Best WWII Air-Force

Soren · Jul 10, 2007

The Me-262 certainly wasn't rushed into production, it was massively delayed, it was ready already in 1943. And its the same story about many other German machines, so forget your little prototype theory.

As to the Me-262's service record, its excellent considering the situation under which it operated, and it acquired itself a very nice kill ratio in terms of shoot downs vs losses due to aerial combat. Counting losses from all causes the Me-262 has a 1.5 to 1 kill/loss ratio.

Marcel · Jul 10, 2007

Soren said:
The Me-262 certainly wasn't rushed into production, it was massively delayed, it was ready already in 1943. And its the same story about many other German machines, so forget your little prototype theory.

As to the Me-262's service record, its excellent considering the situation under which it operated, and it acquired itself a very nice kill ratio in terms of shoot downs vs losses due to aerial combat. Counting losses from all causes the Me-262 has a 1.5 to 1 kill/loss ratio.

You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.

syscom3 · Jul 10, 2007

Marcel said:
You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.

Exactly Marcel.

Personally I feel the LW would have been better served by concentrating on only -190 and -262 production.

But when you look at the actual war record of the -262, for having an aircraft a whole generation better than the allied types, scoring only 1.5 kills isn't really that impressive. The LW was needing to knock down hundreds of bombers at a time and they could only shoot down this number?

Soren.... "delays" are nothing but excuses. Several key AAF airplanes had delays, but no one here is arguing "if only.....".

Glider · Jul 10, 2007

Marcel said:
You're right about the ME262 being delayed, but I think the question is: would the LW be better served by more FW190/Bf109's that could have been build instead of the handfull Me262's? After all, development these new types used a lot of resources which could have been used for building a lot more other "established" fighters.

I have to admit this is a very good point. As well as increased numbers had the development effort on the Me262 been put to use, you may well have had the 190D six months earlier and the 152. This could easily have made quite a difference.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 10, 2007

I find it ineteresting how something that was still having major engine problems in 1945 was ready to go in 1943. Seems to me it still needed some work.

I agree with Marcel that the Luftwaffe would have been better served with more 190s and 109s.

syscom3 · Jul 10, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I find it ineteresting how something that was still having major engine problems in 1945 was ready to go in 1943. Seems to me it still needed some work.

I agree with Marcel that the Luftwaffe would have been better served with more 190s and 109s.

Maybe even get the -152 flying late in 1944 when it could have made an impact.

drgondog · Jul 10, 2007

syscom3 said:
Maybe even get the -152 flying late in 1944 when it could have made an impact.

Hard to imagine it making a bigger impact than the 262.

To fight it still had to come down to bomber/escort level, probably needed some relative mass in numbers and not far enough ahead of a 51 or Spit or P-47 at 30,000 feet to completely dominate -

For the sake of argument it could have an altitude advantage as long as the command and control gave them enough warning to take off and climb.. But the same existed for 109G-6A/S and subsequent very good high altitude performance fighters. They did not even achieve parity despite having altitude advantage and role responsibility for protecting the Fw190A8s and Me410s.

The Experten still existed in significant numbers but even that didn't prove much in JG44 with an incredible airplane - so why does the Ta152 change the equation?

Elements of JG26 and III./JG54 had the 190D in Dec 1944, as good as it was, and lost some devastating fights with 51s and Spits in the December-January 1945 timeframe, flown by some very good pilots. Why does anyone think the Ta152 would somehow out class the 190D by an order of magnitude in that timeframe?

Pilot skill was still the dominant factor and the balance had long before swung to Allies - at least as far as average skills are recognized?

I may be wrong but in my opinion Boddenplatte put the final stake in the LW heart as it lost far too many irreplacable pilots - even though the air war was really lost at that point.. and German industry was pounded.

As I re-read the histories of JG54 and JG26 so many Fw190D-9s seemed to have been lost to mechanical (engine) failures - just like the 262 - and the P51Bs in Jan-April 1944. Doubt if the Jumo 213's in the Ta152 could have been brought into reliability any faster?

I suspect that the RAF and 8th AF and 12th and 15th could have ceased all bomber operations at that point, assigned every Fighter Group in RAF and 8th Free Lance Sweep duties and mopped up the Lufwaffe even earlier without changing one milestone in the ground war.

Regards,

Bill

syscom3 · Jul 10, 2007

Ok, so lets look at it this way for the time period beginning June 1 1944.

1) Leadership.
The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

2) Strategy.
Again the AAF is a magnitude better than the LW because the US had a vision for strategic bombing, formulated a doctrine and built and produced heavy bombers to achieve that goal before the war even started. The LW had the chance to do it, but failed. Playing catch up in the middle of the war was a case of too little too late. The AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

3) Global Reach.
The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US DID fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.

4) Industrial capabilities.
Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes AND produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.

5) Strategic Bombers.
Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all). And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.

6) Long range fighters.
The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none. The AAF is a magnitude better than the LW on this. Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.

7) Fighters.
Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.

8 ) Fighter bombers.
AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.

9) Light/Attack bombers.
Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.

10) Medium bombers.
Slight edge to the LW on this one. The JU-88 definatly was better than the B25 and B26 in the medium bombing role. Although the B25 was probably better than the JU88 in the low altitude gunship role as used in the Pacific.

11) Training.
The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.

12) Night fighters.
The LW gets the edge here. The JU88 was better than the P61, but not a magnitude better.

13) Avionics.
Equal.

14) Transports.
Edge to the AAF simply due to the C47 and C54 being among the legendary aircraft of all time.

15) Advanced weapons.
Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.

16) camoflauge.
The LW was definatly better than the AAF in coming up with cool looking paint schemes (for us modelers).

lesofprimus · Jul 10, 2007

Gotta agree with everything Bill posted up above...

syscom3 · Jul 10, 2007

I'd like to see how the people who chose the RAF, came to their conclusions.

RAF vs AAF

RAF vs LW

pbfoot · Jul 10, 2007

I couldn't for the RAF but almost could for the RCAF but common sense took over and I voted USAAF. We should declare the USAAC and C47 best of class and debate who's second

drgondog · Jul 10, 2007

pbfoot said:
I couldn't for the RAF but almost could for the RCAF but common sense took over and I voted USAAF. We should declare the USAAC and C47 best of class and debate who's second

I actually have enormous respect for Britain (and Germany) and their capabilities to move both technologies and power to the levels achieved.

What happened is that Germany chose its allies and foes poorly and the Brits didn't. Nobody went from parochial 2nd Class World Power slightly in category of Italy in 1939 to the juggernaught air power of 1944 like the US... or army like the Soviets in the same time frame.

The analogy might be the 90 pund strongman kicking the 350 pound out of shape sumo wrestler's ass for first 10 seconds of a fight... from an industrial and enginerring talent standpoint as US and USSR "re-adjusted priorities" from razor blades and movies and baseball and tractors to aircraft, carriers, merchant ships and a horde of well armed and increasingly well trained human beings.

Ta 152s and V-2s and He277s and Me262s were irrelevant - only the A-bomb early could have made a difference for Germany.

Speer had that argument with Hitler and Goering in 1941 urging Hitler not to a.) declare war or b.) underestimate us. Yamamoto failed also.

The rest, as they say, is history

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 11, 2007

syscom3 said:
Ok, so lets look at it this way for the time period beginning June 1 1944.

1) Leadership.
The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

2) Strategy.
Again the AAF is a magnitude better than the LW because the US had a vision for strategic bombing, formulated a doctrine and built and produced heavy bombers to achieve that goal before the war even started. The LW had the chance to do it, but failed. Playing catch up in the middle of the war was a case of too little too late. The AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

3) Global Reach.
The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US DID fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.

4) Industrial capabilities.
Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes AND produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.

5) Strategic Bombers.
Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all). And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.

6) Long range fighters.
The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none. The AAF is a magnitude better than the LW on this. Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.

7) Fighters.
Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.

8 ) Fighter bombers.
AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.

9) Light/Attack bombers.
Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.

10) Medium bombers.
Slight edge to the LW on this one. The JU-88 definatly was better than the B25 and B26 in the medium bombing role. Although the B25 was probably better than the JU88 in the low altitude gunship role as used in the Pacific.

11) Training.
The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.

12) Night fighters.
The LW gets the edge here. The JU88 was better than the P61, but not a magnitude better.

13) Avionics.
Equal.

14) Transports.
Edge to the AAF simply due to the C47 and C54 being among the legendary aircraft of all time.

15) Advanced weapons.
Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.

16) camoflauge.
The LW was definatly better than the AAF in coming up with cool looking paint schemes (for us modelers).

Good post and I have to agree with it.

Soren · Jul 11, 2007

syscom3 said:
1) Leadership.
The AAF is a magnitude or more better than the LW simply because there was no negative political influence in purely military matters. Take Hitler out of giving the LW orders for strategy and aircraft specs, then things would have evened up. But we are dealing with the actual events of WW2, so the AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

Agreed. The man calling the shots for the LW wasn't the right man.

2) Strategy.
Again the AAF is a magnitude better than the LW because the US had a vision for strategic bombing, formulated a doctrine and built and produced heavy bombers to achieve that goal before the war even started. The LW had the chance to do it, but failed. Playing catch up in the middle of the war was a case of too little too late. The AAF is a clear and decisive winner.

Strategy was influenced by Hitler Goering, so yes I agree.

3) Global Reach.
The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US DID fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.

Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.

4) Industrial capabilities.
Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes AND produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.

Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.

5) Strategic Bombers.
Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all).

The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

So I'd say they're equal.

And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.

Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.

6) Long range fighters.
The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none.

The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.

Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.

What a load of rubbish! The P-38 was a turkey compared to the fighter in the ETO, the only reason it did well in the PTO was because it was much faster than its opponents.

7) Fighters.
Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.

Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.

In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.

8 ) Fighter bombers.
AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.

Could the P-47 or P-38 carry a 1,800 kg bomb ?? No! So the LW might only have one really good fighter-bomber but, its better than those of the USAAF - So again the LW is better.

9) Light/Attack bombers.
Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.

Wow! Being generous are we ?

10) Medium bombers.
Slight edge to the LW on this one. The JU-88 definatly was better than the B25 and B26 in the medium bombing role.

Agreed.

11) Training.
The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.

Its not tough luck, its what happens when an incompitent man is calling the shots for you and you cannot question his decision.

12) Night fighters.
The LW gets the edge here. The JU88 was better than the P61, but not a magnitude better.

Agreed.

13) Avionics.
Equal.

Agreed.

14) Transports.
Edge to the AAF simply due to the C47 and C54 being among the legendary aircraft of all time.

Agreed.

15) Advanced weapons.
Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.

Again a complete load of rubbish from Syscom3!

The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this.

The fact that the US acquired the A-bomb first (By the help of German scientists espionage) doesn't at all mean they were ahead in advanced weapons - firstly because the splitting is a rather simple concept, one first thought of carried out by the Germans btw but again rejected by Hitler, and secondly because its just ONE thing - its really the only important advanced weapon deployed by the US - all the while the Germans were deploying MANY more advanced weapons.

16) camoflauge.
The LW was definatly better than the AAF in coming up with cool looking paint schemes (for us modelers).

Come on!

The Basket · Jul 11, 2007

The germans did have their own weapon of mass destruction and was called Sarin. It is a nerve agent.

The Manhattan project was absolutely huge but so was the V2 project.

But if given a choice between an atomic bomb, Ta-152, Me-262 or V-2...I would go for me mushroom cloud.

bigZ · Jul 11, 2007

"The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this."

I agree in terms of advanced projects the Germans where far ahead of the allies. But a lot were far from production with little or no chance of being used due to the detoriating situation at best.

The V2 program was a huge drain on resources especially in the area of electronics/instrument technology that could been better used elsewhere(might have had a succesful Gyro site in full production before war end etc). The V1 on the other hand was indirectly more successful as it did mange to tie down squadrons and AA for a fraction of the cost and disruption to other projects.

The german research demonstrated time and again the waste of resources and manpower compared to the allies. Just one example of many is a huge tunnel built specially to see how a bullet is effected by crosswinds when fired from a bomber turret. The allies on the other hand simply tracked a bullet from a bomber in flight.

In my opinion the Luftwaffe where the best tactical airforce upto 43. But fortunately missed their window of oppurtuninty and their limited strategic capabilty definately made them 2nd rate. Even if they somehow managed to hold on till 46 do you really think as Hitler that it would change the course of the war with the new wonder weapons?

pbfoot · Jul 11, 2007

I agree that the Germans had great plans for wonderful weapons but drawing them on a napkin is much easier then building them

drgondog · Jul 11, 2007

Soren said:
Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.

Your knowledge of world history beyond England-Germany Russia is faulty.

Ploesti, the most important single source of Petroleum for the 3rd Reich was bombed to oblivion from a former Axis state - Italy. Much of the SE Germany and Austria aircraft industry at Weiner-Neustadt and Regensburg and Augsburg and Leipzig was bombed (as well as England based 8th) by 12th and 15th AF from Italy. Italy was invaded from Sicily - not England.Japan was first bombed by B-29s from China. In short Global Reach far exceeding the LW even w/o carriers

Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.

Name three LW plants combined that put as many a/c as Willow Run GM plant

The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

They prioritized Fighter production when it became clear in early 1944 that German industry would die from USSAF precison attacks - and German bombers weren't doing much against anybody

Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.

Syscom 'not dealing well' with your world?

The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.

Did it? Did it fly 100o miles? did it escort anything? - but it was 'the greatest escort fighter"? Perhaps in a different world of 'possibility' in which reality counts for nothing.

What a load of rubbish! The P-38 was a turkey compared to the fighter in the ETO, the only reason it did well in the PTO was because it was much faster than its opponents.

It was also faster than its LW opponents and solved its compressibility problems in mid 1944.

Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.

The Ta152H got how many kills? The Fw190D got how many kills? The Me262 was the best of all fighters that actually flew combat - including the Ta152 and Fw190D - what did it contribute to the war effort?

In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.

So great that they were virtually driven from the skies beginning with mere defeat in early to mid 1944 when they had local air superiority over Germany, to complete disarray in early 1945 even with fighter vs fighter air superiority during Operation Bodenplatte?

Could the P-47 or P-38 carry a 1,800 kg bomb ?? No! So the LW might only have one really good fighter-bomber but, its better than those of the USAAF - So again the LW is better.

So what. A 3000 pounder might be effective against Sub Pens but who cares re: fighter Bomber. I'd rather carry 3 x 1000 pounders like the P-38 and F4U and P-47

The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this.

How far is far?? I forget. Multitude? Me 262 and Ar234 versus Meteor and P-80? Sarin versus Sarin and the A-Bomb. V-2s versus 4000 B17/B-24 plus 2000 lancasters with escort fighters? plus all the Medium bombers capablre of the same load actually Hitting the target instead of the cornfields? The V1 was totally worthless and the V-2 essentially the same - indefensible against cornfield attacks

The fact that the US acquired the A-bomb first - its really the only important advanced weapon deployed by the US - all the while the Germans were deploying MANY more advanced weapons.

Sarin was one - and the US had a stockpile in Colorado. Had Hitler used it against the allies there might not be much German spoken today - any other weapons that 'might have made a difference' ?? Think Soren, if anything you mentioned as the wonder weapon managed to extend the war in Europe three more months - what do you think Berlin would look like today - instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Come on!

Yeah, roll those eyes. Syscom is pretty much dead on

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 12, 2007

Soren said:
Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.

However this is reality and the allies had Carriers therefore the Global reach of the alies was farther than the Luftwaffe.

Facts are Facts. History is History...

Soren said:
Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs priorities.

Have to disagree with you. The techniques the US was using were the future and better than those in Germany. Was Germany going to be able to put out Bombers in numbers like the US was.

If they could, please show me facts proving this and I will believe you.

Soren said:
The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

So I'd say they're equal.

How can you call it even. I dont care if the Luftwaffe did prioritize fighters or not. They did not have the strategic bombers that the US did? Therefore it is not even. The Luftwaffe was far behind in Strategic bombers compared to the US.

Fact is Fact, History is History, you can not rewrite history...

Soren said:
Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.

Yes it is a fact, and a fact that hindered the Luftwaffe and contributed to it no longer being the best in the last few years of the war. FAct is fact, history is history, it can not be rewritten.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 12, 2007

drogdog said:
Japan was first bombed by B-29s from China.

Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.

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

1st Lieutenant

rotartsinimdA

Pacific Historian

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Major

Pacific Historian

Brigadier General

Pacific Historian

1st Lieutenant

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

1st Lieutenant

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads