drgondog
Major
Musing and wondering if Soren believes anything American during WWII deserved any respect by the LW? Its Ok to disdain Americans in General as brash and cocky but do you really believe that the American bombers were inferior to German bombers?
The one universal opinion (ok maybe 99%) is that the LW failed miserably in their approach to long range strategic airpower - both escort and bomber force - and it cost them the Battle of Britain and it prevented them from attacking Soviet industry.
They had no approach to even attack (repeatedly and successfully) airfields in Britain during 1943-1945 while even USAAF fighters roamed at will throughout Germany - and the LW could do nothing to stop them.
But we are here debating whether the B-29 was inferior to the vaunted German He and Me series that were never effective, couldn't operate and didn't contribute the the German war effort.
The He277 was as effective as the B-36 (meaning not effective at all) and inferior in design to the B-36 which would first fly one year after WWII was over.
The LW never put out a heavy bomber that was the equal of the B-17 much less the Lancaster or B-29. They have to function reliablly, operate and at least pose a concern to an Allied planner to be compared, shouldn't they?
Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?
Soren - to your opinion that the RAF was the best in 1944 and 1945 how do you set the boundary conditions to make that judgement? Do you consider the relative strength of the 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th in the ETO against the RAF in its center of Gravity as a start? Would you postulate that the entire RAF was the equal of those four USAAF Air Forces? In numbers, in aircraft mix, in aircrews, in ability to project force from airborne drops and logistics support to long range fighter sweeps deep in Germany or Austria, to bombing oil targets ranging from Ploesti to Posnan?
Do you compare the RAF in the Pacific or even RAF plus RNZAF plus RAAF flying quite a few USAAF aircraft like P-51s, P-47s and B-25s against the USAAF? Do you consider the USN and USMC as 'excluded' from the concept of most powerful Airpower in 1944 and 1945?
Do you want to match tonnage dropped on tactical or strategic targets or number of GAF a/c destroyed? Or Japanese?
How do you arrive at your conclusion? Could you even make your point using just the United Army Air Force in the ETO/MTO in contrast to all the RAF, RNZAF, RAAF world wide?
Regards,
Bill
PS - Forgot to mention that the mainstay of the USSR Strategic Bomber Fleet for many years Post WWII was the exact copy of the B-29.. wonder why they didn't pick any of the many superior LW bombers to copy and produce instead of the lousy ol B Two Nine? Dumb Russians!
The one universal opinion (ok maybe 99%) is that the LW failed miserably in their approach to long range strategic airpower - both escort and bomber force - and it cost them the Battle of Britain and it prevented them from attacking Soviet industry.
They had no approach to even attack (repeatedly and successfully) airfields in Britain during 1943-1945 while even USAAF fighters roamed at will throughout Germany - and the LW could do nothing to stop them.
But we are here debating whether the B-29 was inferior to the vaunted German He and Me series that were never effective, couldn't operate and didn't contribute the the German war effort.
The He277 was as effective as the B-36 (meaning not effective at all) and inferior in design to the B-36 which would first fly one year after WWII was over.
The LW never put out a heavy bomber that was the equal of the B-17 much less the Lancaster or B-29. They have to function reliablly, operate and at least pose a concern to an Allied planner to be compared, shouldn't they?
Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?
Soren - to your opinion that the RAF was the best in 1944 and 1945 how do you set the boundary conditions to make that judgement? Do you consider the relative strength of the 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th in the ETO against the RAF in its center of Gravity as a start? Would you postulate that the entire RAF was the equal of those four USAAF Air Forces? In numbers, in aircraft mix, in aircrews, in ability to project force from airborne drops and logistics support to long range fighter sweeps deep in Germany or Austria, to bombing oil targets ranging from Ploesti to Posnan?
Do you compare the RAF in the Pacific or even RAF plus RNZAF plus RAAF flying quite a few USAAF aircraft like P-51s, P-47s and B-25s against the USAAF? Do you consider the USN and USMC as 'excluded' from the concept of most powerful Airpower in 1944 and 1945?
Do you want to match tonnage dropped on tactical or strategic targets or number of GAF a/c destroyed? Or Japanese?
How do you arrive at your conclusion? Could you even make your point using just the United Army Air Force in the ETO/MTO in contrast to all the RAF, RNZAF, RAAF world wide?
Regards,
Bill
PS - Forgot to mention that the mainstay of the USSR Strategic Bomber Fleet for many years Post WWII was the exact copy of the B-29.. wonder why they didn't pick any of the many superior LW bombers to copy and produce instead of the lousy ol B Two Nine? Dumb Russians!