Best WWII Air-Force

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I will give credit where it is due.

 

[Konigstiger205]

Sure the USAF was great...sure the RAF pilots were great...sure the LW planes were great....but I'd like to remind you of a small country named Romania, who fought on both sides of the war and although our air force was not much our pilots still managed to shot down soviets, americans and later germans and hungarians.Our top ace Constantin "Bâzu" Cantacuzino managed to shot down 60 planes until the end of the war including a P51 Mustang.Almost every time outnumbered our pilots managed to do wonders with small numbers, outdated planes and a not so great logistic.It may not deserve the number 1 spot but it deserves to be remebered.

 

[drgondog]

LoL, Britain contributed to the invasion of Italy. The USAAF alone didn't have a longer reach than the LW, both depended on captured or Allied ground to reach out further.

So, the LW had the same reach as the USAAF? and for example was able to bomb Britain from Berlin based He111 or Do17 types, or able to bomb Moscow from Berlin? and the fact that 'Britain' helped capture Italy or China let us base B-29s neutralized the range and payload advantages B-24s had over LW bombers - much less B-29s? Curious perspective Soren

You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas.

Name an area of quality that the US 'sacrificed' in its production methods? You want to stress the 'quality of the He177' or the 'quality of the Me262 engines' as illustrative of emphasis by German production/design focus?

The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict thurough - hence the longer production time hence why I said what I said.

You could say it but the facts don't back it up

PS: USAAF bombers weren't very precise and no'more precise than the bombers of the LW or RAF, so forget your little precision-attack theory.

Herr Speer was in complete disagreement with you, and your stated opinion on this subject - Most would look to him over you for a professional and knowledgeable expert on this subject. I know I do.

Insults from Bill again, how surprising, he seems to rely on these very much.

I apologise for the insults- real or perceived, but candidly you started with them in our original tangle over F4U vs P-51B flight tests and have never let up - If you don't like what I say, or ask you for facts you respond with insults

Ha! Syscom3 is not dealing well with reality if anything, but he's certainly dealing well with your world though Bill.

Syscom pretty well trashed your arguments on the B-29, and proceeded to roll over you on this subject also - as have most on this thread. I am the only one you defeat with your compelling logic.

No it didn't, there wasn't enough fuel. But thats not the point, the point is the LW possessed a long range fighter a/c.

No, actually the point is Best AF and you brought up the point that the Ta152 was better than the Mustang (or by definition the P-47 and P-38) as a long range fighter. I said interesting but no it wasn't a very good long range fighter simply because that isn't how it was used, did not have a track record for it and did not have the achievements of the other 3. Other than that it was a great fighter design


It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again.

I try not not to 'spew' if at all possible - may I dribble them for you?

NO Bill, the P-38 was not faster than its LW opponents, the P-38 was slower far less nimble.

So, the opponents of the P-38 included the Me109F-K series, the Fw190A-G series, and of course the Me262. It was slower than these all (or even most) fighters? The 38 L could carry 2x2000 bombs, max speed 414mph at 25,000 ft and a ceiling of 44,000 feet, max climb of 4750fpm - please show even a 109 or even an Fw190D that could match the P38L in all of these attributes - or even two? It was NOT as nimble in a turn for sure

11 kills to 0 losses.

That record for the Ta152 would place it below the Brewster Buffalo in the hands of the Finns on the basis of impact or importance in practical combat ops. It was a great design, rushed into production and barely able to start combat ops - yet you use it to illustrate 'an escort' fighter? why?

Bill again demonstrates his excellent ability to completely ignore the fact that by 1944 trained men fuel was in scarse supply in the LW, and that the LW didn't enjoy local air-superiority AT ALL when you count how many LW a/c actually went airborne in that period.

Soren, if I can demonstrate several missions in which a.) USAAF escort fighters were outnumbered locally, and b.) severely thrashed the Luftwaffe fighter they engaged under those circumstances in the January - July 1944 timeframe - would you make a public apology to me on this subject - or I to you if I can't prove it?

Bill again playing loosely with the facts..

The P-47 could NOT carry a bomb-load of 3,000 lbs, let alone 3x 1000 lbs bombs !! The P-38 could carry close 3,000 lbs in total but it could NOT carry 3x 1000 lbs bombs.

Actually I apologise for the P-47. The 47D could carry two 1,000 pounders under each wing plus one 500 on c/l. It was capable of carrying a 1k pounder on C/L and I assumed that all three could be carried. As to the 38 it could only carry two 2,000 pounders not 3x1,000 - I was a little loose on my facts. Which versions of the fw190 carried the 3,000 pound bomb? I couldn't find reference

The P-80A was downright dangerous to fly, plus it was too slow sluggish compared to the Me-262A-1a.

The XP-80, one of the ones in Lesina, was the allegedly the one used in the flight tests against the Me262 in 1946 in Augsburg area. The 'wikipedia' comments you quoted were from that book I cited... you still have a reference you owe me on the flight test results that you say are a production P-80A which started delivery in March 1945. I am still looking for the "Wright Patterson flight test" from which Wikipedia quotes superiority of the 262 in level speed and acceleration" - I am not denying that a report exists I just can't find it and so far, neither have you>

Of the prototype and pre-production YP and XP-80s, three crashed that I know of - one from turbine blade failure, one from a fuel pump failure (US)and one (Burtonwood) from a failure in the steel exhaust pipe. Following that crash, the 2nd one at Burtonwood was tested to destruction and the two at Lesina were grounded for three months - but care to compare the 'dangerous' P-80 to ANY LW jet in prototype through first ptoduction stage? Make your point


Says Bill who is clueless as to how short the war would've been had the Allies possessed weapons machines which could've matched the ones deployed by Germany on an individual basis.

???? what does this have to do with Best AF?

Also I have a feeling dropping a nuclear bomb in Europa wasn't going to be liked by many of the surrounding countries and would be seen as a very serious war-crime a no less serious crime against humanity - esp. considering the fact that it wasn't needed in order to come to terms with the Nazis

Sigh, Soren. You 'feel' Europe would have been outraged? Who? the French, the Dutch, the Poles? the Russians?

Does Aushwitz, Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald, SS, Gestapo, Warsaw, etc, etc, seem to you roots for sympathy??? or "Outrage". Do you really believe this? I'm glad it didn't happen but pretty confident Germany would have been first if war had gone into August - nut could be wrong

Or was the US spared the outrage for Hiroshima only because the Japanese weren't European and the atrocites in Chuina, Phillipines, Malaysia were somehow worse than WWII Germany - making them somehow 'subhuman' instead of the refined and cultured Germans in WWII?


No he is clearly not, he is in fact almost completely wrong.

Syscom wasn't wrong

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was going to mention that since the B25 was carrier capable as compared to the JU88, it made it a better medium bomber. But I figured you and Flyboy would slap me down for it!

Yep!

 

[Soren]

Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.

"Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again."

I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!

And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.

You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.

There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.



PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.

 

[Soren]

Bill,

Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself.

As to the P-38, it was sluggish compared to the single engined fighters in the ETO, its top speed was a low 414 mph, the Bf-109 G-6/AS, G-10, -14, -14/AS K-4 all being faster, far more maneuverable and better climbers. The FW-190 Dora-9 is faster, climbs faster and is far more maneuverable as-well, the Me-262A-1a is much faster, climbs better and is more maneuverable at all but the slowest of speeds.

Also the P-38L cannot climb at 4,700 + ft/min, the max climb rate of the P-38L is ~4,100 ft/min - the 4,700 + ft/min figure is suspect and was only achieved in a single test, in which the a/c wasn't fully loaded.

And as to the Me-262A-1a and its superior acceleration and speed compared to the P-80, you should note that the Me-262's "official" performance figures are very conservative figures by Messerschmidt AG to Rechlin for placing a performance guarantee to avoid recieving complaints about performance not matching the listed figures - the performance of different batches of engines varying because of the lack of refined metals needed but not falling below the guaranteed figure. The British tested the Me-262A-1a post-war multiple times and established the top speed of the Me-262 to be in excess of 908 km/h (568 mph), demonstrating the performance when the engines were running as intended.

Name an area of quality that the US 'sacrificed' in its production methods? You want to stress the 'quality of the He177' or the 'quality of the Me262 engines' as illustrative of emphasis by German production/design focus?

Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals. The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.


And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.

No I read everything but you just keep repeating yourself but not posting any sources or facts. You are only stating your opinion which happens to be a very biased one not based off of historical facts. You bring up a lot of what ifs. This is not about whats ifs. This is about what actually happening.

"Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again."

I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!

Okay then why are you argueing the fact that the Luftwaffe was better than. Your whole arguement has been that. Go back and read it.

Here is basically how this whole debate has gone (and its been about 1944 to 1945, I will sum it up right here. This whole debate is very funny...)

P.S. I have altered the convo a bit for humor factor.

Soren: I am not saying the Luftwaffe was the best in 1944 or 1945 okay.

Bill: The Luftwaffe did not have the strategic bombing capability the USAAF had.

Soren: That lies!!! The Luftwaffe had the He-177, He 277, Me 264, Ju 390 which were all superior to or equal to the B-29!

Bill: The He 277, Me 264, and Ju 390 did not reach operational status or were just prototypes. The He 177 had many many problems and was not built in sufficient numbers.

Soren: More lies from Bill! Those aircraft were ready! There was just no fuel or trained pilots and the Luftwaffe put priority on fighters!

Adler: Does that not mean they are not ready or can not used and therefore the Luftwaffe does not have the strategic capability of the USAAF?

Soren: Ignore

Syscom: The Luftwaffe did not really have a long range fighter.

Soren: No the Luftaffe had the Ta 152 which was better than any long range fighter that the allies could put in the air.

Syscom: Umm but that was the last few months of the war they did not accomplish anything...

Soren: Syscom not living in the real world! The Ta 152 was better! If they had eneogh fuel the allies would not have won!!!

Bill: The Luftwaffe did not have the global reach of the USAAF.

Soren: More lies from Bill! The only reason the allies could attack Germany was because of England!

Bill: Thats not the point Soren. If the Allies could reach thousands of miles into Germany from England and the Luftwaffe could barely make London and with only 30 min over England doesn't that mean the Luftwaffe did not have a bigger reach?


Do I need to continue?


So basically in a thread about The Best Airforce you are not argueing that the Luftwaffe is the best but everything that people say the Luftwaffe was weaker in you dispute saying the Luftwaffe was better.

That is saying the Luftwaffe is the best....

And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.

Then I would like you to post sources that show:

1. How the Luftwaffe had a better strategic bombing capability.

2. How the Luftwaffe had a bigger global reach.

I wont ask any more because I can go on and on....

Now Sources please?

You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.

Then show sources and hard facts. Lets go...

There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.

And those do not make you the best all around airforce.

PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.

Go and read all your other posts.

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself.

Start with 1st Bomb Division Attack on Munich Area 24 April, 1944. The 3 Task Forces of B-17s flew a track East to West arriving in Leipheim area at approximately 1305, flying an echelon right formation with General Robert Travis leading 1st Task Force designated 41A comprised of 303BG plus 379BG.

The first target bombed was by Third TF at Erding at 1331, the force turned south to a point SE of Munich at 1338 and then West to the IP SW of Munich at 1344, then the 1st TF bombed Landsberg and 2TF bombed Oberpfaffenhofen (Dornier-Werke GmbH turbine blade factory)

In order the Luftwaffe put up Sturmstaffel I, I. III./JG3, III./JG26, StabIII./JG3, I./JG27, IV./JG27, I./JG5, III./ZG26 ~ 200+ German fighters.

The sole Target Escort for the Munich area from 1320-1420 was 47 Mustangs each from the 355th FG and the 357th FG for a total of 94 P-51s. The two groups combined for 43-2-13 for a total loss of 4 shot down by Me109s, two lost in mid air collisions with Me110s and two lost to flak strafing on the way home... They arrived approximately 10 minutes after JG3 and JG26 had already shot down 4 B-17s near Gablingen.

BTW- This was a specific example of skilled LW controller picking up the gap when the Penertration Support turned back, the B-24 Strike Force and escorts were gone and the B-17s were 'early' to the Target Escort R/V.

So, Soren, the basic match up 2:1 (minimum) local superiority of LW fighters over USAAF in target area resulted in 43 destroyed German fighters in air combat to 6 losses for USAAF Mustangs.

In Crandall's latest book, LW admits to 60 losses that day, but that includes the battles near Worms between 4th FG and JG1/JG11.

US Loss sources, 355th Fighter Group and 357th FG Histories by Marshall and Olmstead respectively, Kent Miller's Fighter Units of the 8th AF, Mighty Eighth Combat Chronology (complete w/Macrs, loss to flak/fighters, etc) by Andrews and Adams,

USAF 85 for the awards (not claims).

The LW shot down by flak and fighters 27 B-17s of the 1st AD in these battles including those landing in Switzerland, shot down over France or ditched in Channel

More to come. Prien is at least one good source for your own research. For the units involved Tony Woods LW Claims list is a good source

Also the P-38L cannot climb at 4,700 + ft/min, the max climb rate of the P-38L is ~4,100 ft/min - the 4,700 + ft/min figure is suspect and was only achieved in a single test, in which the a/c wasn't fully loaded.

Soren, those are official Lockheed and USAAF performance figures. If you want to say they aren't correct, please cite your source

Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch.

Comparison source and reference please - and BTW there are/were very few welds in USAAF combat a/c as most structure was rivets, bent sheetmetal ribs and formers and aluminum panels..B-17 engine mounts were welded tubes, ditto B-24. P51 had forged mounts

German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.

Source and reference please

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals. The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.

I know this - but metallurgy IS part of quality Soren. And the He177 problems were a fault of German Specifications that stated the performance targets must be achieved with but two engine nacelles requiring that two engines be crammed into the each nacelle to make it dive bomb capable - it was a HUGE design flaw because of the oil leaks onto very hot exhaust stacks internally (IIRC) ... how long did this 'minor flaw' set back an otherwise nice design? The Brits were smart enough to ditch the idea on the Manchester and voila - the Lancaster!

And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.

Funding had nothing to do with the He177 design issues. Making it dive bomb capable had much more to do with the approach - Heinkel finally was able to get a four engine/four cyclinder design out and it was a good one.

 

[syscom3]

Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.

Do you have a source saying the US finish and weldings were inferior?

Or is it the US quality was adequate for the job at hand and the German quality was far in excess of what was needed.

If thats the case, then the ratings for the German manufactoring techniques goes down for inefficency.

I was also pondering why the Germans had more inspection to begin with. Was it because of an over attention to detail (which really added nothing to the value of the product) or was it because the parts were coming from forced or slave labor? Either way, when it come to mass producing the weapons of war, the US totally swamped the Germans in every single catagory. As long as the quality is adequate, then it makes no sense to so further improve the quality that inefficiencies are introduced (or even maintainability).

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals.

So the Me-262 was not ready for combat was it?

The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.

"Small"? Enough to hold up the whole project? The B29 had engine problems that were solved well enough. Sorry Soren, your bombers seem to have had too many flaws, limitations and lack of resources to be considered anything more than experimental.

And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.

More than a few people are waiting for you to show us where I am wrong.

You dwell with to much on the micro sense of the war in Europe, and not on the macro sense of a global war.

BTW, I'm waiting for you to mention a few missions where your LW fighters flew on 2600 mile missions.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Name just one ? US weldings external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully precisely crafted.

In some cases German metallurgy was superior (but not by much) than found in the US. 24T was the common aluminum used for aircraft construction. German metallurgists used more zinc as an alloying element to make their equivelent of 24T slightly more durable and eventually the alloying process was used in "2024T" which is still used today. This was a slight advantage and just made certain structures either more durable or malleable but this was not a technology showstopper.

Welding? There you re dead wrong - the US was at the forefront of machine welding techniques as a result of the automotive industry, as a matter of fact by the time WW2 started the US had automated welding machines that were the anceastors of today's CNC welding machines. Toward the end of the war weldments found on many German aircraft were poor, probably due to using slave labor.

BTW - the first aircraft whose primary structure was mainly welded together? The Vought Kingfisher....A pre-WW2 design.

As stated, it was the same German quality that produced allegedly superior weapons that was also Germany's downfall. You don't need a bullet precisely .45673 to kill someone, just a .45, and it's because of this example I show why the US was able to produce thousands of "good" aircraft while Germany produce hundreds or "allegedly superior" aircraft.

 

[Glider]

Examples are almost endless.
T34 wasn't up to German build standards but they destroyed a lot of German tanks.
The DB601 was built using sophistated shrink techniques which to a purist made it a better built engine than the Merlin. But the Merlin was at least its equal in performance, became a legendary engine and powered many tens of thousands of aircraft. It also made the 601 a very expensive engine in both cost and man hours build time for no extra gain.
The Panther was a superb tank but a nightmare to mantain and repair due to its over sophistication.

 

[Graeme]

Welding? There you re dead wrong - the US was at the forefront of machine welding techniques as a result of the automotive industry, as a matter of fact by the time WW2 started the US had automated welding machines that were the anceastors of today's CNC welding machines. Toward the end of the war weldments found on many German aircraft were poor, probably due to using

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

 

[bigZ]

So the germans where the best producers of aircraft?

Howcome they where using the almost the same allocation of aluminium in 43 as 38 but producing thousands more aircraft, but Milch still complained of the waste?

When did the Germans moblise the female population into making aircraft to meet the growing demand?

Quality did drop with the increase of slave labour and skilled workers being drafted into the army. But still you can't deny the germans built the finest bomber seats right upto the wars end and where still polishing the welds on 190 tailwheels till 43.

German production was hardly spectacular and Gorings insistance on higher production figures by sacrificing the availability of spare engine and parts also had a detrimental effect on front line serviceabilty.

 

[drgondog]

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1

The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird

Manufacturing is all about meeting spec with lowest cost, ACCEPTABLE quality.

SR71 much more demanding than UH 1E,H and J and Ive done 'em all.

This is an area that I believe Soren wishes he could take back - and still can..

How many Germans (even as percent of population) were driving low cost, high quality autos before WWII compared to US? That's all about high quality and low cost - General Motors and Ford and Chrysler had ZERO problem converting tons of steel to thousands of aluminum a/c per month

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?

Both but mainly aluminum. The only significant steels being welded in the US were mild steels, 4130 and 4140 for steel tubing on fabric aircraft and for some structural parts on all-metal aircraft.

Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

"Heliarc, and later "mig, tig" welding been around for a long time and was perfected in the late 30s early 40s. Hydrogen was used as the inert gas and the rod was tungsten but the form as many know it today wasn't really perfected until after the war where the process was slightly altered for easier use as well as cost.

 

[Graeme]

Another example of American wartime fabricating ingenuity, the Budd Conestoga, the worlds first large stainless steel aircraft.


(Thanks for the information FLYBOY and drgondog)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1

The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird

Manufacturing is all about meeting spec with lowest cost, ACCEPTABLE quality.

SR71 much more demanding than UH 1E,H and J and Ive done 'em all.

This is an area that I believe Soren wishes he could take back - and still can..

How many Germans (even as percent of population) were driving low cost, high quality autos before WWII compared to US? That's all about high quality and low cost - General Motors and Ford and Chrysler had ZERO problem converting tons of steel to thousands of aluminum a/c per month

To add on Bill, most 7075 aluminum were used in major structural components (landing gear trunnions, wing attach points, etc.) 2024T3 (24T) was usually used for skins and 2024 T6 for structural components (ribs, intercostals, etc.) 6064 and 6061 aluminum was usually used for fluid plumbing and tubing.

The A&P school I went to had an old heliarc machine that looked like it was from the 40s or 50s. I was afraid to use it....

 

[Soren]

Adler,

Make fun all you want, I cannot converse with somone who refuses to listen.

I never claimed the LW possessed a longer global reach than the US, again that is something you made up yourself. What I said was the global reach of the LW was the same as that of the USAAF - Unless the USAAF had a base in Europe to operate from there was no way they could attack Germany, and its the same for the LW, unless the LW had bases to operate from in the America's then there was no way they could successfully attack the USA. The LW possessed long range bombers as-well, bombers with equal range bomb-load as those of the USAAF. These are facts Adler, but you're welcome to dispute them.

I never claimed the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, I even made it clear that it couldn't be because of its lack of fuel trained pilots - without these two it doesn't matter what a/c you possess.

The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234 Fw-190 Dora-13 were the best of their kind category of WW2, this is fact.

Now as to the He-177, He-277, Me-264 Ju-390, again I stand by what I have said before, they were the equal of the Allied bombers, they just didn't get to operate in the same fashion or enjoyed the same level of protection.

FLYBOYJ,

You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans - which turned out to be an advantage in the end.

So other than this were are like before in full agreement.

And as to slave labor, well this is a good point and also proved a nuisance to the Germans although it was mainly utilized in the production of ammunition during the end of the war, some slave labor was also used for the manufacture of the V-2 rockets aircraft.

Bill,

If you're interested in the metals used during WW2 by each country, their manufacturing process quality then read the book "WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston, then you'll see just how much more durable German armor metals were in general compared to Allied plates metals - German armor was more carefully crafted and refined, hence for example the Tiger Ausf.E's amazing armor protection level despite its main armor surfaces being vertical - this is explained in the book as-well. And like FLYBOYJ pointed out the Germans also used more durable metals for use in aircaft production.

As to you're quouted incident, I don't see the LW being trashed here at all ! They infact did a marvelous job shooting down a good number of bombers, and considering that by far the majority of LW a/c in the air were heavily armed bomber interceptors the shoot down of 6 Mustangs isn't bad. As to the actual LW commitment losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.

Glider,

The T-34 was a shock to the Germans at the beginning of its deployment, however as soon as the better armed StuG's arrived the T-34's were being pounded badly, the new StuG in a short time period of time establishing itself kill loss ratio of over 10 to 1. And the arrival of Pzkpfw IV F-2 Pzkpfw VI Tiger pretty much turned the T-34 into pure gun-fodder for the Germans.

The T-34, like pretty much all Russian tank designs, relied purely on its advantage in numbers to simply swarm its opponents on the battlefield - the battle of Kursk being the ultimate example of this.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOYJ,

You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans.

Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.

The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.

 

[Soren]

Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.

I have to disagree abit here, a skilled welder can make as good or better welds than the early automated welding machines of the 40's, and close quarters small applications are many on a tank body or an airplanes airframe - There are stories of Allied welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas or of welded joints failing under even mild stress in the 1940's because of weak welds made by these early welding machines. Today ofcourse the welding machines can easily out do any welder in the sheer consistancy of perfect welds - a human welder is bound to make some mistakes or less perfect welds at some point.

The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.

Roger that.