Best Air Force 1943-1945

[parsifal]

At the end of WW2 the RAAF had the 5th biggest Air Force in the world , USA ,USSR ,UK ,Germany ,Japan, Australia.

bigger than the RCAF at the conclusion of VE day? seems unlikey

 

[pbfoot]

So the 5000 trained aircrew made little difference just imagine if you hadn't recieved those guys it probably would have set back plans by several months

 

[syscom3]

Yes, but the USAAF wasn't combining rocket projectiles, heavy cannon and torpedo attacks like the Banff Wing and the other maritime strike wings in the UK.

B25's with 75mm cannons and rockets. That's enough punch for you. As for torpedo's; that was reserved for the USN.

Errr....that'll be the RAF with the Lancaster, the Stirling and the Halifax, and the Lincoln and Canberra in the pipeline with the V-Bombers to start the year following the end of the war.

And in what quantities for the first three? Think the UK could have built a factory like Willow Run and churn out a B24 every hour? Or churn out a hundred B29's a week with more production facilities becoming available if required?

 

[syscom3]

So the 5000 trained aircrew made little difference just imagine if you hadn't recieved those guys it probably would have set back plans by several months

Not in the least. We're talking about 1943 onwards. Even larger numbers were training and would soon join the war. The fact the USAAF expanded so quickly in the later part of 1943 and early 1944 is testimate to that fact.

 

[pbfoot]

Not in the least. We're talking about 1943 onwards. Even larger numbers were training and would soon join the war. The fact the USAAF expanded so quickly in the later part of 1943 and early 1944 is testimate to that fact.

Well I'm going to try and clear up your thinking , if these 5000 trained guys were all instructors with training 4 pilots each twice a year that 40000 pilots you would have lacking in 44. These 5000 guys certainly allowed you to expand at the rate you did

 

[syscom3]

Well I'm going to try and clear up your thinking , if these 5000 trained guys were all instructors with training 4 pilots each twice a year that 40000 pilots you would have lacking in 44. These 5000 guys certainly allowed you to expand at the rate you did

But they weren't. The USAAF had plenty of instructor pilots (civilian and military) in this time period. Did it help in the first two years of the war? Yes. Was it responsible for all of the trained aircrews for the last three years? No. By that time, there were plenty of experienced AAF pilots rotating back to the states and helping to train the rookies.

 

[pbfoot]

But they weren't. The USAAF had plenty of instructor pilots (civilian and military) in this time period. Did it help in the first two years of the war? Yes. Was it responsible for all of the trained aircrews for the last three years? No. By that time, there were plenty of experienced AAF pilots rotating back to the states and helping to train the rookies.

But if it hadn't been dor the influx of crews from RAF and RCAF where would the 4th Fg have come from it would have been later and much less skilled. We are only talking about 1yr . The poll does from 43 to 45 even in 43 the USAAF lacked aircrew . In the Aleutian campaign some of the USAAF p40's were crewed by RCAF as they lacked crews for the aircraft

 

[syscom3]

The 4th FG was only one of many fighter groups that were in existence. Throughout 1942 and 1943, there were plenty of fighter/bomber and transport groups in the USAAF that were in operation without (or a nominal few) allied crews assigned, or had been trained wholly by USAAF personnel.

 

[buffnut453]

B25's with 75mm cannons and rockets. That's enough punch for you. As for torpedo's; that was reserved for the USN.



And in what quantities for the first three? Think the UK could have built a factory like Willow Run and churn out a B24 every hour? Or churn out a hundred B29's a week with more production facilities becoming available if required?

Syscom,

You keep going back to production capacity not quality of the air force. And you still have not responded to any of my points about the changing situation during the 1943-45 period. You baldly stated that the USAAF was top dog in all respects in the period and I'm simply offering some different perspectives. For some of the points I've made, it's apparent that the USAAF was at least equalled by other air forces and in some (eg integrated air defence) it really didn't place because it didn't have any capability. You just keep going back to production and size whereas I'm looking across the spectrum of capabilities and trying to add a little fidelity to the discussion.

 

[buffnut453]

For the record, I believe the RAF had the edge in 1943, the RAF and USAAF were broadly equal in 1944 and it was only in 1945 that the USAAF truly became the dominant air force in the world.

 

[Sydhuey]

parsifal,
I can't add up!! at the end of WW2 the RAAF was the 4 th largest Allied Airforce USA,USSR,UK,Australia,Canada. Canada had more personel but the RAAF had more aircraft and Squadrons (78 Canada, 85 Australia), while Canada concentrated more on Bombers and training (European ops), Australia while having two major fronts concentrated on the Pacific, Canada had 35 overseas Sqns(12 Fighter 14 Bomber 9 other) and 43 at home , Australia had 18 overseas (6 fighter 8 bomber 4 other)and 67 sqns in Australia and SW Pacific with a strenth of over 3200 aircraft(more than 500 P-40's,200 P-51's(500 on order) 200+ B-24's etc).

 

[parsifal]

we are dealing in generalities here, but in terms of camparing pure quality, not quantity, my opinion is that the RAF had the lead in the following categories, using the beginning of 1944 as the rough juxtapoint.

1) Night Fighters
2) Electronic Bombing Aids such as navaids etc (eg H2S Oboe and the like)
3) Night Operations for strat bombers and Naval strike
4) ASW capability
5) PRU technology and equipment
6) Jet engine technology
7) Cannon armament

I would say the US held a clear lead in the following areas
1) carrier based day strike and fighter capability
2) LR day Strategic escort
3) Day Strat Bombers and bombing techniques
4) Air transport
5) Atomic research
6) visual bombing aids

As a generalization I would say in other areas the two air forces were more or less equal.

This is of course opinion based. we could spend a month debating the individual items and still not get agreement.

 

[pbfoot]

parsifal,
I can't add up!! at the end of WW2 the RAAF was the 4 th largest Allied Airforce USA,USSR,UK,Australia,Canada. Canada had more personel but the RAAF had more aircraft and Squadrons (78 Canada, 85 Australia), while Canada concentrated more on Bombers and training (European ops), Australia while having two major fronts concentrated on the Pacific, Canada had 35 overseas Sqns(12 Fighter 14 Bomber 9 other) and 43 at home , Australia had 18 overseas (6 fighter 8 bomber 4 other)and 67 sqns in Australia and SW Pacific with a strenth of over 3200 aircraft(more than 500 P-40's,200 P-51's(500 on order) 200+ B-24's etc).

me thinks your numbers are incorrect I count 44 sqns overseas

 

[buffnut453]

we are dealing in generalities here, but in terms of camparing pure quality, not quantity, my opinion is that the RAF had the lead in the following categories, using the beginning of 1944 as the rough juxtapoint.

1) Night Fighters
2) Electronic Bombing Aids such as navaids etc (eg H2S Oboe and the like)
3) Night Operations for strat bombers and Naval strike
4) ASW capability
5) PRU technology and equipment
6) Jet engine technology
7) Cannon armament

I would say the US held a clear lead in the following areas
1) carrier based day strike and fighter capability
2) LR day Strategic escort
3) Day Strat Bombers and bombing techniques
4) Air transport
5) Atomic research
6) visual bombing aids

As a generalization I would say in other areas the two air forces were more or less equal.

This is of course opinion based. we could spend a month debating the individual items and still not get agreement.

Parsifal,

Once again I find myself in agreement with you. Good post.

Cheers,
BN

 

[parsifal]

we have had some almighty disagreements, but for me its all good. Its nice to agree in this case

 

[Sydhuey]

pbfoot, I got the Canadian numbers from the Canadian Airforce WW2 web site and one of the Canadian sites said they had the 5 th AF on the allied side and the RAAF history site said they were 4th, but who cares Australia,Canada and New Zealand punched well above there weight compared to populations and industrial might in the war anyway.
I think the list by parsifal is a good overall comparison to the US and UK forces , the US was obviously the most powerful but I actualy think the best most bang for there size by the end of the war was the RNZAF by the end of the war they had concertrated on just 4 types, F4U Corsairs, PV1 Venturas,Catalinas and C-47's as there operational types with all others for training and NZ ops , they pooled all there a/c to central a/c depots and issued the Sqn's going to the operational area fresh overhauled a/c able to be flown hard for there tour to be replaced after a couple of months with a fresh sqn with fresh a/c , very efficient

 

[syscom3]

This is how I view things:

Where the RAF and AAF are equal:
Aircrew quality
Airframe design
Leadership
Weapons
Night bombing in 1945

Where the RAF is best:
Night bombing in 1943/1944
Night fighters
Night fighting tactics
Integrated defense
Jet engines

Where the AAF is best:
PRODUCTION!!! A magnitude or two better than the UK.
Global reach
Types of airframes (a type for every niche)
Quantity of personnel for every function of the air force
Transports
B29 as best heavy bomber of WW2
Medium bombers
Long range fighters
Logistics
Daytime heavy bombers

Some things cant be compared due to the USN and AAF being independent of each other and subscribing to different doctrines.

Anyone who underestimates just how overwhelming the US production of airframes and the ability of the US industrial base to keep them flying is not being honest with themselves. Don't forget the huge numbers of airplanes that were supplied to our allies. These did not add to the paper strength of the AAF, but it sure added to the fighting power of the allied countries of WW2. I can sum up it up this way; The AAF had tens of thousands of great aircraft manned by a great many of good and competent aircrews, many of which eventually became great aircrews. And that was far more valuable than having thousands of good aircraft manned by a lesser number of great aircrews.

 

[parsifal]

Not sure about medium bombers being superior. British cutting edge mediums were actually the Mosquitos, even though officially rated as a light bomber. A Mosquito could carry a 4000 bombload which was equal to the practical bombload of a B-25. I will have to check to confirm, but I think it could carry this bombload further, faster, with a lower attrition rate than any US medium bomber.

Why would you say that US mediums are superior on that basis........

 

[drgondog]

Buffnut - who in your opinion was the dominant AIRPOWER January 1944 - globally?

 

[buffnut453]

I think my post #30 pretty much sums up my views.