Best WWII Air-Force

[FLYBOYJ]

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 reason why ship welds failed was becuase of inherent stress in the metal that was not relieved when the ship was completed, a very common thing on Victory Ships. The human hand cannot continually achieve a consistant perfect weld, especially over a long period of time and that's one of the reasons why welding machines were developed.

"The advantages of arc welding -- low cost compared to riveting, speed of application and strength -- were apparent. One worker could do the work of two. Properly welded joints and seams were as strong or stronger than the surrounding steel. In spite of these advantages, however, welding was slow to supplant riveting. Not until World War II created demand for rapid ship construction did welding replace riveting as the principal means of joining steel. Automatic seam-welding machines and new alloys and welding methods added even greater speed to the process but also revealed some disadvantages. Welded steel plates tended to buckle and warp more than riveted ones. Uneven heating could result in stress fractures. Use of improperly sized electrodes could produce weak joints. Stories of welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas, or of welded joints failing under even mild stress, were partly justified.
A skilled welder can make a good solid seam almost anywhere, horizontal, vertical, overhead, angled. A novice welder, as many of the new shipyard workers were, had neither the skill or experience to match an old hand. Welding seams on flat deck plates with gravity helping the flow was simple enough but overhead welding was much more difficult. One solution was to position seams so that the welder could work in a "down-hand" position, that is, with the electrodes held at waist level or below to avoid fatigue. That often meant bringing the work piece to the worker. Large vertical parts to be welded were turned horizontal. Ceilings and overhead structures were welded inverted then reversed when completed. Scaffolding was built to place the welders in optimum position. Welding became the basic glue of steel shipbuilding, allowing for fabrication of almost any shape in any size. Without high-speed welding, much of the innovative methods applied to World War II shipbuilding would not have been possible."

Sealift in World War II

 

[Soren]

Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places. My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places.

Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed.

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

 

[Marcel]

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.

We have a nice family story about my wife's grandfather working as a slave at the Fiesler factories. He sabotaged V-1's. Thus quality checks were absolutely nescessairy

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places.

Agree, but no one was comparing welding machines of today to those used during WW2.

My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places.

Welding machines were never meant to be used in narrow places or on small parts and assemblies. Even today small parts, tubing and ducting is mainly made by hand.

Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed.

See above.....

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

OK....

 

[drgondog]

Bill,[/B]
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 actualy LW commitment losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.

Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..

Remember, the thesis of our running argument is a.) that USAAF long range escort at the point of the spear where the 8th AF and 9th AF P-47s could not go, did in fact - or did not in fact encounter large German fighter strength in numbers such that the USAAF escorts were outnumbered, and b.) that the LW single engine fighter force was not - or was - outnumbered 8:1 or greater by the USAAF in those battles over Germany in the January1 -May 30, 1944.

are you limiting the argument to the Me109G6-A/S? and excluding all Fw190s in that timeframe?

For the sake of definition I am talking about a.) aerial combat between the hopelessly outclassed Mustangs in that timeframe (the less nimble, slow rolling, slow climbing P-51B) - and I am talking about 'trashed' in the context of those outnumbered Mustangs shooting down far more LW fighters than they lost in turn

At no time have I denigrated, or will denigrate the courage (throughout the war) or effective ness of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm against the B-17 and B-24. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that daylight bombing must have escort fighters to succeed.

Yes, the LW also 'trashed' 40 8th AF bombers that day in the 3 pronged strike - one of the last 3 in which the LW achieved 10% of the bomber force.

But back to the thesis of LW s/e fighter force versus USAAF escorts in aerial combat with each other. Please don't comment until you have either verified or found a material discrepancy in each of the examples I give you about the strengths of both fighter forces in the engagements? Then we can move to next one
QUOTE]

 

[Glider]

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back
The He177 tended to catch fire
The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide

I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

 

[syscom3]

....
I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

Good point.

One other little point.... the AAF fighter pilots had gee suits, the LW didnt.

Allied pilots could get more out of their planes.

 

[drgondog]

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure.

The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...

During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"

The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.

In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away

The second issue was a lateral stability issue caused by putting the Merlin in w/o increasing length or tail - which didn't get truly fixed until the 51H. This was during high speed/high G maneuvers and boosting Rudder loads helped this issue

The third was the annoying and dangerous high speed porpoise effect due to installation of the 85 gallon tank.

If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!

What say you?

 

[mkloby]

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

I recall early Bf109F's suffering from catastrophic structural failure of the empennage due to sympathetic vibrations caused by a certain RPM range of the engine...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler,

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

I am not making fun. I am showing you what your conversations looks like and you are letting your bias get the better of you.

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.

No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...

Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.

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.

Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.

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.

Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):

1. Performance

2. Construction Method

3. Reliability

 

[Soren]

Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.

The He177 tended to catch fire

It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".

The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide

No, however the Spanish Buchon had this problem - the exhausts sitting up higher and level with the cockpit.

I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

Agreed, but nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive military service suffered from any structural design errors - Esp. not the Bf-109 which structurally was one of the strongest fighters of WW2, its wings being capable of withstanding 13+ G.

___________________________

Adler

No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...

Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.

So now the USAAF is the USN as-well ?? Sorry didn't know that...

Yes Fact is Fact Adler, and fact is the LW and USAAF both had the same global reach.

Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.

Again its like you wont listen, cause now you're just not making any sense Adler. How can I be argueing that the LW is better in every category when I'm saying they lacked properly trained pilots fuel ??

The LW possessed better fighters, night-fighters medium bombers than the Allies, but thats it. Sure they had a few good heavy bombers, but they weren't better than the latest Allied one, the B-29, infact most were inferior in the overall picture - the He-277 being the equal.

Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):

1. Performance

2. Construction Method

3. Reliability

1. They were almost all better - only the B-29 was faster or equally fast.

2. Well the Allied methods were faster the German methods were slower, which is better, well, for war faster is always good.

3. Some suffered in this department, like the He-177, but so did the B-29 for example, so better no, equal yes. Also remember that later in the war maintenance wasn't possible as frequently in the LW spare parts were in short suplly as-well - so the operating enviroment was also tougher for the German a/c.

____________________

Bill,

Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..

Ofcourse, cause incase you didn't know Bill shooting down the bombers was the main task.

Remember, the thesis of our running argument is a.) that USAAF long range escort at the point of the spear where the 8th AF and 9th AF P-47s could not go, did in fact - or did not in fact encounter large German fighter strength in numbers such that the USAAF escorts were outnumbered, and b.) that the LW single engine fighter force was not - or was - outnumbered 8:1 or greater by the USAAF in those battles over Germany in the January1 -May 30, 1944.

I remember, and you have yet to provide evidence that the dedicated LW fighters weren't on a general basis out-numbered 8:1. The bomber-interceptors don't count cause they were easy pickings, the escorts simply coming down from above picking them off either as they attacked the bombers or before or emmediately after - now what is a FW-190A armed with gunpods going to do against a Mustang at 30,000 + ft ?? Not only is this well above the Antons FTH, but its also directly inside the Mustangs FTH ! And the Bf-109's, well if they were after the bombers they were equipped with gun-pods, otherwise they were there to fight the escorts.

The only LW fighters who's job was always to attack the escorts was the Fw-190 Dora-9's, and they were always hopelessly out-numbered and yet they gave the P-51's some trouble (Willi Reschke writes about this in his book Wilde Sau, and German pilot accounts in Dietmar Hermann's book as-well)

are you limiting the argument to the Me109G6-A/S? and excluding all Fw190s in that timeframe?

Does it sound like I am ??

For the sake of definition I am talking about a.) aerial combat between the hopelessly outclassed Mustangs in that timeframe (the less nimble, slow rolling, slow climbing P-51B) - and I am talking about 'trashed' in the context of those outnumbered Mustangs shooting down far more LW fighters than they lost in turn

And b.) You're not being objective about any of it !

How do you suppose all those LW fighters got shot down Bill ?? In dogfights ?? Sorry but the answer is NO, nearly all were shot down never knowing what was coming whilst engaging the bombers. And again I ask you, what is a Anton armed with gun-pods, above its FTH, going to against a P-51 ?

The bomber interceptors were easy pickings for the escorts, hence the number shot down. However as perfectly illustrated in your supposedly bad day for the LW the bomber interceptors did their work as-well, shooting down a good number of bombers, each of which holding a crew of 7-10 men. So how bad was that day really for the LW compared to how it was for the Allies ??

At no time have I denigrated, or will denigrate the courage (throughout the war) or effective ness of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm against the B-17 and B-24. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that daylight bombing must have escort fighters to succeed.

No but you have denigrated the LW huge effectiveness against enemy fighters which considering the operational enviroment was unpresidented really, and esp. on an individual plane.

Yes, the LW also 'trashed' 40 8th AF bombers that day in the 3 pronged strike - one of the last 3 in which the LW achieved 10% of the bomber force.

Percentages here percentages there, and you're complaining about "would have's" ?? Multiply 40 with 7 or 10 and see what comes up Bill, after having done that you might realize what catastrophy each bombing-run really was.

But back to the thesis of LW s/e fighter force versus USAAF escorts in aerial combat with each other. Please don't comment until you have either verified or found a material discrepancy in each of the examples I give you about the strengths of both fighter forces in the engagements? Then we can move to next one

Agreed.

The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure.

You're the worst nitpicker of all..

The Ta-154 didn't see service with the LW, it didn't even go past its prototype stage. But if I wished to as much a nitpicker as yourself I could list several structurally unsound US prototypes a/c as-well.

The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...

The Me-262 suffered NO structural failures or design flaws, it did however "suffer" the pitch down behavior in the transsonic speed region, however this region wasn't well explored and therefore this can't be seen as a design flaw.

During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"

Read the Me-262A-1a POH as-well as this please: The Me262 and The Race to Mach1

The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.

In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away

The second issue was a lateral stability issue caused by putting the Merlin in w/o increasing length or tail - which didn't get truly fixed until the 51H. This was during high speed/high G maneuvers and boosting Rudder loads helped this issue

The third was the annoying and dangerous high speed porpoise effect due to installation of the 85 gallon tank.

And the third was the fact that the wings couldn't take more than 7-8 G's.

If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!

What say you?

I say the P-51 Mustang did have flaws which weren't because of borderline science but were just a plain simple error. I'm not saying it was a huge flaw as 7-8G's wasn't reached that often combat seeing that most shoot downs were the result of bounces.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.


It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".

"Production continued immediately with the Fw 200C-l, which was planned as the definitive version although it still had a weak structure, very vulnerable fuel system (especially from below), no armour except behind the captain's seat and many inconvenient features."

Focke Wulf Condor

"An engineering defect in the aft fuselage tail section (the structural shortcomings contributed to many accidents) kept the Condor from reaching the legendary status like that of the Battle of Britain veterans - the Dornier Do 17 and the Heinkel He 111 (both detailed elsewhere on this site). Thusly the system was relegated it to the supplementary roles mentioned above."

Focke-Wulf Fw 200 (Condor) Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance / Bomber - Military and Civilian Aircraft

 

[lesofprimus]

 

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?

What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.

As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.


Anyways, back to the original point: Nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive service suffered any serious structural problems, the Condor, He-162 P-51 being the only three I can name. (The He-162 didn't see extensive service though)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?

What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.

As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.

In the line above your post was a quoted reply from Glider...

Originally Posted by Glider
Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back

And you posted the following....

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.

My mistake in bringing in the quote on the He 177 but I think my examples still answered your comments on the FW 200.

 

[Soren]

Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?

If the aircraft was landed normally, absolutely - and there's no way to know how many other FW 200s that had structural damage and were repaired before they broke their backs as well. And this was reported by crews...

"The crews also complained about inadequate armament and an vulnerable fuel system."

8 Structural failures was enough for the Luftwaffle to modify the aircraft....

Bottom line the Fw 200C-1 was not well liked by its crews and it had problems that were never fully rectified.

 

[Soren]

The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.

As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.

The Condor's biggest weakness remained its slow speed though, it was painfully slow, so slow that Hurries could be dispatched to shoot it down.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.

Soren, do you think the Luftwaffe would of modified a whole production line over 8 pranged up aircraft if there wasn't a real problem??

BTW - you know how many FW 200s were produced? A whopping 278! How many were operational when those 8 aircraft failed? I'd guess less than 100.

As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.

It had initial success but by 1943 Fw 200 crews were told not to attack shipping but only perform recon roles and by 1944 the aircraft was relegated only to transport roles....

 

[Glider]

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Fw200 had a couple of structural problems one of which was a weakness in its back. I don't have numbers but I have read a number of articles on the aircraft and this has always been mentioned. British pilots were even briefed on the problem and were reccomended to target this area. To name a few there was an article in Air Enthusiast, an article in Combat Aircraft and the following from Uboat.net
But the Fw 200C-1 made itself very unpopular by breaking its back on landings. At least eight Fw 200Cs were lost when the fuselage broke, just aft of the wing. Obviously, the strength of the airframe was insufficient to cope with the additional weight and stress. The Fw 200C was always an improvised combat aircraft, with many deficiencies. The crews also complained about inadequate armament and an vulnerable fuel system.
There are others if you wish.

Re the He177 It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".

It is a design flaw that was always with the aircraft. Any hit in the engine area was likely to set the plane on fire to a much greater degree than any other plane. The smallest leak could set it off.

I must also add that the most important part of the debate i.e. was the He177 a good strategic bomber tends to be forgotten when you reply. My statement that the only time the He177 was deployed as a strategic bomber it was a total failure. Can you tell us when it was a success?

No, however the Spanish Buchon had this problem - the exhausts sitting up higher and level with the cockpit.

I think you will find that 109F pilots were under instruction to use oxygen at all times due to the danger of exhaust gases leaking into in the cockpit. A number of German pilots were lost in unusual circumstances where they were flying and then just fell away and hit the ground. Initially the oxygen system itself was suspected but later investigation wasn't the case.

Agreed, but nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive military service suffered from any structural design errors

This I also disagree with, the Typhoon is an excellent example of a plane being deployed with design errors that cause losses.