Best Air Force 1939-1941

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your are welcome to do so.

scott cuppello said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

scott cuppello said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

scott cuppello said:

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

Click to expand...

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

pbfoot said:

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

Click to expand...

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

pbfoot said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

scott cuppello said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Pbfoot,

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

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

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

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

parsifal said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

parsifal said:

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

Click to expand...

Put very well and very true.

pbfoot said:

RAF bombing was less then spectacular in fact it was brutal

Click to expand...

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

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