Well I will give credit where it is due.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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!
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?
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.
Soren said:"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!
Soren said:And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.
Soren said:You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.
Soren said: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.
Soren said:PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
"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.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
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.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.