Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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!
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.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
.The Allies did not have ..... day fighters over Germany until summer of 1944.
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.
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.
+RAF, VVS, RCAF, etc.Germany only experienced fractions of the USA capability throughout the war but was effectively broken in Mar-April 1944...
Agree, there can be no agrue about that.Sometime in 1943 the USA had achieved the role of 'best' airpower and continues to be that today.
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.
P38's were flying over Germany (in small numbers) in Nov 1943.
P51's also had their first misisons over Germany in Dec 1943.
How far or long was the 8th AF bomber formations or how long would it take a raid to pass a given point
This is a decent example of what I perceive as bias on your part re; bias against things American.
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
The Americans had the BEST Escorts,
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,
and a little better than 'good' bombers. The B-29 was the BEST bomber.
Had the BEST transport aircraft in the C-47s and C-54s,
perhaps the BEST training aircraft in the AT-6 which was used in great numbers by all the Allies except Russia,
had the BEST Medium Bombers in the A-26, B-26, B-25.
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.
The Mosquito was perhaps the BEST multi role a/c and could have challenged title of Best medium bomber
but that doesn't assign any weight to the BEST Air Power.
As to BEST defensive a/c? The P-80 was an excellent design, arrived in ETO in Italy in January 1945
but simply wasn't needed in ETO or Pacific but better than the Meteor and on par with the Me262 performance wise
and had a much higher ceiling.
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.
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'
America had the MOST power, and could project it EVERYWHERE with relative impunity - land or sea based from late 1943 through today.
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.
No other Air Power can make those claims - not the RAF and not the RAF, RCAF, RNZAF and RAAF combined can make those claims.
If you were objective about 'America' this is one argument even you could support.
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.
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.
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.
No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.
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.
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!
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
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.
And that was as good as not having the aircraft at all...No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.
What does this have to do with the events of WW2?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!
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.
Condor is the word.
And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.
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.
Wrong.
Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?
German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.
Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).
We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.
You must be kidding me right ??!!
The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!
German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc
Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??
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?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.
Defensive firepower wasn't as good lacking the sophisticated controls and as for bugs. Don't assume that they would be easily sorted out.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.
German fighter pilot losses 1943.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 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 statementAnd even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.
Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten