Best WWII Air-Force

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).

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?

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 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?

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.

Best WWII Air-Force

Best WWII Air-Force

Royal Air Force

Luftwaffe

United States Air Force

Royal Australian Air Force

Regia Aeronautica

Royal New Zealand Air Force

Royal Canadian Airforce

Chinese Air Force

Russian Air Force

Japanese Air Force

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Pacific Historian

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Pacific Historian

Staff Sergeant

"Shooter"

Staff Sergeant

"Shooter"

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

rotartsinimdA

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads