Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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
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 didNot 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
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 aircraftBut 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.
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?
me thinks your numbers are incorrect I count 44 sqns overseasparsifal,
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).
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.