document that showed the RAF had a better CEP overall than the AAF. It does exist, and I'm not bloviating or making things up.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> One thing is for certain in the ETO, and that was clear sky's for effective daylight bombing were far and few between.
> 
> The 8th AF war diary (By Roger freeman) indicates that most of the attacks were not visual, and many times the primaries were obscured and the secondaries were attacked.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're "making it up". I just doubt the credibility of the source you found that makes a statement like that, given most of the RAF missions were area bombing. The very definition for CEP for say the first Cologne 1000 bomber mission or Berlin begs the question "what do they mean by 'CEP' ?"


----------



## d_bader (Aug 18, 2007)

I would certainly say that it is between the RAF and Luftwaffe. 

The RAF had a limited amount of money and more importantly time, to develop good aircraft for both attacking and defensive roles. Unlike America, Britain fought from 1939, yet America did not become her ally. The spitfire was an ancient desing by the end of the war, but it worked because it was a solide design that could be altered. No American aircraft alsted that long. 

America had a huge economy to fuel it's airforce, yet struggled to produce decent carrier aircraft until the Hellcat and Corsair. 

The luftwaffe developed some extarordinary aircraft, especially near the end of the war with little funding and resources. The planes matched anyone elses for ages and only lost air supremacy to lack of numbers, again due to a huge american economy........


----------



## Hop (Aug 18, 2007)

> OOPs! Are we now comparing the precision of a raid on Cologne by RAF in which a bomb dropped within city limit is counted with same context as that of a 1000' CEP from aiming point for a USAAF 'blind bombing' attack? Or just the example above.



No, just the example above, where accuracy is defined as a bomb landing within the plant boundary, for both air forces.



> What was the mode (i.e were both RAF raids on Luena Pathfinder attacks



The report says "RAF, night Pathfinder technique", so I'd say yes, all these figures to the RAF using pathfinder attacks (which were standard practice, anyway)



> Hop - I believe that conclusion is probably seriously flawed as the number of raids by RAF on Oils and Chemicals was far lower



The number of raids was certainly far lower, as the RAF tended to send more bombers with a bigger bombload.

Tonnages dropped by AF on oil targets:

RAF - 97,914 long tons
USAAF ETO - 76,283 long tons
USAAF MTO - 65,050 long tons

Whilst the RAF total is lower, it's still 41% of the total, which is ample to get a statistically significant average.



> So, we have to be a little circumspect in drawing general conclusions about accuracy and even 'relative' bombing effectiveness, when talking about Oil Targets.



Well, this example was chosen by the USSBS team themselves to be part of the general summary on the oil section. If they thought it was representative, given all the information they had (far more than we do), then I think it's safe to trust their judgement.



> Even moreso if we wish to compare RAF efforts and commitment to these attacks versus USAAF. Luena was so important that 8th AF was not attacking Leuna with ordinary and customary planning doctrine (i.e Good weather for visual bombing).



That's true for most targets. USAAF doctrine before they got in to the war was visual aiming, and precision bombing. Reality was lots of radar bombing, sometimes of the primary target, sometimes of the secondary. I was just skimming through bomb reports from the 303rd bomb group, one that struck me was them bombing a Ford factory through 10/10 cloud. They reported that no observations of effect could be made.

How accurate do you think they were when they couldn't even see the target?

As Syscom said, a very large percentage of USAAF bombing was carried out using electronic aiming. From memeory, something over half of all bombs were dropped this way. (less than half of raids, because they didn't get bombing radar until later, but most bombs were dropped after D Day)



> The survey was very explicit about RAF efforts not materially impacting German war production until late The Ball-Bearing AttackThe Ball-Bearing Attack when they devoted more missions and tonnage to German industry.



Well, the survey did have its biases as well, for example they say very little (if anything) about US area bombing of German cities, in line with USAAF policy to deny they had carried out area bombing. 

But if you read the USSBS report, you will see that USAAF attacks didn't bear fruit until the autumn of 1944, either. 

The USSBS summary breaks down the attack by industry. Here are the conclusions for each industry:



> The Ball-Bearing Attack
> 
> From examination of the records and personalities in the ball-bearing industry, the user industries and the testimony of war production officials, there is no evidence that the attacks on the ball-bearing industry had any measurable effect on essential war production.





> The Attack on German Aircraft Plants
> 
> The culminating attacks on the German aircraft industry began in the last week of February 1944. With the protection of long-range fighter escort, 3,636 tons of bombs were dropped on German aircraft plants (again, airframe rather than engine plants) during that week. In that and succeeding weeks every known aircraft plant in Germany was hit.
> 
> ...





> The Attack on Oil
> 
> Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.



They go on in similar fashion. None of the targets attacked by the USAAF prior to summer 1944 had a large effect, either. In late spring 1944 the USAAF started their oil campaign whilst the RAF was bombing in support of the invasion. Both were rather successful. From late summer both air forces turned to attacking Germany, and again both were rather successful.

The truth of the bombing campaign, for both the RAF and USAAF, is that prior to summer 1944 it was far too small to be effective. For both forces, autumn 1944 was the half way point. They dropped half their bombs in the years prior to the autumn, half in the months afterwards. (I believe halfway for the RAF was in September, October for the USAAF)



> The USAAF (ETO) finished the war with more tonnage dropped on Germany



The USAAF in the ETO dropped 539,998 long tons on Germany. That's all aircraft types, including tactical.

Bomber Command dropped 657,664 long tons on Germany. That excludes tactical air forces.

In fact, even if you throw in the USAAF Med forces, and include attacks on Austria, the total is still some way short of Bomber Command's.



> I was suprised that with nearly 80,000 causalties each that the RAF and USAAF-ETO was separated by only 16.. 79,265 (USAAF) to 79,281 (RF)



I believe the US figures were taken at the time, and include "missing" airmen who were captured, whereas the RAF figures were compiled after the war, and do not include PoWs, but just those killed and "permanently" missing.

Still, the figures are remarkably close, even if they do refer to different definitions of casualties.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

Hop Quote:
*The Attack on Oil

Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output. 

They go on in similar fashion. None of the targets attacked by the USAAF prior to summer 1944 had a large effect, either. In late spring 1944 the USAAF started their oil campaign whilst the RAF was bombing in support of the invasion. Both were rather successful. From late summer both air forces turned to attacking Germany, and again both were rather successful.

The truth of the bombing campaign, for both the RAF and USAAF, is that prior to summer 1944 it was far too small to be effective.*


Hop - by your own statistics above the Oil campaign was hugely successful in the Spring and Summer of 1944... but certainly devastating from Speer's perspective in the Sprin alone.

Speer's own words on page 350 "Inside the Third reich" were 

"On June 21,Nine tenths of the production of airplane fuel was knocked out." 

"On July 22, we were down to one hundred and twenty tons daily production - virtually done for. 

In between 6/21 and 7/5 USAAF operations were driven back to Tactical by Eisenhower but Spaatz managed to reach out in early July to start the campaign again and continue. The RAF also started in July and put 4300+ sorties and 18,000 tons into Oil/Chemical operations

The raids had taken the production from 10% on June 21 to 2% on July 22.

The unexpected bonus from these May 12 through July attacks was that the synthetic rubber and Nitrogen supplies were also virtually eliminated.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t141.pdf

The above link will reference the official USAAF records for WWII - Europe with the following breakdown:

Total Tons Dropped 1,554,463 - All Europe - USAAF
ETO 971,762
MTO 582,701

Of those Germany- 604,787 tons

Where were your figures derived showing USAAF at such a low total for ETO?

As always it is tough dueling with you

Regards,

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2007)

Geez Hop could you do me a favour considering 20% of Bomber Command was RCAF and am quite sure others like the RAAF and RNZAF and the Poles etc resent it and call it Bomber Command rather then RAF


----------



## Hop (Aug 18, 2007)

> Hop - by your own statistics above the Oil campaign was hugely successful in the Spring and Summer of 1944... but certainly devastating from Speer's perspective in the Sprin alone.



Yes, the effect of the attacks was felt from the summer onwards. 



> Speer's own words on page 350 "Inside the Third reich" were
> 
> "On June 21,Nine tenths of the production of airplane fuel was knocked out."
> 
> "On July 22, we were down to one hundred and twenty tons daily production - virtually done for.



Production certainly fell away rapidly, although that overstates it a bit. The USSBS gives oil production in Germany as something over 340,000 tons for the month, including 52,000 tons of aviation fuel.



> Where were your figures derived showing USAAF at such a low total for ETO?



Same source.

You said bombs dropped on Germany, the total for the USAAF in the ETO was 604,787 short tons.

The US uses a ton of 2,000 lbs, called the short ton. The UK uses a 2,240 lb ton, called the long ton. To compare US and UK tonnages, you have to convert either the UK figures in to short tons, or the US figures in to long tons. I converted the US figures to long tons.

So from the ETO the USAAF dropped 604,787 short tons, which is 1,209,574,000 lbs

Bomber Command dropped 657,664 long tons on Germany, which is 1,473,167,360 lbs (736,583 short tons)

If you want figures for the whole of ETO, then the USAAF dropped 971,762 short tons, which is 867,644 long tons.

Bomber Command, again excluding tactical air forces, dropped 955,044 long tons in the ETO.

Bomber Command also dropped 47,307 sea mines in the ETO, which are not included in the above totals. Mines weighed between 1 and 2,000 lbs, so probably another 25,000 tons of mines.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2007)

d_bader said:


> I would certainly say that it is between the RAF and Luftwaffe.
> 
> The RAF had a limited amount of money and more importantly time, to develop good aircraft for both attacking and defensive roles. Unlike America, Britain fought from 1939, yet America did not become her ally.
> 
> ...



I Guess dollars made the difference, not skill or blood-and certainly not quality.

So, at the end of the war, September 2, 1945, which air force do you want to take with you in 1946?


----------



## d_bader (Aug 19, 2007)

Although the Luftwaffe were in ruin due to lack of resources and the effect of allied planes, their technology and amazing ideas, well ahead of their time were awesome.

For sheer numbers etc America.
Radically cool designs like Luft 46, Luftwaffe


----------



## The Basket (Aug 19, 2007)

The Spitfire had been constantly redesigned and as good as any other prop fighter. It shared nothing with the prototype which first flew in 36.

The Spitfire could dive faster than any other aircraft. Even jets.

The Royal Navy had some very good prop aircraft...easily equal to anything that the USN had. Sea Fury, Hornet, Seafire, Firefly. Maybe not the Skyraider but we bought those.

The thing is that the RAF was the only air force that was strong from the first day to the last. The best American fighter in 1939 was the Curtiss P-36! Outclassed by the Hurricane nevermind the Spit. And at Pearl Harbour time it was the P-40 and the Wildcat. Hopeless against the Fw 190. The Wildcat would have been dogmeat against the latest German fighters.

The USAAC was all powerful at the end but was poor in 1939.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Hopeless against the Fw 190. The Wildcat would have been dogmeat against the latest German fighters.


Is that why during Operation Torch the Wildcat took on and was successful against French and German fighters? And there was one account in the North Sea where Wildcats held their own quite well against Bf 109s.

And you're wrong about the P-36 - one of the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 - during the Battle of France it performed quite well.

I could agree about the state of the AAF in 1939 but then again at that period the US was just preparing for war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> As for bomb hit percentages..... I'm still looking for that document that showed the RAF had a better CEP overall than the AAF. It does exist, and I'm not bloviating or making things up.



Ive seen the same thing somewhere as well. I think we were discussing it in the Bomber thread. Not sure though where it is at the moment. Will see if I can find it later.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2007)

d_bader said:


> I would certainly say that it is between the RAF and Luftwaffe.
> 
> The RAF had a limited amount of money and more importantly time, to develop good aircraft for both attacking and defensive roles. Unlike America, Britain fought from 1939, yet America did not become her ally. The spitfire was an ancient desing by the end of the war, but it worked because it was a solide design that could be altered. No American aircraft alsted that long.
> 
> ...



Sorry but I have to disagree with you. It is not about what aircraft you can produce. It is about the overall capability of your airforce.

As for you saying the US struggled to make good aircraft, I also disagree. Here I will name good US aircraft for you:

P-51
P-47
P-38
B-17
B-24
B-29
A-26
Corsair
Hellcat
Wildcat

See where I am getting at....

1939 to 1943 it was the Luftwaffe and 1944 until now it is the USAAF/USAF.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 19, 2007)

The P-36 had a top speed of about 280mph!

How does that compare to a 350mph Emil!

Yes the P-36 was agile but it had a job intercepting bombers.

Never liked the Wildcat or Martlet as it is called here. Available yes...but slow heavy and outclassed. But a good pilot will do the best with what he's got.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 19, 2007)

d_bader said:


> ....No American aircraft alsted that long.



B17 and P38



> America had a huge economy to fuel it's airforce, yet struggled to produce decent carrier aircraft until the Hellcat and Corsair.



Wildcat and Dauntless



> The luftwaffe developed some extarordinary aircraft, especially near the end of the war with little funding and resources. The planes matched anyone elses for ages and only lost air supremacy to lack of numbers, again due to a huge american economy........



The AAF had lots of excellent designs, flown by good pilots backed by an immense industrial machine.

Thats what beat the LW


----------



## renrich (Aug 19, 2007)

Just a note, there seems to be a bias on this forum toward the models of ac that fought in the ETO. Understandable since many members live in Europe. However, I think it is well to remember that many formidable ac fought in the Pacific. For instance, as far as long range fighters are concerned, the A6M went operational on the last day of July, 1940, and was in action in China in August-September of 1940. I know, the Zeke had no armor and no self sealing tanks at this time. Neither at this time, during the BOB, did the British or German fighters have the complete set of self sealing tanks. When you compare the performance of the 109, Spit, Hurricane and Zeke in 1940, an argument could be made that the Zeke overall was the best fighter in the world. What would have happened during the BOB if the LW bombers had been escorted by A6Ms with more than twice the range of the 109s. Moving on, Hellcats and especially the Corsairs were at least the equal of the fighters in the ETO. Someone stated earlier that the Spit could outdive any ac. According to Bob Johnson, in mock dogfights with Spits, he could always outdive and outroll Spitfires.


----------



## renrich (Aug 19, 2007)

Sorry, I left out that Johnson was flying a P47. But most of you don't need to be told that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The P-36 had a top speed of about 280mph!
> 
> How does that compare to a 350mph Emil!
> 
> ...



Ahhh...WRONG!

Curtiss 75A
Performance
*Maximum speed: 322 mph (518 km/h) *Cruise speed: 260 mph (420 km/h) 
Range: 650 mi (1,046 km) 
Service ceiling: 32,340 ft (9,860 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s) 
Wing loading: 25 lb/ft² (122 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (0.29 kW/kg) 

The 109E had abut a 20mph speed advantage over the Hawk 75A which was actually a P-36G. The Hawk 75 was more maneuverable and had a better roll rate.

For the Wildcat to be outclassed it still held between a 4 to 1 to 6 to 1 advantage over its opponents (depending who you believe). Here's the Marlet encounter over the North Sea...

_"Another remarkable FM-2 fighter combat occurred in the ETO. March 26 1945 FAA FM-2's (Wildcat VI's) encountered Bf109G's of JG/5 off Norway. They claimed 4 w/o loss. German records say 3 Bf109's failed to return. 

In those 1945 cases, declining Axis pilot quality was surely a factor, but the FM-2 was small, highly maneuverable, had good low altitude climb, and the excellent gunnery characteristics of the basic Wildcat (esp the low nose for easy high deflection tracking). It proved a capable dogfighter against its actual opposition in 1945, in verified incidents."_


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/f4f-wildcat-5715.html


----------



## renrich (Aug 19, 2007)

Yes, Flyboy, and much more rugged than a 109.


----------



## Glider (Aug 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> Just a note, there seems to be a bias on this forum toward the models of ac that fought in the ETO. Understandable since many members live in Europe. However, I think it is well to remember that many formidable ac fought in the Pacific. For instance, as far as long range fighters are concerned, the A6M went operational on the last day of July, 1940, and was in action in China in August-September of 1940. I know, the Zeke had no armor and no self sealing tanks at this time. Neither at this time, during the BOB, did the British or German fighters have the complete set of self sealing tanks. When you compare the performance of the 109, Spit, Hurricane and Zeke in 1940, an argument could be made that the Zeke overall was the best fighter in the world. What would have happened during the BOB if the LW bombers had been escorted by A6Ms with more than twice the range of the 109s. Moving on, Hellcats and especially the Corsairs were at least the equal of the fighters in the ETO. Someone stated earlier that the Spit could outdive any ac. According to Bob Johnson, in mock dogfights with Spits, he could always outdive and outroll Spitfires.



Its a good point to raise about looking at other areas of the world and one well taken.

The only bit I would comment on is the date of the Zero being operational in July 1940. These were pre production prototypes which were deployed in action which was common practice in Japan. For example the Ki44 scored its first kill in Jan 1942 before production was undertaken.
Its worth remembering that at the time of Pearl Harbour the IJN still only had around 450 in service.

Its also worth remebering that the FW190 was in a similar timeframe with some of the first A0 series reaching front line units in late 1940.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> Its a good point to raise about looking at other areas of the world and one well taken.
> 
> The only bit I would comment on is the date of the Zero being operational in July 1940. These were pre production prototypes which were deployed in action which was common practice in Japan. For example the Ki44 scored its first kill in Jan 1942 before production was undertaken.
> Its worth remembering that at the time of Pearl Harbour the IJN still only had around 450 in service.
> ...



The Zero was a good fighter untill middle 1942 when its glaring weaknesses became apparent.

By Dec 1942, it was obsolescent.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 19, 2007)

Got the speed wrong on the P-36...but is it the French version?

If the Wildcat can shoot down Gustavs then I would look at the German pilots on this one.

The Zero would still have been outclassed by the Spitfire and those 8 guns would have made sushi of the unprotected pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Got the speed wrong on the P-36...but is it the French version?


As stated - the Hawk 75A was basically a P-36G.


The Basket said:


> If the Wildcat can shoot down Gustavs then I would look at the German pilots on this one.


Pilot skill is always a consideration.


The Basket said:


> The Zero would still have been outclassed by the Spitfire and those 8 guns would have made sushi of the unprotected pilot.


Remember, there were Spitfires in Burma and Australia - their records are lackluster mainly because of tactics. Almost everyone who initially came across the Zero tried to dogfight it at lower speeds (300 mph and less). Once it was found out the Zero could not maneuver at higher speeds in many cases it became cannon fodder.


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2007)

Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.


*Glider,*

Yes, many Allied a/c were lost to Flak BUT you fail to recognize that even more LW a/c were lost to Flak, many times friendly fire (Esp. in Normandy), and ALLOT of German fighters were lost to the defensive fire from the Allied bombers, and even more LW fighters were shot to pieces on the ground. These are factors which need to be considered if you want to bring up the Allied losses to flak. 

Another thing to remember is that the LW lost a good deal of 109's due to landing take off accidents, it was a tricky plane in this area and completely unforgiving to any novice behind the wheel.

*Hunter,*

I do not believe the Germans to be born warriors anymore than the people of any other country - the ability to be successful in combat is a combination of training, experience talent, the first two being something the average German soldier possessed allot of during WW2. The Wehrmacht's education training course was good deal tougher than that of any other nation during WW2, 3 times as long as the education training given to the average US UK soldier. Ofcourse this changed as the war went on, and by late 1944 to 1945 the average German soldier recieved approx. the same training as the average Allied soldier, and sometimes allot less (The Hitler Jugend for example consisting mostly of Ill-trained, in a military sense, but extremely fanatical young bunch of blokes) The soldiers of the Waffen SS also didn't recieve the same amount of training as the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, and aqcuired most of their skills from raw battlefield experience, and the fact that Hitler made sure that the Waffen SS was the first units to recieve new weapons supplies also helps explain their effectiveness on the battlefield as-well despite their shorter military education training compared to the soldiers of the Wehrmacht.

As to the issue of heavily armed bomber interceptors being engaged by escorting Mustangs, well Bill refuses to even consider this, no surprise since this debunks what'ever fantasy he might have regarding the Mustang being a better fighter. The gun-pods put on the 109's dramatically decreased maneuverability, speed and climb rate, and the FW-190's who usually featured the ETC-501 rack suffered even more in terms of performance agility lost. This loss of performance agility was all for ONE thing, and that was turning the 109's 190's into effective bomber-destroyers, and it worked - the USAAF RAF lost more personnel due to aerial combat than the LW did. The bomber-interceptors were there to shoot down the main threat to German industry, THE BOMBERS, they weren't meant or prepared to mix it with other fighters, that job was reserved for the few dedicated fighters deployed. Fact is the bomber interceptors were sitting ducks for any escorts, be it P-38's, P-47's or P-51's, all three would have done the job just as well, and the P-47 perhaps even better. 

I stand by what I said earlier, the P-51 only achieved success because of its numerical superiority and the fact that it was faced mostly with heavily armed interceptors sometimes piloted by complete novices lacking on fuel.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said earlier, the P-51 only achieved success because of its numerical superiority and the fact that it was faced mostly with heavily armed interceptors sometimes piloted by complete novices lacking on fuel.



You haven't been busy researching - curious as to your current definition of 'numerical superiority'.

If the Mustang was such an inferior aircraft, any me 109 or Fw 190 should have been able to defeat it, or at least match up close to one to one, (by your standards).. why did so many of them fall to P-51s when their numbers exceeded the Mustangs.


----------



## renrich (Aug 19, 2007)

There was sushi served when the first Spitfire-Zeke dogfights took place alright but it was flavored by dead British pilots. Even in 1944-45 the Zero was a formidable adversary in the hands of an experienced pilot. If an Allied fighter pilot tried to fight an angles fight even in a Corsair he was going up against long odds. Energy tactics although they were not called that then were the ticket against the A6Ms. The throw weight of the Zero's 2-20mms and the 2-7.7s was substantially greater than the 8-303s of the British fighters. To compare performance of late 1940 fighters. Spitfire Mk1a-Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=6min,12sec to 4570meters, ceiling=34000 ft, range=395 ml. A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft, range = 1891 NM. As you can see the Zero outclimbed, out ranged and could turn tighter than the Spitfire and carried heavier armament, the Spit was even in ceiling and faster with more armor. I would bet the LW would have loved to have had a few squadrons of A6Ms to escort their bombers and stay over Britain for an hour or two instead of a few minutes. For that matter I bet the RAF would have liked to have had a few squadrons of F4F3s with it's rate of climb and 4-50s with 400 rds per gun and long endurance.


----------



## Glider (Aug 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.
> 
> 
> *Glider,*
> ...



I take it you have figures to support this?
Working on the assumption that you haven't, you yourself proved that it was many times more dangerous for a German fighter pilot to fly in the West rather than the East and other postings prove that the GAF suferred very heavy losses compared to the USAAF. 
a) Landing accidents would be the same proportionately across the entire airforce so that rules out that as an reason for the extra losses in the West. 
b) The homeland defence forces were not at any risk of being shot down by Allied AA fire, so that rules out that as an reason for the extra losses in the area.
c) Presumably the USAAF being the target of the German AA forces were more likely to be shot down than the GAF, so that rules that out as a reason for the additional German losses.

Which leaves us with the GAF fighter force not being as good as the USAAF Mustangs.

Can you find fault with the Logic?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 19, 2007)

I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?


----------



## Glider (Aug 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> There was sushi served when the first Spitfire-Zeke dogfights took place alright but it was flavored by dead British pilots. Even in 1944-45 the Zero was a formidable adversary in the hands of an experienced pilot. If an Allied fighter pilot tried to fight an angles fight even in a Corsair he was going up against long odds. Energy tactics although they were not called that then were the ticket against the A6Ms. The throw weight of the Zero's 2-20mms and the 2-7.7s was substantially greater than the 8-303s of the British fighters. To compare performance of late 1940 fighters. Spitfire Mk1a-Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=6min,12sec to 4570meters, ceiling=34000 ft, range=395 ml. A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft, range = 1891 NM. As you can see the Zero outclimbed, out ranged and could turn tighter than the Spitfire and carried heavier armament, the Spit was even in ceiling and faster with more armor. I would bet the LW would have loved to have had a few squadrons of A6Ms to escort their bombers and stay over Britain for an hour or two instead of a few minutes. For that matter I bet the RAF would have liked to have had a few squadrons of F4F3s with it's rate of climb and 4-50s with 400 rds per gun and long endurance.



I certainly agree that the LW would have given their right arm to have an aircraft with the range of the Zero and that the Zero was every bit as good as the Spitfire but it would have been close. 
The 8 x 303 although light compared to the Zero (or 109E for that matter), it would have been far more effective against the Zero due to the obvious lack of protection.
As for performance the Spit II is a better comparison due to its entry into service in June 1940 almost exactly when the Pre Production Zero's entered combat.
A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft,
Spit II Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=5min to 4750 meters, ceiling=35,000 ft

Both planes climb well for the time and neither dive well, The Spit has a slight but noticable speed advantage and the Zero has better agility. Both have weapons that are effective against the other. Obviously the Zero has a clear advantage in range.

I suspect the result will depend on the tactical situation and pilot skill. Plus the British remembering to keep their speed above 250mph, if they do that they will have the advantage, if they don't the Zero will have the advantage. Its close.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 19, 2007)

Well I for one think the Spitfires did alright agianst the Zero's (over Darwin anyway, don't know much about the engagments over Burma). The Spitfire's of No1 Fighter Wing RAAF, first went into action against the Japanese in March 1943. In 1943, the largest raids conducted by the Japanese against Darwin occured between the 3rd of March to the 6th of July. In this period the defending spitfire's claimed 24 Zero's and 30 Bombers destroyed for the loss of 37 spifires. The losses for the spits are high, yes, however if you look more closely at the different raids the majority of losses incurred by the spit's came about though mechanical problems or pilot error. 
probably the best example can be given for the infamous raid no. 54 on the 2nd of May 1943. 49 spitfires intercepted 41 Japanese a/c only claiming 4 zero's destroyed. For this the wing lost 14 spitfires. Most people reading this understandably think the zero's mauled the spits and I believe this is why many people think the spitfires were outclassed over Darwin. However of the 14 a/c lost, 3 were shot down, 2 probably shot down, 4 crashed due to engine or airscrew failure and 5 ditched after they ran out of fuel. All pilots were saved bar the 2 "probables" (were they shot down??)
As for which a/c was better, it must be remembered that the No1 Fighter Wing at Darwin was equipped with the MkVc with Volkes filter which I believe hindered its performance. Also spares were a big issue, it has been noted that some "replacement" a/c recieved by the wing came from the OTU's in pretty rough shape. There was wide spread malfunctions with the guns and ammo plus malfunctions with the airscrew constant speed unit which contributed to the big losses on the 2nd May raid. After taking into all these considerations plus the spitfires range (or lack of) compared to the Zero, I believe the zero probably just held the advantage over the spit. However saying that it is obvious the the spits eventually gained air superiority over Darwin because after the losses suffered in the March-july '43 period, the japanese diverted to night raids on the Australia coast suffering only small losses but also not achieving a great deal.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 19, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?



In the beginning of the air war over Europe, yes, they would do that, even though the rear quadrant of the bombers was probably the most heavily defended (i.e.: a majority of the bombers defensive armament was oriented to defend the rear 180 degrees of the bomber). 

However, as the War progressed, the LW took to attacking the bombers head-on, as there was much less defensive armament pointed in that direction; this is what led to the development of the forward Bendix chin turret on late-model B-17F's and all of the B-17G's. Normally, especially with the later cannon-armed LW fighters, the LW aircraft only had enough fuel ammo to make one good head-on pass, maybe two, and then it was time to head back to base; the LW pilot had 2-3 seconds, at most, to line up his shot and squeeze off a few hundred rounds before he had to break away when making a head-on attack. 

Usually, the LW defensive fighters (mostly _Sturmbock_ Fw 190's and Me 109G-10's) had enough time to land, rearm, and attack the bombers again as they egressed the target area.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 19, 2007)

From WILDCAT,



> the infamous raid no. 54 on the 2nd of May 1943. 49 spitfires intercepted 41 Japanese a/c only claiming 4 zero's destroyed. For this the wing lost 14 spitfires


.

The Spitfire received very bad press in Australia as a result of this action, although the losses were not so much a result of the aircraft itself, but due to incorrect tactics. After all, the American P-40 pilots of the 49th Fighter Group had learned months ago not to dogfight a Zero...As for the Spitfire-more fuel certainly wouldn't have hurt.

The Advisory War Council set up an official enquiry into what the public perceived as a debacle-fuelled by the daily press-and the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshall Jones reported to it.
The result was the decision to fit drop tanks to the Spitfires and to ban dogfighting in the classical sense of the word. From now on, No.1 Wing's Spitfires would 'bounce' enemy formations from above, diving through them, shooting as they went.
The new hit and run tactics were tested during the next Japanese raid on Darwin on June 20 when 25 bombers escorted by a "healthy" number of Zeros was intercepted. This time the result was more satisfactory for the pilots of 54, 452 and 457 Squadrons: 16 enemy aircraft were downed for the loss of 2 Spitfires. During this engagement Wing Cdr Caldwell achieved another level of 'acedom' by shooting down his fifth Japanese aircraft, adding to the 20.5 Axis aircraft he'd already accounted for in North Africa.

From-SPITFIRE, MUSTANG AND KITTY HAWK in Australian Service.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?


I must clarify this question I'm looking for how the USAAC P51s etc covered the B17's and 24's .


----------



## Graeme (Aug 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I must clarify this question I'm looking for how the USAAC P51s etc covered the B17's and 24's .



From 'Aircraft versus Aircraft' by Norman Franks.

Chapter on Flying Escorts;

"Staying close to the bombers, however, reduced this range owing to their having to *weave* to stay with their slower charges".


----------



## renrich (Aug 20, 2007)

Good posts on the Spifire in the Pacific and I want to be clear that I believe the Spit was an outstanding Ac with a lot of "stretch" in the design. The Zero too was outstanding also but because of the desire for long range and maneuverability it did not have the ability to continue to accept the large increases in engine power the Spit did. One characteristic the Zeke had apparently which is overlooked possibly is reliablity. In the tests against Navy and AAF fighters the Zeke captured in the Aleutians kept chugging along while the P39, P40, P38 and P51 all had problems that forced them be unable to complete the comparisons. The Wildcat though able to complete the tests was clearly inferior to the Zeke in most respects while the Corsair was the only US fighter that completed the tests and was superior in all aspects except low speed maneuverability. Maybe that episode was a commentary on radial versus inline engines but if possible it would be interesting to compare the serviceability records of the Zero versus it's advesarys. Another note on the Zeke is that the knock on it was that the ailerons became ineffective above 275 mph or so. It is my understanding that the limiting factor was pilot strength in deflecting the ailerons at high speeds. Guess they needed to have stronger pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2007)

Graeme said:


> From 'Aircraft versus Aircraft' by Norman Franks.
> 
> Chapter on Flying Escorts;
> 
> "Staying close to the bombers, however, reduced this range owing to their having to *weave* to stay with their slower charges".



In the specific example of USAAF ETO/MTO doctrine this not only correct but probably should be noted that most long range escort missions were performed in 'relays'.

The shorter range fighters would provide Penetration and Withdrawal - taking the bombers to a point like Munster or Bingen, where a Mustang or Lightning Group would perform the next relay to and from the R/V to the target and back to the Withdrawal.

In rare circumstances the 'middle leg' for a really long mission, like one of the Shuttles, a Mustang or lightning group would pick up at say Dummer Lake and escort to Stettin, where the Shuttle Escort would pick up and escort to Piryatin or Poltava. On the way back to Italy the same Russia escort covered the bombers all the way back to Adriatic Sea and everybody flew to Italy.

I think I covered the standard Squadron doctrine in which the squadrons usually broke up into 8 ship sections and weaved across the top of the formation (like a huge thatch weave in slow speed) to cover front, back and high middle.

By the fall, then winter of 1944/45 the P-47s had acquired the range to do Target Support also and the number of Free Lance Mustang Sweeps (Rodeo) expanded enabling even more coverage out ahead of All target vans, often breaking up concentrations of German Fighters long before they had assembled into a combat formation and proceeded to a bomber formation.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 20, 2007)

The Zero was a clever design but would a European air force take it on with those weaknesses? I bet not.

Gloster did fly a Zero lookalike with similar performance and it rejected quickly.

Although the Zero was a better naval fighter than the Spitfire. In terms of range, reliabilty and carrier operation.

And both the Bf 109 and Spitfire in its later marks could go over 400mph which no Zero could.

How the Zero could have entered Luftwaffe service for 1940 is a bit impossible. Might as well say F-86 Sabre!

I'll keep me Spitfire.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 20, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Zero was a clever design but would a European air force take it on with those weaknesses? I bet not.
> 
> Gloster did fly a Zero lookalike with similar performance and it rejected quickly.
> 
> ...



I would keep the Spit as well. And the Wildcat (yes even a tough as iron, Thach weaving Wildcat!), Hellcat, Corsair, Lightning, Mustang, Jug, 109, 190. The Zero was OVER-RATED (IMHO). Yes, it was very, very dangerous in the hands of an experienced and skilled pilot, but things obviously changed as the war progressed and the Zero became more myth than reality. (Can you tell I'm not a big Zero fan?)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I must clarify this question I'm looking for how the USAAC P51s etc covered the B17's and 24's .



Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question . . .

As Graeme said, the fighters had to weave back and forth about 5,000ft above the bombers in order to avoid overtaking them and leaving them behind. I remember seeing a really good picture with contrailing B-17's in the forground, and in the background you can see a couple of flights of -47's or P-51's weaving above the bombers; I think this is it:







The contrails higher up that are flying back and forth at an angle to the bombers are the escort fighters.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 20, 2007)

Hop said:


> During the BoB the RAF were also ordered to focus on the enemy bombers. And yet fighter losses for the RAF were only slightly higher than fighter losses for the Luftwaffe, and overall losses were almost 2 to 1 in the RAF's favour in the BoB.
> 
> If you look at the performances during the USAAF daylight offensive and the BoB, then the Luftwaffe doesn't compare well. Their losses were very high, the losses they inflicted on the enemy relatively low, in both cases.



Bogus statements; the RAF was quite badly mauled in the BoB actually, and any wishful '2 nazis for every true Brit' figures only arrived by heavy manipulation of the loss statistics. Usually it's done by including all German losses occuring during the Battle of Britain period, including bombers, transports, fighters and recce aircraft, wheter they occured to enemy action, ever present accidents on operational missions or even losses on non-operational training flights. Naturally of course German losses are counted wheter the plane was actually shot down (100% loss), or returned to base with it's crew but was subsequently written off and salvaged due being unecomical to be repaired. 

In short, the Brits when presenting statistic for BoB loses include everything that was lo

On the other hand, for the British losses it only counts fighters, often only Huricanes and Spitfires without including Blenheims, Defiants and others types. Bomber Comand's losses, several hundred bombers during the perido in fact, are rarely mentioned (but German bombers are..)... non-combat British losses are ignored, as are everything that was not directly and completely destoryed in combat.

Reality is somewhat different; the LW is usually quoted as having lost at around 1789 aircraft during the battle on operation, but only 1385 of that was actually attritbuted to enemy action. That 1385 already includes aircraft that weren't actually shot down but returned to base and were subsequently written off to heavy damage. Of that, 502 single engined fighters and 224 twin engined fighters were lost to enemy action, either being shot down or written off upon returnig to base, a total of 726. The total number that become permanent loss was 663 singl engine and 252 twn engine fighter, a total of 915 109s and 110s, which were lost to all possbile causes : shot down, written off to damage sustained in combat, outside combat on operations and even not on operational missions. 71/54, for a total of 125, had sustained repairable damage on operations, 250 if we include non-operational flights.

In contrast the British statistics admit 1149 fighters being written off during the battle, further 707 being damaged and had to be returned to the manufacturer or contractor for repairs, the vast majority being single engined fighters in combat. 

The 2 : 1 kill rate for RAF is nothing but a pipe dream, in short, despite the fact the RAF had so many aces up in it's sleeve : superiority in numbers, early warning, the advantage of fighting over friendly territory, constantly worsening wheater, yet through the battle it continued to sustain greater losses than the attacking Luftwaffe. The pink glass picture painted by our local British nationalist also excludes the fact that British fighters achieved all that while enjoying a significant superiority in fighter numbers compared to the Luftwaffe's fighters during the Battle.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 20, 2007)

Hop said:


> Yes, the effect of the attacks was felt from the summer onwards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Curiously, Albert Speer also have some very unflattering remarks about the insanity of British area attacks on residental areas, in fact it's strikes me that Albert Speer was rather relieved that the British wasted their limited resources on such mindless terror attacks that had little effect instead of systematically analyzing the German industry's weak spots and going after those.

It's a pity that Hop is so selective with Albert Speer's book..


----------



## The Basket (Aug 20, 2007)

Hey! I'm a British nationalist!

Albert Speer had a very selective memory of what he remembers. Boy, he could be very,very forgetful.

Losses mean nothing if they can be replaced quickly.

The Luftwaffe botched the battle of britain. Lost a generation of top air crew and future leaders and aircraft which were not there for Barbarossa.

The RAF achieved its war aim and the Luftwaffe didn't.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Bogus statements; the RAF was quite badly mauled in the BoB actually, and any wishful '2 nazis for every true Brit' figures only arrived by heavy manipulation of the loss statistics. Usually it's done by including all German losses occuring during the Battle of Britain period, including bombers, transports, fighters and recce aircraft, wheter they occured to enemy action, ever present accidents on operational missions or even losses on non-operational training flights. Naturally of course German losses are counted wheter the plane was actually shot down (100% loss), or returned to base with it's crew but was subsequently written off and salvaged due being unecomical to be repaired.
> 
> In short, the Brits when presenting statistic for BoB loses include everything that was lo
> 
> ...



At the end of the day Kurfurst the RAF prevailed with a smaller force. (The RAF did not always have superior numbers, fighter vs fighter, at the point of attack - even with radar... and the numbers for either side when ione had superiority were not large enough to make it a huge issue.

The more telling point was that Goering shackled his fighters to the bombers making every battle virtually reactive - whereas the USAAF after January 11, let their fighters hunt rather than try to only 'deflect' 

The Germans called off the invasion due to lack of air superiority. 

I don't have a real problem with either your statistics or allocation of losses, but the USAAAF lost more than the daily mission Summaries showed due to write offs/accidents (as I suspect the LW also) yet they prevailed because of industrial strength and will.

The LW`failed on the 'will' side.

History shows that the LW may yet have prevailed because of the losses they inflicted proportionately, but they failed on the 'will' and the 'strategy' part of the Battle.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Bogus statements; the RAF was quite badly mauled in the BoB actually, and any wishful '2 nazis for every true Brit' figures only arrived by heavy manipulation of the loss statistics. Usually it's done by including all German losses occuring during the Battle of Britain period, including bombers, transports, fighters and recce aircraft, wheter they occured to enemy action, ever present accidents on operational missions or even losses on non-operational training flights. Naturally of course German losses are counted wheter the plane was actually shot down (100% loss), or returned to base with it's crew but was subsequently written off and salvaged due being unecomical to be repaired.
> 
> In short, the Brits when presenting statistic for BoB loses include everything that was lo
> 
> ...



I admit that my sources have different figures for the German losses. I suspect the problem could be the definition of the Battle of Britain. If it helps

For the period May - September 1940 the figures I have are:-
All Types
Lost due to enemy operations 2,313 (fighters 901, Bombers 1,010)
Lost on Operations not due to enemy operations 487 (fighters 170, Bombers 214)
Destroyed not on Operations 264 (fighters 79, Bombers 128)
Total lost 3064

For the period July - September
All Types
Lost due to enemy action 1,184 (fighters 612, bombers 483)
Lost on Operations not due to enemy operations 271 (fighters 88, bombers 137)
Destroyed not on operations 181 (fighters 53, Bombers 89)
Total lost 1636

PS I must disagree with your statement that the RAF were quite badly mauled. If they had been, they would have lost.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> At the end of the day Kurfurst the RAF prevailed with a smaller force.



Well the RAF was incapable of stopping German bomber attacks at all, even temporarily. The attacks continued from the Adlertag in August 1940 till May 1941 until the LW bombers were re-deployed to the East.

In contrast, despite the industrial might of the US, the LW had some significant successes despite the small numbers of fighers presen in the Reichsverteidigung until 1944, they won at Schweinfurt, at Ploiesti, above Berlin against the RAF night bombers, and at Poltava; each signified a serious setback, even if temporary to the raging Allied air offensive.

It's even more impressive in the face of the forces deployed to achieve that. The usual nonsense Hop is spouting up about the poor outnumbered RAF and the massive number of Luftwaffe interceptors meeting incoming fortresses, the reality was quite different. On May 31 1943, the LW had as 'many' as 296 fighters with the RV in Germany facing USAAF attacks, 328 in France with Luftflotte 3 to counter the entire RAF and it's short ranged fighters and daylight raids.

The notion that the RAF had a smaller force in BoB is a rather old myth, trying to spice up the story about 'the Few'.

On August 10th, when the whole thing really started, the RAF Fighter Command had 1106 fighters around in squadrons, of which 749 were servicable. At the week ending on 9th of August, they also had 80 Defiants, 160 Hurricanes and 132 Spitfires in storage units, ready to be issued immidietely. And that's only the ones that were immidietely ready, for example at the same time 23 Hurricanes ready within 4 days, and 150 under preparation for issue, 33 awaiting repairs.

In contrast, the _Luftwaffe_ as a whole had 934 single engine fighters (805 servicable), and 289 _Zestörern_ present (224 servicable). That's not the force that actually fought the BoB however, as a number LW units were back in Germany and other places, providing a home defense force.

It mirrors also in the sortie rates of fighters.On the week ending with September 8, the RAF flew 5513 fighter sorties, the LW flew 2555; on the week ending with September 15, the RAF was flying 3152 Fighter sorties, the LW flew 875. And so on.



> (The RAF did not always have superior numbers, fighter vs fighter, at the point of attack - even with radar... and the numbers for either side when ione had superiority were not large enough to make it a huge issue.[QUOTE/]
> 
> Indeed and of course, but first of all that is in contrast with your previous statement where you say note that 'the RAF prevailed with a smaller force', and in any case, it doesn't shed too much good light on the RAF's organisation of defense, after all, if they had more fighters (being on defense and all), and they flew more fighter sorties, yet if you say they couldn't outnumber the LW always (which is certainly true) , it would only point to that the RAF's forces were deployed quite inefficiently or managed tactically.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Basket (Aug 21, 2007)

The Luftwaffe lost.

Do you think the cities of Germany were utterly destroyed because the Luftwaffe let them?

The RAF couldn't stop every bombing raid and the Luftwaffe switched to night attacks for the same reason RAF did....heavy losses.

Why were the Stukas withdrawn if the Luftwaffe had control of the skies?
Bf 110 was a loser too.

Do not agree.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfurst
CAn I ask where you are getting 
a) your figures from
b) the idea that the BOB didn't start until 10 August?

The norm is that it started in July but action really started in May.

On 29th June the Germans had 1,107 Me109's, 357 Me110's, 1,380 twin engined bombers and 428 dive bombers.

On the 10th August the RAF had the following servicable fighters. I think you will agree that only the 627 Spits and Hurricanes had any chance against the German attack and remember that these were also spread over the whole of the UK. There is no doubt that the German had a large significant numerical advantage plus better quality.

Blenheim - 60 
Spitfire - 245 
Hurricane - 382 
Defiant - 22 
Gladiator - 2 
Total - 711


----------



## Graeme (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Well the RAF was incapable of stopping German bomber attacks at all, even temporarily. The RAF could not stop their bombers.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> Kurfurst
> CAn I ask where you are getting
> a) your figures from



Wood and Dempster, the LW Quartermaister's own figures on German losses, in brief, it's the actual stuff from archieves, reproduced in many books (but I used wood and dempster since they have it all in one place).

I suggest you get that book, it has extremely detailed figures for British strenght and losses.



> b) the idea that the BOB didn't start until 10 August?
> 
> The norm is that it started in July but action really started in May.



Who's norm? The Germans did not start the offensive until Adlertag (August 13). In whole july, for example, a mere 34 Bf 109s were lost to enemy action, which is quite sound example how quiet things were in July. Initial skirmishes over the Channel, basically, before the offensive commenced.

As for May, obviously there were combats between the LW, the FAF and RAF in May already, but that's pretty much the Battle of France period, besides aerial combat never really stopped, so any drawing of a line where the 'battle' started is arbitrary at best.

Point is, the really large scale air battles started off with Adlertag on the 13 August, and I dare say it's the attacker's choice when he actually starts the battle, and eventually calls it off. 

In this case, the Germans started their aerial offensive in August 1940 and called it off in May 1941, when the bombers were re-deployed against the USSR.



> On 29th June the Germans had 1,107 Me109's, 357 Me110's, 1,380 twin engined bombers and 428 dive bombers.
> 
> On the 10th August the RAF had the following servicable fighters.



So you're basically comparing the entire Lutfwaffe, bombers, fighters etc., servicable or not, including units that are stationed in Germany and did not even participate in the combat over England (JG 77, for example, yet it's 109s would be counted in your totals), to the 

On the other side of the scale, you have only fighters, and only the servicable ones. What happened to Coastal command, Bomber Command, Fleet Air Arm, or the RAF fighters stationed in - India (since you insist counting German fighters in Germany, too..)?

What purpose does it serve, apart from trying to prove the RAF was outnumbered by comparing apples and oranges?




> I think you will agree that only the 627 Spits and Hurricanes had any chance against the German attack and remember that these were also spread over the whole of the UK.



Yes, but on the same reasoning token you shouldn't count 110s, Do 17s or Stukas.. what's the point in this? If you count the forces available to both sides, for the same purpose (a fighter does the same on both sides, even if it's not so good at it, it's still a fighter tasked to shoot down planes), you have how they related to each other as far as numerical superiority went.

Then you can go on how much those numbers actually reflect their true potential, ie. qualitative superiority or parity.

The BoB's important figures were single engined fighters. Now you have the figures you posted, 627 servicable single engined fighters on 10th August in the RAF. The LW had 805 servicable 109s on the same day, but about a hundred from JG 77 were back in Germany and did not participate at all (or perhaps more, I am not sure how many other fighter units were back in Germany). That leaves you about 700 German SE fighters vs. 620 British SE fighters, it's pretty much the same numerical strenght when you consider that numbers varied day to day, and that the LW had both offensive and defense tasks at hand (it couldn't just send all fighters over England without leaving some behind in France for obvious reasons).



> There is no doubt that the German had a large significant numerical advantage plus better quality.



I have to disagree aut numerical superiority. Doubts or not, the simple fact is that the British had started the Battle with a rough parity in numbers as far as fighters went, and they continued to have similiar or even a bit more fighters and pilots around, that was made possible by that they sent raw, trainee pilot s from crash courses into combat to replace losses. 

Simple as that, they were never outnumbered on the whole.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 21, 2007)

Graeme said:


>



Interesting cartoon, though Wood and Dempster have some fitting figures about British fighter production for October.

During October, the monthly output of fighter aircraft fell significantly below the planned figures. Beaufighter production was 19 less than planned, Hurricane production fell 50 planes below that was planned, and Spitfire production fell 82 below that was originally planned. In addition, Whirlwind and Defiant production was 11 below the planned figures.

Overall in October, British fighter production fell 301 fighters short of the planned figures, compared to -287 in September and -56 in August.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfurst
All I am trying to do is get to a position where I could understand your figures and compare like with like.
I will certainly try and get the book you mantioned, can I ask what the ISBN no is to help with ordering.
Can I ask you then, what were the German forces available for the BOB excluding the ones in Germany etc? 

Much appreciated


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> Kurfurst
> All I am trying to do is get to a position where I could understand your figures and compare like with like.
> I will certainly try and get the book you mantioned, can I ask what the ISBN no is to help with ordering.
> Can I ask you then, what were the German forces available for the BOB excluding the ones in Germany etc?
> ...




I am not sure why Hop, Glider, Kurfurst, etc you are all trying to compare BoB to BoG.......its really impossible to do accurately.

It seems like you are all trying to show one side did a better job then the other.....but why? Is it important?

One side claims how great the RAF is, the other side claims how great the LW is. 

 

RAF and the LW made mistakes in BoB, both could of done better. All sides made mistakes in BoG, all sides could of done better. Not sure why people find such a need to prove their country or bias opinion is right and others are wrong.

Why not look at each battle separately and put aside all bias opinions, stopping comparing RAF to LW to USAF. Talk about what each side did right and what they could of done better and what would of happened "if" they had done this. Etc....

My $0.02


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> In contrast, despite the industrial might of the US, the LW had some significant successes despite the small numbers of fighers presen in the Reichsverteidigung until 1944, they won at Schweinfurt, at Ploiesti, above Berlin against the RAF night bombers, and at Poltava; each signified a serious setback, even if temporary to the raging Allied air offensive.
> 
> *Actually, the LW had continued local successes in 1944 through at least May12 if you want to use a rule of thumb of 10% attrition on the striking bomber forces. In each case in early to mid 1944, the LW was able to exploit early warning, educated guesses of probable targets, selection of the one(s) they wanted to defend and skillfully place local concentrations of s/e and t/e fighters to strike less well defended bomber stream.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2007)

Kurfurst I am just trying to figure something out. What does it matter if the aircraft were actually shot down or made it back to base but were written off due to heavy damage?

A loss of an aircraft is a loss of an aircraft.

In the end the British prevailed and won the BoB. History does not lie.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I am not sure why Hop, Glider, Kurfurst, etc you are all trying to compare BoB to BoG.......its really impossible to do accurately.
> 
> It seems like you are all trying to show one side did a better job then the other.....but why? Is it important?
> 
> ...



Hunter, pocket the 2 cents and dive in the way you want to lead the discussion - opinionated people like to express opinions and I suspect that is primarily what the forum is about.. 

You might recall that this poll and thread is about "best AF" so it's hard to avoid debating the attributes and deficiencies. 

information exchanges, questions posed, debates engaged, opinions expressed - some heated others cordial.

These comments are not critical of your POV or what you want to see (or not see)..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter, pocket the 2 cents and dive in the way you want to lead the discussion - opinionated people like to express opinions and I suspect that is primarily what the forum is about..
> 
> You might recall that this poll and thread is about "best AF" so it's hard to avoid debating the attributes and deficiencies.
> 
> ...



True I guess, it just get tiring seeing the same people with the same bias opinions towards their own country always being the best. Maybe it's easier for a person like myself to be less bias when my country was not a major player in WW2. I look more for the truth and less towards national pride.


----------



## Hop (Aug 21, 2007)

> It's a pity that Hop is so selective with Albert Speer's book.



Selective? I'm so "selective" with Speer's book I didn't actually post anything from it, afaik.



> The Luftwaffe botched the battle of britain. Lost a generation of top air crew and future leaders and aircraft which were not there for Barbarossa.



Yes. Williamson Murray, who worked as a historian for the USAF, said in his book on the wartime Luftwaffe, Strategy for Defeat:



> One can argue with justification that the Germans lost World War 11 in the late summer of 1940



Caldwell in JG 26 says something similar:



> The seeds of the total defeat of Germany's fighter force in 1944 were thus sown over the fields of Kent in 1940.



Caldwell gives some rough figures for the pilot losses, that show just what happened to the German fighter force in the BoB.

JG 26 had 103 pilots on the 29th June, 88 on the 29th September. They lost 56 pilots during the BoB, either killed, prisoners or missing. (not counting wounded pilots who couldn't fly again)

JG 54 had only 42 pilots at the end of June, 106 at the end of September, and lost 43 pilots.

JG 27 had 91 pilots at the end of June, 102 at the end of September, and lost 60 pilots.

For those 3 units, initial strength was 236 pilots, and between them they lost 159 pilots during the BoB. I believe losses overall were a lower proportion than that, and similar to the RAF's losses as a proportion of initial strength.

There is a difference, though, in that a large proportion of the RAF pilot casualties were of the inexperienced pilots who left training during the battle, whereas the German casualties tended to be of the experienced pre war pilots, as the newcomers were usually withheld from battle. 

As Caldwell says:



> But the significance for Germany lay not in the number of casualties, but in their quality. Most of the German pilots lost in 1940 were professional soldiers and airmen, with extensive pre-war training. Men of the calibre of Bürschgens, Ebbighausen, Ebeling, Henrici, and Müller-Dühe were quite literally irreplaceable.





> On May 31 1943, the LW had as 'many' as 296 fighters with the RV in Germany facing USAAF attacks, 328 in France with Luftflotte 3 to counter the entire RAF and it's short ranged fighters and daylight raids.



May 1943? In May 1943 the entire USAAF in Europe flew less than 4,000 sorties. 

The period in question is late 1943 and early 1944. Hooton gives German day fighter strength on the 20th December 1943 as 572 in Germany, 312 in France. In December the USAAF flew 5,741 fighter sorties, to match those number the German based fighters would have had to fly only once every 3 days.



> The notion that the RAF had a smaller force in BoB is a rather old myth, trying to spice up the story about 'the Few'.
> 
> On August 10th, when the whole thing really started,



In July the Germans lost 66 fighters on operations against Britain, 109 bombers, over 40 other types. They lost another 56 aircraft in the first 9 days of August. Rather careless to lose 271 aircraft before the battle even starts, isn't it?

The truth is the battle started in early July. Strengths at the end of June were 1,107 Me 109s and 1,126 pilots for them, along with approx 300 110s, and a great many bombers, against 819 British fighters of all types, including Gladiators, Blenheims and Defiants.



> On August 10th, when the whole thing really started, the RAF Fighter Command had 1106 fighters around in squadrons, of which 749 were servicable. At the week ending on 9th of August, they also had 80 Defiants, 160 Hurricanes and 132 Spitfires in storage units, ready to be issued immidietely. And that's only the ones that were immidietely ready, for example at the same time 23 Hurricanes ready within 4 days, and 150 under preparation for issue, 33 awaiting repairs.
> 
> In contrast, the Luftwaffe as a whole had 934 single engine fighters (805 servicable), and 289 Zestörern present (224 servicable).



As to August the 10th itself, Fighter Command had the following serviceable aircraft:

Blenheim - 60
Spitfire - 245
Hurricane - 382
Defiant - 22
Gladiator - 2
Total - 711 

Of those, only 627 Spitfires and Hurricanes were front rank fighters, note Kurfurst makes no mention of secondary German types like the Heinkels, Ju 88 fighters etc.

So against 627 RAF fighters, the Luftwaffe had 1029 serviceable fighters, and a lot of bombers.

The RAF of course had aircraft in reserve, but then Kurfurst has repeatedly claimed the Luftwaffe did as well, and whilst I don't believe they had as many reserves, even the Germans must have had aircraft undergoing preparation for issue, etc.



> It mirrors also in the sortie rates of fighters.On the week ending with September 8, the RAF flew 5513 fighter sorties, the LW flew 2555;



Kurfurst is using unsourced Luftwaffe sortie figures from Wood and Dempster, they are very close to the British estimates of the time. (British estimates released at the end of each day were 16,154 sorties 2nd Sept - 29th Sept, Wood and Dempster give 16277 fighter and bomber sorties, and 1,455 "GR")

ER Hooton gives German sortie figures taken from the actual Luftwaffe records, because they are much higher Kurfurst ignores them. According to Hooton, the Luftwaffe flew 4,050 fighter sorties that week. (Hooton's figures are approximate because the Luftwaffe records are on a monthly basis, Hooton has extrapolated weekly totals from them)



> on the week ending with September 15, the RAF was flying 3152 Fighter sorties, the LW flew 875. And so on.



And Hooton gives the Luftwaffe 1,875 fighter sorties for that week.



> Actually no, though this is the founding stone of the Battle of Britain myth, that there was a real danger of a seaborne invasion. There never was, the Germans were quite aware that they simply did not have the means to transport troops accross the channel, virtually from march after the French campaign, while trying to dodge the Royal Navy's much superior force. It was a gamble that nobody was willing the take.



Certainly they weren't willing to take it at the time, because of the failure of the Luftwaffe. But the plan was for the Luftwaffe to win air superiority in 4 days, then spend a month or so bombing in preparation of the invasion. As time went on, and it became clear that the Luftwaffe couldn't win air superiority, they cooled on the whole invasion plan.



> And air superiority they definietely had over Britain, after all, they bombed everything in Britain at will.



No. They sent over large numbers of fighters with small numbers of bombers, switched more and more bombers to night operations, withdrew Stukas because of their heavy losses, and finally gave up altogether.

By your definition the RAF had air superiority over Europe from 1941 onwards.


----------



## Hop (Aug 21, 2007)

> So you're basically comparing the entire Lutfwaffe, bombers, fighters etc., servicable or not, including units that are stationed in Germany and did not even participate in the combat over England (JG 77, for example, yet it's 109s would be counted in your totals),



JG 77 didn't take part in the BoB? Can you explain why they claimed 57 Spitfires and Hurricanes in August, September and October 1940? The most common location for these claims was around Tunbridge Wells, which is in Kent.

As to comparing forces, the Germans stationed very few of their fighters outside the battle area. The RAF, on the other hand, maintained strong forces in the north and west of Britain, well away from the fighting.



> The BoB's important figures were single engined fighters. Now you have the figures you posted, 627 servicable single engined fighters on 10th August in the RAF. The LW had 805 servicable 109s on the same day, but about a hundred from JG 77 were back in Germany and did not participate at all (or perhaps more, I am not sure how many other fighter units were back in Germany).



OK, lets play that game, and ignore the 110 altogether, even though it wasn't that much worse than the Hurricane.

Wood and Dempster have the RAF order of battle for 8th August. 13 Group in northern England and Scotland had 11 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes. They did not take part in the battle, apart from intercepting the only German attempt against the NE on the 15th August.

12 Group had 12 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes. Of these, 3 were at Church Fenton and Leconfield, 160 miles north of London, and out of the battle. 2 were at Kirton in Lindsey, 140 miles north of London, and out of the battle. 2 were at Digby, 100 miles north of London, out of the battle. 2 were at Wittering, 75 miles north of London, out of the battle.

Only 3 were based at fields close to London, and taking part (occasionally) in the battle.

10 Group had 7 squadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires. 1 was at Pembrey, 170 west of London, and out of the battle. 

11 Group had 19 squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes.

That means out of a grand total of 49 Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons, only 28 were based close to the SE where the fighting was. If you divide 627 serviceable fighters by 49, you get 12.8 per squadron. Multiplied by the 28 squadrons in the SE, that's 358 serviceable Spitfires and Hurricanes, against, according to Wood and Dempster, 805 serviceable 109s "Deployed against Britain" on the 10th August.



> I have to disagree aut numerical superiority. Doubts or not, the simple fact is that the British had started the Battle with a rough parity in numbers as far as fighters went,



Only if you:

A) Redefine the start of the battle to a point further in, where the Germans have already sustained heavy losses.

and 

B) Count only German fighters in France whilst counting British fighters in Scotland, Wales and the N of England.

If you do like for like, aircraft actually taking part in the battle, the Germans still had a large superiority in single engined fighters even on the redefined start date.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2007)

All this comparison of fighter numbers...

I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters. The important aircraft for the Luftwaffe was the bomber - for a proper look at the Battle of Britain you should be looking at how many bombers the RAF shot down for a loss of RAF fighters. Shooting down the German escorts was a bonus. 

And if you want to be really technical, try and find out how many German bombers were shot down before they dropped their bombs on target to see how well the RAF really did when intercepting. 

I do have to admit the debate is good reading. 

And the USAAF was the best air force of World War II, it was strategic and tactical in every theatre of U.S operation. The only one that came close was the RAF but it only performed strategically in Europe.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

plan_D said:


> All this comparison of fighter numbers...
> 
> I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters. The important aircraft for the Luftwaffe was the bomber - for a proper look at the Battle of Britain you should be looking at how many bombers the RAF shot down for a loss of RAF fighters. Shooting down the German escorts was a bonus.
> 
> ...



I agree with your post for the most part.

100% agree USAF was hands down the best air force in WW2......to be honest LW and RAF were close in mind for a distant second and third. RAF and LW were close in my mind, both had different strenghts and weaknesses.....but were close to each other overall. 

USAF was by far the best air force overall in WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2007)

plan_D said:


> All this comparison of fighter numbers...
> 
> I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters.



BINGO! As the line from the movie - "Fighter Pilots make movies, Bomber Pilots make History."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2007)

Gotta agree with that. Thats why I allways think it is funny when people automatically choose a fighter as the best aircraft of WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

plan_D said:


> All this comparison of fighter numbers...
> 
> I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters. The important aircraft for the Luftwaffe was the bomber - for a proper look at the Battle of Britain you should be looking at how many bombers the RAF shot down for a loss of RAF fighters. Shooting down the German escorts was a bonus.
> 
> ...



Plan_D - I agree your major points. I suspect that discussing the role of fighter aircraft is about the contribution toward enabling bombers to do their jobs - with losses acceptable from both a military and political POV.

If you conclude that Daylight Strategic Bombing was an important component toward shortening the war then Fighters were extremely important in achieving the goal. 

The LW (like the RAF in BoB) had wrested control of the air over Germany after October 14, 1943. The P-38 was proving a disappointment due to multitude of low temp issues at high altitude, the P-47 and Spitfire had inadequate range and there were no Continental bases to eliminate rang issues. Without the Mustang, Germany inflicts unacceptable losses over Germany - and US may not have been able to re-start until thos problems of range and cold weather were solved - probably June 1944 before P-47s started getting more legs and P-38L solved it's problems.. 

In the meantime, wresting control over Germany is a major question.

It was the combination of a successful long range fighter, the resurgence of deep strikes over Germany by 8th, then 15th AF, plus the orders to 'seek and destroy the LW on air and ground' - that led to the battles that ultimately enabled successful attacks and destruction of Oil and Chemical Industry - and the RAF also played an important role in that. 

The Mustang was the 'tool' that sought out and destroyed the LW over its own airfields - places where the Spits and Typhoons and Thunderbolts could not go.

Interestingly enough - escort fighters were important over Japan - but the major destuction was caused by low level night attacks with unescorted B-29s... different game even from RAF in ETO

Regards,

Bill

To summarize the point I think you are making - except for some scattered attempts to use P-38s (and Mosquitos) to bomb strategic targets, the heavy lifting and destruction (and most losses) was the bomber force.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

Bill,

Do you then agree with the voting totals in the thread?

RAF 33

LW 51

USAF 76

Would you rank thus #1 USAF, #2 LW and #3 RAF?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2007)

Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................

After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.

Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................
> 
> After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.
> 
> Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!



I don't think he was insulting the P-38......just saying it had problems. Not to mention I think if you had sent "any" fighter with the bombers it would of helped a fair bit reduce bomber losses, it just happened to be the P-38 was the fighter. Not saying the P-38 was a bad fighter, but it did have problems. B/c of several reasons the USAF eventually went with the P-51.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 22, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I don't think he was insulting the P-38......just saying it had problems. Not to mention I think if you had sent "any" fighter with the bombers it would of helped a fair bit reduce bomber losses, it just happened to be the P-38 was the fighter. Not saying the P-38 was a bad fighter, but it did have problems. B/c of several reasons the USAF eventually went with the P-51.



The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO. 

As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................
> 
> After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.
> 
> Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!



Syscom - I'm not denigrating the 38. It was less efective in the January through May 1944 for three reasons. 

The first and most important reason is that the J model didn't have dive brakes and when they did engage with German fighters they could easily out dive because of immediate entry into compressibility - coupled with sustained high altitude engine/supercharger problems causing a lot of aborts and in some cases losses. When the P-38L came in in June all this changed and the 38 became formidable at high altitude against the 109 and 190.

The last reason is that the 38 was so distinctive, the LW was never really caught by suprise and could engage or flee pretty much at will. I'm sure you have read a lot of the 20th, 55th and 364th Mission summaries - most of which stated no 'enemy fighters sighted'..

AFAIK the 8th AF P-38's claimed less than 225 German fighters from 10/43-5/44 in those three groups - far lower than the Mustang totals for Jan-May1944

It's hard to make a case that the introduction of the P-38 dramatically reduced 8th BC command losses as the 8th pretty much slowed or stopped deep penetrations after the disasters in October '43 until Big Week in February 1944. 

On the other hand, to your point, the bombers they escorted were less likely to be attacked because it was easy to note they were being escorted and easier to try to find out an unescorted task force particulary in the early days of P-38 ops when they were only groups capable of Target escort... one or two groups to cover 35 Bomb Groups was just spread way too thin to do much good.

Who knows what the history of 8th AF FC would look like if P-38L's had been operational in August 1943?


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO.
> 
> As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.




100% agree we have debated this before, the P-38 was a good fighter but it had problems.

Cold cockpit, cost and hard to handle (could be dangerous even) for a rookie pilot, harder to maintain. PTO was a better fit for it, two engines was a good idea flying over long spans of water, added a level of comfort.

P-51 was cheaper, easy to maintain, great plane overall, few faults, easy to fly.

It would of made my choice between them easy to make. P-51 every time when talking about an air force full of average pilots. In the hands of an ace pilot the P-38 could be very lethal indeed.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you then agree with the voting totals in the thread?
> 
> ...



Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.

From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best. 

In 1943 I felt RAF and US were a 'toss up' with RAF having an edge. This was transition time before full weight of quality aircraft and trained pilots in USAAF started to weld very strong combat units in both Europe and Pacific.

From Big Week forward, when USAAF again committed and sustained long range daylight operations all over Germany, and B-29 Operations over Japan started, I just see no comparison in ability to project overwhelming force everywhere. 

And unlike others I also count a VERY strong Naval/USMC sea based airpower as an added part of the equation.. but would state that USAAF could stand alone in the judgment.

The only aspect of air combat that the USAAF did not excell in was strategic operations at night in a heavily defended target spectrum. No airforce executed like RAF/RCAF in that role.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.
> 
> From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best.
> 
> ...



Yes I have to 150% agree with every single word you said in that post. I see it exactly the same way to the letter. You reading my mind?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO.
> 
> As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.



SoD - I quite agree your main point as I agree Syscom comments... but the P-38L was only introduced in June, 1944 timeframe and by that time Doolittle had committed to 100% conversion to 51s (except for 56th FG).. whereas the 51s flew first missions in Dec 1943, going fully operational in Jan1944 and four operational in early March. 

The 51s did the most damage by far in the Jan to D-Day timeframe.

The P-38 was 50% more expensive than the P-47 but 100% more than the 51 (a nit but a possible factor) - more materials, two engines, complex dual systems.

I am not denigrating the P-38 - it was one heckuva multi role fighter that flew ALL of the possible roles, unlike the Mustang which never flew as a night fighter or high altitude level bomber or even bomber interceptor..it was the only fighter we put out that was nearly as versatile as the Mosquito.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.
> 
> From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best.
> 
> ...



For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.



True in 43 it was very very close.

USAF was new to ETO and just building. Lacked night fighting ability.

RAF was building but was more concerned with night raids, which was good but not decisive in BoG. RAF could not carry out day raids successfully.

LW was good but used its bomber strength in a battle field support role, not a strategic role. Its bomber force was never a very good strategic force in the first place but better then none.

1939-1942 LW was best.

1943 close tie between all three forces. Here a person could make a argument for any of the three and not by far off.

1944-1945 USAF hands down the best by far, no one is even close.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.



Chris - good point, ditto Hunter. I viewed the LW trailing in 1943 originally based on losing nearly all offensive initiatives due to Allies (including VVS) getting control of their own air space - but in fact all three were in transition in 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2007)

I see it as pretty much as Hunter put it for 1943.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2007)

I would argue against the Luftwaffe...especially after June 1941.

It was too small and production too limited for the wars that they found themselves in.

Not enough aircraft, not enough new types of aircraft, Idiots in High Command, Couldn't fill roles with the aircraft they had. No maritime long range capabilty or long range bomber or escort fighter to go with it.

It was very good in the blitzkrieg tactical role, but too small for the war of attrition on the eastern front and over the skies of Germany later on.

You could argue that the Luftwaffe was a first class air power that was not designed or had the full capabilty to fight the wars it did. But whose fault was that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2007)

The Basket said:


> It was too small and production too limited for the wars that they found themselves in.



Sorry but there you are wrong. The Luftwaffe was actually very large. Production of aircraft actually increased throughout the years and even at the end of the war.

Germany was producing massive amounts of aircraft the the Luftwaffe never had a lack of aircraft and equipment. It lacked in fuel...



The Basket said:


> Not enough aircraft,



Wrong again...

Germany had plenty of aircraft. Hell just look at the Bf 109 which was the most produced aircraft in history if I recall.



The Basket said:


> not enough new types of aircraft,



Wrong again...

Germany had plenty of new types of aircraft.

What new types are you talking about?




The Basket said:


> Idiots in High Command, Couldn't fill roles with the aircraft they had.



While I agree there were idiots in High Command, the Luftwaffe never had a problem filling roles with the aircraft they had. Below are just a few and the main ones.

*Fighters/Interceptors:* Fw 190, Bf 109, Bf 110, Me 262, Me 163, Ta 152

*Ground Attack/Dive Bomber:* Ju 87, Hs 123, Hs 129

*Bomber:* Ju 88, Ju 188, He 111, He 177 (granted was not that great of an aircraft), Ar 234

*Transport:* Ju 52, Ar 232, Go 244, Ju 290, Me 323

*Maritime Patrol:* Fw 200, Bv 138, Bv 222, Bv 238, Do 18, Do 24, Do 26, He 115



The Basket said:


> No maritime long range capabilty



Sorry Wrong again....

Bv 138: 4,023km (2,500 miles)
Ha 139: 3,075 miles (4948km)
Bv 222: 6100km (3,790 mph)
Bv 238: 3,790 miles (6100km)
Do 18: 2,175 miles (3,500km)
Do 24: 2,950 miles (4750km)
Do 26: *7100 km (4,412 miles)*
Fw 200: 2,760 miles (4,440 km)




The Basket said:


> or long range bomber or escort fighter to go with it.



Agreed

However it was not for lack of trying. They had plenty of designs that were promising and were flying several.

I will give you this though because in all effect Germany did not have a strategic Bombing force.



The Basket said:


> It was very good in the blitzkrieg tactical role, but too small for the war of attrition on the eastern front and over the skies of Germany later on.



Actually the Luftwaffe was quite successful on the Eastern Front even until Wars end.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 22, 2007)

well not succesfull really they did lose....
although it was poor tactics that did it....


----------



## Hop (Aug 22, 2007)

Hard to say the Luftwaffe had "plenty" of aircraft.

Williamson Murray gives some figures to show how the Luftwaffe failed to expand during the war.

In September 1939 they had 2,916 combat aircraft.

Strength increased until the battle of France, at which point they had 3,692 combat aircraft.

It fell rapidly during the summer and autumn of 1940, before increasing again to 3,853 aircraft in March 1941.

In March 1942 the total had fallen to just 2,876, lower than the level they had begun the war with, and well below peak strength.

At the end of June 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1,464 fighters, 1,808 bombers.
At the end of Aug 1943 they had 1,581 fighters, 1,134 bombers.

The Luftwaffe, unlike other air forces, basically failed to expand during the war. Murray sums it up:


> A comparison of the figures for
> May 1940 and January 1944 are most instructive ; at the start of the French
> campaign, the Luftwaffe possessed 1,369 fighters and 1,758 bombers; over three
> and one-half years later, the Germans possessed only 1,561 fighters and 1,604
> bombers


----------



## renrich (Aug 22, 2007)

A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.



Ahem - I know I frequently put you to sleep but in this mornings posts I said

"And unlike others I also count a VERY strong Naval/USMC sea based airpower as an added part of the equation.. but would state that USAAF could stand alone in the judgment.

The only aspect of air combat that the USAAF did not excell in was strategic operations at night in a heavily defended target spectrum. No airforce executed like RAF/RCAF in that role."

And you and several others including myself were talking about this all along the thread in one way or another..


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.


On the first page of this thread i made this statement:

"Being as impartial as i can I believe the *USAAF/USN *were the best air arms of WW2 I really can't see any argument to point towards any other air arm. Numbers Quality and Logistics made them the winning combination" 

now if we are just counting ETO/MTO I would switch to the RAF/Commonwealth combo although they didn't have the daylight strategic component the USAAC didn't have the night component and over the years the night factor has proven to be more effective


----------



## Udet (Aug 22, 2007)

Ok, while travelling i can have some time to sniff around here; took me some 15 minutes to re-read this thread from the onset; i already had made some comments here.

It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.

There is no doubt the arrival of the USAAF in Europe was the factor that made the grass look greener for the allied cause.

Fine planes, fine pilots, fine weapons, good ground support crews and logistics.

Without the 8th and 15th Air Forces, any effort made by the Brits to carry on with the war all by themselves in the west would have lead nowhere.

Try to think of the RAF facing 2 or more large enemy air forces all by themselves...they do not last a weekend.

Now, the Mustang...sure, a fine aircraft manned by very well trained pilots; overhyped to some extent for sure, since it was not necessarily the ultimate marvel to fly the unfriendly skies.

Nobody will deny for sure that this particular fighter made an important contribution, perhaps essential, to get the job done. What type of job? Simple: cut bomber losses. "Seeking and destroying" the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found came later. There lies the importance of the P-51.

Now, was it that technically and technologically superior? I do not think so.

There are times when i try to substantiate this assertion by taking a closer look to battlefield facts. Sure German losses were very high, but so where those endured by the USAAF.

As an hypothetical example, the loss of 50 German fighter pilots on a single day (too many losses!), would imply for the USAAF the loss of at least two or three or four times the German number: 200 pilots and airmen lost.

I have said this since my first days as a member of this honorable place: the argument babbled by the allies, that classical song with such charming rythm and pace composed and arranged during those over extended parties at bars, plenty of beer, bourbon and nuts: "German losses could not be properly replaced, while ours would be replaced in a matter of hours". Illiterate hogwash.

While German losses could have a more profound impact in the ranks of the Luftwaffe, referring to the ability to replace lost/crippled pilots with the same number of properly trained ones, the losses the USAAF had to swallow were not less terrible in their impact, at all.

Those who know me will find this part of my speech quite familiar: unlike the VVS guys, who were serving a regime who did not care AT ALL about their losses, the type of political system to which the USAAF guys were serving is far more sensitive to high losses.

The war ended pretty much when it had to end for the USAAF; they could not go on bearing such losses indifinitely.

If the Mustang had made the superb out-of-this-world craft depicted here and there, then 0% of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 bomber destroyers it confronted would have made it back to base.

Overall, ~70% of those G-6/R6s made it back to base after engaging the enemy, a fact the includes the fierce battles against the escorts of the bombers they tried to hunt down.

Sure that ~30% losses is a critical factor, and also means losing the war in the air.

Also my guncamera collection which was acquired in the under-world of the black markets of Moscow has taught me important lessons regarding the alleged "superb-unmatched" technical capabilities of the P-51. 

Featuring some 85 shots of Mustangs getting barbecued -pilot included- by the guns and cannons of Bf 109s and Fw 190s -and possibly a Me 262- i am more than convinced that putting aside bouncing the enemy (neither knew nor saw what killed him), there were so many Mustang pilots that tried to get the best out of their planes and found themselves uncapable to shake off the German boy pursuing them.

The vast majority of those P-51s getting shot down are P-51 D´s, you know German pilots tried to get as close as possible to ensure a kill, an indication most of the material came from German pilots flying during late 1944 and 1945.

As shown on Kurfurst´s excellent webpages, speed was marginally affected due to fitting the 109s with the MG 151/20 cannons under the wings, with a more considerable -negative- impact regarding manouverability of the craft.


Ahhh...after several months without any WW2 reading, i just finished one. As i type here, the book should be in some of those hi-tech waste disposal facilities not far from Hong Kong.

I am referring to John Manrho´s "Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe´s Last Hope"....what a piece of unholy fiendish crap that book is. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah...lots of studio photos of German pilots in their late teens displaying a legend that reads more or less as follows: "Ufz. Karl Heinz Reichsmann, 18 years of old; he would not survive Bodenplatte".

He "would not" survive Bondenplatte? Hilarious. A prophet that predicts events once they have happened and are known to the public.

Yes, German losses were high, but also put the photos of those allied pilots who "would not survive" Bodenplatte. Include photos of the German pilots being greeted by their ground crews and staffel mates upon their return from their combat missions during Bodenplatte and not only lots and lots of photos of U.S. anti-aicraft crews smling and laughing wildly because theiy shot down some enemy planes during the fight.

I am tired of the type of approach displayed by authors like this.

And i am not into pornography, at all...and this author seems to be attracted to it; apart from finding a turn on in publishing photos of young German guys who "would not" survive the day, there is some photo showing a German pilot who got shot and killed -apparently by U.S. soldiers- after having emergency landed his damaged Bf 109; the body of the German pilot is partially lying on the wing of his BF 109, surrounded by very honorable U.S. soldiers with huge smiles on their faces, delighted by the view of the dead german; also this happy U.S. soldiers removed the combat boots of the dead pilot, possibly to have them as trophy upon their return to their homes. 

Like the bad author this guy is, he failed to explain why was it that particular German pilot was shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when leaving his cockpit once on the ground.

Finally, for those who do not know me, i am not "anti-American", at all. Apart from my surfing beaches, and isolated islands in the south pacific it is one of my favorite places. Ahhhhhh...have you eaten at Sullivan´s? I´ve been there several times for dinner...at Chicago and Tucson...great atmosphere, great food, order the oysters on the half shell and the Ahi tuna steak...also they have very nice waitresses...the manager of the Tucson Sullivan´s started to hate me, because all his waitresses wanted to have my table, it was a mess; not my fault being perfect though; i am used to female harrasment. (i am humble, when i say i am perfect it is just that; i just wish a was super-perfect).


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> ....
> now if we are just counting ETO/MTO I would switch to the RAF/Commonwealth combo although they didn't have the daylight strategic component the USAAC didn't have the night component and over the years the night factor has proven to be more effective



The 12th and 15th AF was still far bigger than the RAF. And still equipped with the same aircraft as the 8th and 9th and supported by the same industrial plant.

The RAF gets the "plus" for a more effective night fighter, but that alone didn't impact the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 22, 2007)

Contrary to popular belief size isn't everything . As an airpower was dominant globally but in the ETO/MTO I believe all things considered equal the RAF/Commonwealth combo was the equal. Which one of Air Forces listed would you choose to make a precision raid or do special ops . Taranto, the Dams , Peenemunde, Malta, Tirpitz ,Amiens , Shell House in Copenhagen.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Contrary to popular belief size isn't everything . As an airpower was dominant globally but in the ETO/MTO I believe all things considered equal the RAF/Commonwealth combo was the equal. Which one of Air Forces listed would you choose to make a precision raid or do special ops . Taranto, the Dams , Peenemunde, Malta, Tirpitz ,Amiens , Shell House in Copenhagen.



And which air force would you choose to fly medium bombers off an aircraft carrier.....deliver a nuclear bomb......strike shipping in a well defended harbor 500 miles from base......strike oil refineries 1600 miles from base..... put 5000 bombers (heavy and medium) in the air in a single day...... incinerate 20 square miles of a city in a single night......


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 22, 2007)

Udet said:


> Ok, while travelling i can have some time to sniff around here; took me some 15 minutes to re-read this thread from the onset; i already had made some comments here.
> 
> It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.
> 
> ...



I like you, Udet, though some may think you pompous . . . I believe you have a very balanced view of the War, neither too cynical, nor too romantic. And, yes, I've eaten at Sullivan's in Tucson (breakfast, actually), but that was a long time ago. Didn't have the oysters, though; had a Denver omelette, if I recall rightly.

Yes, a messy business war is . . . mistakes and tragedies on both sides, combined with great heroism and sacrifice.

Anyway, I like your attitude; I often feel the same way. Keep up the good work, trying to talk some sense into those whose perception of the War is sometimes skewed one way or the other.

And, who knows? Maybe we'll see each other at Sullivan's some night, you never know . . .


----------



## The Basket (Aug 23, 2007)

Adler

WW2 was about production. About 33,000 Bf 109s were made and god knows how many were lost due to landing accidents. How many Yaks or Las were built? P-51s, P-47s or Spitfires?

Then the number of Gustavs becones small.

They had to bodge the Fw 200 and didn't have the Ural bomber when they needed it. They were also short on transports.

They couldn't outproduce the enemies they faced. And therefore lost. And put their faith in superweapons that didn't do the biz.

The USAAC power is based on sheer size and financial muscle. They had the industrial capabilty to build in huge numbers anything. I would say aircraft for aircraft the RAF matched the USAAC. But our industrial capacity was nowhere near as powerful and postwar was even worse.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2007)

You're right that fighters carry the bombers to their destination to make history, drgondog. But I think you can appreciate that the escort fighters are an obstacle for the defending interceptors, not the target. The most important aircraft in the formation is the bomber, there's no point in the clearing the skies if you're not going to use it. Just to make myself clear, I recognise the importance of every aircraft type and, yes, I recognise the importance of the long-range escort fighters ... but in the end, all is for nought without bombers. 

Overall, the RAF I rate as second simply because it performed every role of an airforce - the Luftwaffe never had an effective strategic component. People could argue all day about how the RAF bomber offensive had little effect, but the RAF had the ability to drop that tonnage - the Luftwaffe never did. Making the RAF second and the Luftwaffe third - even if you think the Bf 109 is superior to Spitfire. 

Airforce by year is completely different as the Luftwaffe held the gold in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The RAF didn't have the equipment or training for strategic and tactical bombing until late 1941.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

plan_D said:


> You're right that fighters carry the bombers to their destination to make history, drgondog. But I think you can appreciate that the escort fighters are an obstacle for the defending interceptors, not the target. The most important aircraft in the formation is the bomber, there's no point in the clearing the skies if you're not going to use it. Just to make myself clear, I recognise the importance of every aircraft type and, yes, I recognise the importance of the long-range escort fighters ... but in the end, all is for nought without bombers.
> 
> Overall, the RAF I rate as second simply because it performed every role of an airforce - the Luftwaffe never had an effective strategic component. People could argue all day about how the RAF bomber offensive had little effect, but the RAF had the ability to drop that tonnage - the Luftwaffe never did. Making the RAF second and the Luftwaffe third - even if you think the Bf 109 is superior to Spitfire.
> 
> Airforce by year is completely different as the Luftwaffe held the gold in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The RAF didn't have the equipment or training for strategic and tactical bombing until late 1941.



I agree all your points - no nit picking of any of your points or thesis. 

I have tried to make a point several times in this thread that against the USSAF's the Luftwaffe was tenacious and crafty, particularly when outnumbered - often positioning a concentrated strike force at a point vacant of escorting fighters, with devastaing effect - or in some cases simply overwhelm escorted formations with same result. 

The prime reason for escort fighters was to GREATLY reduce bomber crew losses, and permit the successful attacks on crital industries... but fighters were never going to influence the war to the degree of bombers.



Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Adler
> 
> WW2 was about production. About 33,000 Bf 109s were made and god knows how many were lost due to landing accidents. How many Yaks or Las were built? P-51s, P-47s or Spitfires?
> 
> ...



Agreed but to say they did not have eneogh aircraft or the ability to produce aircraft is not true.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2007)

I think just about everyone (except those that are confused and think the Luftwaffe was the best airforce) can agree that the Luftwaffes major mistake was not having a strategic bomber force in the early parts of the war.

Late in the war it was too late for the Luftwaffe to start a program. They needed fighters and by that point it was too late.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 23, 2007)

I think Germany dabbled in too much experimentation. How about the 
great big glider they finally put six engines on ? The Komet was another.
Had this "dabbling" gone into a good four engine bomber, the outcome may
have been different. They used the Condor for anti-shipping.... a waste.

Of course, hindsight being 20/20, we could debate this for years.

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 23, 2007)

ccheese said:


> I think Germany dabbled in too much experimentation. How about the
> great big glider they finally put six engines on ? The Komet was another.
> Had this "dabbling" gone into a good four engine bomber, the outcome may
> have been different. They used the Condor for anti-shipping.... a waste.



Very true...

Lot's of wasted resources on "Wonder Weapons", many of which never got off the drawing boards, or could be classified as "too little, too late". Also, many bad decisions by Hitler, which were good decisions from our point of view.

TO


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.
> 
> There is no doubt the arrival of the USAAF in Europe was the factor that made the grass look greener for the allied cause.
> 
> ...



I gotta admit, Udet, even when I was young and good looking, hordes of waitresses never fought over me.. I had to seek them out one at a time.


----------



## Udet (Aug 23, 2007)

Doctor Gon Dog (it´s easier to spell in this form):

I do not deny the Mustang was a superb fighter with advanced combat capabilities for the scenario it would be operating over...but so were those ships fielded by the Germans: G-5,-6,-14/AS, G-10, K-4, the Antons, the Doras and of course the rare Ta 152 H-1.

Also agree with your comments that it was ONLY skill of the pilot in the cockpit which would come to make the difference.

Where i will have to disagree with you is when you say "...enabling relatively small numbers to turn the control of the air over Germany to the US".

When you say "small numbers" you should of course be referring to the long range escorts...that their numbers were low enough to find themselves outnumbered.

This is not the first time i come across this notion; that the P-51´s over Germany were significantly outnumbered, yet managed to defeat whatever enemy fighter stream they confronted in the air...

If so, such high losses of German fighters inflicted by a relatively small number of P-51 pilots should reflect on the lists of top scorers of the 8th USAAF to say the least...i mean, i am doing this by memory but if i recall correctly the list has Gabby as the top scorer with some 28 kills (but Gabby flew the venerable Jug as i also seem to recall); following behind should come the Noble Robert Johnson -which also flew a Jug and not a Mustang)...so apart from these 2 gentlemen, i think there are only 5 or 6 more USAAF aces with more than 20 kills -and i ought to check this for they are not all P-51 pilots as well-, most of them from the 56, 352 and 359 FGs.

And i am aware of the combat program for fighter pilots in the USAAF...fly during a specific time, if you survive then clear your stuff and go back home.

So -overclaiming acknowledged- less than 30 kills as the standard (only 6 or 7 pilots with 20-28 kills), and also not too many Mustang pilots with 10-19 kills, seems quite low if i position myself under the assertion a relatively small number of pilots which were most frequently -or always?- outnumbered by enemy fighters are responsible for turning the control of air space over Germany to the U.S., something the implies the defeat of the enemy tagjagdwaffe.

This is only one approach to counter this theory.

About the G-6/R6´s, well there i too agree with you; there is no way we can know an accurate number of the 109s which were fitted to operate with the extra-cannon equipment under the wings...someone i met in Europe told me it was his estimate at least 50% of 109s used during late 1943-mid 1944 were fitted with the underwing gondlas, but it was just that, an estimate. 

What we do however know is the fact that particular version saw widespread use in combat in several units, like JG 1 and JG 11 since late 1943, when they were covering Holland and northern Germany -i know late 1943 does not have Mustangs in the long range mode-, but also through most of 1944 in those 2 units and many others as well that were committed to Reichsverteidigung. Also my Luftwaffe videos and films show an important number of these bomber-destroyer configuration of the 109 in Luftwaffe airfields.

So you are suggesting that those G-6/R6´s who managed to return to their base -which were the significant majority of them- after being engaged by the escorts could only attain it for the main reason there were not enough P-51´s to go after them?

No credit to the capabilities of the 109 although somewhat disrupted by such fitting of equipment? No credit to 109 G-6/R6 pilots who proved capable to evade any pursuing P-51s?

If so many G-6/R6´s managed to return to base after engaging Jugs and Mustangs, what could one think of a Bf 109 bearing only its classical weapons? Surely more capable.

Houston, we have a problem...and the problem i see is the allies have managed to depict the Germans finished the war almost if not identical to the Japanese style...more hogwash to remove from my list. You know virtually "all German fighter missions wiped out to the very last...with only a fistful of wounded pilots returning to base on foot because they too were shot down".

Crap. As i said, i have a close idea of the magnitude of German losses during summer 1944 until the end in 1945. High. Simple. But not like the allies have said, not with regard to German losses, not with regard to the losses of their own.

The only equal thing was total and unconditional surrender; the rest deserves very special analysis.



Now the guncamera thing...i agree with you -and was also aware of it- that in so many times it was either a German guy or USA guy who got outflown and paid accordingly...i possibly used the wrong words, not that you can learn "tech specifications" of craft from watching guncamera footage, right...but my point is that you do not get to see that much footage shown P-51´s blowing in huge fire balls.

Speaking for myself is that i tell you that before acquiring my collection i had seen possibly ONE -repeat, one- film of a P-51 getting hit and it was not even conclusive for the film shot ended before showing if the pounding continued finishing with a possible kill.

What the videos did show me is that many many times P-51 pilots attempted evading procedures to no avail: the narrowest turning possible with the camera of the 109 or 190 remaining inside scoring hits, dives, climbing...huge fire balls from silly pilots with the drop tanks still under the wings...if a well trained pilot from the USAAF could not escape from the pursuing German then it also tells me the German was a very competitive pilot and that his plane allows for displaying the necessary skills to destroy your enemy.

I have ~85 shots of sauteed P-51s, plus dozens more showing similar fates of Jugs, Spitfires, Typhoons/Tempests and even some P-38s. What of the many other USAAF fighters that got shot down by the Luftwaffe? Were all those the cause of badly trained pilots manning inadequate planes??

Who is Ken Miller? Is his work published?


SoDStitch:

I simply like the truth. Books such as the one i did describe focused on Bodenplatte used to pissed me off big time a very few of years ago, when i was still a teenager. Now i find them amusing.

The allies have lied big time about so many issues of the war; every aspect of the war has been targeted in a lesser or higher degree with their lies: weapons, battlefield records, politics.

In fact, i take most of what comes from the allied side with a grain of salt.

Perhaps you have seen Erich around here; well he himself shared his experiences with some historians or researchers from some USAAF bomber group when he was denied access to information or files. Why would that be? Because they want to hide the successes of such group?  

Well...so you live in Tucson? I have not been at Sullivan´s for breakfast. Only for dinner, but hey, dinner is something like more special don´t you think? I rarely go out for breakfast wherever is it that i might be living in.

Dinner is really something; the day is over, and you want to forget about the things of the day whatever they are: bad day at work, your wife or girlfriends conspiracies, the IRS...

If you have not yet had dinner there you are missing something. I am of the opinion that the sophisticated ambience of a place gets enhanced during the night. Something that works marvelously in that restaurant. Also the bar has something special; i barely drink, but being at Sullivan´s bar before entering the dining room makes me want to have a cold beer or some good scotch...and the waitresses, yeah!

The last time i went there, i stayed there for about a week and a half; i stayed with a friend who lives in La Paloma. During such time we went there 4 times for dinner -two of those were in a row-; i have fun when i remember the face of the manager upon seeing me entering his dining room.  

There was this appetizer which is unforgettable: Seared Ahi Tuna...small cuts of Albacore, seared in the outside, and that real creamy buttery flavor in the inside...you should really try it. The oysters...well, the USA has really got one of the greatest logistic systems on earth...a city in the middle of the Sonora Desert, not far from the border with Mexico and you can have some of the freshest and best oysters you can think of...as if you were in some fishermen village by the sea side...on a different setting -and surrounded by fine women in black-.

I loved the black outfit all the waitresses; whenever is it that i come back, i might give you a call.8)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> Doctor Gon Dog (it´s easier to spell in this form):
> 
> *Udet - lol - good to chat. I got that obscure nickname from my Cadre Instructor at Benning more than 40 years ago.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Erich (Aug 23, 2007)

I will concur with Bill about the 355th fg, he has it all wrapped up........... certainly there are gaps in any history LW or Allied, and if anything interviewing pilots from both sides concerning a dogfight many would tell you if given the chance again they would do things differently if they could.

here is another kicker : comparing the overall strengths in 1944 summer onward of the LW day fighter Geschwader to a typical 8th AF day fighter group. Even with the included extra staffel in a 3 gruppen Geschwader the LW was still under the gun...........

as it turns out this is more of a Udet to drgondog discussion so i will leave it be........


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry but there you are wrong. The Luftwaffe was actually very large. Production of aircraft actually increased throughout the years and even at the end of the war.
> 
> Germany was producing massive amounts of aircraft the the Luftwaffe never had a lack of aircraft and equipment. It lacked in fuel...



The Luftwaffe wasn't very large. It only grew by around 15% in the entire war from beginning to end. They did produce large quantaties of aircraft and this was a significant achievement but to all intents and purposes, they only replaced the planes destroyed.
As a comparison the RAF grew from 136(ish) squadrons in 1939 to 405 squadrons on Jan 1945.



> Germany had plenty of aircraft. Hell just look at the Bf 109 which was the most produced aircraft in history if I recall.


See above comment



> Bv 138: 4,023km (2,500 miles) 276 built none after 1942
> Ha 139: 3,075 miles (4948km) None during the war (could be wrong on this)
> Bv 222: 6100km (3,790 mph) 4 built
> Bv 238: 3,790 miles (6100km) 1 built
> ...



The problem was the number built. For practical purposes the Germans didn't have more than a minimal and patchy maritime recce ability


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

Udet - back to Mustang aces vs Jug aces.

Complex discussion - simple answer - many more 51 aces than 38 or 47 aces. Simple reason - the bulk of the German Fighters shot down by USAAF fighters were by Mustangs. 

Independent of overclaiming by both sides, the AWARDS by USAF were approximately 4,950 a/c in the air (4131 ground) - most by far German- in 213,873 sorties, and lost 2,520 total - all causes. 

With 423,435 sorties the P-47 shot down 3,082 in the air (3,202 ground)- mostly German and lost 3,077.

With 129,849 sorties, the P-38 shot down 1,771 in the air (749 ground) - Most Japanese and lost 1,771.

Just looking at January - May 1944 a breakdown on air scores for the 47 and 51 and 38 groups in the 8th AF. The 9th AF 354FG scored large

P-51 Groups - 51 air to air only (USAF 85)
4th FG Mar-May 273
352 FG Apr-May 134
354 FG Jan-May 255
355 FG Mar-May 126
357 FG Feb-May 223
339 FG May1 41
359 FG May12 40 
-------------------- 
total LReich ~ 1,092

Keeping this in perspective

P-38 Groups
20 FG Jan-May 50
55 FG Jan-May 25
364 FG Mar-May 30
----------------------
Total LReich ~ 105

P-47 Groups --------> mostly LufFlotte 3

4 FG Jan-Feb 58
78 FG Jan-May 88
352FG Jan-Apr9 44
353FG Jan-May 67
355FG Jan-Mar 8 22
356FG Jan-May 80
359FG Jan-May12 40
361FG Jan-May15 21
--------------------
Total Luft3 ~ 420

Draw your own conclusions regarding the combat effectiveness of the Mustang flying far few sorties than the P-47s in the 8th AF (~16 Group 'months' versus 33 for rough count). Simply stated 1/2 the activity and 2.5 more destruction (air alone) plus enormous damage strafing airfields.

While not all of the GAF downed by Mustangs were LuftReich - most were. Conversely the P-47s dueled JG11 and JG1 often but most were JG26 and JG2 in LufFlotte 3 region because of range restrictions.

Another reason for the higher scorers is reasonably simple - the key high scorers in P-47s started nearly a year before the Mustang aces (Gabreski, Johnson, Schilling, Zemke, Duncan, Mahurin, Christenson, Beckham to name most with scores above 18 were P-47 aces) and of course many have scores in both. For the 355th, they performed indifferently with P-47s and had only one ace that scored more than 3 in P-47s (Norm Olson with six air). Twenty scored from 5.0 to 14.2 - all Mustang aces starting their scoring after mid March 1944

As to low scoring relative to Luftwaffe you may imagine daylight operations against the USAAF offered a target rich environment for the LW while the reverse was quite true for US. My father was able to engage and shoot only five times to get 6 Me 109s and a Stuka from D-Day to September 11. In the latter part of his first tour and all of his second he was depty CO of the 355th and never able to find the LW in the area when he was leading.

Many Mustang aces had the same experience/

Regards,

Bill


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> SoDStitch:
> 
> I simply like the truth. Books such as the one i did describe focused on Bodenplatte used to pissed me off big time a very few of years ago, when i was still a teenager. Now i find them amusing.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately (or fortunately), I do not live in Tuscon, my brother did; we were visiting him and had a chance to have breakfast there (nice restaurant!). Also spent some time in Flagstaff (beautiful town!). 

And, yes, I do remember the waitresses; in fact, I vaguely remember trying to hit on one. Unfortunately, 9:00 AM in the morning is not the best time to try pick up women, even if you do look like Don Johnson . . .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> The Luftwaffe wasn't very large. It only grew by around 15% in the entire war from beginning to end. They did produce large quantaties of aircraft and this was a significant achievement but to all intents and purposes, they only replaced the planes destroyed.
> As a comparison the RAF grew from 136(ish) squadrons in 1939 to 405 squadrons on Jan 1945.



In that case yes you are correct. I will agree....




Glider said:


> See above comment
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was the number built. For practical purposes the Germans didn't have more than a minimal and patchy maritime recce ability




For the most part overall numbers built was not bad. There were more than eneogh aircraft to do the mission, especially when you include the 500+ built Ar 196 and 130+ He 115 for closer range and coastal recce.

I will agree however that the maritime ability was dodgy but not based off of numbers of aircraft.

Your numbers for the Do 24 are incorrect however but that is also irrelevent.

Do 24: 279 were built right up until 1945.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 23, 2007)

I have to congratulate the participants in the Best WW2 Air Force discussion.
Great job guys. Very informative and well thought out. 

Thank you!


I wish Soren would come back!

...


I still think the Luftwaffe is the best in WW2 but it is probably a product of semantics. 

Define Best? Define WW2 (1939 or American entry and learning curve).

... Certainly the US was the best from mid 43 - 45 and has not relinquished the top position for a moment since. 

From 1939 - Early 1943 the Luftwaffe kicked ass (BoB will be addressed.. calm down)

From 1943-45, the Luftwaffe was slowly beaten into submission but they get huge points for innovation and mechanical expertise.
If you take away points for the lack of strategic bombing and screwy leadership then it's pretty damn close to a tie with the US Army Air Corps.

The UK was freaking awesome in terms of design, strategy and tenacity. I hate to say it but I've read more instances of Germans recounting their feared opponents and the Brits seem to be more often mentioned then the Yanks. Big applause for the UK but they just didn't have the resources.
The BoB was a tremendous feat but the limitations of the Luftwaffe in Time over Target are a huge factor.
_*
Now if the question was which is the "Best Air Power of WW2" my answer is the US. HANDS DOWN. If you throw in Naval and Marine aviation, it’s not even close.*_


.

.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 24, 2007)

You're forgetting about the AAF having 4 types of heavy bombers, 3 types of long range fighters, a sophisticated air transport system and an immense industrial base in which to arm and rearm.

There can be no other conclusion.... after Jan 1 1944, the AAF was the best in the world.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

Glider said:


> The Luftwaffe wasn't very large. It only grew by around 15% in the entire war from beginning to end. They did produce large quantaties of aircraft and this was a significant achievement but to all intents and purposes, they only replaced the planes destroyed.
> As a comparison the RAF grew from 136(ish) squadrons in 1939 to 405 squadrons on Jan 1945.



I am afraid you are quite wrong in this, and I am curious on what you base your fscts on. The 12 Sept 1939 strenght of the LW was 4093 aircraft, and it continued to increase steadilz.

The daz before Barbarossa it rose to 5245 (so much about claims made on the devastating effects of the BoB, in fact it was not any more bloody than the much shorter French campaign).

A week before Kursk, 30 June 1943, it's numbers increased to 7089 aircraft, and ironically it was on peak strenght at around Bodenplatte - on the 1 Jan 1945 it possessed 8764 airraft. (see Groehler)

In short, during the war, the LW's frontline strenght more than doubled. The problem for them was that they were spread thin from mid-war onwards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2007)

Im trying to see if I can find the figures in my copies of the Kriegstagebuch of the Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (War Diaries of the High Command of the Wehrmacht) because that is also what I allways thought as well.


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Your numbers for the Do 24 are incorrect however but that is also irrelevent.
> 
> Do 24: 279 were built right up until 1945.



Thanks for that, I will update my records.


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I am afraid you are quite wrong in this, and I am curious on what you base your fscts on. The 12 Sept 1939 strenght of the LW was 4093 aircraft, and it continued to increase steadilz.
> 
> The daz before Barbarossa it rose to 5245 (so much about claims made on the devastating effects of the BoB, in fact it was not any more bloody than the much shorter French campaign).
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. Obviously my info is different so can I ask for the ISBN no of the book your quoting from, as it seems worth getting.

I have a total strength (all types) of 
May 11 1940, 4,782
June 21 1941 4,882

So the losses incurred in the BOB swallowed up all the German production for the next 12 months before the attack on Russia. So yes, I would say that the LW suferred very heavy losses in the battle.


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2007)

> I am afraid you are quite wrong in this, and I am curious on what you base your fscts on. The 12 Sept 1939 strenght of the LW was 4093 aircraft, and it continued to increase steadilz.
> 
> The daz before Barbarossa it rose to 5245 (so much about claims made on the devastating effects of the BoB, in fact it was not any more bloody than the much shorter French campaign).
> 
> ...



The number of aircraft in the Luftwaffe certainly grew, but it's important to look at the types. Growth occured mainly in the non combat types like trainers and coastal, the front line fighters and bombers hardly increased at all.

Figure from Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:

Mon Year Fight Bomb Total aircraft
Jan 1940 1016 1381 4258
May 1940 1369 1758 5398
Jan 1941 817 1339 4347 
May 1941 1277 1481 5524
Jan 1942 1324 1351 5133
Jul 1942 1353 1534 5967
Jan 1943 1380 1193 5374
Jul 1943 1849 1663 7203
Jan 1944 1561 1604 6741
Mar 1944 1747 1441 7023



> The daz before Barbarossa it rose to 5245 (so much about claims made on the devastating effects of the BoB, in fact it was not any more bloody than the much shorter French campaign



Well, again it's according to type. 

The Germans lost 1345 aircraft on operations during the Battle of France. However, they only lost 341 fighters, 604 bombers.

In the BoB they lost 835 fighters and 833 bombers on operations during the BoB. More importantly, they lost large numbers of pilots during the BoB, whereas they lost far less during the BoF, and regained the pilots who had been captured.

Now look at the figures for May 1941. Overall they had more aircraft than May 1940, but they had less fighters and less bombers than they'd had a year earlier.



> A week before Kursk, 30 June 1943, it's numbers increased to 7089 aircraft



Look at the figures for July 1943 (which seems to be the beginning of the month, before Kursk). Total aircraft has gone up greatly over May 1940, but fighters are only up by 480, bombers down by 95.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2007)

Udet - back to Mustang aces vs Jug aces.

Complex discussion - simple answer - many more 51 aces than 38 or 47 aces. Simple reason - the bulk of the German Fighters shot down by USAAF fighters were by Mustangs. 

Independent of overclaiming by both sides, the AWARDS by USAF were approximately 4,950 a/c in the air (4131 ground) - most by far German- in 213,873 sorties, and lost 2,520 total - all causes. Air to air losses were roughly 25% of the total, flak the highest and mechanical/coolant about the same as air losses, weather and accidents the rest

With 423,435 sorties the P-47 shot down 3,082 in the air (3,202 ground)- mostly German and lost 3,077.

With 129,849 sorties, the P-38 shot down 1,771 in the air (749 ground) - Most Japanese and lost 1,758.

Just looking at January - May 1944 a breakdown on air scores for the 47 and 51 and 38 groups in the 8th AF. The 9th AF 354FG scored large while on loan to 8th AF

P-51 Groups - 51 air to air only (USAF 85)
4th FG Mar-May 273
352 FG Apr-May 134
354 FG Jan-May 255
355 FG Mar-May 126
357 FG Feb-May 223
339 FG May1 41
359 FG May12 40 
-------------------- 
total LReich ~ 1,092

Keeping this in perspective

P-38 Groups
20 FG Jan-May 50
55 FG Jan-May 25
364 FG Mar-May 30
----------------------
Total LReich ~ 105

P-47 Groups --------> mostly LufFlotte 3

4 FG Jan-Feb 58
78 FG Jan-May 88
352FG Jan-Apr9 44
353FG Jan-May 67
355FG Jan-Mar 8 22
356FG Jan-May 80
359FG Jan-May12 40
361FG Jan-May15 21
--------------------
Total Luft3 ~ 420

Draw your own conclusions regarding the combat effectiveness of the Mustang flying far few sorties than the P-47s in the 8th AF (~16 Group 'months' versus 33 for rough count). Simply stated 1/2 the activity and 2.5 more destruction (air alone) plus enormous damage strafing airfields.

While not all of the GAF downed by Mustangs were LuftReich - most were. Conversely the P-47s dueled JG11 and JG1 often but most were JG26 and JG2 in LufFlotte 3 region because of range restrictions.

Another reason for the higher scorers is reasonably simple - the key high scorers in P-47s started nearly a year before the Mustang aces (Gabreski, Johnson, Schilling, Zemke, Duncan, Mahurin, Christenson, Beckham to name most with scores above 18 were P-47 aces) and of course many have scores in both. For the 355th, they performed indifferently with P-47s and had only one ace that scored more than 3 in P-47s (Norm Olson with six air). Twenty scored from 5.0 to 14.2 - all Mustang aces starting their scoring after mid March 1944

As to low scoring relative to Luftwaffe you may imagine daylight operations against the USAAF offered a target rich environment for the LW while the reverse was quite true for US. My father was able to engage and shoot only five times to get 6 Me 109s and a Stuka from D-Day to September 11. In the latter part of his first tour and all of his second he was depty CO of the 355th and never able to find the LW in the area when he was leading.

Many Mustang aces had the same experience/

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2007)

Erich said:


> I will concur with Bill about the 355th fg, he has it all wrapped up........... certainly there are gaps in any history LW or Allied, and if anything interviewing pilots from both sides concerning a dogfight many would tell you if given the chance again they would do things differently if they could.
> 
> here is another kicker : comparing the overall strengths in 1944 summer onward of the LW day fighter Geschwader to a typical 8th AF day fighter group. Even with the included extra staffel in a 3 gruppen Geschwader the LW was still under the gun...........
> 
> as it turns out this is more of a Udet to drgondog discussion so i will leave it be........



Jump in Erich - 

It's absolutely clear that the Geschwaders were operating at approximately half strength - at least from spring 1945 onward based on Walter Grabmann's research. The primary reason is probably a combination of two things - one, a decreasing availability of skilled replacement pilots rendering fewer pilots than available fighters and second, perhaps reflecting damaged a/c under repair due to strafing/bombing attacks.

The German production figures, according to published German records increased steadily despite USAAF attacks because more priority was allocated to production of fighters.

What I haven't figured out is 'where did they go'? 

If you look at the LW "balance sheets' of fighters on a month to month basis, look at the losses they recorded (including write offs) there seems to be a significant gap in 'deliveries minus losses'. 

The Strategic Bombing Survey points out the question and to my knowledge it hasn't been answered.

Independent of those questions it is clear from Grabmann's work that LuftReich was operating in the 50% range between 'authorized' and 'actual' after May.

Hey Erich - I just got an email from a friend of Dad - Warren Peglar an RCAF pilot that was transferred from a RAF Spit IXunit to 355th to fly Mustangs for two months. He returned to RAF and flew Tempest V's for rest of war -Interesting comments not only about Spits and Mustangs but also Mustangs and Gustavs and Antons.. I'll send it to you.

He flew both 51Bs and 51Ds and shot down 190s and 109s with both. He flew just two months with 355th. In three years in Spit V, IX, Tempest V he encountered one enemy a/c - a 262 - for a draw.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2007)

Glider said:


> Thanks for the info. Obviously my info is different so can I ask for the ISBN no of the book your quoting from, as it seems worth getting.
> 
> I have a total strength (all types) of
> May 11 1940, 4,782
> ...



I have a good series of books called the Diaries of the OKW each about a 1000 pages long from each year of the war. They list materials and equipment in each front and so forth and it pretty much goes day by day as well as telling what was happening during those time periods.

The Book is in German but there might be an english version of it out there as well if you wish to have the ISBN or info on the books.

There are no pictures or anything it is just documents and so forth.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

Hop said:


> The number of aircraft in the Luftwaffe certainly grew, but it's important to look at the types. Growth occured mainly in the non combat types like trainers and coastal, the front line fighters and bombers hardly increased at all.
> 
> Figure from Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:
> 
> ...



Balloney.

Indeed it's important to look at the types. 

Your list _only shows single engined fighters, and tradiational level bombers _ while basically it ommits a large amount of combat types - Stukas, Ground attacks aircraft, nightfighters, night attack aircraft etc - and you baselessly assume all these latter are liason planes and the kind.

Let's take January 1944 on your as an example. It says :

Jan 1944 
1561 'fighters'
1604 'bombers'
6741 in total

I have figures for 31 December 1943, so it should be close enough. It goes as:

1561 SE fighters
1604 bombers
6584 in total*

Similiar isn't it? Well, half the story only. Groehler also gives some other type breakdowns for the date as :

611 night fighters
601 dive bombers and attack/CAS (Schlact) aircraft.

In short _there are about 1200 combat types not accounted by Murray and you._ And it would be rather odd not considering NF Bf 110s, Ju 88s, which quite often operated in the daylight as well. It woud be also odd not to consider the by then rather numerous FW 190 ground attack units as combat types either... Yet he list still not details Zestorer units. And so on.

Furthermore, Groehler notes that the _6584 in total*_ _Iststärke_ (oh no, sein und sollen rose it's ugly head again!  ) does not include non-combat units : OTU-equivalents, liason, night harrasment/attack units, transport, glider and maritime aux. units.

I must note that it's an interesting custom that you always include Zestörer units whenever you're trying to sell balloney claims about the RAF fighters units being badly outnumbered, you always include Zestörer unit losses whenever you're counting Luftwaffe losses, _yet somehow those same Zestörer units suddenly disappear from your totals when it comes to the Luftwaffe's frontline strenght, which you attempt to prove to have not increased at all during the war..._

It's similiarly baseless as your claims that the RAF fighters were outnumbered in BoB, and that Luftwaffe was sustaining twice the loss as the RAF.

Take note I am not arguing here this or that airforce was 'better'. IMHO it's a silly attempt to rank them, considering how different their challenges and task were during the war...! However I do feel the need to correct when I see the wrong, especially when it comes from some not-so-naive people who know better... 

It's just the same kind of manipulated BS, if you don't mind me calling it what it is.



> Well, again it's according to type.
> 
> The Germans lost 1345 aircraft on operations during the Battle of France. However, they only lost 341 fighters, 604 bombers.


In the BoB they lost 835 fighters and 833 bombers on operations during the BoB. [/QUOTE]

I wonder how this adds up. Ie. actual German losses in BoB (July-October), from the LW Quartermaster's returns. 
On operations. 
This includes both shot down (100%) and write-offs (60-99%).

Type / Destroyed by 

SE fighters : 502 / 98 = 600 (+63 not on operations)
Zestörer : 224 / 11 = 235 (+17)

A-ha. So 'fighters' means both SE and TE unit when Hop counts losses. 
'Fighters' however do not include TE units when Hop counts frontline strenght (when he seeks to prove the LW frontline strenght did not increase through the war. When he wants to prove the RAF was badly outnumbered, TE units are counted again).

In comparison, during the (almost) two month period of the BoF, the LW lost as total loss : 

250 SE fighters
124 TE fighters

But again, that's during the two months of the BoF, compared against the four months of BoB. It's quite clear the BoF was not any less costly per month ,yet from what the British had to endure a few months later, it's hard to see they were in any way paralyzing..

Bombers cause more of a headache, losses during BoB, as above :

Kampfgeschwadern : 488 / 205 = 693 (+99)
Stuka : 59 / 10 = 69 (+25)

In comparison, during two months of the BoF : 

Kampfgeschwadern : 477 
Stuka : 123

It's actually shows the bomber losses were far worse during BoF than during the BoB. For example, the worst month for German bombers over Britain was August 1940, when they lost 259 of their bombers (Kampf, no Stukas, see later). Only 183 of that, however, was attributed to the RAF and British AAA.

In comparison, between 10 and 31 May, in a short 20 day period, the _German bomber total losses amounted no less than 350_, far worse than the RAF in BoB ever managed in any month during BoB.

Stukas lost 75 aircraft in the same 20 day period, and 123 Ju 87 during the whole French campaign (May-june). 

In comparison, their total losses on operation amounted only 69 in the entire four months of the BoB, 94 if you add losses occuring outside operations. 59 of that, however, was attributed to the RAF and AAA.



> More importantly, they lost large numbers of pilots during the BoB, whereas they lost far less during the BoF, and regained the pilots who had been captured.



It's a blanket statement. The Luftwaffe lost 1272 dead, 1156 WIA, and 580 MIA during the French campaign with frontline units in just 50 days - that's not including the ones lost with the Flak, in Germany, in schools etc.

The difference is, of course the timeframe.

The German losses in the 'Battle of France' refer to a mere *two months period*, between May 10 and 30 June.

The German losses in the 'Battle of Britain' refer to twice the time period, ie. *four months*, between July 1 and 31 October.

During this time, the Germans lost a total of 2073 aircraft, of which 1401 aircraft was a total loss. That's *in a bit less than 2 months*.

In comparison, during _*the four months of BoB*_, they lost 3022 aircraft, of that, 2009 was a total loss. Of the 2009 total loss, 1789 was occured on operations, and of that 1789, 1385 was knocked down by the Britsh Air Force or AAA.

During the same four months, the British ost 307 bombers, and 1140 Fighters as Category C. That of course just Bomber Command and Fighter Command, but figures are not available for Coastal Command, FAA etc., whereas the German figures include a considerable number of Transport,Coastal, misc. aircraft.

The math is simple to do.



> Now look at the figures for May 1941. Overall they had more aircraft than May 1940, but they had less fighters and less bombers than they'd had a year earlier.



I look at them but I can't see anything like that. 

I.e. German single engined fighter strenghts (not including Zestorer units) :
On-hand strenght, meaning not all being servicable/ready for duty.

29 June 1940
1107 fighters, 1126 pilots.

28 September 1940
920 fighters, 917 pilots.

28 December 1940
829 fighters, 915 pilots

29 March 1941
1104 fighters, 1204 pilots

28 June 1941 (take note that Unternehmen Barbarossa is raging for almost a week by now)
1213 fighters, 1309 pilots

27 September 1941
1137 fighters, 1452 pilots

27 December 1941
1233 fighters, 1381 pilots

In fact just by looking at it, they had just the same number of SE fighters and SE fighter pilots on 29 March 1941 then on 29 June 1940, just before the Battle of Britain. And, naturally your double standards are showing off again, you count Zestörers and fighters sometimes, then not, and forgetting of other fighters - by mid-1941, there were about 250 nightfighters around, for example.

It doesn't seem to hold any water that they had any trouble replacing the planes and pilots in short notice after BoB.

Here it should be mentioned that fighter production suffered during the period since Messerschmitt factories and it's sub-contractors had to re-set the production lines as the 109F entered into production and service during the fall of 1940, and lots of 109Es were simply withdrawn from the frontline units and were replaced by 109Fs, instead of just adding them to strenght.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

> Look at the figures for July 1943 (which seems to be the beginning of the month, before Kursk). Total aircraft has gone up greatly over May 1940, but fighters are only up by 480, bombers down by 95.



Well the figures you posted say 
Jul 1943 
1849 (SE) fighters 
1663 bombers
7203 in total

Groehler has the exact same numbers for bombers and fighters, though 7089 on total for 30 June 1943. However he also notes this Iststärke of 7000+ does not include non-combat units : OTU-equivalents, liason, night harrasment/attack units, transport, glider and maritime aux. units.

He also notes the presence of 554 night fighters.

As a final touch, let's take a detailed look at the details of the Luftwaffe's strenght on 31 January 1945.

On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in types. 

These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units (the latter, shown in the second number, being an equivalent of OTUs, non-combat operational training units. 
Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time. Combat types in bold.

*Bf 109 SE fighters (1435/527)
Other Jagd types totaled (1058/359)
Schlacht types totaled (680/375)
Nachtschlacht types totaled (422/95)
Zerstorer types totaled (42/0)
Nachtjagd types totaled (1241, no breakdown between the two)
Kampf types totaled (543/158)*

Nahaufklarer totaled (407/27)
Fernaufklarer totaled (195/81)
See types totaled (78/17)
Transport types totaled (496/9)

Grand total (6597/1631)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of that, 1176/134 are non combat types : short/long range recces, coastal/maritime aircraft, transport aircraft. 

Of course, recce aircraft were either armed fighter-recons, or bomber types of the standard fighters and bombers : Bf 109s and Ju 88s usually. 
Unlike the Allies, the Germans did not employ unarmed recces (with some exceptions, like the Ar 234), each of them was capable to (and often did) carry armament and/or bombs.

There are 5421 combat aircraft with first line units, 1497 combat aircraft with second line units. These break down into :

4662 fighters (SE, TE, NF)
2273 bomber and attack airract, both first and second line.

6935 combat aircraft in total.

Any possible substraction etc. erros after the ----- line are mine.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

Glider said:


> Thanks for the info. Obviously my info is different so can I ask for the ISBN no of the book your quoting from, as it seems worth getting.



ISBN 963 326 271 2



> So the losses incurred in the BOB swallowed up all the German production for the next 12 months before the attack on Russia. So yes, I would say that the LW suferred very heavy losses in the battle.



I doubt the 'swallow up part' would be true. I base that on the info I have of Bf 109 (which of course, is my main interest) losses and production during the BoB period.

I.e. the Bf 109 losses were between July - August (via Hooton, who quotes the LW Quartermeister).
*
Permanent (total, 60-99%, 100%) losses : 663*
502 to enemy action on operations
98 to non-enemy action on operations
63 not on operations

Damaged aircraft : 259
71 to enemy action on operations
111 to non-enemy action on operations
77 not on operations

*
During the same period, German factories delivered 643 Bf 109s* (incl. 9 Bf 109Fs) between 30.06.1940 and 31.10.1940. (this is newly produced aircraft, excluding the ones returning from repair centres).


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have a good series of books called the Diaries of the OKW each about a 1000 pages long from each year of the war. They list materials and equipment in each front and so forth and it pretty much goes day by day as well as telling what was happening during those time periods.
> 
> The Book is in German but there might be an english version of it out there as well if you wish to have the ISBN or info on the books.
> 
> There are no pictures or anything it is just documents and so forth.



Please, details, details! I hate pictures anyway.


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I doubt the 'swallow up part' would be true. I base that on the info I have of Bf 109 (which of course, is my main interest) losses and production during the BoB period.
> 
> I.e. the Bf 109 losses were between July - August (via Hooton, who quotes the LW Quartermeister).
> *
> ...




Something isn't right here. Your posting says that the German losses in July and August (2 months) were 663. It also says that the Germans built 643 109's in July to October (4 months). So roughly the Germans were losing aircraft at twice the rate they could be replaced. 
Presumably those coming back from repair wouldn't have been written off in the first place, so including those simply confuses the situation.

Also my comment was based on the figures I have for the start of the BOB and the start of the Invasion of Russia. They were almost the same if there incorrect please let me know
I should point out that your own posting seems to support this statement
_29 June 1940
1107 fighters, 1126 pilots.
29 March 1941
1104 fighters, 1204 pilots_

Also you seem to have a problem with the point that the RAF were outnumbered in the BOB. I have asked you what your figures are for operational fighters for Luft 2, 3, and 5 to ensure that we are comparing like for like. Can you supply this figure?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 24, 2007)

Glider said:


> Something isn't right here. Your posting says that the German losses in July and August (2 months) were 663. It also says that the Germans built 643 109's in July to October (4 months).



Yes you are right - both figures are fror July - October, 4 months. I just labelled them mistakenly. They are for the same period and are comparable, my mistake!

i think I have such a breakdown for the Luftflotten, earlz August IIRC, more on that later - but now, bedtime! 8)


----------



## Udet (Aug 24, 2007)

Doctor, hello...

Since i am travelling all i am carrying with me is a luggage set, 2 surfboards, iPod, laptop (borrowed) and 2 books (Xenophon´s Anabasis and Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations). Also there was a cellphone that my bosses give me, but that i do not know where i put it, possibly i flushed it down some toilet. Feel lighter without that damn gadget. 

This means my WW2 materials and stuff are elsewhere, so hopefully within a few weeks -or months- i will be able to come back with the numbers ("my" numbers)  

Also i have to say i am to a great extent familiar with the information you are sharing with regard to P-51 fighter groups available to escort the bombers in the ETO/MTO.

I digress, the notion P-51 pilots found themselves outnumbered during the escort runs and still managed to defeat the attacking 109s and 190s troubles me. As i said, this isn´t the first time i come across the notion.

100% agree with you when you say there were many times Luftwaffe air traffic controllers proved their skill vectoring the 109s and 190s to attain local superiority several times, with the German interceptors inflicting high losses to enemy formations.

Where i can not agree, based upon the data i have reviewed, is that numerical inferiority for the escorts was the rule and not the exepction.

The information you posted indicating fighter groups and victories does not seem to support the case: if such high losses of German fighters were the deed of a small number of pilots for a given period of time, then i am forcefully inclined to believe the number of personal air-to-air victories of P-51 aces should be higher.

I now paste the data you cited -since i am away from my papers, i have to rely on something to keep on discussing right?-:

P-51 Groups - 51 air to air only (USAF 85)
4th FG Mar-May 273
352 FG Apr-May 134
354 FG Jan-May 255
355 FG Mar-May 126
357 FG Feb-May 223
339 FG May1 41
359 FG May12 40
--------------------
total LReich ~ 1,092

1,092 German planes claimed for all P-51 units only between January and May 1944.

Ok, let´s see what we can see...yes, let´s take the numbers of the 4th and 355th FG´s, whose periods of activity on that table seem almost indentical, that is March-May 1944.

So these two units claimed a total (air-to-air) of 399 enemy planes between March and May 1944. Assuming these 2 units were outnumbered when in combat with German fighters, it would be interesting to have a possible break down of victories showing the names of all pilots who flew for both groups during such months indicating the number of victories awarded to each one of them. 

So if as a rule, all this groups entered combat outnumbered, then how many German fighters were they facing? 1,092 victories in the first 5 months of 1944 for Lucifer´s sake...

The less people we have at the party to cut the cake, the bigger the slice of cake each guest will have when platting (hmmm...well a party at your place with only a few people coming over could mean you do not have too many friends?)

Ok so how do we proceed with allotment of air-to-air kills to P-51 pilots of the groups involved?

So in your view to what extent the alleged numerical superiority attained by the fighters of some Geschwader from Luftflotte Reich when engaging an escort flight from the 357 FG throughout April of 1944 could have been? 2:1? 3:1? Or perhaps higher?

I will not use the words of Luftwaffe veterans i have met in the past to strengthen my case, which flew during the final 6 or 7 months of the war, which told me of the nightmare they went through when having to manouver as wild as possible to escape from just too many P-51s which would seem to fight between themselves to score the kill, returning to the base completely soaked in their own sweating. One mentioned the fact their arms were hard as steel due to the brutal effort they put when trying to evade the enemy.

Good you mentioned those Bf 110s and Me 410s operating under Reichsverteidigung...what an unwise administration of material and human resources; as i have sustained in the past, had the Germans disbanded all the day-light Zerstörergeschwadern by the closing days of 1943, to use all Bf 110 and Me 410 pilots as single engined fighters, and to convert at least part or majority of those rear-gunners/radio operators for single-engined pilots, the story could have been different. One once told me this is wrong...that training rear-gunners/radio operators and/or convert bomber pilots to single-engined fighter pilots will not yield good results...really? how come? So does that mean that to apply to become a fighter pilot a mandatory requirement states you should have previous fighter pilot experience? 

Finally Doctor, this is an interesting debate. From your word i acknowledge the fact you´ve been around in business for far longer than i have...i did not commence the "serious" reading of this stuff until 6 or 7 years ago, when in my mid-teens.


i am surprised that the Chairman of the Board of AIF (Allied Integrist Front), Syscom3 has not yet jumped in to this specific branch of the discussion.

SoDstitch...ok, got it. Tucson is a great city in my view. Of course breakfast is not the time to think about linking up with girls..hehehe...that is why i say the dinner time is better. Also, not that when i went to the restaurant i was trying to hook up with the waitresses, that´d be such a rude unmannered method in such a sophisticated place eh? Sullivan´s is not like a bikers pub -hahaha-. Usually, it is the girls that do all the manouvering. 8)


----------



## Erich (Aug 24, 2007)

side notation to your posting Udet. twin engine destroyers were used into spring of 44 in different arms combos along with 1 -2 Br 21cm rocket launchers under the wings. II./ZG 1 was side by side with II./JG 27 flying their Bf 110G-2's out of Austria taking on the US 15th AF in the summer of 44. they took a toll of B-17/B-24's but also took it right back in the shorts heavily. Just to add it was not over in late 43 only just starting


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2007)

> In short there are about 1200 combat types not accounted by Murray and you. And it would be rather odd not considering NF Bf 110s, Ju 88s, which quite often operated in the daylight as well. It woud be also odd not to consider the by then rather numerous FW 190 ground attack units as combat types either... Yet he list still not details Zestorer units. And so on.



Fair enough. I used the figures from Murray. Of course, if you include dive bombers and ground attack aircraft in the later figures, you have to include them in the earlier ones too.



> Let's take January 1944 on your as an example. It says :
> 
> Jan 1944
> 1561 'fighters'
> ...



Right. But as I said, if you add in those types for 1940 as well, you get the following figures:

May 1940:
1369 single engined fighters
367 twin engined fighters
1758 bombers
417 dive bombers
5398 total

Jan 1944:
1561 single engined fighters
611 night fighters
1604 bombers
601 dive bombers and close support
6584 in total

I still fail to see much expansion. In 1940 the figure for the 4 combat categories listed is 3,911. Nearly 4 years later, the for the same categories is 4,377, an increase of less than 12%.



> I must note that it's an interesting custom that you always include Zestörer units whenever you're trying to sell balloney claims about the RAF fighters units being badly outnumbered, you always include Zestörer unit losses whenever you're counting Luftwaffe losses, yet somehow those same Zestörer units suddenly disappear from your totals when it comes to the Luftwaffe's frontline strenght, which you attempt to prove to have not increased at all during the war...



No, if I was trying to be dishonest I'd have included the twin engined fighter figures for 1940, and not for later periods.

I don't have anything by Groehler, so of course I can't quote his more complete figures. Murray gives a graph towards the end of Strategy for Defeat showing fighters, bombers and total aircraft, which is what I took the figures from. As the same figures are used throughout, they are consistent and so give a fair reflection of the _change_ in Luftwaffe strength.



> I wonder how this adds up. Ie. actual German losses in BoB (July-October), from the LW Quartermaster's returns.
> On operations.
> This includes both shot down (100%) and write-offs (60-99%).
> 
> ...



Yes, because the figures come from Murray's details on the BoF and Wood and Dempster, which both give a detailed breakdown. The total strength figures come from Murray and do not give a breakdown, just a simple "fighters" and "bombers" figure, which I quoted.

Unlike some people, when I don't have further information I do not simply make up facts 



> In comparison, during the (almost) two month period of the BoF, the LW lost as total loss :
> 
> 250 SE fighters
> 124 TE fighters
> ...



Well, according to you the BoB didn't even start until mid August, so losses in July shouldn't be counted.

In reality, the fighting was concentrated in August, by late September the Luftwaffe was greatly scaling back their attacks.

Where are your loss figures for the BoF from? Murray lists 235 109s destroyed on operations, 22 not on operations, and 106 110s on operations, 4 not on operations.

If you compare that with August 1940, the Luftwaffe lost 211 109s on operations, 20 not on operations, and 120 110s on ops, 5 not on ops. The totals are very similar when you compare August 1940 to the entire BoF.

And of course the all important pilot losses were much greater in the BoB.



> It's a blanket statement. The Luftwaffe lost 1272 dead, 1156 WIA, and 580 MIA during the French campaign with frontline units in just 50 days - that's not including the ones lost with the Flak, in Germany, in schools etc.



Well, according to Christer Bergstrom, the Luftwaffe lost 83 109 pilots killed in the BoF. Compare that to the BoB, where they lost 443 killed or PoW.

The difference, apart from the much greater numbers of fighters lost, was that the fighting was usually over water or enemy territory, so a far higher proportion of pilots was lost. The pilot of a 109 hit over France had a good chance of bailing out safely, and even if he was captured he was released at the end of the fighting. A German pilot bailing out over the Channel had far lower chances of getting back to his unit, and one bailing out over Britain had almost no chance at all.

Incidentally, when you look at the fact the Luftwaffe had about 1,200 SE fighter pilots in May, lost 83 killed in the next two months, and then another 443 by the end of October, you can see the devastation in the German fighter force. If you allow a few pilots invalided out because of wounds sustained, then half the SE fighter pilots were lost in 6 months. According to Bungay, (iirc, I can't find the exact reference now) very few _new_ 109 pilots were captured over Britain, nearly all the PoWs had joined their squadrons before the BoF. No wonder Caldwell talks about the irreplaceable pilots lost.



> Now look at the figures for May 1941. Overall they had more aircraft than May 1940, but they had less fighters and less bombers than they'd had a year earlier.
> I look at them but I can't see anything like that.



Perhaps that's because you are looking at German figures from Junes, _after_ their losses in the BoF?



> I.e. German single engined fighter strenghts (not including Zestorer units) :
> On-hand strenght, meaning not all being servicable/ready for duty.
> 
> 29 June 1940
> 1107 fighters, 1126 pilots.



And in May, before they began the BoF?



> In fact just by looking at it, they had just the same number of SE fighters and SE fighter pilots on 29 March 1941 then on 29 June 1940, just before the Battle of Britain. And, naturally your double standards are showing off again, you count Zestörers and fighters sometimes, then not, and forgetting of other fighters - by mid-1941, there were about 250 nightfighters around, for example.
> 
> It doesn't seem to hold any water that they had any trouble replacing the planes and pilots in short notice after BoB.



Well, lets look shall we?



> 29 June 1940
> 1107 fighters, 1126 pilots.
> 
> 28 December 1940
> 829 fighters, 915 pilots



And let's compare that to Fighter Command:
29 June 1940: 814 aircraft available in squadrons (includes all types, not just SE fighters
2nd November 1940: 1064 aircraft available in squadrons (again, includes all types)

Whilst the Luftwaffe were contracting, FC were expanding. Indeed, look at the figures again. At the end of June the Luftwaffe had 293 more SE fighters than the RAF had fighters of all types. By the end of the year, even assuming FC didn't expand any more, the RAF had 235 more fighters total than the Luftwaffe had SE fighters. And it wasn't done by drawing down reserves, either. At the end of June FC had 410 Spits and Hurris in storage, at the beginning of Nov it was 396.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 25, 2007)

> i am surprised that the Chairman of the Board of AIF (Allied Integrist Front), Syscom3 has not yet jumped in to this specific branch of the discussion.



What is a "integrist"? Someone who is for integration?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Please, details, details! I hate pictures anyway.



Here ist he ISBN for Book 1 and covers until 31.12.1941. I am sure you can get the other books by finding this one. 

ISBN: 3-8289-0525-0


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

Udet said:


> Doctor, hello...
> 
> Since i am travelling all i am carrying with me is a luggage set, 2 surfboards, iPod, laptop (borrowed) and 2 books (Xenophon´s Anabasis and Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations).
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

Udet said:


> Also i have to say i am to a great extent familiar with the information you are sharing with regard to P-51 fighter groups available to escort the bombers in the ETO/MTO.
> 
> I digress, the notion P-51 pilots found themselves outnumbered during the escort runs and still managed to defeat the attacking 109s and 190s troubles me. As i said, this isn´t the first time i come across the notion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Erich (Aug 25, 2007)

the only ting I wish to add to your lat posting Bill is at the bottom. Come 1945 it was the desire of more and more LW Geschwader to have experienced fighter pilots stand up with the US P-51 escorts and ignore the bombers altogether. In fact even JG 7 was given an order in the jets to take out as many Mustangs as possible which in reality never happened and the order was almost enitirely ignored


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

Erich said:


> the only ting I wish to add to your lat posting Bill is at the bottom. Come 1945 it was the desire of more and more LW Geschwader to have experienced fighter pilots stand up with the US P-51 escorts and ignore the bombers altogether. In fact even JG 7 was given an order in the jets to take out as many Mustangs as possible which in reality never happened and the order was almost enitirely ignored



I'm pretty sure the last two air to air losses of 355th were from 262s on 7 April mission when Plowman and Mills went "Missing".


----------



## Erich (Aug 25, 2007)

also a small reminder that after the end of January 45 the 8th AF was running up against very few of the LW Geschwader as the task had now turned to the Ost front to protect the eastern border along with the capital Berlin. obviously as the 8th and the 15th plus the 9th were able to find bases in occupied Germany their fingers could go forever longward to the east where defense Geschwaders JG 300 and 301 were trying to stem the tide and of course got creamed in the process along with portions of JG 27 and JG 53 in the south in Bavaria. Even the NF's flew day time ground attack missions to open escape portals for surrounded Wehrmacht truppen, and of course too they were easy pickings


----------



## Soren (Aug 25, 2007)

plan_D said:


> All this comparison of fighter numbers...
> 
> I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters. The important aircraft for the Luftwaffe was the bomber - for a proper look at the Battle of Britain you should be looking at how many bombers the RAF shot down for a loss of RAF fighters. Shooting down the German escorts was a bonus.
> 
> ...




Exactly Plan_D - Hence the LW's focus on bringing down those bombers before they could reach their cities.

The escorting Mustangs had themselves rather easy pickings as the LW interceptors engaged the bombers, the LW interceptors emmidiately being on the defensive after their initial attack. The few dedicated LW fighters had their hands full facing 8 to 12 times as many Mustangs which obviously meant they had no chance of keeping them away from the bomber interceptors.

Another crucial factor to remember is that the altitudes where the fighting mostly took place over Germany by 1944 ranged from 26,000 to 33,000 ft, an ideal altitude for the Mustang but not for the FW-190A series or the early 109's. Had the enaging altitudes been lower things might well have looked very different, the Mustang not proving a very effective fighter over the channel facing the FW-190A Bf-109G's at lower altitudes - but then again the main focus would've still been on the bombers.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 25, 2007)

There seem's to be a light change in the method of escorting the 8th AF when the RAF and RCAF were escorting initially before the US got there own escorts they were ordered not to stray after LW but to "stick like glue " to the heavies and not chase after the LW that they could often see lurking in the distance. These instructions were included in the D form or operational orders . This was a slight bone of contention for the fighter pilots because if they kept close to the heavies they got shot at and they couldn't chase after the LW


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> There seem's to be a light change in the method of escorting the 8th AF when the RAF and RCAF were escorting initially before the US got there own escorts they were ordered not to stray after LW but to "stick like glue " to the heavies and not chase after the LW that they could often see lurking in the distance. These instructions were included in the D form or operational orders . This was a slight bone of contention for the fighter pilots because if they kept close to the heavies they got shot at and they couldn't chase after the LW



PB - eaxactly the same for 8th and 9th AF until Doolittle changed the game on or about January 11, 1944 - and was accused of committing 'murder' by some of his bomber leaders..


----------



## Hollywood (Aug 25, 2007)

This is just my opinion of course but if Hitler hadn't been a "nut" and had let his Commanders have more input and listened to their ideas we might ALL be speaking German.......... Just as an example, if the Me262 had been introduced in the fighter configuration ASAP the sky would have been OWNED by the Luftwaffe................Roger that?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> The escorting Mustangs had themselves rather easy pickings as the LW interceptors engaged the bombers, the LW interceptors emmidiately being on the defensive after their initial attack. The few dedicated LW fighters had their hands full facing 8 to 12 times as many Mustangs which obviously meant they had no chance of keeping them away from the bomber interceptors.
> 
> I*If you followed the link I posted for you you would have seen that the units I cited for you in the battle over Munich were all Me 109G-6's with about 30+ 109G-6/U4's in III./JG26 plus about 15 109G-5's out of approximately 200 Me 109s encountered in different flight/gaggle sizes. There was also Sturmsaffel I. Fw 190's plus about 20 Me 110's and a few Me 410's - all attacking the 1st Task Force that the 355th and 357th were defending.
> 
> ...



*????? which 'Channel' battles are you referring to? 

There are as many engagements at medium and low altitudes you can look to in which the P-51 did quite well against 109s and 190s at low and medium altitudes but I attribute that to skill - not fighting with inferior or superior fighters. All three had advantages over each other on the deck. 

Remember while the LW was trying to evade engagement, they dove to escape and were caught at lower to low altitudes. They weren't climbing.

At least half of the LW fighters destroyed by 355th Mustangs were in medium or lower altitudes for this reason (PURE Speculation on my part on 'half' - it could be 45% or 56% - but a substantial portion, from reading hundreds of Encounter Reports). Someday I may go back and re-read all the 355 ER's and note high/medium/low battles to get a precise number.

Because I don't have the German Encounter Reports for 24 April, I can't tell you whether Hillman, Norman or Sturm were shot down at high, low or medium altitude - but they would be the first 355FG pilots POSSIBLY shot down at high altitude until 20 May when two were Definitely shot down by JG26 in diving pass. Hillman and Norman were separated from other elements so were definitely alone when shot down.

Having noted this observation, most 355 Mustang losses air combat losses occurred at Medium and Low altitudes, most to 109s and most while trying to turn at medium to slow airspeeds and unable to shake the 109s. Not very many in total were lost in air combat

11 of the 355th's air losses were in P-47s and half of those were shot down by Fw190s at medium to low altitude primarily by JG2 and JG26. 

As near as I can determine only four 355th Mustangs fell to Fw190s including one to a 190D at 1000 feet in a head on pass - out of perhaps 28 (if all 'unknown' were air losses instead of weather, Mechanical or something like oxygen failure.)

The experiences of the other Groups is similar Soren.. Hell look for yourself - Mike Williams has at least 100 copies on his website... that would be a good sample size anyway

According to most Mustang pilots the 109G was the more formidable fighter until the 190D arrived - but this discussion has been made ad nausem in this thread*


These are nearly always verifiable in the MACR's so the source documents exist


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2007)

Hollywood said:


> This is just my opinion of course but if Hitler hadn't been a "nut" and had let his Commanders have more input and listened to their ideas we might ALL be speaking German.......... Just as an example, if the Me262 had been introduced in the fighter configuration ASAP the sky would have been OWNED by the Luftwaffe................Roger that?



Actually probably not OWN it but it would have been far bloodier for 8th AF daylight bombing, but no real probable effect on RAFnight ops - and perhaps forced US to night ops. It would have forced the introduction of the YP-80 much sooner as well as Meteor to combat them... more accidents.

While the 262s would have been devastating, daylight roaming by Mustangs would have probably have destroyed a lot of them on the ground or landing or taking off.

Nevertheless a lot more US bomber and fighter crews would have been killed - 

A more probable outcome is either a delay in D-Day, or failure, and everyone in Europe speaking Russian. The 262 would not have stopped the Soviets from rolling through Germany

Often wrong but rarely uncertain

Bill


----------



## renrich (Aug 25, 2007)

Bill, wish you would clarify something for me. Earlier in this thread you were comparing Mustang sorties, losses and kills with Jugs and P38s. Said something like their kills were mostly German. Are you saying that some of those awarded kills were not German, perhaps japanese? The reason I ask is that the sortie numbers and loss numbers jibe exactly with mine but I am under the impression those sortie numbers were all in the ETO.


----------



## trackend (Aug 26, 2007)

Just a thought but the RAF all Commonwealth air forces were very eclectic my Uncles Wellington had two Canadians and an Australian in its crew so I think they were really an amalgamated commonwealth air force, so IMO it makes it quite hard to separate the RCAF, the RAF the RAAF


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> Bill, wish you would clarify something for me. Earlier in this thread you were comparing Mustang sorties, losses and kills with Jugs and P38s. Said something like their kills were mostly German. Are you saying that some of those awarded kills were not German, perhaps japanese? The reason I ask is that the sortie numbers and loss numbers jibe exactly with mine but I am under the impression those sortie numbers were all in the ETO.



Renrich - you are right about the ETO - I checked my sources again. I should have caught the mistake just by the P-38 numbers as they had nearly that many in PTO alone.


----------



## renrich (Aug 26, 2007)

One of the numbers in those stats from the ETO that caught my eye was that the P51 had almost as many losses as the P47 yet flew roughly only half the sorties. While the P38 in spite of having the extra engine to come home on(or maybe because of it) had a loss rate almost twice that of the P47. By the way, Bill, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2007)

Stafing airfields a lot will that for you.

Using the 355th FG as an example - of the 190+ a/c lost for all causes (air, flak, mechanical, wether, accident) they lost 92 to flak, more than double the air losses to German fighters..

The P-38 had a huge percentage to engine related losses in the ETO.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 26, 2007)

trackend said:


> Just a thought but the RAF all Commonwealth air forces were very eclectic my Uncles Wellington had two Canadians and an Australian in its crew so I think they were really an amalgamated commonwealth air force, so IMO it makes it quite hard to separate the RCAF, the RAF the RAAF


I agree that most of the RAF Squadrons were cosmopolitan but if you look at the RCAF and RAAF (unsure about RNZAF) squadrons they were made up of mostly nationals. I am reading about one RCAF guy who had to sign over to the RAF so he could join a RAF squadron . The RCAF and RAAF were paid much better then the RAF and it caused grief if some were paid better then others of the same rank and same squadron. The RCAF also pushed for commissioned ranks for aircrew as the crews were pissed that they couldn't eat or hang together becauxe some were NCO's and others commissioned


----------



## Glider (Aug 26, 2007)

The RCAF, RAAF and RSAAF could be considered as part of the RAF as they were paid for and equipped by Britain. Something I only picked up a few weeks ago.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 26, 2007)

Glider said:


> The RCAF, RAAF and RSAAF could be considered as part of the RAF as they were paid for and equipped by Britain. Something I only picked up a few weeks ago.


would be interested in seeing that as I believe we paid our own way if not more . But I have been wrong before. If I am correct the UK paid of its last war debts to Canada on 12/29/06 the same time they finished with US


----------



## renrich (Aug 26, 2007)

I wonder what percentage of the P47 sorties were air to ground versus the escort missions compared to P51 same type sorties. Of course, I imagine late in the war both types engaged in TO type operations after an escort mission was completed.


----------



## trackend (Aug 26, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I agree that most of the RAF Squadrons were cosmopolitan but if you look at the RCAF and RAAF (unsure about RNZAF) squadrons they were made up of mostly nationals. I am reading about one RCAF guy who had to sign over to the RAF so he could join a RAF squadron . The RCAF and RAAF were paid much better then the RAF and it caused grief if some were paid better then others of the same rank and same squadron. The RCAF also pushed for commissioned ranks for aircrew as the crews were pissed that they couldn't eat or hang together becauxe some were NCO's and others commissioned



Sorry PB for the confusion although it appears the way I put it that my uncle was in the RAF, he was actually in 429 Bison Squadron of the RCAF.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 26, 2007)

trackend said:


> Sorry PB for the confusion although it appears the way I put it that my uncle was in the RAF, he was actually in 429 Bison Squadron of the RCAF.


Flight engineer I'm going to guess we were short of them initially. I worked with 429 for about 2 years


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 26, 2007)

trackend said:


> Just a thought but the RAF all Commonwealth air forces were very eclectic my Uncles Wellington had two Canadians and an Australian in its crew so I think they were really an amalgamated commonwealth air force, so IMO it makes it quite hard to separate the RCAF, the RAF the RAAF



Very true, for anyone who's interested, here's an example. On the 1st of Jan 1945, there was 2621 RAAF aircrew spread amonst 214 RAF squadrons. According the the official history, this meant that at this time there were RAAF aircrew in all but 88 RAF squadrons, which were Czech, Polish, Canadian, French etc squadrons where they were excluded anyway. Like Trackie said, this makes it very difficult to separate the men of various nationalities.


----------



## trackend (Aug 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Flight engineer I'm going to guess we were short of them initially. I worked with 429 for about 2 years



He was a Sgt pilot PB got shot down and killed on his seventh misson
heres a link to my thread about him 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/uncle-denniss-flight-record-3077.html


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 27, 2007)

I agree with the fact many squadrons were mixed but a very large percentage of Commonwealth squadrons were made up by nationals . A full 25% of bomber command was Canadian . I sort of reverse engineered this by checking on the crews involved in losses by looking up squadrons like RAAF 460 and 6 gp squadrons 
Lost Bombers - World War II Lost Bombers


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 27, 2007)

Whilst each Commonwealth country had its own Royal Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/South African (delete as appropriate) Air Force, they all eventually came under the control of Sir Charles Portal, Chief of Air Staff. Therefore, IMO they all come under the heading of the RAF.


----------



## Hop (Aug 27, 2007)

I am not aware of any comprehensive list of BC aircrew by nationality, but the fatal casualties were all recorded:

RAF - 69.2%
RCAF - 17.8%
RAAF - 7.3%
RNZAF - 3%
PAF - 1.7%
Other - 1%

Those are casualties rather than numbers served, but should be fairly accurate for aircrew.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 27, 2007)

Under the heading of Bomber Command yes RAF no.

6 Group RCAF "Situated 4 miles east of Knaresborough, a 75 room mansion on a 2000 acre estate, Allerton Park Castle was requisitioned by the Air Ministry from Lord Mowbray. This castle was then transformed into offices and was the administration and operations headquarters of the Canadian [6 Group] Bomber Command. On Dec 6,1942, headquarters was moved from the temporary site at Linton on Ouse to Allerton Park. The 6 Group officially reached operational status at 00.01 on Jan 1,1943. With this in affect, the Canadian squadrons ceased to take orders from 4 Group, and now reported directly to bomber command headquarters in High Wycombe. *The financial responsibility for aircraft maintenance and administration was now looked after by the Canadian governmen. *The order of battle will show which squadrons and airfields came on line as of this date. All 6 Group airfields were located in North Yorkshire and therefore had the furthest to fly when attacking most targets. Because of the topographic features in this area, the airfields were close together, and circuits overlapped, making flying hazardous. This,along with fog and industrial smog, made takeoffs and landings very stressful on the aircrews and airfield controllers. Allerton Park was also responsible to insure that all squadrons complied with instructions from bomber command as to routes, bombload, bombing height, and timing over the target. The stations were responsible for accommodation, feeding, and maintenance of squadron aircraft."


The RCAF guys were not all that fond of all the Brit senior officers 
Broadhurst even said he didn't like the Colonials


----------



## Glider (Aug 27, 2007)

Interesting additional detail, many thanks


----------



## claidemore (Feb 5, 2008)

I voted for the RCAF.

A country with less than 12 million people, ended up with the fourth largest airforce in the world by 1945. 200,000 aircrew, (not including those in RAF service), 48 squadrons overseas, and Canada trained an additional 80 operational squadrons through BCATP. In fact they trained so many pilots, they were told to stop it already! 

There are very good reasons to choose some of the other airforces as the best, but...at the end of the day...which airforce had the best hockey team? I think we all know who I'm talking about..... lol


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I voted for the RCAF.
> 
> A country with less than 12 million people, ended up with the fourth largest airforce in the world by 1945. 200,000 aircrew, (not including those in RAF service), 48 squadrons overseas, and Canada trained an additional 80 operational squadrons through BCATP. In fact they trained so many pilots, they were told to stop it already!
> 
> There are very good reasons to choose some of the other airforces as the best, but...at the end of the day...which airforce had the best hockey team? I think we all know who I'm talking about..... lol



And it was such a distant 4th to the AAF, it didnt even count.

The USN had an even larger naval air corps than Canada did.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> And it was such a distant 4th to the AAF, it didnt even count.
> 
> The USN had an even larger naval air corps than Canada did.


We've always been a believer of quality rather then quantity and if you check out some of your better ETO pilots you would see they were trained by the RCAF and if we were that bad or useless why did 6667 US citizens out of the 8800 that joined the RCAF as aircrew before you guys decided to play remain with the RCAF rather then return to US Forces when you joined the game (been waiting to use that stat for a while thanks for the opening)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> We've always been a believer of quality rather then quantity and if you check out some of your better ETO pilots you would see they were trained by the RCAF and if we were that bad or useless why did 6667 US citizens out of the 8800 that joined the RCAF as aircrew before you guys decided to play remain with the RCAF rather then return to US Forces when you joined the game (been waiting to use that stat for a while thanks for the opening)



As stated by many people in many ways, only the USAAF had the industrial, scientific, logistics and manpower base to produce excellent aircraft in every category. And it was global in reach.

No shall we talk about the vast hordes of well trained pilots, aircrew and support personell that made the whole machine run?

Admit to the obvious. The USAAF (and USN) was magnitudes better (in sum total) than everyone else!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> As stated by many people in many ways, only the USAAF had the industrial, scientific, logistics and manpower base to produce excellent aircraft in every category. And it was global in reach.
> 
> No shall we talk about the vast hordes of well trained pilots, aircrew and support personell that made the whole machine run?
> 
> Admit to the obvious. The USAAF (and USN) was magnitudes better (in sum total) than everyone else!


In numbers and and in infrastructure only but not quality


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> In numbers and and in infrastructure only but not quality




heres a partial list of aircraft built by the US that can be considered as being excellent in one regard or another.

P38
P47
P51
F6F
F4U
A20
A26
B25
B26
B17
B24
B29
TBF
SBD
C46
C47
C54
PBY

Now what were you saying about a lack of quality?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> and if we were that bad or useless why did 6667 US citizens out of the 8800 that joined the RCAF as aircrew before you guys decided to play remain with the RCAF rather then return to US Forces when you joined the game (been waiting to use that stat for a while thanks for the opening)


Very simple - medical reasons and enlisment problems (age). Some of those who went with the RAF/ RCAF were denied commissions or were told that if they switched over there would be a reduction in rank and pay....


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I voted for the RCAF.
> 
> A country with less than 12 million people, ended up with the fourth largest airforce in the world by 1945. 200,000 aircrew, (not including those in RAF service), 48 squadrons overseas, and Canada trained an additional 80 operational squadrons through BCATP. In fact they trained so many pilots, they were told to stop it already!
> 
> There are very good reasons to choose some of the other airforces as the best, but...at the end of the day...which airforce had the best hockey team? I think we all know who I'm talking about..... lol



I respect all the Air/Naval Air Forces that fought in WWII.

Having said that, which Air Power had the resources, quality, depth of power in the field and reserves to perform all the missions everywhere in the world and win?

Those (if more than one) can be put into a short list - RAF is close.

I am not dimissing Germany or RCAF or Japan or USSR. But, for example, none of those could field the air and naval power to assault Japan, or by comparison Japan or Germany mount any kind of meaningful campaign against the Americas.

You can debate the point through 1942 as the US was not the 'best' at the end of 1942 (in my opinion). 1943 is the transition when US put quality AND numbers everywhere on the globe. 1944 (again, my opinion) is when USAAF and USN were clearly the best and August 6, 1945 forever changed the meaning of 'best'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Having said that, which Air Power had the resources, quality, depth of power in the field and reserves to perform all the missions everywhere in the world and win?



And that pretty much sums it up...


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> could the RAF accomplish the same thing as the USAAF in all theatres of the war . The Usaaf the dominant force in both the ETO and PTO what else can you say .That is something I don't think any other force could say


from page one of this discussion. Now as for the guys from the US that wouldn't revert to the USAAF they were not old and unable to receive commissions Blakesee didn't want to go , McCarthy of Dambusters fame became Canadian . Most were all offered equivilant rank or higher in the USAAF and the higher pay .I think if you'd ask them the RCAF was more fun . Heres a little blurb from one of the Yanks in the RCAF talking about the possibility of joining the Eagle Squadrons as they were switching over to USAAF
"Don Blakeslee, whose name would become synonomous with the Fourth Fighter Group, wanted nothing to do with the Eagles when he got to England in 1941. "They were getting all kinds of publicity," he remembered with disdain, "they were newspaper fighter pilots." Jim Goodson flew with 416 Squadron RCAF. After Pearl Harbor there were already rumors that the Eagles would join the U.S.A.A.F., but he made no move to change his assignment."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> from page one of this discussion. Now as for the guys from the US that wouldn't revert to the USAAF they were not old and unable to receive commissions Blakesee didn't want to go , McCarthy of Dambusters fame became Canadian . Most were all offered equivilant rank or higher in the USAAF and the higher pay .I think if you'd ask them the RCAF was more fun . Heres a little blurb from one of the Yanks in the RCAF talking about the possibility of joining the Eagle Squadrons as they were switching over to USAAF
> "Don Blakeslee, whose name would become synonomous with the Fourth Fighter Group, wanted nothing to do with the Eagles when he got to England in 1941. "They were getting all kinds of publicity," he remembered with disdain, "they were newspaper fighter pilots." Jim Goodson flew with 416 Squadron RCAF. After Pearl Harbor there were already rumors that the Eagles would join the U.S.A.A.F., but he made no move to change his assignment."




But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????

I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????
> 
> I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.


I probably think it was camadrie but the numbers are correct. Blakesee was caught banging 2 WAAF (enlisted) and given the option to transfer to USAAF or court martial he didn't want to go to the USAAF. and lets not forget Gentile, Beeson Godfrey we trained them so our methods can't be all that bad .


----------



## claidemore (Feb 6, 2008)

Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion. 

Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best. 

My point, and my opinion, is that a country with ONLY 12 million people had an truly excellent airforce, based on it's population and financial resources. 2% of Canadas population was in the airforce in 1945. Can anyone top that?

Canada started the war with 3 overseas squadrons, and grew to 48, that I believe is an unprecedented growth rate. Training 80 operational squadrons is also a significant contribution. RAF would have struggled without it. 

Canada had the leading fighter squadron in the 2TAF, if you want an example of performance excellence. 

Canada also quite correctly choose the P51 as its primary fighter; post 1945, due to it's long range capabilities which are well suited to the long distances involved in North America, an indication of good leadership and planning. (they could have chosen the Spit, which every canadian loved, but it wasn't the right plane for the job)

The leading British ace, Johnnie Johnson, preferred to fly with Canadians. 

And let's not forget the Canadian contribution on the ground, we had our own beach on D-Day, and Canadians were commonly used as shock troops and earned the respect and admiration of all allied commanders. 

But now I must go and plow the snow out of my driveway....


----------



## drgondog (Feb 6, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.
> 
> Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best.
> 
> ...



I'm not denigrating RCAF which was one hell of an organization, nor Canada's contribution to WWII (as well as and especially WWI). I just have a problem accepting a thesis that it was the 'best AF in WWII', that's all. 

Convince me that it outperformed Texas and California, then I will throw in the State of Washington and New York to boost my production of high quality aircraft at same as or better quality in just about every combat mission in WWII. I concede several designs not built in US were were singularly better in several instances. Name for me 5 aircraft designed and built and fought by Canada better than B-32, F4U, P-51, C-47 (or C-46 or C-54), A-26 to name a few categories designed and built in the two states.

At the end of the Day, if Churchill and Stalin and Hitler and Tojo had been offered US airpower resources and infrastructure, quality and quantity in both ships and crews, in an even swap for their own AF, versus trade for RCAF, what is your opinion of their decision?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> And it was such a distant 4th to the AAF, it didnt even count.
> 
> The USN had an even larger naval air corps than Canada did.


Aside from the fact that this statement pissed me off so I have to defend. Yes the US forces were larger and more comprehensive and as I stated in the 1st page of the thread the most powerful and yes they had for the most part good/better equipment but to say they were better trained is not fact


----------



## claidemore (Feb 6, 2008)

drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story. 

Convair, North American, Chance Vought etc, were not part of the USAAF, they were contractors. The question is not who had the best designers, factories etc. Germany had better designers, Grunmman stole the best things of the FW 190 for the Bearcat. Same situation for Me262. They had better factories too, they were bombed constantly, and still managed to increase fighter production in 1944. No US factories were bombed. 

Just looking back over this thread, the argument that the US was the biggest producer seems to be the strongest one for it being the best airforce, and yet the fact that the VVS outproduced the Luftwaffe and managed a 20 to 1 superiority in numbers isn't used as an argument for the VVS being the best airforce? 

Finland didn't have any production capability, but who had better success against greater odds?

I don't have my books with me to give exact figures, but a Canadian squadron led in air to air kills in the 2nd Tactical Air Force (411?), and another led in ground targets attacked and destroyed (442?). I'm not comparing 2TAF to 8th Airforce, since they had completely different roles and situations. Just using it as an example of excellent performance. 

Sure, all those leaders would have loved to have the production of the US, (and in fact 8% of VVS planes were from USA, and 25% of RAF planes were from USA). But they would have all had home grown boys flying em. 

Poll said pick an airforce, I pick RCAF. 

That being said, If I was Russian, I'd pick the VVS. Only country invaded by Germany that didn't capitulate, lost 2000 planes on first two days of fighting, recovered from its losses and ended up being one of the principal contributors to the Allied victory. If there was a "most improved" category.......

Americans have every right to be proud of their contribution, (albeit a slightly late one), and the US certainly did a number of things that no other country could have done. I just don't happen to subscribe to the whole "America won the war" attitude. 

One interesting little story. Early 42, before the US had deployed any of its airforce in Britain, a US officer was observing operations by the RAF. He offered the opinion that the bombers shouldn't need escort fighters. The RAF guy said that they had noticed that when they sent the fighters along, the bombers came back, and when they didn't send the fighters, the bombers didn't come back. Of course the Americans knew better, didn't listen to the experience of the British, and the rest as they say, is history.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2008)

claidemore said:


> drgondog:
> If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.



Check out the Arrow thread on here - The Arrow fell from a decision of the Canadian Government, not some dark hand of the US. In its day it was an magnificent aircraft but it wasn't the "superplane" many try to make it out to be....

But that's another story.....


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

The UK _was_ invaded and did not capitulate, the Channel Islands were occupied by the Nazis.

Fighter Command saved an entire country from disaster in The Battle of Britain. No other air force can claim the same.

The Royal Air Force also fielded Bomber Command which with the Lancaster (bigger payload than B-17) pounded German industry to a pulp and did so on extremely hazardous night raids. This strategy was an RAF one. I understand that once the USAAF joined the war, their bombers were flying under a different kind of danger as they bombed in daylight but we often forget just how hazardous flying was then especially at night. Many returning night bombers just could not find home in the dark, especially if crippled. I believe that one-third of all the 67,000 or so Bomber Command aircrew died in accidents. Bomber Command was bigger than and lost more men than the USAAF 8thAF.

The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic and here the RAF's Coastal Command and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm pushed the absolute endurance limits with what was available and what was possible to defeat Germany's greatest weapons, its Battleships and U-Boats.

The RAF trained aircrew and supplied aircraft, airfields and support to many invaded nations like Poland, Czechoslovakia, USSR and the Free French in excile. Many Dutch, Norwegian etc. Air Forces still carry their RAF Sqn. Nos. as a mark of respect. So do the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF.

My Canadian friends were right to remind us that they were there on day one, so were the Aussies and Kiwis and other members of the Commonwealth. They fought a long hard six years and had had three years of battering before our US Allies joined in. And still continued to operate.

British aircrew flew in all extremes of this planet's weather under terrible conditions, with many falling from disease. The South East Asian Command operated against appauling odds in outdated aircraft (due to war pressures in Europe) and against immense odds. It is worth remembering that British Commonwealth Forces (including Indian Forces) killed one million Japanese troops in Burma, four times that of the US Military's valiant island hoping campaign. (The reason you didn't know that is that John Wayne wasn't British!)

The Mustang was ordered to British spec, and it didn't come into its own until it was improved with a British engine, the Rolls-Royce Merlin. (The RAF also wanted the P-38 but Roosevelt wouldn't sell them the superchargers with it).

As a UK citizen I fully appreciate the efforts made by all Allied aircrew in determining that I was born in a free democracy. It is interesting that the Canuck loves the RCAF and the Yank loves the USAAF, but how about going to bat for someone else? Would that be unpatriotic? You are both offside panning the RAF as you do. People all over the world owe them a lot. I had a long hard think about other countries first but we should also remember that this was the day of British Empire, before the 48-State USA grew to lead the world and whilst the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF etc. were all small parts of a greater British Commonwealth. Same aircraft, same roundels? Go figure! 

So, concious that I am falling prey to shouts of bias, I want to fight the case for the RAF here, and as an ex-Royal Navy man that smarts! 

And as an ex-RN man I also want to remind our friends from the US that the Corsair was a great plane but that the USN and USMC couldn't land them on carriers without crashing them due to the long nose. They were designated as airfield-ops only until it was the British Fleet Air Arm who showed the USN how to land them by approaching the carrier deck from an angle. Also, we avoided your Kamikaze losses from day-one by having armoured decks on our carriers which bounced the Kamikaze off. The USN ignored our advice and paid dearly for it. The USAAF also ignored the advice of the visiting and very experienced RAF advisor not to park all the aircraft together at Pearl Harbor. (See how the movie Pearl Harbor shows him as a lilly-livered nancy-boy in awe of the handsome Yanks!...arse!)

Finally, the USAAF wouldn't let non-whites fly. The Tuskeegee Airmen story is one we all know (even if we can't spell it). The British Commonwealth allowed all races to fight and to fly.

We owe the women of the US a huge debt for working those factories etc. but the women of the RAF kept working all those Allied aircrews (inuendo), so for best Air Force of WWII it has to be the British Commonwealth.

The defence rests.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 7, 2008)

Simonsays, and in the end....

By 1945, only the US had the numbers, industrial and scientific capabilities, the bases and the aircraft to project power globally.

The commonwealth didnt.

And did I mention we had the atomic bomb and the B29's to carry it?


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme. They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later. The US was worried about the Arrow becoming the standard NATO interceptor and that the USAF would need to buy it too. The US aviation industry would lose out to the Canadians and they could not have that. So, so much for friends and alliances, the US did the dirty and then sold the Canadians aircraft like the Voodoo and F-5 which lacked the range to protect a huge country like Canada. I used to look at RCAF Voodoos and Starfighters and admire their paint-schemes etc. but now I see the political bullying that forced the Canucks to buy them. I am an aviation nut and therefore love US aircraft but you guys are politically unreliable allies and you don't mind doing the dirty on your mates to get what you want.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 7, 2008)

you know simon, you make some pretty good arguments. I guess i gotta agree with you. 

Of course you know the RCAF still had a better hockey team.

This is in reply to the post about RAF. I need to type faster.


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

The question was best Air Force of WWII.

Nothing about weapons built by Nazi defectors or civilian scientists, or aircraft manufacturers. And not only 1945.

WWII started in 1938 for the Czechs, 1939 for the Poles, French, Brits etc.

Try to turn off the 'Star-Spangled Banner' playing in the background and let's get back to the question. This is an aviation site, and as I said, I love US aircraft. The USAAF is definitely in the picture here.

But trying to take a look at the question, best air force of WWII we must ask what makes an air force good. I don't think any statement about having an atom bomb or the B-29 in 1945 even begins to cover the question. Europe was devastated by the war and in 1945 no European powers were in a position to project political, economic or military power abroad as before. 

British Forces operated and won in many post-war conflicts: Korea, Suez, Kenya, Borneo, Aden, and our own Vietnam which was Malaya...which we won. We are still the World's No.2 arms producer after the USA, so 1945 was not a total end to British Military prowess.

My point is that looking at the bigger picture, the RAF operated longer and harder and in tougher circumstances, and in more diverse parts of the world. The British Empire was vast and that many now wholly independent air forces were part of that greater RAF.

I am not trying to offend your patriotism. Just talk intelligently about aircraft. Take it easy.

Got to love the Canadians!

You would woop our arses at ice hockey but I am sure the WRAF tea-ladies field hockey team would give the WRCAF ladies a run for their money. Go Tea-Ladies! Give me a T! ...milk and two lumps please, dear!

Might even swop shirts after the game.....hot bath ladies?....hang on, must...think...about...planes! 

Flaps! ...oh, Jesus!

Oh, and here is another point. The USAAF didn't have a jet aircraft until Frank Whittle was forced to sell rights to his patent to the US for 48,000 pounds.

Invention of Radar (and Sonar), Spitfire and Mosquito photo-recon developments, Lysander flights behind enemy lines, pathfinder raids, RAF Air-Sea Rescue innovations, bouncing bomb, Grand Slam bomb, rocket-firing Typhoons, Hawker Hurricane operations, sea, desert, jungle, snow, the defence of Malta, aerial sinking of the Tirpitz etc., Frank Whittle...

Lots of hardship, but lots of guts, lots of innovation, I could be swayed but I think the RAF gets my vote. 

If its a movie then the Yanks win!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme.


Name them and show proof - nothing more than a conspiracy theory


simonsays said:


> They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later.


There was more worry about the fabrication of titanium and processes that were used on the Arrow and later showed up on the MiG-25.



simonsays said:


> The US was worried about the Arrow becoming the standard NATO interceptor and that the USAF would need to buy it too. The US aviation industry would lose out to the Canadians and they could not have that. So, so much for friends and alliances, the US did the dirty and then sold the Canadians aircraft like the Voodoo and F-5 which lacked the range to protect a huge country like Canada. I used to look at RCAF Voodoos and Starfighters and admire their paint-schemes etc. but now I see the political bullying that forced the Canucks to buy them. I am an aviation nut and therefore love US aircraft but you guys are politically unreliable allies and you don't mind doing the dirty on your mates to get what you want.


Again more conspiracy theory - if you look into the program it was behind schedule, over budget and being run pretty poorly. The Arrow, while it would of been a great interceptor but did not hold any more promise for future roles as such aircraft as the YF-12 or the F-108. There were a lot of "what ifs" behind the program and perhaps a gamble the Government at that time did not want to make. *I challenge you to show one ounce of substantial proof to back your claim*. Diefenbaker bowed to Social pressure within Canada and could not justify a cash cow (as it was becoming) like the Arrow. As far as the Canadian purchase of the F-101 - that wasn't forced upon Canada and with the F-5 Canada (Canadair)had manufacturing rights which I know employed many people and made Canadair some good money.

And had the Arrow been built? It's fire control system was being built by a company owned by the richest and most influential man of that period - Howard Hughes - even if built under license Hughes would of made millions off the Arrow program - had there been any influence there it "would of" came from him....

Also look where the Falcon and Sparrow missiles that would of armed the Arrow came from - again there would have been millions to be made on this side of the border as well....

Bottom line - some of the same program errors made on the Arrow was found many years later on the Challenger.....

BTW I spent 5 years as a tech rep for Lockheed in Canada. I worked at Canadair, Bristol, Fleet Industrial, IMP and Enheat. I met many people who were on the Arrow program and there is always a stigma among some Canadians to blame the fall of the Arrow on the US when in essence one man with one pen killed a very promising aircraft design and crippled the Canadian aviation industry for a number of years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> British Forces operated and won in many post-war conflicts: Korea, Suez, Kenya, Borneo, Aden, and our own Vietnam which was Malaya...which we won. We are still the World's No.2 arms producer after the USA, so 1945 was not a total end to British Military prowess.


The RAF role in Korea was minimal when compared to what the US had there...


simonsays said:


> My point is that looking at the bigger picture, the RAF operated longer and harder and in tougher circumstances, and in more diverse parts of the world.


That's a load of Crap - Korea, Vietnam, Central and South America, Antarctica to name a few


simonsays said:


> I am not trying to offend your patriotism. Just talk intelligently about aircraft. Take it easy.


And right now that last statement made no sense.



simonsays said:


> Oh, and here is another point. The USAAF didn't have a jet aircraft until Frank Whittle was forced to sell rights to his patent to the US for 48,000 pounds.


FORCED? Mind Explaining that? Did Churchill put a gun to his head? 48,000 pounds was about $72,000 USD. In 1944 dollars that would of been about $865,000 in today's money - what's the problem???

The technology given by Whittle to the US just excellerated US jet development. Lockheed and GE were looking into jet propulsion before the US even entered the war and although the narrow minded AAF at the time showed no interest, the technology lay dorment. WW2 just kicked the door open for the jet in the AAF.

Lockheed J37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_"Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938, although this initial design was far more complex that what eventually emerged as the J37. In an effort to keep the fuel economy of the engine similar to existing piston engine, Price used a combination of low-compression axial compressor stages feeding a high-compression reciprocating compressor. In 1941 he was hired by Lockheed to evaluate the General Electric superchargers being fit to the experimental XP-49, a high-altitude version of their famous P-38. By this time Price had the basic design of his jet completed, and was able to gain the interest Kelly Johnson, chief engineer at Lockheed's Skunk Works. Johnson had been thinking about a new high-speed design after running into various compressibility problems at high speed with the P-38. During 1941 he ordered the development of a new aircraft to be powered by Price's engine, developing the engine as the L-1000, and the aircraft as the L-133."_




simonsays said:


> Invention of Radar (and Sonar), Spitfire and Mosquito photo-recon developments, Lysander flights behind enemy lines, pathfinder raids, RAF Air-Sea Rescue innovations, bouncing bomb, Grand Slam bomb, rocket-firing Typhoons, Hawker Hurricane operations, sea, desert, jungle, snow, the defence of Malta, aerial sinking of the Tirpitz etc., Frank Whittle...
> 
> Lots of hardship, but lots of guts, lots of innovation, I could be swayed but I think the RAF gets my vote.
> 
> If its a movie then the Yanks win!



You're entitled to your opinion but you seem to be one Continent focused. While the contribution of the RAF will never be undermined it was a combined effort and at the end of the day it was the weight of the USAAF that played the differance - so much that RAF leased B-29s until their modern bomber force could get up and running, and there's no need to make a move about that...

BTW - instead of making 3 post please post once or combine your posts when finished - thank you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.



So the USAAF had no aircraft that were of "quality". 

Lets see:

P-51D
B-17
P-47
P-38
B-24

Just to name a few...

And they put them up in very large numbers which is a plus.



claidemore said:


> Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best.



Okay but I want facts from you please that proves that the RCAF was better than the USAAF in these ways:

a. Could project its power in mass force all over the world.

b. Was better in quality.

c. Was better trained.

No opinions please, just facts. National pride can only go so far.



> My point, and my opinion, is that a country with ONLY 12 million people had an truly excellent airforce, based on it's population and financial resources. 2% of Canadas population was in the airforce in 1945. Can anyone top that?



Were they great airforce? Yes they were. Were they the best though?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> drgondog:
> If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.



You are only speculating. 

It is a would have, should have, could have....

...did not.


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

Thanks for your input, Flyboy. I don't really have the resources or time to prove the Arrow 'conspiracy'. The US company 'The History Channel' did a great programme all about it. That's all I have got. I bow to your greater knowledge and experience. Why do the Canadians still hold a grudge about it?
Do they know something that you don't or are they all simply misinformed?


With reference to the Korean War, I was referring to post-War conflicts that the UK was involved in around the world. This was is response to claims that the UK had no post-war ability to project air power overseas. If you read my post again you will understand. In fact as far as I know, the RAF had almost no role in the Korean War and the Royal Navy represented the UK's air power. I was not comparing the US role in Korea to the UK's either.

My comment about the RAF operating over vast distances etc. was referring back to the original question about WWII, not post-war.

If you want to know about Frank Whittle's patent being sold to the US then I invite you to look it up. I am not even sure if Churchill was still Prime Minister then. I think that your currency conversion might be out since the value of the dollar was way less then. And I am sure you would agree that Pratt Whitney, GE and all of the USA's other aviation companies would consider that amount (less than a million dollars) the greatest US bargain since the Louisiana Land Purchase.

Finally, it would be nice to keep things pleasant on here, especially since you are a moderator and I have no axe to grind. Just trying to have fun and learn about aircraft. If you look at the 47 pages of this post then you will see that although there are people from all over the world writing here, it is consistently the Americans who try to upset everyone and then spit the dummy when someone says something that puts a dent in your patriotic furver.

The USAAF did a splendid job and were world beaters by 1945, but they were only in for the latter half of the war so have to lose points for the nearly three years when they weren't even in the fight like everyone else.

I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.

You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So the USAAF had no aircraft that were of "quality".
> 
> *I never said that.*
> And they put them up in very large numbers which is a plus.
> ...



PS. An interesting statistic I found while looking for some numbers of people in service and casualties. 61 million people from Allied nations died during WWII, 11 million form Axis nations. Makes you wonder who really won.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> Thanks for your input, Flyboy. I don't really have the resources or time to prove the Arrow 'conspiracy'. The US company 'The History Channel' did a great programme all about it. That's all I have got. I bow to your greater knowledge and experience. Why do the Canadians still hold a grudge about it?
> Do they know something that you don't or are they all simply misinformed?


Both - there is a lot of speculation and folklore about the program. It was a great aircraft and probably should have been built. I don't believe it was a super plane and its roles would have been limited. In an air to air confrontation for the most part it would have been dogmeat even with an F-5.



simonsays said:


> If you want to know about Frank Whittle's patent being sold to the US then I invite you to look it up. I am not even sure if Churchill was still Prime Minister then. I think that your currency conversion might be out since the value of the dollar was way less then. And I am sure you would agree that Pratt Whitney, GE and all of the USA's other aviation companies would consider that amount (less than a million dollars) the greatest US bargain since the Louisiana Land Purchase.


In the greater picture it was a bargain but in that day I'm sure Whittle wasn't too disappointed with the money - its the over all impact and technology rights where the problem is but in that day things like that were hardly thought of..

Again, it was a stepping stone - in that later years the real jet engines were axial flow, something that was being worked on in the US before the war. It would of been just a matter of time before the US would of developed their own jet technology, with or without help from the UK or anywhere else.



simonsays said:


> Finally, it would be nice to keep things pleasant on here, especially since you are a moderator and I have no axe to grind. Just trying to have fun and learn about aircraft. If you look at the 47 pages of this post then you will see that although there are people from all over the world writing here, it is consistently the Americans who try to upset everyone and then spit the dummy when someone says something that puts a dent in your patriotic furver.


While I could almost agree with you I suggest you keep your arguments with those specific individuals - some folks like Bill (Dragondog) will offer up overwhelming information to support their claims


simonsays said:


> I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.


No redkneck agenda here - just support your clams with facts, it's that simple...

And if you want to keep things plesent I suggest you refrain from using a statement like "redneck agenda." I'm originally fron the northeast and the furthest thing from a "redneck."


simonsays said:


> You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.


Not once in my posts were there any indication of me "dissing" any American ally, all that was shown here is the evidence to support a claim and some on both sides have provided overwhelming evidence to support their argument.

It sounds like you have a chip on your sholder - if you want to keep things pleasent and stay around here I suggest supporting your arguments with facts and examples, not some smart assed comment....

As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.





You cant prove your point, so you have to resort to insults and stereotypes huh? 

 



simonsays said:


> You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2008)

While we are talking about Canada's contribution to the war effort during WW2, let us examine this from,"Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend. In 1937, General Milch was in England and said,"England had the training resources of her Empire and I wonder what would happen if war came. In the Luftwaffe we had no experienced leaders. Milch did not know that plans for the Empire Training Scheme were at that moment held up. Australia and New Zealand had readily responded but the Canadian Premier, W L MacKenzie King, stubbornly refused. Later Canada's help would be immense-but too late to help England in 1940." Sounds like the contributions from Canada were, at first, somewhat reluctant. So, Leroy Grumman stole his ideas for the Bearcat from the FW190? Sounds like a myth to me. Just like the myth that the A6M was a copy of some American airplane. Just as well say that the designer of the Spitfire stole the ideas of the Wright Brothers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I never said that.



No but you are argueing that the RCAF was the better airforce and you said that best is quality. That implies to me that the RCAF was better quality than the USAAF.

I disagree with this. I believe the best airforce had the best capability. It is true that at the beginning of WW2 the USAAF did not have the best capability. In a very short period of time however that changed.

*The USAAF soon became the most strategic airforce that was able to project its power over the whole world with aircraft that were of great quality and capability.*

Is this truth or not?

I am no way saying the RCAF was not a good airforce. I believe all the major powers of WW2 allies and axis had great airforces and that the victory was an allied contribution.

It is fact however that the most capable airforce since mid WW2 is the USAAF and now the USAF.



claidemore said:


> Yup, they had the most money, everyone knows that.



That does not change the facts of what was the most capable airforce.

a-48 squadrons overseas, not as many as US of course, but shows capability (BTW we also had aircraft carriers which later had Sea Furys, one of the best prop driven carrier aircraft ever. )[/quote]

The US still had more squadrons in the ETO, PTO and N. Africa equiped with quality aircraft. 

The US had more Carriers than the rest of the world combined with aircraft just as capable.



claidemore said:


> b-only test between Canadian pilots and American pilots that I know of, (I'm sure there were others) Hurricanes vs Wildcats at Halifax,Nova Scotia. Two Wildcats from a carrier just returned from combat in pacific did a mock dogfight against two Hurricanes from an anti-sub squad that had seen no combat. Hurri's won. Next day, Wildcat guys challenged the Hurricane guys again. Only two hurris ready for flight had depth charges strapped on. Flew the mock combat anyways, Hurricanes won again.



That does not prove anything as a whole. All it will prove is that those two pilots were either:

a. Better than the other pilots.

or

b. Luckier than the other pilots. 

Probably a bit of both, but you can not base a whole Airforce off of one mock engagement.



claidemore said:


> c- 3 years more experience at training mass numbers for wartime



That does not prove anything either. I do not have the numbers myself but I am sure that *Bill* can post them for us that will prove that US Pilots had the most hours training prior to being put into combat.

Sorry Bill if I am offering you up for something here....



claidemore said:


> Actually I already conceded to Simonsays that RAF was best in previous post. And if we were to include the other Commonwealth airforces with the RAF, since they fought together, they would be the hands down choice just for length of service. After all, why have a poll if you can't choose anything but who has the biggest? That's way too simple.



No...

Length of sevice does not have anything to do with capability. 

I am not saying the biggest is the best. You are the only one that is bringing that up.

I am saying that the USAAF was the most strategic, best trained, and most capable airforce to see service in WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> PS. An interesting statistic I found while looking for some numbers of people in service and casualties. 61 million people from Allied nations died during WWII, 11 million form Axis nations. Makes you wonder who really won.



The 'National language' and leadership test for US, USSR, Canada, UK, etc would help you in this one, but I take your point..

Neither Japanese nor German is the common language and culture, Jewish population high and thriving in Europe, Chinese/Formosa and Korea not reporting to Japan.


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

WWII signal:
US Warship to Royal Navy Warship: How's it feel to be the 2nd Biggest Navy in the World?

Royal Navy Warship to USN: Great, how does it feel to be the 2nd best?

Keep at 'em Canuck!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> WWII signal:
> US Warship to Royal Navy Warship: How's it feel to be the 2nd Biggest Navy in the World?
> 
> Royal Navy Warship to USN: Great, how does it feel to be the 2nd best?
> ...


And your point?


----------



## simonsays (Feb 7, 2008)

Don't want to leave on a bad note, so Flyboy, I apologise for the 'redneck' comment.
Leaving the kitchen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> Don't want to leave on a bad note, so Flyboy, I apologise for the 'redneck' comment.
> Leaving the kitchen.


Fair enough...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> drgondog:
> If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.
> 
> Convair, North American, Chance Vought etc, were not part of the USAAF, they were contractors. The question is not who had the best designers, factories etc. Germany had better designers, Grunmman stole the best things of the FW 190 for the Bearcat. Same situation for Me262. They had better factories too, they were bombed constantly, and still managed to increase fighter production in 1944. No US factories were bombed.
> ...



Yes, the USAAF learned bitter lessons, but learned them well. What is your point?

The same RAF guy might have also mentioned that 'You Yanks can't succeed bombing in daylight, we know what's best 'you know'. So, was all the advice from our friends in the Commonwealth correct?

I might point out that the RAF had far more 'bad nights' than USAAF had 'bad days' in context of numbers of bombers that didn't match a safe landing with a take off? And I suspect that those losses were largely without escort fighters, correct? right up to end of war, right? Would you say the RAF followed the sage advice of the gentleman from 1942 that helped us eventually?

Back to topic, forums are largely opinions and i sure respect yours even if I don't quite agree with them.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 7, 2008)

Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor,


> The US still had *more *squadrons in the ETO, PTO and N. Africa equiped with quality aircraft.
> 
> The US had *more *Carriers than the rest of the world combined with aircraft just as capable.


then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum. 

I've never seen anything to indicate that US had better quality aircrew, or better trained and I'm not sure how you would measure that. If the numbers of hours is the criteria, then the best trained aircrew in the world would probably be the Soviet women pilots, they had to have 500 hours to even be considered!

Which airforce was most capable in 1945? The biggest one, USAAF.
Which airforce was most capable in 1940, 41, 42 or even 43? For four of the six war years, that was definately not the USAAF. Poll is for best WWII airforce, not best in 1945 airforce. Length of service is a BIG factor.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Fair enough...



Hey Joe, he doesn't have to apologise to me. I AM one, I'm from Texas!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Hey Joe, he doesn't have to apologise to me. I AM one, I'm from Texas!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

*That does not prove anything either. I do not have the numbers myself but I am sure that Bill can post them for us that will prove that US Pilots had the most hours training prior to being put into combat.

Sorry Bill if I am offering you up for something here....*

Thanks a lot Chris!

I have zero idea what constitues 'Best' but here are some interesting facts.

in 1938 Congress authorized the Civilain Pilot Training Program in anticipation we would need far more pilots than USA and USN could produce in next several years.

The curricula was 72 hours of ground school, 35-50 hours of solo time with instruction of solo, spin/stall/simple aerobatics/cross country ---> license

The government encouraged universities and flight schools to open this curricula by supplying them with one trainer (usually a Piper J-3, Taylorcraft BL-65, or a Waco F-2, but they could buy equivalent if same price or less)

By the time the program was suspended as no longer necessary there were 1100+ educational facilities and 1400+ flight schools in operation - producing 430,000+ civilian trained pilots.. this was equivalent of USAAF and USN Primary. Neither the USAF or USN were thrilled about the program but had no choice and found that the quality was essentially the same.

The USAAF and USN Aviator Programs were very much similar, starting with Classification (Bombadier.Navigator, Pilot selection) then PreFlight (about 2 months) training w/instructors in a/c like BT-13 doing the same stuff the CPT did with ground school and flight school leading to solo, spin, aerobatics, and a flight check for proficiency -------> on to Primary (PT-17 Yellow Peril) more solo, precision flight skills, turn and climb and level flight precision, instruments, honing flight skills) ----> then to Basic for formation, night flying, more instrument, short field ops, dead stick landing, etc (back to BT-13) ----> Advanced (first about 10 hours in AT-6 then maybe P-40 or F-6F) where bomb/gunnery training, precision formation flying, manuever skills, Link Trainer time, a/c identification, etc).. if the Pilot was in Multi Engine training he might get his first time in a Twin Beech and start that track).

Elapsed time 18 -22 months on the average and 240-260 hours when he gets his wings and commission.

Then some intermediate training with an operational squadron to develop combat structure operations familiararity - maybe first he goes to Goxhill for transition to P-51 or P-47 then into a live unit where he goes through 10-25 hours of Clobber College wher he matches up with real combat pilots in ACM before his first mission - and a high percentage of operational losses were in the first 5 missions.

The USN was a close track except in Advanced they spent more time in Carrier landing practice before going to fleet.

Net - USAAF and USN/USMC were about 300 hours before first combat mission in 1944, maybe 250 in 1943.

A lot of RAF pilots received their training in US. My father was CO of one such flight school in Oklahoma in 1943 before he escaped from ATC in late 43.

When he taught me to fly it was basically 'by the book' as noted above - just different a/c until the At-6. I emerged from his process with about 220 hours before my first back seat ride in the P-51 and 30 hours more in the AT-6 before my first solo in the 51. I didn't log back seat time in the 51 but it was perhaps 30 hours in parallel with it and I did some takeoffs and shot 3 landings before he let me go.

This is the process and fairly accurate recollection of the program AFAIR.

Have no idea how this stacks up with wartime RCAF/RAF/LW or VVS. I guess the VVS females were the best equipped from a training program.. how did they do?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor, then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum.
> 
> *I would say you aren't looking very hard. Size IS important, but the training, the doctrine, the mission capable aircraft, the logistics base, the manufacturing pipeline, the ability to quickly replace losses in men and aircraft, the ability to repair in-theatre, the ability to perform all missions in every theatre independent of support from another AF should be things You should look for.
> 
> ...



I would argue 1943 is the turning point, at which time the US Airpower and it's capability to prosecute every mission every where was in place.

Length is big factor - than means LW.
Tactical and Strategic and Logistic Capability is big factor - that means US
Mission depth and breadth is a big factor - that means US
Achievement and contribution in winning the war - your choice- if not US then? (cant' picj Japan or Italy or Germany, if you pick RAF I need to hear a lot more about PTO and how RAF achieved air superiority over Germany)

Infrastructure to Grow beyond last day of WWII - US
What are the other criteria we should use? Ability to defend one's own country? Skilled work force, Self contained natural resources?

If you read the thread you will see that quite a few agree that LW early, RAF middle and US late middle to EOW are the choices we would make - Strictly opinion but trying to present facts and logic and leave the red necks on the beach..


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2008)

If we are talking about best, I assume that quality plays a big role in that question. In the US a carrier borne fighter was designed,(first flew in 1940) that turned out to be without question the finest fighter bomber of WW2 and was arguably the finest piston engine fighter of WW2 and possibly of alltime. Of course, that was the F4U. No other country during WW2 came close to that accomplishment. Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

simonsays said:


> Fighter Command saved an entire country from disaster in The Battle of Britain. No other air force can claim the same.
> 
> *No question regarding the contribution, however I might point out that the English Channel was more important factor - along with Royal Navy? After all the RAF did nothing to beat back the Luftwaffe in France and Belgium.*
> 
> ...



Man - you will have a LOT of women kicking your arse, that ferried a LOT of RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF, USSR, etc aircraft all over the world from US. 

How many women pilots were working for RAF vs USAAF and USN in these roles?


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> If we are talking about best, I assume that quality plays a big role in that question. In the US a carrier borne fighter was designed,(first flew in 1940) that turned out to be without question the finest fighter bomber of WW2 and was arguably the finest piston engine fighter of WW2 and possibly of alltime. Of course, that was the F4U. No other country during WW2 came close to that accomplishment.



The Ta-152H-1 and Me-262 are both far superior fighters, far more advanced and higher quality a/c !

Now the F4U was a great design no doubt, one of my favorites, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. The F4U-4 was on par with some of the latest FW190's in terms of air to air fighter bomber capabilities, however the latest FW190's were faster, more agile, climbed faster and they all featured lighter better harmonized controls. Ofcourse with boosted ailerons the F4U approached the FW190 in roll rate, but AFAIK the F4U's in service by WW2 weren't fitted with these.



> Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.



The F4U, the latest best carrier based fighter of the war, couldn't compete with the latest best landbased fighters of the war, so conventional visdom holds.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 7, 2008)

I cannot help posting in this thread again. It's hard to argue about this as it is still not clearly defined what "Best" means. It's hard to argue about the fact that the USAAF was the most capable airforce in the world in 1945. How could they not be. They had an unspoiled country, not affected by the effects of war, all the time and peace in the world to train their people, build their planes in non bombed factories etc. It was the only *major* country that didn't have war within it's borders (apart from a few pacific islands of course). 
The question is, would the USAAF have done as good as the RAF, keeping the germans at bay under the circumstances, or as good as the Finnish airforce under their circumstances, or shoot down 381 german planes in 5 days with 50 poldfashioned planes like my little country, or... (fill in yourself). I think nobody can answer that. 
The first answer is simple and you're all right about it, no doubt about that, the second one is much more difficult...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152H-1 and Me-262 are both far superior fighters, far more advanced and higher quality a/c !
> 
> Now the F4U was a great design no doubt, one of my favorites, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. The F4U-4 was on par with some of the latest FW190's in terms of air to air fighter bomber capabilities, however the latest FW190's were faster, more agile, climbed faster and they all featured lighter better harmonized controls. Ofcourse with boosted ailerons the F4U approached the FW190 in roll rate, but AFAIK the F4U's in service by WW2 weren't fitted with these.
> 
> ...



From my perspective, if the US could choose between Ta 152 and any other piston engine fighter available, in mass production, at the end of the war it would be a relatively easy choice... if it could be modified for three roles - Carrier ops, Long Range Escort and Close air support. 

I suspect the airframe has that extendability.

I wouldn't choose the Dora, particularly, over the 51H or the F4U-5 or maybe even the P-38L because ALL the other choices were capable of all three roles to varying comparisons with Fw 190D-9 right off the assembly line.. air to air combat would largely be determined by pilot skill and tactical situation (in my opinion) between all four of these..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor, then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum.
> 
> I've never seen anything to indicate that US had better quality aircrew, or better trained and I'm not sure how you would measure that. If the numbers of hours is the criteria, then the best trained aircrew in the world would probably be the Soviet women pilots, they had to have 500 hours to even be considered!



No my point is this. The US could put out *more* aircraft into the field of the *same or better* quality.

I never said that the size of the airforce is what it made it best.

Go back and read my post. I said that the capibility of the airforce combined with force projection, training, quality of aircraft and size is what made it the best.

I dont think anyone can argue with that.



claidemore said:


> Which airforce was most capable in 1945? The biggest one, USAAF.
> Which airforce was most capable in 1940, 41, 42 or even 43? For four of the six war years, that was definately not the USAAF. Poll is for best WWII airforce, not best in 1945 airforce. Length of service is a BIG factor.



Agreed

Did I ever say that this was the best airforce of 1945?

Using your logic the best airforce can not be the RAF either. Why? Because it was not the best airforce in the world either for the whole war. *So RAF is out of the equation then, because this thread is not about the best airforce of 1940...*


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> From my perspective, if the US could choose between Ta 152 and any other piston engine fighter available, in mass production, at the end of the war it would be a relatively easy choice... if it could be modified for three roles - Carrier ops, Long Range Escort and Close air support.
> 
> I suspect the airframe has that extendability.



It most surely had.



> I wouldn't choose the Dora, particularly, over the 51H or the F4U-5 or maybe even the P-38L because ALL the other choices were capable of all three roles to varying comparisons with Fw 190D-9 right off the assembly line.. air to air combat would largely be determined by pilot skill and tactical situation (in my opinion) between all four of these..



I'd choose the Dora-9 over the P-38L any time, and with higher boost pressure GM1 I'd choose it over the rest as-well, esp. considering the 640 km/h top SL speed and 770 + km/h top speed at alt, plus the 13.8 km ceiling. Also the Dora could carry a good deal more than the P-51.

In other words the FW190 Dora-9 F4U-4 were equals, and the Dora-13 F4U-5 were as-well.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> It most surely had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would argue that the D-9 and D-13 own the F4U (any version) starting at 30,000 feet with some performance parity to the -13 have very significant climb and top speed, same dive, probably better roll in most speed ranges over the F4U, but pretty equal versus 51H and maybe more over the P-38 than F-4U-4. I recall the -5 being optimized for middle to low 20's for best engine performance, so if correct, it starts losing against the -9 and -13 lower than the -4? doesn't it.

In other words at escort altitudes a lot of equality among the 3 US fighters and the two Doras, but start to lose edge to -13 as altitude increases with 51 still holding it's own in pure dash speed and perhaps climb at 12,000 m, but P-38L lower in dash, excellent roll at high speed, faster (?) climb and equivalent ceiling to -13 is what I think I recall.

I only introduced my picks above over the Dora 9 based on the proven long range capability in comparison, to go with the other two missions. What was internal fuel load for -9 and -13 and Ta 152H-1? Maybe I was mistaken.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> It most surely had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Forgot to ask what the external rack capabilities for the Dora 9 and Ta 152H-1 were in comparison with 51D/H (both could carry the 160 gallon ferry tank and 200 in an emergency with careful attention and a long runway)?


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2008)

As usual Soren you get your exercise jumping to conclusions, I believe that the ME262 had gas turbine engines. I said that the F4U was the finest fighter bomber and arguably the finest PISTON ENGINE fighter of WW2 and arguably the finest PE fighter of all time. The TA152 played almost no role in WW2. The F4U played an enormous role. You can argue all you want to about best PE fighter of all time. The Germans never fielded a carrier borne fighter. Simon, The Battle of Atlantic the biggest battle of WW2. That is like saying that Gallipoli was the biggest battle of WW1. Have you no knowledge of the Russian Front. The Germans never came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, thanks to US ship building capacity. On June 1, 1943, the first Royal Navy Sdn. #1830 was formed at Quonset Point, RI using Corsair Is. In January, 1943, the first US Navy squadron VF12 was operational. In June, 1943, VF17, the Jolly Rogers was aboard the Bunker Hill. Do you seriously think the British, training at Quonset Point, not even aboard a carrier, beat the US Navy to learning to operate the Corsair off a carrier. That is another wartime myth, like the "Forked Tail Devil." Take a little friendly advice. Before you jump head long into this forum, be advised that there are people on here who have twice the knowledge of you and I put together and we would both do well to be cautious and not expose too much of our ignorance.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

Dragon you asked how many pilots were graduated in Canada from 40-45 the number is 49707 other aircrew such as navs gunners and the like move it up to total 131000 they started to wind down in mid 44 as there was a large surplus of aircrew . 
Now i'd like to bring up a point that might be overlooked the RAF and RCAF and others had been escorting the 8th and 9th airforce for most of 42 and 43 from what I've gleaned they were instructed to stick like glue to the bombers . They could see the LW lurking but were not allowed to pursue,(much to their chagrin) now I'm assuming this has something to due with extending the range of the escort for the heavies.
This would be the first tour of ops for most of these fighter crews and from what I've gleaned that most finished their 2nd tours approaching June 44 . Now I don't know for sure but am guessing the LW stared to wane in the quality of aircrew in late 43 early 44 from attrition on both fronts and in mid 44 there was a marked decline in general aircrew quality for the LW. This being hastened by the 51s/47s. of the 8th . Are we talking about apples and oranges in relation to the skill level of the LW between 42-early 44 and mid 44 -45 and the number of kills achieved


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2008)

Bill, my source says that the F4U5 had a critical altitude of 31, 400 ft where it could reach 462-470 mph. It's service ceiling was 41400 feet and it had an initial rate of climb of 4250 fpm. It could exceed 400 mph at sea level and of course mounted 4-20mm cannon and had a range on internal fuel of 1036 miles and could still tote a 4000 pound bomb load. The F4U4's critical altitude was 26200 ft. The F4U5 was a production air craft and played a fairly major role in the Korean War. All in all, I would take it over the wunderkind TA152 all day(and night) long.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Dragon you asked how many pilots were graduated in Canada from 40-45 the number is 49707 other aircrew such as navs gunners and the like move it up to total 131000 they started to wind down in mid 44 as there was a large surplus of aircrew .
> 
> *Same for US 'wind down'.
> 
> ...



Totally and completely agree. 

The LW had their way (mostly) with USAAF in 1942 and to a degree in the first eight months of 1943. They had some spectacular successes from August 17, 1943 through April 1944 - carving out 10+ of 8th AF attacking force multiple times... but only once in aggragate from 30 April 1944 (May 12) and several times on an isolated Combat Wing thereafter (July 7, Sept 27 and Nove 26 come to mind when the LW ripped a couple of Bomb Groups in an area where they simply overwhelmed the escorts - but suffered equally when chased down and caught.

I have made that distinction when my perception is that LW was dominant through 1941 and well into 1942 - then the RAF was probably superior in late 1942 as measured by fighting on all fronts with all missions and doing it well - the the US transitioned in mid 1943 (Global coverage - all missions, high quality, overwhelming quantity) and achieved clear superiority in Airpower when the Mustang took away air superiority over Germany in 1st six months of 1944. No air force dominated Germany over Germany until that period of time.

I could be wrong but that is my view for the reasons I have posed?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

Renrich, 

You're the one jumping to conclusions, not me. That the Ta-152H didn't see much action isn't an argument as it more than proved itself with a 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio, out-performed every LW fighter in comparative tests and was a far more advanced piston engined fighter than any other in the world. The F4U like I said was a great a/c, however the Ta-152H-1 trumphs it in every way, and the late FW190's were faster, climbed faster were more agile, so there's nothing to justify your claim than the F4U was the best. 

That having been said the F4U was definitely among the best mass produced fighters of WW2, no doubt in the top 3 along wiith the FW190, but not the best.

Bill,

The Ta-152H-1's internal fuel capacity was ~1,000 Liters, compared to the 640 Liters of the FW-190. Both could carry one, two or three 300 L drop tanks. Bomb load capability was two 250 kg bombs + one 500 kg bomb, or up to a single 1,800 kg centerline bomb. Now AFAIK not even the P-38 could haul such a load, which just goes to show how sturdy the FW190 airframe actually is.

FW-190 G-3 with 1x 500 kg bomb and 2x 300 L drop tanks.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bill, my source says that the F4U5 had a critical altitude of 31, 400 ft where it could reach 462-470 mph. It's service ceiling was 41400 feet and it had an initial rate of climb of 4250 fpm. It could exceed 400 mph at sea level and of course mounted 4-20mm cannon and had a range on internal fuel of 1036 miles and could still tote a 4000 pound bomb load. The F4U4's critical altitude was 26200 ft. The F4U5 was a production air craft and played a fairly major role in the Korean War. All in all, I would take it over the wunderkind TA152 all day(and night) long.



Rich - the Vought website has the top speed at 469mph at 26,800 feet, initial (best) climb at 3780 fpm. This could be wrong but the P&W R2800-32 delivering 300 HP more at EWP, that sounds about right over the F4U-4.

Looking at that profile, performance in climb and dash speed goes downhill from 26K. 

The critical altitude for the P-38L was 28,000, its dash speed there was 443 which probably compares well with the F4U-5 at 28K. Ditto the P-38L intial climb at 4750 fpm at SL strongly implies better climb performance than the F4U-5 across all profiles by a significant margin until 44-45K where they both topped out.

I'm not going into a debate about any of these - we have been there and done that - I like all of them..

However the -5 shouldn't be in the comparison unless you want to compare with one more year of development on both the Ta 152H and the Fw 190D-13 since the -5 wasn't produced until 1946 and really doesn't fit in WWII?

I kind of stand on my earlier comments about the equivalence of the 51H, 190D-9 or -13, P-38L and F4U-4. I would pick one only if you told me which missions all had to fly. If you wanted one that could perform long range escort 1500 miles away and operate at 42,000 feet I narrow the selection down to one. If you tell me it is Naval Air multi Purpose, it is an easy choice also.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The Ta-152H-1's internal fuel capacity was ~1,000 Liters, compared to the 640 Liters of the FW-190. Both could carry one, two or three 300 L drop tanks. Bomb load capability was two 250 kg bombs + one 500 kg bomb, or up to a single 1,800 kg centerline bomb. Now AFAIK not even the P-38 could haul such a load, which just goes to show how sturdy the FW190 airframe actually is.
> 
> ...



The P-38L could (theoretically) could carry two 2,000 pund bombs and Lindbergh apparently did that (as for F4U-4) but it was not an operational standard. The AU-1 Corsair of pre Korean War vintage apparently DID fly combat ops w/5,000 pound of combined ordinance (two wing 2,000 pounders plus 8 HVAR rockets)..


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????
> 
> I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.


from the Legion magazine up here
.....Canada declared war on Germany on Sept. 10, 1939. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) had been expanding in anticipation of this; now it fairly exploded, doubling in size within four months. Meanwhile, on Dec. 17, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand signed an agreement creating the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP). Canada was about to become a vast air force training centre, with schools from the Atlantic to the Pacific and students from around the globe. Many of those trained would be American citizens. 


Initially, the RCAF did not seek out Americans; there were more than enough Canadians volunteering. Moreover, with the United States still neutral, there would be diplomatic problems if American citizens were enlisted, much less courted. However, U.S. nationals began to arrive, motivated by everything from love of adventure to political convictions.

As more BCATP schools opened, the RCAF found itself short of trained pilots. It began looking for experienced Americans to perform non-combat duties. This led to the formation of the semi-secret Clayton Knight Committee, the brainchild of aviation artist Clayton Knight and the RCAF's Director of Recruiting, Air Marshal Billy Bishop VC.

The committee opened its first office in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel in the spring of 1940; other bureaus were established in Spokane, Wash., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Atlanta, Memphis and San Antonio. Various devices were used to create the fiction that the Clayton Knight Committee was a private advisory unit. In practice it was recruiting Americans on American soil in violation of the Neutrality Act. Moreover, although its goal was to direct trained pilots to Canada, increasingly the committee gave information to untrained Americans who wanted to join the RCAF. These raw recruits constituted 85 per cent of the Americans ultimately enrolled in the RCAF.

One problem was the Oath of Allegiance to King George VI. An American taking the oath could be deemed to have forfeited his U.S. citizenship. In June 1940, Canada waived its Oath of Allegiance for foreign nationals, who henceforth were asked only to take an Oath of Obedience. In other words, they were to follow the rules of military discipline for the duration of their RCAF service.

Training centres began to resonate with American accents; some courses were comprised of 50 per cent of American students. Many more claimed to be Texans than was actually the case; girls who would not have been attracted to somebody from Rhode Island, might find a man from Texas more interesting.

As of Dec. 8, 1941, approximately 6,129 Americans were members of the RCAF. Just over half--3,883--were still undergoing training, but 667 were on operations overseas while others were engaged in flying duties in Canada itself, instructing, flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. With America's entry into the war, RCAF recruiting there ceased and American volunteers began heading for USAAF offices instead. Americans residing in Canada were still being enrolled, however. Ultimately, the RCAF calculated that more than 8,860 U.S. nationals joined that force
Within a month of Pearl Harbor, talks were underway for the transfer of Americans from the RCAF to U.S. flying services. In May and June 1942, a board of Canadian and American officers travelled across Canada by special train, affecting the release of 1,759 Americans from the RCAF and enrolling them simultaneously in American forces. Transfers continued throughout the war. The RCAF calculated that 3,797 Americans switched back to their own national forces. That left 5,263 Americans who elected to stay with the RCAF throughout their service careers.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Training centres began to resonate with American accents; some courses were comprised of 50 per cent of American students. Many more claimed to be Texans than was actually the case; girls who would not have been attracted to somebody from Rhode Island, might find a man from Texas more interesting.
> 
> *You have discovered on of the most fundamental 'truths' in the Universe. Einstein observed this and was ready to incorporate into the The General Theory of Relativity.. By similar laws of phsics including strong forces of attraction and repulsion, these learned gentlemen learned to NOT disclose origins such as New York (or 'Joisey'). Many Americans are smarter than given credit for. The ones from New Joisey, who disclosed such early in the courting process often had no opportunity to procreate - until they came home eventually to a female population less discerning.. *
> 
> ...



or were KIA/POW before they had a choice? All kidding aside that is good information..


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

drgondog said:


> or were KIA/POW before they had a choice? All kidding aside that is good information..


Being from Texas we also gave them allowances for being slower on the uptake 
here is alink for the remainder of the article with some info on the more notable Yanks
Legion Magazine :


----------



## drgondog (Feb 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Being from Texas we also gave them allowances for being slower on the uptake
> here is alink for the remainder of the article with some info on the more notable Yanks
> Legion Magazine :



Yeah, but the Texans were quick - it was the lying Yankees try to get laid that took the curve down - and those 'slower' survivors probably stayed in RCAF


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

Bill,

1,900 Liter is 503 US Gallons exactly, compared to the maximun of 475 Gallons carried by the -51H. So maximum range would be very similar.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> 1,900 Liter is 503 US Gallons exactly, compared to the maximun of 475 Gallons carried by the -51H. So maximum range would be very similar.



Soren, why do you suppose that Tank put so much internal fuel in this very good interceptor? and why so much more than the Dora?

Can you point me to some references that might shed light on Ta 152 to look at specific fuel consumption in cruise for example? 

I suspect that would be very tough to find but even if lower than the 51 it could not be significant - meaning it would for all practical purposes have the same range as the 51.


----------



## renrich (Feb 8, 2008)

Bill, I admit my writing skills are lacking as far as making myself clear. After I have written it I sometimes have difficulty understanding the point I was trying to make. My intention in the beginning re this thread was to demonstrate one of the qualitative achievements by the US which(in my opinion)stood head and shoulders above the rest of the world. That achievement was to design, build and produce a fighter which could successfully operate from carriers but could also compete on an even basis, on balance, with all other fighters in the world from 1942 through 1945. That AC was, I believe, inarguably the best fighter bomber of the war(the ability to perform as a fighter bomber or multi-role fighter came to be the role the majority of all fighters aspired to be) and arguably was the best recip fighter of the war and arguably came to be the best recip fighter of all time. It is in the context of best recip of all time that I bring up the F4U5. As far as best recip fighter bomber we should perhaps use the F4U7. My numbers for the F4U5 come from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" They may not be accurate but the numbers on the F4U4 in that book jibe pretty well with Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand." The numbers in "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" on the TA152 show that on paper the F4U4 or 5 compete well with that AC. There may be some figures on the various Corsairs which are anomalous floating around. Richard Linnekin, a former Navy fighter pilot, test pilot and aero engineer remarks about that in his book,"Eighty Knots to Mach 2" If you have not read that book, I heartily encourage you to find it as it is a great read if you like air planes. He only flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam(he was in surface ships in WW2) but his remarks about ACM would be educational for many on this forum. I suspect that a lot of the performance figures we quote on this forum are suspect and relatively meaningless but what the heck, that is about all we have to go on since few have the background and the experience that you have. Hope I have explained my reference to the F4U5.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 8, 2008)

the one thing the russins had that was better then the germans was the t-34 tank

and it us army air force


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2008)

Rich - I agree with nearly all your points.

What I have done in the past is make a studied judgement on 'best' based on a lot of my criteria, then get bogged down in justifying it in other areas where it maybe wasn't "best' but at end of day was 'good enough'.

The F4U-4 is that airplane for me.. but using the case of the Ta 152H-1 I can't argue that it wasn't 'best' unless you take into account that except for design and performance it was 'insignificant' just like the P-80 which was in most cases except maybe range and ceiling, was 'better' than the Ta 152. 

I suspect LW pilots after flying the P-80 would have embraced it if the other choice was Fw 190D or Ta 152..

Relative to the ETO, the Corsair wasn't the 'best' because it was mostly no-show and insignificant' in same way as Ta 152.

For me the Mustang was most Important but not the 'best' against Germany because it did what no other Allied Fighter could do - namely make US Strategic Bombing doctrine a success and kill more German pilots and a/c in the process.

Stacked against the F4U in Pacific it can't be judged the 'best'..

So this forum is a great place to argue whatever points we want to make.

Regards Rich,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2008)

fly boy said:


> the one thing the russins had that was better then the germans was the t-34 tank



Wrong thread.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2008)

I guess this forum is too "Redneck" for claidemore as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2008)

One thing that the US had an advantage in over all of the other combatants was the many varied types that had advantages (as well as disadvantages) that allowed the AAF and USN find niche roles for them in which they excelled.

In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.

What did the others have compared tot he US?


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> One thing that the US had an advantage in over all of the other combatants was the many varied types that had advantages (as well as disadvantages) that allowed the AAF and USN find niche roles for them in which they excelled.
> 
> In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.
> 
> What did the others have compared tot he US?



Eh more standardisation and thus less presure on logistics?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Eh more standardisation and thus less presure on logistics?



The US war machine was so vast, only the AAF and USN could have so many different types and still be able to provide the spares and the ground crews to keep them flying.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 8, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I guess this forum is too "Redneck" for claidemore as well.



Too Redneck? HA!. I spent my most of my life working with rednecks, rig-hands, cowhands, carpenters, wrench spinners and other horny handed sons of toil. Even married a redneck gal. 

I use these formus as motivation and research for a writing project, and I really can't afford to use up too much time in lengthy debates with wide paramaters, interesting though they may be. 

Thanks for thinkin of me though!

Claidemore (of the same opinion still!)


----------



## renrich (Feb 8, 2008)

Bill, we(all of us) have had these dialogues before and I enjoy them a great deal and am in accord with you on your reasoning. Regarding this thread, best air force WW2, quantitatively, the US Forces stand alone. Qualitatively, I believe the US wins hands down. Not to denigrate the other air forces because they made a lot of chicken salad out of chicken feathers but the US had the designers, manufacturers and most of all the financial ability to, once they got going build more and better AC than anyone else. Best strategic bomber-B29, Best long range escort fighter-P51, Best fighter bomber overall-F4U,(ETO-P47), best carrier fighter-F4U, best transport-C47,best twin engine fighter-P38,best light-medium bomber-A26, best true medium bomber-B26, best carrier torpedo bomber-TBF,best long range patrol plane-PBY. Other categories might be best short range interceptor-Spitfire,(the TA152 might be a contender here but I view it as virtually an experimental model with so little operational experience as to still have a lot of bugs in it.) best gas turbine fighter-ME262, best true light bomber, multi role AC-Mosquito. The training of the US pilots was excellent and US air operated all over the globe in all conditions. One factor which I believe is underappreciated which most US designed AC had in common was long range. This probably had to do with the geographical size and location of the US. The designers in Europe just did not envision warfare over the great distances that those in the US and in Japan did. That range capability paid enormous divdends in the long term.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The US war machine was so vast, only the AAF and USN could have so many different types and still be able to provide the spares and the ground crews to keep them flying.



True, but maybe it could have been better having one plane for one purpose instead of having a dozen of them?

Renrich, 

remember that the US benefit greatly from british experience. When they rolled into the war, they had had 2 more years to develope aircraft. Still in 1940 they were clearly inferior to european AF's (IMHO of course). Also keep in mind that the US was not a battleground as Germany and the UK were. They had save factories and all the time in the world to develope new a/c whil in the mean time using the already very good a/c from the British (think for instance of the beaufighter in the nightfighter role). In the end the US *was* the biggest airforce in the world. And they should be, as they had the peace to savely design and build new a/c where the others were in the midst of the battle and had the benefit of 2 more years of peace. 

On quality we could debate (the Tempest was a very capable longrange fighter, too and maybe better than the Mustang, the FW190 or the Typhone was maybe as good in fighterbombing as the corsair etc). 
I'm still wondering if the USAAF would have been the best if they had been in the middle of the fight like the LW or the RAF in 1940.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 8, 2008)

Marcel said:


> True, but maybe it could have been better having one plane for one purpose instead of having a dozen of them?
> 
> *If the Army and Navy did not fight among themselves so much for Defense dollars and had something like a Joint Command this would have been a natural selection process limiting some of the designs - on the other hand our fighters may have been less than optimal trying to make one type do all - and getting nothing superlitive?*
> Renrich,
> ...



I suspect the US would have accelerated production improvements if US lives were lost due to aircraft of lower performance, earlier, as contrasted with delivering B-17C and D plus P-39B and P40D's to themselves in 1940 and 1941.
Debating Tempest for long range escort is similar to Ta 152, namely it wasn't assigned that role much and didn't contribute much in that role. .. the ultimate extension would have been to project it to provide target escort from Berlin to Brux to Posnan and Munich - or to Tokyo from Guam.

Demonstrating that the Tempest flew those type missions as escort (significant part of mission at low cruise 'essing' over the bombers) for those ranges would lead you (and me) to believe this capability to western Poland and Czechoslovakia.. do you have some actual extensions and scenarios we could look at?


----------



## Marcel (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Bill,



drgondog said:


> If your blanket statement means the flying aircraft in early development stage were inferior to existing Production British A/C, you are right. Having said that do you suppose the RAF might have taken a different mix if they had total control over development and modifications of P-38 (1939), P-51 and F4-U (1940) and P-47 (mid 1941). All these ships matured into the upper tier of fighter aircraft in WWII.



Pardon my English, it's sometimes difficult for me to make clear statements in English. What I meant was that on average, in 1939/1940, the operational USAAF aircraft were inferior to their German and English brothers, being P39/P40B against Bf109/Spitfire etc.
The P38, P51 and P47 might have been in the upper part, but so were the Spitfire (1936), Bf109 (1934), Fw190 (1939), Typhoon (1941) etc. And most of them much older than the american design.



drgondog said:


> Debating Tempest for long range escort is similar to Ta 152, namely it wasn't assigned that role much and didn't contribute much in that role. .. the ultimate extension would have been to project it to provide target escort from Berlin to Brux to Posnan and Munich - or to Tokyo from Guam.
> 
> Demonstrating that the Tempest flew those type missions as escort (significant part of mission at low cruise 'essing' over the bombers) for those ranges would lead you (and me) to believe this capability to western Poland and Czechoslovakia.. do you have some actual extensions and scenarios we could look at?


You're right, I don't have accounts of Tempest doing longrange escorts. The british bombed at night and if they needed escort fighters it would have been nightfighters, for which either the Tempest or the P51 would have been wholy unsuited. The Americans had the requirement with their daybombing and used their 'own' P51. My mentioning of the Tempest only had the purpose of showing that the british could and did design a fighter with the same range as the mustang which was at least as capable as the P51. So the Tempest wasn't assigned to the role, but on contrary to the Ta152 has been used for a longer period of time, showing it's capabilities.

I'm not opposing that the USAAF was the best A/F in WWII, but the argument of quality of the planes is not a very strong one IMO. Of course their planes were of great quality, but so were the British and German's. The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?


----------



## renrich (Feb 8, 2008)

Marcel if my ability to speak your first language was half as good as your english I would be elated. My second language is either spanish or german and I know just enough to order one beer. Re your comments about British and German fighter development being ahead of the US. The first Martlets were delivered to the RN in July, 1940, and that AC had performance on par at least with the Hurricane. If war had been imminent for the US as it was in Europe, the development of the F4F could have been accelerated so that it could have been ready at least a year earlier. The first flight of the F4F was in 1937. The C47 was in service long before Europe had any comparable AC. The Boeing 299 which became the B17 first flew in July of 1935 and the first operations began in 1937. This was long before anything in Europe comparable was operational. The engine developers in Europe were ahead in inline liquid cooled engines, the US was ahead in air cooled radial engines. The B25 and B26 both flew in 1940 and were operational in 1941. Britain and Germany had nothing comparable. Of course this does not relate to US air power but the A6M was operational in 1940 and in that time frame it was arguably superior to both the BF109, Hurricane and Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2008)

claidemore said:


> (of the same opinion still!)



Opinions are like Assholes. Everyone has one...

Please dont take that as an insult, it was not meant to be one. All I mean by it is that opinions are great and everyone is entitled to one, but for this thread the facts say it all.

Now that does not mean it is not fun to debate this subject.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 8, 2008)

Dragon how many men were in a US Group, aircraft ,pilots ,maintainers admin logistics in total?
In a RCAF fighter wing it was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2008)

Marcel said:


> The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?



Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.

Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.

In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 8, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.
> 
> Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.
> 
> In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.


and radar


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> and radar



In 1945, US radar systems were as good as anyones.

From my list, I show the US as having advantages in the following:

1) Production capacity
2) Heavy bombers
3) Long range fighters
4) Ground attack fighters
5) Escort fighters
6) Every single aspect of naval aviation
7) Types of aircraft
8 ) Transports 
9) Global capabilities
10) Aircrew numbers
11) Ground crew numbers
12) Wartime potential (numbers of aircraft x relative quality x logistical support)
13) Firepower per daily theater missions (payload x rounds of ammo x fighter radius of action x number of bombers [fighters carrying bombs included])
14) Industrial reserves
15) Manpower reserves.

Finally .... I like this quote by a B29 assembly worker appraising on how the B29 ended up being produced ...."It seems like the US accomplishes more by accident than most countries do by design"


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> Regarding this thread, best air force WW2, quantitatively, the US Forces stand alone. Qualitatively, I believe the US wins hands down. Not to denigrate the other air forces because they made a lot of chicken salad out of chicken feathers but the US had the designers, manufacturers and most of all the financial ability to, once they got going build more and better AC than anyone else.



Sorry Renrich that just doesn't hold water, infact it's pure BS.

Germany had the designers, engineers scientists that the US, UK USSR were dreaming about, hence their race at obtaining these men and their material after the war.

The Germans were the leaders in the field of physics being way ahead in aerodynamics ballistics, and their science within optics, metallurgy chemistry was ahead as-well.

In terms of the best quality equipment made during WW2 Germany takes the prize hands down, designing and producing the most advanced aircraft, AFV's, small-arms, guns submarines in the world;


Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388.
Small-arms: StG.44, FG-42 MG-42
AFV's: Pzkpfw. VI Ausf. E B Tiger, Pzkpfw. V Panther, JagdPanther, JagdTiger, hetzer, Sd.Kfz. 234/4 Puma etc etc..
Guns: 128mm KwK44, 88mm KwK43, 75mm KwK42 173/210mm K-18 etc etc..
Submarines: Type XXI

And regarding the Ta-152 not being tested, again that's pure BS, the Ta-152 was thuroughly and meticulously tested before even being allowed field testing with the LW and later enter service in late 1944. The only problem ever to plague the Ta-152 was its Jumo 213E engine, otherwise it was one first class piece of machinery, the pilots knowing it was a world beater.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2008)

Soren, this thread is about the aircraft of the countries. Not of the other weapons.

"Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388.". All advanced aircraft that had little impact on the war.

Germany gets the advantage on designing aircraft for a future war.


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2008)

Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though. 

The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout. 

The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter. 

The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.

The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.

The Ar-234 Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Feb 9, 2008)

why there's no Finnish AF? They could have some bad planes in terms of quality, but when it comes to quality of pilots and organisation, very few of the WW 2 AF compares with them


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.



And what impact did they have?



> The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.



It did have great performance. But it was in far too few numbers to show what it was able to do. The war was over by the time the allies had their fighters ready to counter it.



> The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter.



Yes indeed. No question about it. But unfortunatly for the LW, they had zero impact on the war (besides scaring the crap out of the allies). Their lack of impact can be descibed as an abject failure on the German commanders and political heirarchy. Which thrusts Germany as a whole to the bottom tier of combatants for doctrine and organizational value.



> The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.



More than a few Spitfire, P38, P47 and P51 pilots would say otherwise.



> The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.



It didnt even compare to the C47 and C54. 



> The Ar-234 Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.



I will grant you that one.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 9, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, to beginning of the war. Having said that it is clear that neither of the Axis powers combined EVER had the capability to hurt US Production - at any level of 'pain'. This by and of itself represents a serious flaw in discussion of even giving Germany an edge in the discussion once we got into the war, at least through Midway when we basically broke the IJN capability to destroy our fleets.

RAF combined with RN (in my opinion) could not have achieved the results against the Japanese in PTO that US achieved from mid 1942 forward so your focus on RAF as 'best' airpower at a point in time should be a global focus?


I have been careful to express the notion that 1939 through 1941 the LW was more powerful, more diverse except for long range bomber capability, their a/c were mostly 'as good or good enough or better' to either defeat their adversaries over their own airspace (Soviet/East) or defeat their adversaries over their own homeland (Germany)

I felt that the RAF delivered same or better a/c in 1942 to 1943 (pick your own timeframe - but largely projecting force in Europe and to a lesser degree in Pacific

I felt the 8th AF, 9th AF and soon the 12th and 15th gained traction in Europe after being bloodied in Africa and MTO and ETO from 1942-mid 1943 then quickly ramped up with both high quality ('as good, good enough, or better') depending on mission and absolutely took control of Pacific airwar on land and sea. 

The RAF did not have the capability to defeat German airpower over Germany when it was a critical mission, but the US achieved the potential in late 1943 with the arrival of the Mustang and better P-38s (the L) starting production in early 1944. I would have the opinion that if the P-38L had been in service in 1943 that the push for the Mustang would have been less urgent on the part of Doolittle in October 1943. 

Even near the end of the war the LW was inflicting far more damage on the night bomber forces of RAF than the daylight losses of USAAF in early to spring 1944, RAF night fighters probably kept the carnage down a little - but not much - and ceratinly nowhere near the effectiveness of the Mustang.

The RN was excellent, but in my opinion had nowhere near the force projection capability to contribute equally to the power of USN from 1943 (maybe June 1942) forward and ditto RAF for land based versus USAAF in Pacific - all while 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th were scaling to achieve same tonnage as RAF in 1944 to parity to exceed RAF at the end of April 1945 - while the heavy bomber contribution for example in PTO far exceeded RAF nearly from Jan 1, 1942 and accelerated from there.

Those are my reasons. 

The 'who's aircraft is best/better etc is interesting but the question of who put the best trained pilots in the air - and then fooded the market with them, the resources to take the losses to gain combat experience, then put overwhelming quality of pilots in 'good' aircraft is probably a better question.

I would argue (subjectively) that the USAAF put average same or higher pilot/crew trained quality in mid 1943, in far more numbers than the rest of Allies combined - in all theatres (except Russia) and accelerated to the end of the war. I have no immediate way to prove this last thesis.

But these are my reason for mid 1943 to EOW and today, 

Regards,


----------



## drgondog (Feb 9, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Dragon how many men were in a US Group, aircraft ,pilots ,maintainers admin logistics in total?
> In a RCAF fighter wing it was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades



Pb - it 'depends' on stage of war. The standard TO&E authorized was far higher (108) than ever practiced. 72 was std TOE for all combat groups in 1945.

A bomb Group was 48 'target operational on a mission, in four squadrons of twelve, same for fighters, except three of 16 for normal order of battle.

Having said that the typical base strength for 8th and 9th, etc ETO bomb groups in 1943 was around 64, growing to 72 by mid 1944. Attriton was less in mid 1944 through EOW so the base strength of ships that 'might or could' be assigned was closer to 60.

Typical for fighters in 1943 was 64 base strength (and less depending on mission damaged and salvaged and lost - before replacements) the 72 was about right for mid 1944... same caveats applying to 'effectives'.

Standard tactical doctrine was to put up the 'normal' 48 of heavies or fighters, with spares, striving for 48 over the target.

The pilot strength was typically 32 (4 lights of 8 pilots) per squadron, plus at least 4 from HQ (GP CO, Exec, Ops and asst Ops).

For a fighter Group (wing) the total number of personnel was closer to 900, bomg group larger because of number of ground crew and air crew for multi engine, large, ships.

A fighter ground crew was Crew Chief, Asst Crew Chief and Armorer. Specialized ground personnel included armament, communications, service group mechanics (engine change core teams, sheet metal, hydraulics, electrical, etc) in the Service Group plus MPs, Base Defense, Admin, Chaplain, Medical officers, etc.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.
> 
> Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.
> 
> In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.



Maybe whe should rename the thread to "Who was the strongest in the end", Syscom?

Bill,

I think we more agree than disagree. From 1943/44 to the end of the war, the USAAF had the advantage. Same for the US Navy, which was the largest and most modern in the world at the end of the war.

Marcel


----------



## drgondog (Feb 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.
> 
> The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.
> 
> ...



Soen - But only 20+ Ar -232 were built? And LW didn't think enough of them to replace the Ju 52. My impression was that it could called a forerunner of the C-82/C-119 or even C-130 and I am impressed with it's potential as a medium haul transport but to call it best means that its performance and role would have to demonstrate that it was better in fast, heavy haul transports like the Constellation or C-54 (both requiring hard runways) or versatile transports like the C-47 and C-46.

Wermacht would like it a lot, is that enough to call it the 'best'. Would it have been the transport of choice for say, Normandy or Operation Market Garden invasion or perhaps the Berlin Airlift in 1949? or caarying supplies to China over the Hump? 

From my perspective I would have liked it for airborne ops because of the ability to land in rough fields and eliminate need for Waco sized gliders.. but I have a hard time on rest because of payload/range but as near as I can tell it was in a class with C-46 for payload to range and well under the Constellation for range (1/3), top speed (2/3), and payload (1/3 to 1/2)?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Feb 9, 2008)

Regarding the Ta-152H, the H-0 saw service before the H-1 in 1944, the H-1 entering service in Jan 45.

The Dora-13 didn't see service in many numbers, ~15 a/c IIRC, however with a 770 + km/h top speed at alt and 612 km/h top speed at SL it swiftly out-peformed any Allied fighter. It also featured many of the advanced features of the Ta-152.

The Me-262 was faster, climbed faster turned better than the P-80A, so even if the P-80 was rushed into production it wouldn't have mattered. Besides the Me-262A1 was ready and flying in 1943, a good deal earlier than the P-80.

I don't know about the std. Constellation but the Ar-232B could haul very big loads. Remember that the Constellation of the 1940's is a whole different animal than the Super Constellation of the 50's!

Also the Ar-242 was allot better in the way that it could load larger pieces of equipment than the constellation by virtue of its wider hull and rear loading ramp. 

Anyway if we were to go by max loading capacity and speed the Germans had quite a few other a/c, the Ju-290, Ju-252 (VERY high speed load capability!) BV-222 just to name a few. In terms of highest and biggest loads carried the Me-323 easily takes the prize though, being used to transport panzers amongst other heavy material to the frontline. 

*Me-323*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2008)

I love Luftwaffe aircraft especially the Bf 109 which is my favorite aircraft. I just think it is funny how an airforce that is "superior" in all regards to the allied airforces and can never do anything wrong did not win the war.

Does anyone else wonder this as well?


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2008)

Just a thought. If this debate was about the Best submarine force in 1940 and I was to argue that it was Holland because they had an excellent design. I am sure everyone would complain because only two were in service.

So why do people think that the Germans had the best airforce because they had some excellent designs but only had insignificant numbers in service.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> Regarding the Ta-152H, the H-0 saw service before the H-1 in 1944, the H-1 entering service in Jan 45.
> 
> *So, how many Ta 152H-0 went to operational squadron - and which squadron/Gruppe?*
> 
> ...



Lockheed Constellation Specifications: 
Dimensions: 
Model 049 Model 749 Model 1049G Model 1649 
Wing span: 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 5 in (37.62 m) 150 ft 0 in (45.72 m) 
Length: 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m) 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m) 113 ft 7 in (34.62 m) 116 ft 2 in (35.41 m) 
Height: 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m) 
Wing Area: 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,654 ft² (153.66 m²) 1,850 ft² (171.87 m²) 
Weights: 
Empty Weight: 55,345 lbs (25,104 kg) 58,970 lbs (26,748 kg) 73,016 lbs (33,120 kg) 91,645 lbs (41,969 kg) 
Loaded Weight: 86,250 lbs (39,122 kg) 107,000 lbs (48,534 kg) 137,500 lbs (62,369 kg) 160,000 lbs (72,575 kg) 
Performance: 
Max. Speed: 329 mph (529 km/h) 
@ sea level 358 mph (576 km/h) 
@ 19,200 ft (5,852 m) 370 mph (595 km/h) 
@ 20,000 ft (6,095 m) 377 mph (606 km/h) 
@ 18,600 ft (5,669 m) 
Cruising Speed: 275 mph (442 km/h) 327 mph (526 km/h) 305 mph (491 km/h) 290 mph (466 km/h) 
Service Ceiling: 25,500 ft (7,770 m) 22,300 ft (6,795 m) 23,700 ft (7,223 m) 
Max Range: 3,680 miles (5,920 km) with 
7,800 lb (3,538 kg) payload 4,150 miles (6,678 km) with 
3,300 lb (1,496 kg) payload 5,250 miles (8,449 km) with 
8,500 lb (3,856 kg) payload 6,180 miles (9,945 km) with 
8,000 lb (3,628 kg) payload 
Range 
Max Payload: 2,290 miles (3,685 km) with 
18,400 lb (8,364 kg) payload 1,760 miles (2,832 km) with 
16,300 lb (7,393 kg) payload 4,140 miles (6,660 km) with 
18,300 lb (8,301 kg) payload 4,940 miles (7,950 km) with 
19,500 lb (8,845 kg) payload 
Powerplant: Four Wright Cyclone 
R-3350-745C-18BA-1 
engines rated 
@ 2,200 hp (1,640 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone 
R-3350-749C-18BD-1 
engines rated 
@ 2,500 hp (1,864 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone 
R-3350-972TC-18DA-3 
turbo-compound rated 
@ 3,400 hp (2,535 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone 
R-3350-988TC-18EA-2 
turbo-compound rated 
@ 3,400 hp (2,535 kw) each


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love Luftwaffe aircraft especially the Bf 109 which is my favorite aircraft. I just think it is funny how an airforce that is "superior" in all regards to the allied airforces and can never do anything wrong did not win the war.
> 
> Does anyone else wonder this as well?



What I'm wondering about is why do people want to twist what I'm saying ?? 

Did I ever claim that the LW was ahead in EVERY REGARD ???

What I'm saying is that in terms of quality equipment the LW was the best, but in terms of quantity it was obviously behind. 

Also important to the success of an AF is properly trained pilots, wittout this it almost doesn't matter what a/c you have, and the LW seriously lacked these trained pilots in 44 to 45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> What I'm wondering about is why do people want to twist what I'm saying ??
> 
> Did I ever claim that the LW was ahead in EVERY REGARD ???
> 
> ...



You need to calm the **** down Soren. Did I mention "Soren" anywhere in my post?

If it does not apply to you then you dont need to worry about it. If it does apply to you, well....


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The pilot strength was typically 32 (4 lights of 8 pilots) per squadron, plus at least 4 from HQ (GP CO, Exec, Ops and asst Ops).
> 
> For a fighter Group (wing) the total number of personnel was closer to 900, bomg group larger because of number of ground crew and air crew for multi engine, large, ships.
> 
> A fighter ground crew was Crew Chief, Asst Crew Chief and Armorer. Specialized ground personnel included armament, communications, service group mechanics (engine change core teams, sheet metal, hydraulics, electrical, etc) in the Service Group plus MPs, Base Defense, Admin, Chaplain, Medical officers, etc.


just for arguments sake as i agree the USAAF was the best in size and in projecting power but was it as efficient as I mentioned earlier a RCAF fighter wing was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades so for an extra 10 aircraft you have 170 more personal . 
you asked earlier for the breakdown on numbers trained in Canada
Pilot 
RCAF 25,747 
RAF 17,796 
RAAF 4,045 
RNZAF 2,220 
Total 49,808 include in the RAF numbers are the Czechs ,Poles , Dutch, Norwegians


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Come on Adler, who else was giving the LW some credit in the last few posts but me ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2008)

Like I said. If it does not apply to you then dont worry about.

Back on topic now...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2008)

I gave you credit for the advanced aircraft catagory.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Bill,

The Dora-13's excellent high alt performance was in great part due to the fact that it featured the GM-1 system. 

The Ta-152H-0 entered service in October 1944, 20 being delivered between October and Novermber.

And as to other transport a/c, well the Ju-252 beats them all in terms of speed cargo capacity (Except the Me-323 which could carry 12+ tons of cargo).


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> ....
> The Ta-152H-0 entered service in October 1944, 20 being delivered between October and Novermber....



Only 20? 

That was the daily production figure for the P51 and Spitfire.

Once again, you're proving one thing..... the LW had the capability to build fine aircraft, but sure as hell couldn't build enough of them when it mattered.

If only 20 of them were built, it had better of have a kill ratio of a 100 to 1 to make an impact.

The Ta-152 was an incremental improvement over existing aircraft. Not enough to change any rankings.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

67 Ta-152H's saw service in WW2, that's it.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> just for arguments sake as i agree the USAAF was the best in size and in projecting power but was it as efficient as I mentioned earlier a RCAF fighter wing was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades so for an extra 10 aircraft you have 170 more personal .
> you asked earlier for the breakdown on numbers trained in Canada
> Pilot Nav. B Nav. W Nav. AB WO/AG AG Naval AG FE
> RCAF 25,747 5,154 421 7,280 6,659 12,744 12,917 0 1,913
> ...



Pb - how would you measue efficency? Certainly number of total persons to support the mission is one. Are we comparing one to one on all the organization support orgs to support the Fighter Group

For example - did all RCAF/RAF fighter wings have a Service group and hanger battery to repair (sheet metal, wing replacement, kits), perform engine changes and most modification on the base? that was a 40-50 person shop doing all the stuff not requiring full Division Depot mods (like a Malcolm hood).

The figures I gave you wer somewhat imprecise but it was based on the 1945 scenario when approximately 72 ships (plus 'oddball' AT-6, B-26, Norseman, etc in the case of Steeple Morden).. but the 72 did include WW and Clobber College a/c when 495 and 496 FTG's were shut down in November, 1944.

I really don't know how to compare the two doctrines and orgs between RAF and USAAF in England.

Last, it just occured to me that my reflection on headcount was on 355th FG which like the 55th and 364th, also housed the Scout Force as part of the TO&E (another 'complete' Flight per each Squadron - or a 25% increase in Fighter strength and crews, maybe 6 adds to HQ) when compared to 56th or 4th.

But at the end of the day that only represents perhaps 60 personnel as it was no extra headcount to do Security, Service Group, depot type functions

I have to do some research to see what the 'average' looked like in early 43, 44 and 45 as the 8th grew.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Thats what I'm trying to impart is the whole unit was smaller manwise per aircraft the same holds true to this day . A good example of this is the Snowbirds the total group is 22 guys ... 11 techs 11 pilots one being the PA guy 10 aircraft and a spare ,


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The Dora-13's excellent high alt performance was in great part due to the fact that it featured the GM-1 system.
> 
> ...



Everything I can find on both ships (Ju 252 and Ju 352) suggest
Ju 252 - max range at cruise of 208mph = 2,473 15 built
Ju 352 - max range at cruise of 150mph = 1,120 45 built

Ju 252 - Delta Empty to Max TO = 24,000 pounds 
Ju 352 - Delta " " = 16,000 pounds

I can't find data on either that would map out comparisons of payload to range like I could on the C-69 (of which more were built than the two above combined)

C-69
Delta - Empty to Max TO = 31,000 pounds
Max range @275mph (cruise) and 7,800 payload = 4,150mile
Max range @275mph and 18,400 payload= 1,760 miles

I assume LW design teams are good - so payload to max Delta between empty and Max TO for C-69 = 7,800/31,000 ---> .25% of payload plus fuel/crew/oil, etc fro extreme range of 4,000 miles

If the best of the above Ju 352 or 252 has 25% of Delta as cargo that would give the 252 the edge over the 352 and yield 6,000 payload at 2400 miles and 208mph.

Just compare the two Ju's to the C-69 in total payload, max speed, max cruise and range - tough to make a case that either was close much less better. I have to look but think the C-54 also has an edge, that the C-46 is close and the C-47 inferior.

I suspect nothing matched the Me 323 in payload for a transport unless you wish to compare B-29 when it was ferrying fuel over the hump to advance bases in china.

Back to the Dora -13. Which squadron was it deployed to for combat ops? and did it have a serious problem with third stage blower in Jumo 213E? At what point in time was that problem solved to enable it to achieve it's excellent high altitude performance over the -9?

I don't know much about 152, I recall it coming out of production line in late October. Where did they go - operationally, or did they stay in an evaluation unit?

In all fairness to these discussions about the superlatives of the Ta 152, the Dora -13 and even the He 162, it has to be noted that 12 YP-80s were produced before December, 1944 about the time the Ta 152H-0 was out, and that production release to operational squadrons for P=80A started in February, 1945 and that P-51H was into operational squadrons in March 1944.

It is difficult to make a case that the Ta 152 and Fw 190D-13 was far superior to any Allied fighter when the Allied fighters that were equal or superior were produced in greater numbers and delivered to operational squadrons before WWII ended. Admitted only 80+ P-80s were delivered but I think they alone exceeded all the operational Ta 152s and He 162s combined (and maybe D-13s?).. I have to check but approx 150 P-51H were delivered before VE Day

Also the F7F-1 and -2 were delivered in late 1944 with a higher dash speed at 25,000 feet than any USN fighter and 15mph faster than the P-51B at that altitude, nearly 800fpm better initial climb rate (4530fpm) and 20mph faster on the deck. It beat the F4U-4 in nearly every important combat manuever except roll, and equal in turn.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2008)

Agree, Adler. With all the superior technology, brains, etc. I am beginning to think I misread my history and Germany won the war. Just kidding as that is not a fair comment. No question that the Germanic race has always had a penchant for engineering and science which has allowed it in time of war to develop some extraordinary equipment. However, the US and Britain and France have had their share of boffins also as well as Japan. Germany had no corner on that market. Just because an AC first flew in 1943 doesn't mean it was operational. The Corsair first flew in 1940 and set a single engine fighter speed record in the US in that year. It was not operational until 1942 and not carrier ready until 1943. My source on the TA152 says,"Various models of the Ta152B, C and H were proposed and/or planned by FW and the LW; few, however, progressed further than the conceptual or prototype stage, with only several air craft ever reaching combat units," Doesn't sound like it had much if any impact on the war. It was said on this forum that the Ta152 had trouble with the Jumo 213E engine. I thought the engine was an integral part of the AC. Perhaps the Ta152 would have been the wunderkind claimed if they had left off the Jumo engine. LOL


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> Agree, Adler. With all the superior technology, brains, etc. I am beginning to think I misread my history and Germany won the war. Just kidding as that is not a fair comment. No question that the Germanic race has always had a penchant for engineering and science which has allowed it in time of war to develop some extraordinary equipment. However, the US and Britain and France have had their share of boffins also as well as Japan. Germany had no corner on that market. Just because an AC first flew in 1943 doesn't mean it was operational. The Corsair first flew in 1940 and set a single engine fighter speed record in the US in that year. It was not operational until 1942 and not carrier ready until 1943. My source on the TA152 says,"Various models of the Ta152B, C and H were proposed and/or planned by FW and the LW; few, however, progressed further than the conceptual or prototype stage, with only several air craft ever reaching combat units," Doesn't sound like it had much if any impact on the war. It was said on this forum that the Ta152 had trouble with the Jumo 213E engine. I thought the engine was an integral part of the AC. Perhaps the Ta152 would have been the wunderkind claimed if they had left off the Jumo engine. LOL



Rich - in all fairness (re: my recollection of the 3rd stage blower issue with the Jumo213E), I could be wrong about the problems it caused for the Fw 190D-13 which is why I posed it as a question mark?

We certainly had issues with the P&W 3350 throughout the war in the B-29A which resulted in B-29B/B-50 post WWII... as well as Allison system at very high cold ETO altitudes in the winter of 1943/1944.

Like you and Chris I have enormous respect for German engineering talent and they were at leading edge/bleeding edge fron for rockets and ject engines at end of WWII as well as high speed aerodynamics... but it WAS bleeding edge for the Ta 152/Me 262 and He 162 when necessary to make operationally reliable to same degree as Fw 190A and 109 G/K. The YP-80 and P-80A was no worse (reliability) than Ta 152H-1 or He 162 at end of war, in my opinion, in ETO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> .
> 
> Like you and Chris I have enormous respect for German engineering talent and they were at leading edge/bleeding edge fron for rockets and ject engines at end of WWII as well as high speed aerodynamics... but it WAS bleeding edge for the Ta 152/Me 262 and He 162 when necessary to make operationally reliable to same degree as Fw 190A and 109 G/K. The YP-80 and P-80A was no worse (reliability) than Ta 152H-1 or He 162 at end of war, in my opinion, in ETO.



Exactly. There is more than just being technically the best. Just having quality does not cut it.

While I believe believe the Germans were ahead of there time in many areas and made many advanced and superior aircraft, I would never kid myself and argue that everything German was better. If it were that way, Germany would have won the war.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Adler,

Note who Renrich thinks your comment was directed at 

Bill,

IIRC the Ju-252 could carry about 8 tons of cargo (Same as Ar-232) and unlike the C-69 it featured a loading ramp for loading larger cargo. Also the Ju-252's 2,473 mile range with max payload is pretty darn impressive. 

The Ju-290 had a slightly higher payload capacity than the Ju-252 but was faster and had an even greater range, and it also featured a rear loading ramp.

*Ju-290*






Another great German transport plane was the BV-222 flying boat, which with a 10 ton payload capacity and 3,737 mile range was a very impressive a/c. It featured wide side doors for loading cargo and was VERY well armed.

Now about the C-69, well according my sources only 21 were ever delivered to the USAAF during WW2, which means less than the Ju-252 Ju-352 combined.

Also the max payload for the first C-69 L-049's couldn't have been very high considering the ~22,000 kg empty weight and the ~32,000 kg max weight.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 10, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly. There is more than just being technically the best. Just having quality does not cut it.
> 
> While I believe believe the Germans were ahead of there time in many areas and made many advanced and superior aircraft, I would never kid myself and argue that everything German was better. If it were that way, Germany would have won the war.




One remark: like in sports the best does not always win, a lot of factors play a part in it and having to fight against the majority of the world without many powerful allies is one of them.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Bill,

Regarding the Jumo 213 engine;

The Jumo 213E had a three-speed two-stage supercharger and induction cooler, and there were no problems with it. There was a problem with some batches of Jumo 213A engines at one point, Mike Williams using performance figures reached with some of these underperforming engines on his site.

The problem plagueing the Jumo 213 was the lack of raw materials Germany was experiencing, causing the quality to often vary from batch to batch. However the Jumo 213 engine, while being the Ta-152H's only problem late in the war, was after-all a very reliable engine when built to the minimum German quality standards, however sadly for the Germans this was far from always possible.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Marcel said:


> One remark: like in sports the best does not always win, a lot of factors play a part in it and having to fight against the majority of the world without many powerful allies is one of them.



Exactly Marcel.

Having the best aircraft means nothing if you're lacking the fuel and trained pilots to fly them.


----------



## renrich (Feb 10, 2008)

Yep, according to Churchill," the only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without allies." Another Churchillism. When told by Von Ribbentrop, "this time we will have Italy on our side." Churchill said, "that seems fair, we were stuck with them last time." However, I think that going from having almost no army, a small air force and perhaps having only the third largest Navy in the world in 1939 to launching an amphibious assault across the Atlantic (with considerable help from the Brits) in Novenber, 1942, while still fighting a major war in the Pacific, was a prodigous accomplishment possibly underappreciated.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> IIRC the Ju-252 could carry about 8 tons of cargo (Same as Ar-232) and unlike the C-69 it featured a loading ramp for loading larger cargo. Also the Ju-252's 2,473 mile range with max payload is pretty darn impressive.
> 
> *Specifications (Ju 252A)
> General characteristics
> ...



This is hard to read Soren but the L049 is the C-69 and the derivative commercial liners from the L049 (same airframe, different engines) were produced around 100 through the L749. The L049 was suborned by USAAF but kept production into late 1946, when it was modified enough with spar and gear mods to become the L149.. and so on through L749

The Lockheed Constellation - USA

Lockheed Constellation Specifications: 
Dimensions: 
*Model 049 *Model 749 Model 1049G Model 1649 
Wing span: 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 5 in (37.62 m) 150 ft 0 in (45.72 m) 
*Length: 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m)* 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m) 113 ft 7 in (34.62 m) 116 ft 2 in (35.41 m) 
Height: 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m) 
Wing Area: 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,654 ft² (153.66 m²) 1,850 ft² (171.87 m²) 
Weights: 
*Empty Weight: 55,345 lbs (25,104 kg) * 58,970 lbs (26,748 kg) 73,016 lbs (33,120 kg) 91,645 lbs (41,969 kg) 
*Loaded Weight: 86,250 lbs (39,122 kg) *107,000 lbs (48,534 kg) 137,500 lbs (62,369 kg) 160,000 lbs (72,575 kg) 
Performance: 
*Max. Speed: 329 mph (529 km/h) 
@ sea level 358 mph (576 km/h) 
@ 19,200 ft (5,852 m) 370 mph (595 km/h) 
@ 20,000 ft (6,095 m) 377 mph (606 km/h) 
@ 18,600 ft (5,669 m) *

*Cruising Speed: 275 mph (442 km/h)* 327 mph (526 km/h) 305 mph (491 km/h) 290 mph (466 km/h) 
*Service Ceiling: 25,500 ft (7,770 m) * 22,300 ft (6,795 m) 23,700 ft (7,223 m) 
*Max Range: 3,680 miles (5,920 km) with 
7,800 lb (3,538 kg) payload *4,150 miles (6,678 km) with 
3,300 lb (1,496 kg) payload 5,250 miles (8,449 km) with 
8,500 lb (3,856 kg) payload 6,180 miles (9,945 km) with 
8,000 lb (3,628 kg) payload 
Range 
*Max Payload: 2,290 miles (3,685 km) with 
18,400 lb (8,364 kg) payload *1,760 miles (2,832 km) with 
16,300 lb (7,393 kg) payload 4,140 miles (6,660 km) with 
18,300 lb (8,301 kg) payload 4,940 miles (7,950 km) with 
19,500 lb (8,845 kg) payload 

Summarize The C-69/L049

Empty Weight: 55,345 lbs (25,104 kg), MAX wt 86,250 pounds
Delta = 31,000 and of that 

18,400 could be transported 2,290 miles at 275mph or
7,800 could be taken 3,680 miles at 275mph

Remember this specific model Constellation didn't stop use on VE day, it flew a long time in this configuration and moved a lot of military, civilan and dope over the years


----------



## davparlr (Feb 10, 2008)

Even the Germans were glad to see the unarmed warbird that held off the Russians for 10 months and delivered the first cold war victory. A hero under-appreciated.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 11, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Even the Germans were glad to see the unarmed warbird that held off the Russians for 10 months and delivered the first cold war victory. A hero under-appreciated.



one helluva airplane - and Curtis Lemay's only peacetime statement


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> Note who Renrich thinks your comment was directed at



I dont care who he thinks it was directed it. I was talking to Bill...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly. There is more than just being technically the best. Just having quality does not cut it.
> 
> While I believe believe the Germans were ahead of there time in many areas and made many advanced and superior aircraft, I would never kid myself and argue that everything German was better. If it were that way, Germany would have won the war.



The single largest factor I think that won the war for the Allies was = numbers.

Look at USA and Russia as leading examples.

I am not saying they did not produce fine machines, they did, but the numbers game won them the war more then any other factor IMO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> The single largest factor I think that won the war for the Allies was = numbers.
> 
> Look at USA and Russia as leading examples.
> 
> I am not saying they did not produce fine machines, they did, but the numbers game won them the war more then any other factor IMO.



Agreed 100 percent. I have never claimed anything different. 

I just get tired of the everything the allies built was inferior to what the Germans built thing that goes around...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed 100 percent. I have never claimed anything different.
> 
> I just get tired of the everything the allies built was inferior to what the Germans built thing that goes around...



I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.

I am not saying or suggesting that you do this I am just giving you my opinion and beliefs on the matter.

I know at times is is hard to walk away, I have argued with Syscom many times on such things. Some people just can get to you when you are having a bad day......and then it goes from there. I turn a blind eye as much as I can to such behavior no matter who is doing it. 

Soren certainly is not the only one guilty of being one sided at times here. Perhaps he believes he has to be to offset those who believe the USA did everything right in WW2.

Oh well, it will never change. PS I voted the USA best AF by the way. LOL


Hmmmm my 2000th post, hero cookie for me today!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.



Agreed...

Lets get back on topic though. I think I have derailed this eneogh.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 11, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.


Good post and exactly what I thought.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 12, 2008)

Back on topic,

Single machines were not important in making a great air force - a mixture of aircraft types and the ability to perform all tasks required to win the war are what make a good air force. 

I've said it before; the USAAF is 1st because they achieved everything in every theatre they fought in. The RAF is second because they never had a strategic campaign in the CBI. The Luftwaffe is third because it had no strategic arm, but achieved greater tactical superiority and flexibility than the VVS and IJAAF.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Back on topic,
> 
> Single machines were not important in making a great air force - a mixture of aircraft types and the ability to perform all tasks required to win the war are what make a good air force.
> 
> I've said it before; the USAAF is 1st because they achieved everything in every theatre they fought in. The RAF is second because they never had a strategic campaign in the CBI. The Luftwaffe is third because it had no strategic arm, but achieved greater tactical superiority and flexibility than the VVS and IJAAF.



Excellent Summary Plan_D.. I also do think the relative positioning was most certainly a function of time with the 'early days' led by LW, 'middle period' by RAF and 'last phase' by USAAF.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 13, 2008)

That is true. In terms of years the Luftwaffe was No.1 from '39 - '41; the RAF was No.1 from '42 - '43 and the USAAF was No.1 '44 - '45. The RAF strategic arm really came to the front in '42. And I think the USAAF didn't truely step far and ahead in the ETO until '44, maybe very late '43. 

In the PTO/CBI the IJAAF was number one (obviously not including the USN and IJN air power) 'til about '43, I reckon.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 13, 2008)

plan_D said:


> That is true. In terms of years the Luftwaffe was No.1 from '39 - '41; the RAF was No.1 from '42 - '43 and the USAAF was No.1 '44 - '45. The RAF strategic arm really came to the front in '42. And I think the USAAF didn't truely step far and ahead in the ETO until '44, maybe very late '43.
> 
> In the PTO/CBI the IJAAF was number one (obviously not including the USN and IJN air power) 'til about '43, I reckon.



I tend to lump in all arms that project force via aircraft as Airpower whether by naval supplied island bases, carriers, land bases, etc... which is why the Brits and then the Yanks surpassed the Japanese, then the LW as the war unfolded. That is a key reason I considered that Britain surpassed Germany in 1942 from a depth and reach position of strength.

The AAF and USN were mostly defensive in Pacific, even Midway, through Solomon Island Campaigns - and CBI until late 1942. After that, combined with RAF and ANZAC airpower, started hounding Japan everywhere except Formosa and Okinawa and Japan. 

I guess it was B-29 strikes from China that the war (somewhat ineffectively) was finally moved to mainland in 1944.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I tend to lump in all arms that project force via aircraft as Airpower whether by naval supplied island bases, carriers, land bases, etc... which is why the Brits and then the Yanks surpassed the Japanese, then the LW as the war unfolded. That is a key reason I considered that Britain surpassed Germany in 1942 from a depth and reach position of strength.
> 
> The AAF and USN were mostly defensive in Pacific, even Midway, through Solomon Island Campaigns - and CBI until late 1942. After that, combined with RAF and ANZAC airpower, started hounding Japan everywhere except Formosa and Okinawa and Japan.
> 
> I guess it was B-29 strikes from China that the war (somewhat ineffectively) was finally moved to mainland in 1944.



For the Pacific, after middle 1943, the AAF and USN were growing exponentially stronger as each month went by, untill by the end of the year, it essentially was a AAF/USN airwar. The domination of the US in the airwar was complete, whether it was AAF/USN air groups or aircraft supplied to the allied units.


----------



## Barrett (Feb 13, 2008)

Did anybody nominate the US Navy?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2008)

Barrett said:


> Did anybody nominate the US Navy?



The USN was incorporated into the rankings of the AAF.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

With all that has been posted I think it downright near impossible to decide who had the best AF - for all the arguments stated. Of course whoever wins the war can lay the claim.

Best has many ingredients - not just the largest or best quality or longest served. If I was Erich Hartmann flying the only airplane that Luxembourg has (a P-51 say) would that make Luxembourg best?  

That being said, I would choose the way Plan D did - for the years he posted, for all the reasons previously posted.


----------



## simonsays (Feb 13, 2008)

renrich said:


> As usual Soren you get your exercise jumping to conclusions, I believe that the ME262 had gas turbine engines. I said that the F4U was the finest fighter bomber and arguably the finest PISTON ENGINE fighter of WW2 and arguably the finest PE fighter of all time. The TA152 played almost no role in WW2. The F4U played an enormous role. You can argue all you want to about best PE fighter of all time. The Germans never fielded a carrier borne fighter. Simon, The Battle of Atlantic the biggest battle of WW2. That is like saying that Gallipoli was the biggest battle of WW1. Have you no knowledge of the Russian Front. The Germans never came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, thanks to US ship building capacity. On June 1, 1943, the first Royal Navy Sdn. #1830 was formed at Quonset Point, RI using Corsair Is. In January, 1943, the first US Navy squadron VF12 was operational. In June, 1943, VF17, the Jolly Rogers was aboard the Bunker Hill. Do you seriously think the British, training at Quonset Point, not even aboard a carrier, beat the US Navy to learning to operate the Corsair off a carrier. That is another wartime myth, like the "Forked Tail Devil." Take a little friendly advice. Before you jump head long into this forum, be advised that there are people on here who have twice the knowledge of you and I put together and we would both do well to be cautious and not expose too much of our ignorance.



You seem unaware of the difference between a 'war', a 'campaign' and a 'battle'. The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic. Take a look at a map and look at the huge area the battle took place over, and include the distance north to south. I am not ignorant enough to have grown up unaware of the Eastern *Front*. In fact if any one country 'won the war' it was more likely to have been the Soviets. The reason they did this was by countering then driving the Germans right back to Berlin. But suppose the Soviets Union had failed at Stalingrad. Image what would have happened. German forces tied up holding the western Soviet Union against continual partisan attacks and a campaign from the East. How would this have impacted the overall outcome of the war compared to an Allied defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic? The Allies came very close to losing this battle and support from across the Atlantic was a vital life-line to the UK. Had the Kriegsmarine triumphed the game would have been over. Again, this is my opinion formed from a strategic point of view. There are very few military historians who do *not* refer to the Battle of the Atlantic as the biggest battle of WWII. Yet again, the Soviet numbers of killed etc. are not the whole picture. Do you see my point now?

(My Grandfather and his brother were both wounded at Gallipoli and I still fail to see the connection you made)

As for the Pacific *War*, the clue is also in the title. Does exactly what it says on the can.

As for the original point I made over the Corsair. It was a superb airplane once mastered. The Royal Navy receiving 95 Mk Is and 510 Mk IIs. By the end of the war they furnished 19 FAA Sqns. However, the point I made related more to aircrew standards of training and wartime experience, and I stated that the USN had had such a terrible time with accidents trying to land them with the units formed (like USS Bunker Hills' Jolly Rogers...yada...yada...yada...) that Corsairs were seen as ineffective as carrier aircraft as they were impossible to land safely. As such they were then farmed off to the USMC with the tail hooks removed to operate from airfields only.

The early US aircraft had poor stall characteristics for carrier approaches, leaked oil on the windscreen and the long nose obscured the pilot's view. They bounced too much on landing often causing the aircraft's tail hook to miss the arrester wire. After prolonged tests the USN stated that their new 'wonderplane' was a dud. It had the ability to outperform and outgun the Zero but it needed time to get its sea-legs and the Navy was not prepared to wait. They decided to relegate the Corsair to play only a supporting role in the Pacific theatre. (Remember the theme of this thread- Best Air Force of WWII)

The USMC found a place for the Corsair in the Soloman Islands campaign as a close air support aircraft. There can be little doubt that what the USN and USMC pilots lacked in initial experience and strategic know-how they more than made up for in bravery. In fact, it was 'The Black Sheep' squadron's bending of the rules and regulations counter to what they were told to do that made them so successful. (Remember the theme...best air force)

The Fleet Air Arm was the first operational carrier Corsair force. The FAA corrected most of the Corsair's faults and resurrected it as a carrier aircraft in 1944. The Royal Navy used it in both Europe (for air cover during the attacks on the Tirpitz etc.) and in the Pacific. 

'Red' James, the USMC Corsair pilot stated that "Well, they gave the Corsair to the Limeys to let them worry about it, and they worried about it, and they fixed it. The Royal Navy played a great role in the Corsair's development".

According to Hill Goodspeed from the Naval Aviation Museum in the USA, the Royal Navy had Corsairs operating from flat-tops a full 8 months before the US did. I have just watched film of Fleet Air Arm pilots teaching the USMC pilots how to land. They taught the USN and USMC pilots how to land on carriers by approaching the flight deck at a right angle from the port quarter so as to increase visibility, then to swing that aircraft round in a gentle curve on final approach to land it safely. It was this event that heralded the first use of USMC aircraft on USN carriers. 

The entire story is recounted on the Corsair episode of the History Channel's 'Battle Stations' TV series as well as on the Corsair's Wikipedia entry.

I think you should perhaps take your own advice about spouting off. I have something to contribute but lots to learn, and that's the way I like it. I would like to point out that it was my contribution to the discussion that breathed new life into the British Commonwealth Air Forces being the best, when the American contributors to this site could only see the USAAF as the one winner. It is a question of *lateral thinking*, at being able to *see the bigger picture*, of *sticking to the original question*, of appreciating the circumstances under which the RAF operated, the huge area they operated over and of considering the long, hard *6* years they fought. I would like to think that by raising these points, I have at least put them in the Best Air Force of the middle of WWII in even the most cynical mind.8) 

As a European, I was accused by Flyboy of thinking only in terms of one continent (Europe, I suppose). Prior to that statement I had already mentioned the British campaign in Burma killing four times as many Japanese troops as were killed in the US Island hopping campaign.

I have a BA in Int'l Business Japanese from both a UK and a Japanese University, an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies, live in Japan with my Japanese wife, am a Japanese language translator/interpreter and have been in Japan since 1994. I live in a city totally destroyed by USAAF bombing and have frequent coversations with older Japanese in Japanese about those raids. I have also been many, many times to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Tokyo. I have also spoken to A-Bomb victims and the orphans of those killed by the A-Bombs in their own language. I am well aware of the Pacific War and the massive US effort in it. Perhaps now I have showed my hand I may pass your strict criteria for taking part in this discussion? 

By the way, my specialisation in the Japanese academic world is wartime responsibility, the rewriting of history, creation of patriotic myth and general epistemology (why we think we 'know' what we 'know'). This whole discussion has been as revealing on that subject as it has on WWII air forces!

Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.

It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.

Many thanks for your understanding in advance.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2008)

The following is where I see the US having the lead over the rest of the combatants.

1) Types of aircraft in all catagories
2) Heavy bombers
3) Global reach
4) Production capabilities
5) Industrial capabilities
6) Economy
7) Naval aviation
8 ) Skilled manpower base

All of these taken together means the US was the best in 1944 and essentially became magnitudes better in 1945.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 14, 2008)

syscom, the only part of the U.S Air Power that makes them No.1 is the fact that they had a strategic force in the PTO - if the RAF had a strategic force in the CBI or PTO it would still be a level playing field for me.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

simonsays said:


> Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.
> 
> *Be grateful. Joe enjoys letting me make an idiot of myself with my 'long running' posts! *
> 
> ...



That is the way forums with a lot of participants work - administrators 'administrate' and if we fail to see the humor in it, we live with it and somehow life goes on. 

I have been whacked (mostly appropriate) but have found it makes a lot more sense to take my perceived 'injury' off line?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2008)

plan_D said:


> syscom, the only part of the U.S Air Power that makes them No.1 is the fact that they had a strategic force in the PTO - if the RAF had a strategic force in the CBI or PTO it would still be a level playing field for me.



The US had more heavy bomber groups in the PTO than the RAF had in its entire inventory.

Not to mention the huge numbers of other aircraft we supplied to the RAF and
RAAF.

Now show me where your production capabilty came close to what the AAF had.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2008)

simonsays said:


> Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.
> 
> It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.
> 
> Many thanks for your understanding in advance.



*No - you will not run numerous posts and I will combine them and edit as I feel required. Based on some of your intial posts I'm going to tell you straight out you're on thin ice. - if you don't like it go play in another sandbox, and I'm only going to tell you this ONCE! I hope I make myself abundantly clear!!!!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> That is the way forums with a lot of participants work - administrators 'administrate' and if we fail to see the humor in it, we live with it and somehow life goes on.
> 
> I have been whacked (mostly appropriate) but have found it makes a lot more sense to take my perceived 'injury' off line?
> 
> ...




Thanks Bill....

And by the way - I posted two consecutive posts *on purpose!!!!*


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

simonsays said:


> You seem unaware of the difference between a 'war', a 'campaign' and a 'battle'. The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic.
> 
> *I am curious regarding the distinction you make between Campaign and Battle when illustrating the Battle of Atlantic as a 'Battle'. It seemed more a Campaign in which combatants engaged frequently in many locations, over time, in which clashes occurred frequently in the same loacations despite the passage of time, and never truly was over until approximately May 8, 1945?*
> 
> ...



It is always nice to be corrected in both attitudes and facts as we progress the journey of life. 

Having said that, many 'academics' are the very worst at revisionist history and in a particularly strategic position, via teaching to advance their POV. 

I would offer one for your comment if you choose. There seems to be widespread acceptance within the UK teaching community that presenting details and 'facts' about the Holocaust is Politically offensive to many, and therefore should be stricken from teaching curricula? This is an example for UK, perhaps for various interests in Middle East. Do you see that trend moving to the EU? 

Was Gen'L Eisenhower right when he said in 1945 'Show them, record it in detail. There will be far too many who wish to deny this and we must never let the world forget what happened here' - (paraphrased but essentially the comment when he visited the Third Reich Rest Homes for the Jewish' after VE Day. 

This thread is NOT the place for this, but if you open one in Politics, I would like your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill (aka 'Texas Redneck')

In your notes and observations regarding Japanese 're-writing' of history - which fact bases do your draw from? Other historical accounts?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks Bill....
> 
> And by the way - I posted two consecutive posts *on purpose!!!!*



Lol. Considering I have a.) posted the same post TWICE consecutively, not on purpose, b.) posted twice consecutively much of the same posts but with another comment rather than edit my first.. I have no righteous dogs in THIS hunt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Lol. Considering I have a.) posted the same post TWICE consecutively, not on purpose, b.) posted twice consecutively much of the same posts but with another comment rather than edit my first.. I have no righteous dogs in THIS hunt.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 14, 2008)

You have to love newbies coming here trying to tell the Mods team how to do their job.........LOL.

I waited a month before I tried that. LOL


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2008)

I still try 

Hehe, no seriously it's better to just let it go, nomatter if you're right or not.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 14, 2008)

LOL


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> You have to love newbies coming here trying to tell the Mods team how to do their job.........LOL.
> 
> I waited a month before I tried that. LOL



I think it took me about 30 seconds.. I still have a lot of respect for Yeager but I do understand and respect Dan/Joe POV as I have seen the 'other side'.

I sometimes have a tendency to speak my mind - when no one is particularly hanging on every word and usually forgot to ask me for it!


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 14, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I think it took me about 30 seconds.. I still have a lot of respect for Yeager but I do understand and respect Dan/Joe POV as I have seen the 'other side'.
> 
> I sometimes have a tendency to speak my mind - when no one is particularly hanging on every word and usually forgot to ask me for it!



I am no fan of Yeager either, but I do respect what he has done. 

Thats why we love you Bill, that and you do have lots of good information to offer on USAF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I am no fan of Yeager either, but I do respect what he has done.
> 
> Thats why we love you Bill, that and you do have lots of good information to offer on USAF.



Ditto all round'


----------



## renrich (Feb 14, 2008)

If one is to use geography to determine whether a battle is big or not, well then I believe the Battle of the Pacific would be a bigger battle than the Battle of the Atlantic. The Allies never came close to losing either. Using geographical size as a criteria, The Battle in the Far West culminating in Glorieta Pass was the biggest battle in The War of Northern Aggression. Much bigger than the Battle of the East. I wonder how Lee and Sibley felt about that? Let's see, at Sharpsburg, there were more than 23000 casualties in one day. In the Battle of the West over a period of months there were a few thousand casualties. The size of the geography involved doesn't work for me to define the size of a battle or it's importance.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> .....The War of Northern Aggression. ......



 

Still sore about losing a war 150 years ago?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Still sore about losing a war 150 years ago?



I am. 

It won't be long now, that those Confederate Dollars we stashed away in 1865 will be worth more than the US dollar.

I'm not actually sorry that the South (and Texas) did not prevail, but think how much fun we could have with Yankees if we were part of Opec now?


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2008)

I don't like the idea of slave labor..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2008)

You guys are killin me...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> I don't like the idea of slave labor..



Soren - neither do I.

In all seriousness the industrial revolution was killing slavery just based on economics. That isn't what the unpleasantness was about.

It was all about Power in the Legislature going increasingly to the North based on Population growth, and those industrial interests forcing South 'buy Yankee/No England' for machinery and equipment (by taxing crap out of English goods), then 'sell cheap' to Yankees/not England' for agricultural good from the south.

Slavery actually went past it's natural death in the South because 3/5 of the slave population in the South counted toward census and Districting for House of Representatives, and even with that the South was losing ground in Congress. 

So imagine the helpless feelings the Southerners had in this scenario when the Emancipation movement (or freeing the slaves voluntarily) threatedned to reduce the balance of power even more. In a limited sense the South was feeling like they were 'Sharecroppers' for the North, with the North in complete control of the Agricultural economy via taxes and trade tariffs.

Back to this little sidetrack - I'm with Rich...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2008)

Back to WW2


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2008)

I don't believe I stated that Great Britain had the industrial capacity of the U.S, sys. What I did say was that if Great Britain had deployed strategic forces to the CBI/PTO then both forces would have been projecting power in all their theatres, making them equal. 

The size of the air force was not important; you seem to have a Soviet mindset. And I know you have to drag the rest of the world to America's feet to try to prove a point, but don't forget that support worked both ways in World War II.


----------



## Glider (Feb 15, 2008)

At the end of the day the UK were behind the USA in a number of areas.

Heavy Bombers 
The Lanc and the Halifax were good comparisons to the B17/B24 but the Lincon wasn't close to the B29

Long Range Fighter
We had nothing to compare to the P51

Transport
An area often not considered but at least as important as any other types. We had some good designs but only a handful in service.

Naval Aircraft
Basically we had lash ups (Seafire, Sea Hurricane) obsolete design criteria (Firefly 1), or embarrasments (Barracuda) 

In most of these areas the UK had some good designs but as Germany found out, good designs don't win wars. Good designs in production and widespread service, win wars.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2008)

You're right, design vs. design the U.K was behind the U.S in a lot of areas. But that's not what's important; the ability to project power in varying degrees and in various areas is what's important. 

If it's wanted to compare the best of every countries aircraft type in every area then that's fine. But the fact will always remain that the U.S was on top simply because it projected tactical and strategic power in all its theatres. The U.S could have been using fleets of Stirlings instead of B-17s and escorting them with Zekes ... to me, to an extent, the amount of and designs of aircraft is unimportant. 

If the U.K had no U.S designs, it'd still have been better than the Luftwaffe.


----------



## andie0712 (Feb 15, 2008)

But, They did not in Pacific Area~~~~~


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2008)

Well done; that's what I said several pages back. And that's the reason I put the air forces first and those of Great Britain second.


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2008)

There is a persistent story floating around that has been used here to demonstrate that the US may not have had the "best" AF in WW2. That story is that the RN "taught" the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers. Being perhaps the most ardent Corsair supporter on this forum I thought I would try to research this to ferret out the truth. The following is my effort. Most of the research has come from Dean's "America's One Hundred Thousand" but some is from a book By Tom Blackburn and some from the Web. The first two Corsairs were accepted by the USN on July 31, 1942. The first Corsair Sqd is VMF 124 and it gets it's first AC late in Sept. 1942. On Sept. 25 the USN performs initial carrier tests on CVE26.(note this is a jeep carrier) they note that visibility on landing is poor, cowl flap actuators leak, oil leaks from engine, bounces on landing and tail swings on landing because flaps blank tail surface because of short tail wheel. Oct. 3, 1942, VF12 rec. 1st AC. November, 1942, the 5th production AC has been modified with raised pilot seat and new canopy to improve visibility. This is included on all production after #689 in 1943. December, 1942, cowl flap actuators are changed and upper cowl is sealed over on all production. January 14, 1943, first ten AC of VF12 are operational. Feb. 15, 1943, VF17 gets first F4U. March 1943 VMF 213 becomes operational in SW Pacific. March 4, 1943 VF 12 is aboard CVE 13(jeep carrier) Tires tend to blow out on the new long strut tail wheels. During training 14 pilots are killed and the AC is considered tricky to fly with bad stalling characteristics. June 1, 1943, RN SQD #1830, first RN SQD to receive Corsairs is formed and begins training on Corsairs at Quonset Point, R.I.(not carrier training) July 15, 1943, VF17(Jolly Rogers) goes aboard Bunker Hill for a Carribean shakedown cruise. They encounter tail hooks that break off and have to be replaced. Vought promises to relace their F4U1s with F4U1As with the raised cockpits and canopies when they return from the cruise. September 28, 1943, VF17 fully operational with F4Us leaves aboard Bunker Hill for the South Pacific. Upon arriving on the West Coast their Corsairs are off loaded and they are sent to the pacific as a land based SQDN. The Navy has decided that because the pipeline of spares is already filled with Hellcat parts the Corsairs will not be used on carriers for the time being. Blackburn is ed. November 11, 1943, During air strikes on Rabaul VF17 who have had it's tail hooks put back on lands on carriers to refuel and then take off to return to land bases. All Corsairs land and take off safely. January 9, 1944(around six months after the first RN squadron receives it's first Corsairs and begins training (not on carriers) four F4U2s(night fighters) begin operating off the USS Enterprise. May 16, 1944, the Navy Evaluation Board decides the F4U1D is the best all around fighter available and reccomends that all carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to F4U types. It seems clear to me that although the RN operated the Corsair successfully off of carriers during the war and may have contributed to the overall effort in getting the Corsair ready to go to sea, they did not even come close to "teaching " the USN how to operate the Corsair off of carriers. I don't believe that information gotten from the History Channel or Wikipedia is always accurate. Whew, I am exhausted, I need to tke a nap!


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2008)

Not to hijack the thread but yes I am still mad about the War of Northern Aggression. It was a big mistake all around. Slavery was going away of it's own accord eventually and wasn't the primary cause of the war anyway. The US just lost it's genius for compromise. If Lincoln had ordered evacuation of Fort Sumter instead of trying to resupply it, Beauregard would not have fired on the fort and a compromise was still not beyond reach. Our big mistake(Texas) was in joining the Union in the first place. We should have stayed a Republic with all our lands in what is now N. Mexico, Colorado, etc. We could be a member of OPEC and still have the Texas Navy. We would probably have California and Arizona as part of us also although I don't know if I would want Calif.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 15, 2008)

LOL


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 15, 2008)

Renrich.... let it go ...... you know like the issue was settled 150 years ago.

Start your own thread about it and not in here.

By the way, holding a grudge for historical events from that long ago, you remind me of the muslims that are still angry about the crusades.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 15, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Renrich.... let it go ...... you know like the issue was settled 150 years ago.
> 
> Start your own thread about it and not in here.
> 
> By the way, holding a grudge for historical events from that long ago, you remind me of the muslims that are still angry about the crusades.



Actually what was *setlled* was the question of whether the Confederacy had the military power to prevent the North from dictating their will over the question of Seccession.

Attorney General Black (formerly Supreme Court Justice), when asked for an opinion by Lincoln on the Constitutionality of sending Federal Troops to South Carolina after Sumpter, said unequivocally that such an act would have the effect of 'dissolving the union'.

So militarily yes
Constitutionally no
For all practical purposes yes


----------



## Njaco (Feb 15, 2008)

I'm voting for the Conferderate Air Force as the best. And its in Texas!


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2008)




----------



## syscom3 (Feb 15, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I'm voting for the Conferderate Air Force as the best. And its in Texas!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 15, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I'm voting for the Conferderate Air Force as the best. And its in Texas!



I know you mean _Commemorative Air Force_ Njaco.  

But I like _Confederate Air Force_ better also.  

TO


----------



## Njaco (Feb 16, 2008)

Oh, am I burnt! Wasn't aware of that!

Commemorative Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## renrich (Feb 16, 2008)

We are once again hung up on political correctness. It is still the Confederate Air Force as far as I am concerned, that is until barack hussein obama becomes president and outlaws it.


----------



## ju87 (May 25, 2008)

I chose the Luftwaffe. I like the designs or their airplanes! Me109's swirling nose  with cannon, the stukas snake,and many of the German choices for color schemes. The German planes are my favorite planes! 

ju87


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2008)

ju87 said:


> I chose the Luftwaffe. I like the designs or their airplanes! Me109's swirling nose  with cannon, the stukas snake,and many of the German choices for color schemes. The German planes are my favorite planes!
> 
> ju87



But how does that translate into industrial superority?

How does it mean for global reach?


----------



## Njaco (May 26, 2008)

Nice and pretty doesn't win battles.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

i vote for the luftwaffe, because they had the greatest aces, adavnced projects and fought like lions until the very end


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i vote for the luftwaffe, because they had the greatest aces, adavnced projects and fought like lions until the very end




The allies had many great aces, had advanced projects that were used in the 2nd world war (not some future conflict) and they too fought like Lions.

Plus they were larger and won the war.


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

from a practical allied p.o.v,i reckon the desert airforce.a.v.m. broadhurst was insramental in integreating the cab rank system,along with iirc gen.pete qusada.please correct me if i am wrong.yours,starling.p.s,i included the commonwealth also.


----------



## Mstcnc (Jun 27, 2008)

Why we are missing FAF?
Just compare effiency of operations at any scale....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Mstcnc said:


> Why we are missing FAF?
> Just compare effiency of operations at any scale....



Because the USAAF, RAF, LW, Russians and Japanese all fielded larger and more capable AF's


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 27, 2008)

I voted for the RAF,because if we lost the Battle of Britain the US could not use the UK as a stagging post invade Europe.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2008)

AVRoe said:


> I voted for the RAF,because if we lost the Battle of Britain the US could not use the UK as a stagging post invade Europe.




But the AAF built more planes, trained more aircrews, flew in all theaters of the war.

Just because you win one battle at the beginning doesnt make you the best when the war ends.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> But the AAF built more planes, trained more aircrews, flew in all theaters of the war.
> 
> Just because you win one battle at the beginning doesnt make you the best when the war ends.



yes, but britain land is 10% of american territory also the population is smaller and the islands was bombed by germans by a long time, destroyng london and many industrial facilities. the bombing operations just stoped when barbarossa started.

i believe britons fought like lions, congratulations mates !


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

When we look at an Air Force we must consider the TOTAL package. This includes training, logistics, production rates, AIR TRANSPORT (let's not forget this silent but absolutely essential part of an air force!) as well as defensive/offensive capabilities...

When you add this all up, the USAAF in WW II wins hands down. No other comes even close.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> When we look at an Air Force we must consider the TOTAL package. This includes training, logistics, production rates, AIR TRANSPORT (let's not forget this silent but absolutely essential part of an air force!) as well as defensive/offensive capabilities...
> 
> When you add this all up, the USAAF in WW II wins hands down. No other comes even close.



You must also 'add' USN and USMC air assets to total national 'air' force - just different philosophy on bases and strategic deployment.

USN and USMC capabilities alone, while less than LW, RAF/RN, VVS and JAF/IJN in totality as national capability, were enormous by and of themselves.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Yep, should have included that in my post. Thanks drgondog!


----------



## Amsel (Dec 6, 2008)

In the beginning the Luftwaffe had some very good pilots. Barbarossa fixed that. The RAF surely held their own during the BoB and French campaign. But the USAAF on the western front alone was a mighty force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Being as impartial as i can I believe the USAAF/USN were the best air arms of WW2 I really can't see any argument to point towards any other air arm. Numbers Quality and Logistics made them the winning combination


Agreed. The USAAF was the "dream team" of WWII. From hardware to quality personnel to quality logistics and maintenance to a 1st rate aviation industry, the USAAF had it all in WWII.


----------



## Man O War (Feb 10, 2009)

Lets not forget that we also had the advantage of our pilot training. Not that were were better, but that or students didnt have to worry about enemy fighters shooting you down during training.

Axis student pilots did not have that luxury and as a result, their airforces were never able to make up for the loss of their experienced pilots.

US pilots were able to train better and longer and were more ready when sent oversea's. They had more hours in their aircraft which naturally made them better in combat.

As the war went on, US aircraft manufacturers were able to create aircraft that measured up to or surpassed the performance levels of our adversaries and were able to make them at a rate that no other nation, at that time, could hope to attain.

Kind of hard to stop an airforce with that kind of back-up.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 10, 2009)

The RAF and US Bomber commands were literally like one during the war. I dont know if there will ever be that amount of cooperation and comeraderie again between two nations. They had a problem to solve and they did it without arguement.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 11, 2009)

If one is talking about the size and capability of the air force then the USAAF has to take the crown quite easily. Maybe if it was a more complex issue like which air arm was the most influential? Might it then be said that it was the RAF?

The structure of fighter Command as used in the BoB with radar and ground sector stations etc acting a force multipiers to boost the effectiveness of the fighter defences must the the single biggest influential thing to come out of WW2 in regard to how a country's air defences have been organised ever since, feeding directly into todays AWACS fleets and netcentric datalinks so for true innovation the RAF even beats the Germans as this was a considered and careful plan instigated as early as 1936, compared to the things that Germans gave us, cruise and basllistic missiles, which were a desperate knee jerk attempt at survival in the later stages. Desperation breeds genius, but radar fighter control was invented in the apparent illusion of peace.

Maybe a point for further discussion?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 12, 2009)

Waynos said:


> If one is talking about the size and capability of the air force then the USAAF has to take the crown quite easily. Maybe if it was a more complex issue like which air arm was the most influential? Might it then be said that it was the RAF?
> 
> The structure of fighter Command as used in the BoB with radar and ground sector stations etc acting a force multipiers to boost the effectiveness of the fighter defences must the the single biggest influential thing to come out of WW2 in regard to how a country's air defences have been organised ever since, feeding directly into todays AWACS fleets and netcentric datalinks so for true innovation the RAF even beats the Germans as this was a considered and careful plan instigated as early as 1936, compared to the things that Germans gave us, cruise and basllistic missiles, which were a desperate knee jerk attempt at survival in the later stages. Desperation breeds genius, but radar fighter control was invented in the apparent illusion of peace.
> 
> Maybe a point for further discussion?



I suspect that RAF should take crown for technology innovation for Allies - an example was Type 16 and MEWS was a very important contribution to fighter control - absolutely the grandfather of AWACS.. I suspect that in many cases RAF introduced leading edge/bleeding edge and US was superb with speed of further development and introduction into ops.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Well certainly as far as quantity and the ability to produce a wide variety of combat aircraft, including some superb ones, the USAAF had the best. Keeping in mind that the US didn't have it's industry regularily bombed either. From a purely innovative point of view, the LW had it going on. If Germany had the resources and industrial output of the US, it might well have been a different story in the air over Europe. Their night fighter force certainly was the best of its time.


----------



## Locke (Jan 18, 2010)

I'd have to say that the Luftwaffe was the best trained airforce at the onset of WWII, and had it not been for the gross mismanagement it suffered throughout the course of the war, could have realized an entirely different potential.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

The USAAF had a plane for every occasion and role, and the numbers to make them effective, So I voted for them. But my heart (a little green one) belongs to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

By most measures of "best" in WW2 I don't see how one could not vote for the USAAF/USN duo. By 1944-45 the USA had the largest, best equipped, most versatile, and arguably best trained flying forces in the business (if for no other reason other airforces had lost most of their best trained pilots to attrition). This could not be said of 1941, 1942, or probably 1943 even, but if you had some way of averaging the war years out, I still would suspect the USA deserves top rung.


----------



## diddyriddick (Oct 28, 2010)

The fact that the RAF and the USAAF were the only AFs to have a significant strategic capability pretty much rules out the rest for me. So between the two.....

Pure pursuit-The Spit and the Stang both had unbelievable performance. Call it a draw
Single-Engine attack-Pros and cons either way....Again, call it a draw.
Multi-engine attack-Have to give the edge here to the RAF....The Beaufighters and Mossies were exceptional.
Transport-Unquestionably the US with C-46s and C-47s
Strategic Bombing-Again, tough to call. Both AFs brought things to the table. Toss-up(maybe a slight edge to the RAF).

So all in all, I'd call it a toss-up. Until, of course.....

The B-29. The Superfortress clearly outperformed its RAF counterparts in all respects. It was at least 75 MPH faster, and could carry 6,000 more pounds of bomb 550 miles further than any of the British birds.

Moreover, the raw numbers have to count for something. 

So I'd have to say that the total package goes marginally to the US.


----------



## diddyriddick (Oct 28, 2010)

diddyriddick said:


> The fact that the RAF and the USAAF were the only AFs to have a significant strategic capability pretty much rules out the rest for me. So between the two.....
> 
> Pure pursuit-The Spit and the Stang both had unbelievable performance. Call it a draw
> Single-Engine attack-Pros and cons either way....Again, call it a draw.
> ...



For the record....If we include naval aviation, the gap is larger, in my view.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2010)

Something being overlooked by the USAAF crowd is how much they were assisted by the RCAF , an influx of nearly5000 trained aircrew post Pearl Harbour to help out with the expansion of the USAAF


----------



## BikerBabe (Oct 28, 2010)

RAF.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> Something being overlooked by the USAAF crowd is how much they were assisted by the RCAF , an influx of nearly5000 trained aircrew post Pearl Harbour to help out with the expansion of the USAAF



And the USAAF ended up training so many pilots, it was inconsequential.


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> The USAAF had a plane for every occasion and role, and the numbers to make them effective, So I voted for them. But my heart (a little green one) belongs to the Luftwaffe.



I think its true to say that until the last 6 months of the war the only serious hole in US capabilities was the lack of nightfighters. The NF versions of the Hellcat and Corsair obviously were OK in the benign environment in the Far East but I believe they would have struggled in Europe with its more complex electronic environment


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 29, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> And the USAAF ended up training so many pilots, it was inconsequential.


5000 was no small number in early 42


----------



## futuredogfight (Mar 6, 2011)

If i could have voted i would chose the USAAF/USN because they fought Zero fighters in the Pasific with obsolete aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2011)

Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## FlexiBull (Mar 6, 2011)

Is there anyway that admin can do a bit of research to see if there is any correlation between the results of the poll and the demographic of the members who voted?

Apologies if this has been suggested already


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2011)

Unfortunately no. When this thread and poll was started back in 2007, it was not made a public poll.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2011)

Can we restart the poll? New members since this was first started might have different opinions.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2011)

what was the outcome of the last poll? I cant remeber.

It would be great to refine this poll a little...Best at what? In what time frame. I dont think the USAAF can even come close to claiming the premier spot in 1940, for example, but in 1945, i9ts hard to discount that claim. The question is simply too wide ranging to easily answer


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2011)

I like that idea as well parsifal and I will start up a few new polls to refine it a bit and then close this one.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 8, 2011)

futuredogfight said:


> If i could have voted i would chose the USAAF/USN because they fought Zero fighters in the Pasific with obsolete aircraft.


 
So did the KNIL and the RAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2011)

Here are some new threads to discuss the same topic. I could have broken it down more but decided to make it 3 major time periods.

1939-1941
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-air-force-1939-1941-a-28607.html

1941-1943
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-air-force-1941-43-a-28608.html

1943-1945
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-air-force-1943-1945-a-28609.html


----------



## parsifal (Apr 1, 2011)

fantastic Adler...well done


----------

