Best WWII Air-Force

[syscom3]

But seriously, I still think it's unfair to say that the USAAF was the best only because of the latter part of the war. IMHO the USAAF was really not so good when they got into the war in 1942. Okay, they catched up really fast and from 1944 but if being the best in only a part of the war does qualify for being the best of the total war, then the LW could easily be called the best as well, as they were the best in the first 3 years. So it's not so easy to say which one was best, probably none at al, the war was won by a joined effort, not one single country/army/airforce!

Few disagree with the assesment that untill late 1943, the LW was the best.

But in 1944, the AAF pulled ahead and by January 1945, was magnitudes better than the LW.

For all practical purposes, the LW had collapsed by that month and was no longer a fighting force.

 

[Marcel]

Okay, but so could the USAAF have been if they had had to fight the whole world as long as the LW did. The fact that it only happened in 1945 is really amazing

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay, but so could the USAAF have been if they had had to fight the whole world as long as the LW did. The fact that it only happened in 1945 is really amazing

Agree and that's a tribute to the LW, although many here identified the USAAF as the "best" no one is taking anything away from the LW.

 

[drgondog]

Soren sez -"As to why the He-177 He-277 didn't have as successfull a career as the B-17, Lancaster, B-29 etc etc, you can completely thank the huge numerical superiority enjoyed by the Allied airforces for that - this made sure that there wasn't enough fuel, trained crew or at all escorts for the German bombers to operate as intended."

When the He 177 came into production in mid 1943, the Luftwaffe did not have escorts (and never really did) but had plenty of fuel and trained crews available to transition from the Fw 200, the Do 217 and He 111's - all of which were successful even if not heavy bombers

Had it been a reliable aircraft it could have operated similarly to the Lancaster at night and obviated the need for the escorts which didn't exist. The Allies did not have Overwhelming air superiority in night fighters, or even day fighters over Germany until summer of 1944.

But it was neither reliable nor successful as a result of its design. It was designed before the B-24 or Lancaster and look at the contrast in results - before the Allies had air superiority.

Regards,

Bill

 

[syscom3]

.The Allies did not have ..... day fighters over Germany until summer of 1944.

P38's were flying over Germany (in small numbers) in Nov 1943.

P51's also had their first misisons over Germany in Dec 1943.

 

[drgondog]

Soren, if you desire to include "potential" into your rankings, then you must also include the RAF's and USAAF's potential as well.
QUOTE]

Dead on Syscom - the P-80 and P-51H and F8F and F7F were all in production before VE day as well as the B-32. The P-51M was cancelled which had the H frame but the 2300 hp engine, the P-82 was coming and the B-36 was in tooling phase. Ditto the RAF with their late war slate of fighters.

 

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Marcel

But seriously, I still think it's unfair to say that the USAAF was the best only because of the latter part of the war. IMHO the USAAF was really not so good when they got into the war in 1942. Okay, they catched up really fast and from 1944 but if being the best in only a part of the war does qualify for being the best of the total war, then the LW could easily be called the best as well, as they were the best in the first 3 years. So it's not so easy to say which one was best, probably none at al, the war was won by a joined effort, not one single country/army/airforce!

You are correct about a joint effort defeating Germany and Japan and I believe the LW was the best until 1943.

But in january 1943 the USAAF and USN were 1.) only airpower capable of carrying out daylight attacks on Germany, 2.) only airpower which had fighters (P-38 and F4U) capable of escorting bombers into Germany or deep into Japanese held territory, 3.) Training huge pool of pilots including RAF, in the US, 4.) supplying the Allies with Fighters (land and carrier based), Attack aircraft, Patrol aircraft, Medium bombers, Transport and Trainer aircraft 4.) starting production on P-51B and B-29...and 5.) deploying a flood of Carriers and Transport vessels to push Japan back to the homeland.

There is no question that the US did NOT have aerial superiority over Germany by Jan 43, but it had all the pieces in production to gain superiority 15 months later - with only 4 (8th,9th,12th and 15th) Air Forces of 21, and no real use of Naval Air

Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944... while the RAF and USSR was essentially devoting most or all of their airpower against Germany. I know the RAF and RAAF and RNZAF were fighting in CBI but small in numbers compared to US presence.


Sometime in 1943 the USA had achieved the role of 'best' airpower and continues to be that today.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Marcel]

But in january 1943 the USAAF and USN were 1.) only airpower capable of carrying out daylight attacks on Germany, 2.) only airpower which had fighters (P-38 and F4U) capable of escorting bombers into Germany or deep into Japanese held territory, 3.) Training huge pool of pilots including RAF, in the US, 4.) supplying the Allies with Fighters (land and carrier based), Attack aircraft, Patrol aircraft, Medium bombers, Transport and Trainer aircraft 4.) starting production on P-51B and B-29...and 5.) deploying a flood of Carriers and Transport vessels to push Japan back to the homeland.

I see your point
A few "buts" just for the heck of it:
1. and suffered heavy losses, RAF was probably capable, but wasn't willing to
2. agree
3. I don't see what that has to do with being the best, it only shows that US soil was quite safe compared to the UK
4. Okay, but that is us industrial power, not the USAAF itself
4. P51B was on request of the RAF
5. agree

Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944...

+RAF, VVS, RCAF, etc.

Sometime in 1943 the USA had achieved the role of 'best' airpower and continues to be that today.

Agree, there can be no agrue about that.

 

[drgondog]

I see your point


Originally Posted by drgondog
Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944...

+RAF, VVS, RCAF, etc.

Marcel - Actually my thesis is that the key factor in breaking Luftflotte Reich (Germany) was 5 groups of P-51s (354FG in Jan, 357 in mid Feb, 4th in late Feb, 355 in early Mar and 352 in early April) plus two P-38 Gps (20th and 55th). These were the only forces escorting B-17s and B-24s to strategic targets in Germany and the only fighters the Luftflotte Reich (over Germany) had to deal with in that period.

These were the ONLY fighters attacking Luftflotte Reich and the Primary factor in killing 1000+ experienced German Fighter pilots over Germany from February 1944 through April 1944 and decidedly did Not represent 'overwhelming air superiority' over Germany during that timeframe.

All other fights were over Russia, France, Italy and the Lowlands where the RAF, RCAF, VVS and P-47 equipped USAAF units had the range to engage. No question that P-47s were scoring in Western Germany plus Holland and Belgium but the 51s and 38s were the primary punishers of the LW in that short period of time.

Regards,

Bill

 

[pbfoot]

How far or long was the 8th AF bomber formations or how long would it take a raid to pass a given point

 

[drgondog]

P38's were flying over Germany (in small numbers) in Nov 1943.

P51's also had their first misisons over Germany in Dec 1943.

Syscom - to me "Allies" were everybody else BUT the USAAF and they didn't get to fly over Germany until they had bases on the Continent after D-Day.

True, 51s flew missions in Decemeber 43 but the 354th wasn't officially operational until 11 January.

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

How far or long was the 8th AF bomber formations or how long would it take a raid to pass a given point

Pb -In mid 1944, a 'standard' wing was 40-48 B-17s strung out 600-750 feet per squadron, but staggered in eschelon with High, lead and low squadrons in the Wing - so each Combat Group might occupy a volume 2500 feet deep by 1500-1800 feet long - the Groups were in trail. In the early 1944 timeframe each Bomb Division (three) usually put out 9-10 Groups each. Each Group was 1-5 miles from each other depending on route integrity SOP but often did not achieve that.

In March 6 1944 Berlin Mission all the bombers went to Berlin "area" (Berlin, Potsdam, Oranienburg, Wittenberg, etc) and the column of 670 bombers was close to 100 miles long over Dummer Lake because of separation between the Bomb Divisions.. with the Task Forces striking for different targets when they passed Brunswick. Each Group averaged close to 20+ bombers - roughly half of a Maximum Effort mission several months later

So the Forts and Libs cruised around 150mph IAS at 25,000 feet - maybe 200mph so 1/2 hour in this example?

On this mission the Jugs were truning back just past Dummer Lake.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Soren]

This is a decent example of what I perceive as bias on your part re; bias against things American.

No it isn't, cause I pointed out that the US were equipped with better bombers, escorts Carrier a/c - so again you off-handedly condemn someone as biased without any evidence what'so'ever. And the funny part is you're most likely a very biased indivdual yourself, praising everything American, no ? - I can't remember post from you that ever showed any praise towards anything non-american.

I have praised the F4U Corsair many times on this forum as one of the very best fighters of the entire war, considering all the roles it could carry out only the FW-190 was really the equal of it.

You could have said the same things about the LW at the end of the war - but having those features were useless against the power brought against them

Useless ?? You should take a look at the statistics my friend, approx. 80-85% of all German casualties were inflicted on the eastern front, the last 15-20% in the southern western fronts - so the Germans more than held their own, and mostly because of their superior equipment.

The Germans back then just like today put quality over quantity and will rather build a few excellent products than alot of medicore ones, something which shows in pretty much everything they make - Only the Swiss are as thurough perfectionists as the Germans.

The German obsessiveness with quality precision has made sure they've always been the leaders within the manufacturing of metals and lenses for example - the US army using ALOT of German equipment and direct copies in these areas - the US Abrams tank being equipped with the German 120mm L/44 gun designed made by Rheinmetall AG, the same company which built the famous 8.8cm Flak18 L/56 7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 for the Pzkpfw.V Panther.

The Americans had the BEST Escorts,

If you exclude the Ta-152H then yes, of not then most certainly not. The Ta-152H was the best prop fighter of WW2, and equipped with drop tanks the Ta-152H was the most lethal escort fighter of WW2. Again though the situation didn't allow for the Ta-152H to operate as an escort fighter only as a defensive fighter.

at least three of the top Ground Attack Fighters - all equivalent to Tempest (the F4U, the P-47 and the P-38 ) in far greater numbers,

The P-38 wasn't the equal of the Tempest and neither was the P-47, the P-38 suffered from some serious compressibility issues and the P-47 was a pig at low altitude. The F4U on the other hand is superior to all three.

and a little better than 'good' bombers. The B-29 was the BEST bomber.

No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.

Had the BEST transport aircraft in the C-47s and C-54s,

Agreed, the C-47 was a great a/c.

perhaps the BEST training aircraft in the AT-6 which was used in great numbers by all the Allies except Russia,

Incorrect, Germany Japan used just as good training aircraft, a task which wasn't hard btw.

had the BEST Medium Bombers in the A-26, B-26, B-25.

LoL and you call me biased ?! What about the Ju-88, Ju-188, Mosquito Ju-388 ?? All these were much better than the B-25, A-26 B-26 !

It supplied USSR Attack aircraft (P-39s and P63s) RAAF and RNZAF with P-47s and B-25s, RAAF built P-51s under license, RAF with C-47s, B-24s, PBYs, F4fs and F6Fs, etc, etc.

And what point is it you're trying to stress with this ??

The Mosquito was perhaps the BEST multi role a/c and could have challenged title of Best medium bomber

It must certainly was one of the very best, amongst the top 2 !

but that doesn't assign any weight to the BEST Air Power.

Well thats just the thing, this topic isn't about Air power its about the best airforce, but you amongst others see it as if its about the most powerful airforce, well it isn't.

As to BEST defensive a/c? The P-80 was an excellent design, arrived in ETO in Italy in January 1945

LoL, so excellent that it was restricted from military service in the ETO MTO yes, it was doomed dangerous to fly! It had many lethal bugs by 1945 and was no where near as servicable an a/c as the Me-262 or Meteor!

but simply wasn't needed in ETO or Pacific but better than the Meteor and on par with the Me262 performance wise

And yet the Me-262 accelerated, climbed maneuvered better in comparative flights with the P-80 conducted in the US after the war.

and had a much higher ceiling.

The later ones did, don't rely on the data from Wikipedia - the P-80 stationed in Europe weren't capable of such performance.

Had anyone had a bomber equivalent to B-29 it could have been re-armed with 4 20mm easily, but it was an escort or air superiority fighter. The F7F was deployed to PTO before WWII ended and would have been superb defensively against even the B-29.

I disagree, the F7F was too heavy - the F8F is another story though, and is faster than what is written on Wiki.

But the BEST defensive aircraft were Luftwaffe, not RAF, in 1944-1945. As to the requirement for BEST defensive Fighters? How much tonnage did the LW or Japanese Air Forces drop on US Targets - so the argument about Best Defensive Fighter is not even relevant - the US Defensive capabilities were 'more than adequate' - in contrast with the best defensive aircraft (Luftwaffe) which were not 'good enough'

What a load of complete utter rubbish Bill! The LW was hugely out-numbered in the air, they couldn't initiate an attack without having to oppose a force 5 times their own size - THAT is why the Allies made it through, superior numbers of able aircraft, the LuftWaffe's aircraft were excellent but there were way too few. And it was the exact same thing going on on the ground, where a single Tiger or Panther tank would often have to fight off 5 - 6 Sherman tanks at a time.

America had the MOST power, and could project it EVERYWHERE with relative impunity - land or sea based from late 1943 through today.

No, you'll have to go abit further than 1943, mid to late 1944 infact. See the problem with you is that your eyes are completely closed to what the rest of the world possessed at that time, your ridiculous statement that the US could project its power everywhere with impunity in 1943 shows this clearly. Sail your carriers to the ETO in 1943 and your seriously risking loosing alot of them to the German U-boat force.

Soren - respectfully, it was not 'close' in 1944-1945. It (American Aipower) shouldered the Strategic load in both the ETO and the PTO, it broke the back of Luftwaffe and JNAF and JAF in both theatres, it destroyed the Japanese Fleet, and bombed German and Japanese industry into oblivion - without the Atomic Bomb.

Again your eyes are closed! The US alone merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR UK had done - the USSR drained the German war-machine more than anything else during the war, and the RAF also certainly took its part in bombing the German industry, it wasn't all US bombers buddy!

No other Air Power can make those claims - not the RAF and not the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAAF combined can make those claims.

Forget about the VSS ???

If you were objective about 'America' this is one argument even you could support.

I am, but unlike you I'm also objective about the rest.

 

[syscom3]

The German obsessiveness with quality precision has made sure they've always been the leaders within the manufacturing of metals and lenses for example - the US army using ALOT of German equipment and direct copies in these areas - the US Abrams tank being equipped with the German 120mm L/44 gun designed made by Rheinmetall AG, the same company which built the famous 8.8cm Flak18 L/56 7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 for the Pzkpfw.V Panther.

What does this have to do with the events of WW2?

If you exclude the Ta-152H then yes, of not then most certainly not. The Ta-152H was the best prop fighter of WW2, and equipped with drop tanks the Ta-152H was the most lethal escort fighter of WW2. Again though the situation didn't allow for the Ta-152H to operate as an escort fighter only as a defensive fighter.

From the few sorties it made, it did look like the best by the end of the war in Europe. But only one problem Soren, It wasn't a magnitude better than other allied types so you were going to need to build huge numbers of them just to be effective. Its a plane that was too little too late. Unable to influence the battle when it counted.

The P-38 wasn't the equal of the Tempest and neither was the P-47, the P-38 suffered from some serious compressibility issues and the P-47 was a pig at low altitude. The F4U on the other hand is superior to all three.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The P38L didn't have compressibility problems, the Tempest was not an interceptor/escort fighter, The P47 was a low altitude great fighter bomber and the F4U was a carrier fighter that was great in some roles and not so great in others.

No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.

Inferior in defensive firepower, inferior in avionics, inferior in payload/range in actual combat enviornment, inferior in reliability, inferior in production numbers and inferior in combat record, blah blah blah. Can you tell anyone here about its most monumental combat missions?

Well thats just the thing, this topic isn't about Air power its about the best airforce, but you amongst others see it as if its about the most powerful airforce, well it isn't.

Soren, air power is the ability of an air force to project power and destroy the enemy. If your air force can do neither, then its inferior. Your LW could neither project power nor did it influence the battle after 1943.

LoL, so excellent that it was restricted from military service in the ETO MTO yes, it was doomed dangerous to fly! It had many lethal bugs by 1945 and was no where near as servicable an a/c as the Me-262 or Meteor!

Well, I do have to agree with you on this one.

What a load of complete utter rubbish Bill! The LW was hugely out-numbered in the air, they couldn't initiate an attack without having to oppose a force 5 times their own size - THAT is why the Allies made it through, superior numbers of able aircraft, the LuftWaffe's aircraft were excellent but there were way too few

So you admit that the Allies were using good aircraft flown by good pilots? BTW Soren, in the first part of 1944, the US only had several P38 and P51 groups (using early model types) that had to cover all of the B17's and B24's. Yet they inflicted some nasty loss's on the LW. Thats a great indication that one of two things occurred.... the pilots were superior to the LW, or they were "good enough" but flew better fighters. Which is it?

No, you'll have to go abit further than 1943, mid to late 1944 infact. See the problem with you is that your eyes are completely closed to what the rest of the world possessed at that time, your ridiculous statement that the US could project its power everywhere with impunity in 1943 shows this clearly. Sail your carriers to the ETO in 1943 and your seriously risking loosing alot of them to the German U-boat force.

So its 1944 that the AAF could do that. And it was the navy that did the sub hunting, not the AAF. By the way, the AAF gave the various naval air forces around the world a lot of B24's to go U boat hunting. Thats something the LW never had during the war.... a good 4 engine bomber for maritime patrol.


Soren, you still haven't come to grips that the US industrial supremacy was building 1st rate products on a massive scale. Training vast numbers of pilots and ground crews to a high quality standard. And then using the superiority of those air forces to destroy anyone opposing them.

Your LW was deficent in the following:
long range fighters
strategic doctrine
industrial techniques (untill it was too late)
training programs for new pilots
four engine bombers.
fighter bombers
command structure (Hitler and his minnions just couldn't keep their hands off, could they?)

Your LW was ahead in the following:
Jet technology
Night fighters
advanced concepts for the "next war"

The AAF and LW were equal in the following:
Fighters
medium bombers
avionics

And I'm sure the RAF experts would like to add a thing or two on portions of their AF that were superior to the LW.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.

And that was as good as not having the aircraft at all...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren you whole arguement is based off of what ifs and should have and could haves.

The problem, it did not....

 

[Soren]

What does this have to do with the events of WW2?

Taken out of context, nothing.

From the few sorties it made, it did look like the best by the end of the war in Europe. But only one problem Soren, It wasn't a magnitude better than other allied types so you were going to need to build huge numbers of them just to be effective. Its a plane that was too little too late. Unable to influence the battle when it counted.

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The P38L didn't have compressibility problems, the Tempest was not an interceptor/escort fighter, The P47 was a low altitude great fighter bomber and the F4U was a carrier fighter that was great in some roles and not so great in others.

No no Syscom3, I'm not the one mixing apples oranges, Bill is, he compared the Tempest to these a/c, not me.

Inferior in defensive firepower, inferior in avionics, inferior in payload/range in actual combat enviornment, inferior in reliability, inferior in production numbers and inferior in combat record, blah blah blah.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it.

Soren, air power is the ability of an air force to project power and destroy the enemy. If your air force can do neither, then its inferior. Your LW could neither project power nor did it influence the battle after 1943.

Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!

So you admit that the Allies were using good aircraft flown by good pilots?

They mostly were yes.

BTW Soren, in the first part of 1944, the US only had several P38 and P51 groups (using early model types) that had to cover all of the B17's and B24's. Yet they inflicted some nasty loss's on the LW. Thats a great indication that one of two things occurred.... the pilots were superior to the LW, or they were "good enough" but flew better fighters. Which is it?

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

So its 1944 that the AAF could do that. And it was the navy that did the sub hunting, not the AAF. By the way, the AAF gave the various naval air forces around the world a lot of B24's to go U boat hunting. Thats something the LW never had during the war.... a good 4 engine bomber for maritime patrol.

Condor is the word.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

Soren, you still haven't come to grips that the US industrial supremacy was building 1st rate products on a massive scale. Training vast numbers of pilots and ground crews to a high quality standard. And then using the superiority of those air forces to destroy anyone opposing them.

And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale - the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.

Your LW was deficent in the following:
long range fighters

Wrong.

strategic doctrine

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?

industrial techniques (untill it was too late)

German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.

training programs for new pilots

Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).

four engine bombers.

We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.

fighter bombers

You must be kidding me right ??!!

The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!

command structure (Hitler and his minnions just couldn't keep their hands off, could they?)

Agreed.

Your LW was ahead in the following:
Jet technology
Night fighters
advanced concepts for the "next war"

Agreed.

The AAF and LW were equal in the following:
Fighters

German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc

medium bombers

Agreed, the Mosquito made sure of that.

avionics

Agreed, they both featured some advanced products that the other didn't.

And I'm sure the RAF experts would like to add a thing or two on portions of their AF that were superior to the LW.

Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??

 

[mosquitoman]

Army Air Force, you dipstick.
BTW, the Kondor had a minor fault in that it's wings had a tendency to fall to bits on landing because it was originally a passenger plane and the heavy extra equipment made it too heavy for it's construction.

 

[syscom3]

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

Better, but not fantastically so. The latest models of the Spit were comparable, and the P47N had similar high altitude capabilities. A generational difference would be similar to a Ta-152 vs a P47D.

In the end, it was a great airplane but it came on the scene right when the war ended and it had no impact.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it.

Every stat I have seen on the -277 had it carrying several manually aimed light MG's compared to a CFC system on the B29 which controlled 12 heavy MG's. Avionics? Since when? Its developement stopped when the B29 was in production and being upgraded from time to time. Reliability? How do you know its reliability since it never went on a combat mission. Payload? There never was a WW2 bomber that actually carried its stated payload to maximum range simply because of weight growth.

Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!

Care to tell us about the big bombing campaigns in 1943 that amounted to something?

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

I was referring to 1944. Not 1943 when I would agree with you.

Condor is the word.

That piece of crap? I would venture to say that even the -177 and -277 were superior to that. If even a F4F could shoot it down with impunity, then I'd say the Condor had no business flying into battle.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

CVE's had no problem doing it. Even sank more than a few U-boats, didnt they? Besides, that naval aviation, not AF stuff.

And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale

If they were so good, why were they swept from the sky's before the summer of 1944? The LW also had the advantage of returning most shot down pilots back to duty while the AAF didnt. And yet the AAF kept producing air crews and airplanes.

- the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.

And beginning in 1944, the LW began to collapse due to misplaced priorities and programs from the prior years.

Wrong.

The LW had no theory or doctrine of strategic bombing. It showed that by not designing any long range bombers untill well after hostilities began, and then never fully supporting the concept and making sure the bombers were built and staffed.

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?

We are talking about 1944 and 1945, not the glory years of 1940 and 1941.

German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.

Quicker production methods = better industrial techniques. Ever hear of Willow Run?

Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).

So youre saying that the LW had an inferior training program in 1944. That makes the US and allied trainigng programs better.

We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.

You havent shown anyone where a single -277 mission proved they were better.

You must be kidding me right ??!!

The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!

The LW had one, which was good. The AAF had three (P38, 47 and F4U)

German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc

Individually, yes. As raw combat power, no.

Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??

Ha!

 

[Glider]

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Ta152 only fought in very very limited numbers on the Russian front. If this is the case how can we be so certain that it was so much better?

Also its worth remembering that Germany was in a desperate situation. Had the RAF been in that position then the Hornet, Vampire would have been in service by then. For the USAAF the later P51's and P80s would have been in service.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew escorts being the prime reason for it.

Defensive firepower wasn't as good lacking the sophisticated controls and as for bugs. Don't assume that they would be easily sorted out.

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's Fw-190's were giving the RAF USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

German fighter pilot losses 1943.
Average strength 2105
Pilot losses 2967
Loss ratio 141%

When the 8th Airforce cut back its daylight raids in November December the German fighter pilots losses reduced by a third.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

I must disagree with this. There were dozens of escort carriers operating in the ETO acting as escorts and assisting with landings. These were a top priority target for the germans and losses were exceptionally low. Can I ask how you back up this statement

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten

The RAF were never close to being beaten. Can I ask when this situation arose?
Remember that the LW only grew by around 15% in the entire war. The RAF went from 137 squadrons to 405, hardly the sign of a force on the verge of being beaten.