Best Air Force 1939-1941

[Shortround6]

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

 

[Tante Ju]

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

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

 

[buffnut453]

Shortround,

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

Cheers,
B-N

 

[Tante Ju]

Money does not stink - said a roman emperor..

 

[buffnut453]

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

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

 

[Tante Ju]

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

 

[michaelmaltby]

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

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

MM

 

[buffnut453]

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

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

 

[vikingBerserker]

...and China

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

Will have to wait until tonite, however

 

[buffnut453]

Oh you little tease!!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

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

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

Or perhaps a combination of those listed above?

 

[parsifal]

Oh you little tease!!!!

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

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

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

Anyway, here is the raw data for discussion

 

[ctrian]

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

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

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

Anyway, here is the raw data for discussion

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

that's 4 units with american equipment.

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

 

[ctrian]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[ctrian]

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

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

 

[buffnut453]

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

that's 4 units with american equipment.

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

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

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

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

 

[buffnut453]

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

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