Thanks feel free, I will only ask for 5% royalties on all shirt sales.
Sales in dollars = 0 x 5% = $0.00 DAMN!
Wait a second here!!
Best WWII Air-Force
- Thread starter Desert Fox
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks feel free, I will only ask for 5% royalties on all shirt sales.
Sales in dollars = 0 x 5% = $0.00 DAMN!
Wait a second here!!
Thanks feel free, I will only ask for 5% royalties on all shirt sales.
Sales in dollars = 0 x 5% = $0.00 DAMN!
Wait a second here!!
Here you go!
Attachments
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
drgondog
Thanks i thought i was right.
I believe that Albert speer was a genius when i came to production of the planes, they just got nailed on the ground at the factorys and on their way to the airfields and even when they got there because they didn't have the fuel to get them into the air. Piliot training also had a big part in the equation. At the end of the war piliot training had been reduced to the point where the americans were shooting down complete novices who were encouraged to ram the bombers.....
Thanks i thought i was right.
I believe that Albert speer was a genius when i came to production of the planes, they just got nailed on the ground at the factorys and on their way to the airfields and even when they got there because they didn't have the fuel to get them into the air. Piliot training also had a big part in the equation. At the end of the war piliot training had been reduced to the point where the americans were shooting down complete novices who were encouraged to ram the bombers.....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I hear Soren, INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
what I can't seem to find is how long was the formation of bombers I can find the formations used etc but I have no idea the overall length of the stream. . If its 40 miles long or 100 or whatever would help determine how concentrated the fighter cover was
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Flyboy explain please 
drgondog
Major
It depends (but you knew that). Each Group of 48 bombers in an average formation was about 2,000 feet 'long' . Separation between the groups within a Combat wing was in the mile to 2 mile range (planned versus reality)
Most planning for missions in spring to summer 1944 would be in some form of trail stream until a decision point where different wings would break on different courses for different targets. When the Scouts came into being in late summer 44 they would range ahead to determine target weather and radio back to lead ships regarding 'go to primary' or 'divert to secondary' and the bombers would either proceed as planned or divert.
Escorts would normally pick them up at that point so no suprises should occur.
So for the first 1/2 to 2/3 the entire 8th AF might be in a stream to that point and then break into two or more (say, five or six in an extreme case) separate streams to drive to their targets with fighter escorts assigned to different Task Forces of several Combat Wings, each comprised of 1 or more bomb broups)
The first complete Berlin mission for USAAF on 6 March allegedly had a bomber stream 70+ miles long for the 670+ effective bombers on that mission - all going to the same place with 30+ bomb groups...and three Mustang Groups (4th, 354th and 357th) for a total of 100 for Target Escort.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Flyboy explain please
1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid!
2. Have you been reading Soren's posts????
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Nah i wrote soren off as soon as i saw how many people were against him !!!!!
You can't be right on a site like this with so many argueing with you....
1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid!
Are you sure all the texts i have come across point towards the fact that the Germans were critically short on pilots ???
You can't be right on a site like this with so many argueing with you....
1. There were PLENTY of seasoned Experten around toward the end of the war - more research kid!
Are you sure all the texts i have come across point towards the fact that the Germans were critically short on pilots ???
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Although I believe Soren may have a different point of view in certain aspects of this discussion, he is still very knowledgeable and does bring up some valid points. With that said, there was one thing in shorter supply than Luftwaffe pilots - that being fuel. Don't believe the myth that the skies over Germany late in the war was filled with untrained rookies. By some of the losses the 8th AF took late in the war proved that parts of Germany were still a very dangerous place. Read some of the missions sited in this thread and you'll see what I mean...
It's interesting to compare the German defence with that of the RAF during the BoB.
The Luftwaffe had an advantage in this area, because they usually had much more warning. Even the closest German targets were 250 miles from the USAAF bomber bases, and most targets 300+ miles. In contrast, the Germans were typically 50 - 150 miles from their targets in the BoB.
Finding the bomber formations was easier too, both because radar had improved greatly in 3 - 4 years, because the RAF didn't even have radar coverage inland in 1940, and because the USAAF bombers tended to fly higher, and produce lots of contrails.
Whilst the US heavy bombers were undoubtedly tougher than the German's mediums in the BoB, the German fighters carried cannon, against the rifle calibre machine guns used by the British in the BoB. The bombers also faced much longer return flights if damaged, often hundreds of miles over enemy territory, whereas the German bombers usually had less than 100 miles to get back to France.
That's certainly true. The 109 was under gunned without gondolas, performance suffered with them. But again, in 1940 RAF fighters fought with rifle calibre machine guns.
It wasn't lack of fuel in 1943, or even lack of places to train, just the requirement to train extreme numbers of pilots to make up for the losses. As Williamson Murray points out, by the beginning of 1942 the Luftwaffe had lost two complete air forces, and their casualties continued to increase.
German aviation fuel supply (production, imports and captured stock):
1940 - 966,000 tons
1941 - 910,000
1942 - 1,472,000
1943 - 1,917,000
1944 - 1,105,000
It wasn't until later in 1944 that lack of fuel became a major factor for the Luftwaffe. Jan to April 1944 they averaged production of 170,000 tons a month, it wasn't until June that production really dropped, to 52,000 tons a month.
This is similar to the BoB. The RAF had committed much of their fighter force to France, flak defences were very weak, and the air defence network was entirely untested. Indeed, the whole network had been designed to counter unescorted German bombers approaching the east coast from Germany, instead it faced the bulk of the Luftwaffe 30 miles away across the channel on the south coast.
The Germans had a decided advantage here over the situation in 1940. Targets in Germany meant penetrations of enemy airspace of hundreds of miles, in many cases. The British on the other hand were very close to the enemy bases, with far less time to react to an attack.
This is something that was done during the BoB as well.
I think training is one of the keys to the difference in performance.
During the BoB the RAF were also ordered to focus on the enemy bombers. And yet fighter losses for the RAF were only slightly higher than fighter losses for the Luftwaffe, and overall losses were almost 2 to 1 in the RAF's favour in the BoB.
If you look at the performances during the USAAF daylight offensive and the BoB, then the Luftwaffe doesn't compare well. Their losses were very high, the losses they inflicted on the enemy relatively low, in both cases.
I suspect it was a matter of training for German pilots, and that their fighters were outclassed at the altitudes combats with the 8th AF took place. By the time they started getting higher altitude fighters later in 1944 it was already too late.
Glider
Captain
Very good summary
Hop,
1) Like I said radar was still far from "great". Also the difference between Battle of Britain and Battle of Germany as far as this point goes only: Germany AF had much more ground to cover then RAF did in BoB. Which makes defending much harder. You point about warning times is very valid but USAF also used tricks to help battle that point. Sudden turns, feints, fake raids, etc which helped reduce that Germany advantage, job well done by USAF.
Also USAF attacked at much higher altitude then LW did in BoB, which created a problem for LW to get defenders up that high in time to defend the attack. Also a small point that hurt LW was the limited endurance of its defending fighters.
2) USAF did have longer return flights but she also used her allies/ neutral air fields to land in rare cases. Overall when comparing BoB bomber vs BoG experience I would say that USAF had a harder time of it when considering ranges. But USAF had other advantages over LW bombers never had.
3) UK fighters problem, in BoB, when talking about guns is not even close to LW problems in BoG. Many UK pilots pefered the rifles rounds compared to cannons in BoB.......they would not even think about using rifle rounds vs the huge 4 engine armored USAF giants. UK pilots would be begging for cannons also, which would of hurt their fighter performance vs other fighters. In BoB they did not have to worry about that problem.
4) I agree at the start of 43 it was not a problem talking about fuel. But part way through 44 like we are talking it started to become a problem and got worse and worse.....as did safe air space. 100% agree the problem in 43 was replacing their massive losses with quality pilots, they still had many experts......but air forces win wars. UK and USA was doing a far better job at this then LW.
5) Agree both were untested, just that LW in BoB lacked the ability to step on UK throat and hold her down......USAF had the ability and she did step on the LW throat and never let her back up. RAF did not face the USAF.......no one could stop the USAF once she got rolling in 44.
6) I agree with you to a degree. USAF had to fly deeper into Germany which was a problem for them, but they also had many more targets to hit....which created a problem for LW trying to defend.
7) Agree but in BoG it hurt more b/c of the sheer numbers of bombers and the weight they could drop with higher accuracy then LW could in BoB.
8) In 44 and 45 the average pilot quality was dropping for Germany and Allied qualities were increasing......LW could not hope to keep up. Again I will say this there were no magic way or race that created quality pilots. It took time, planes, fuel and safe air space and a massive amount of effort. USAF and UK did very good job in this field, much better then LW or Japan.
10) Again while what RAF did in BoB was impressive.....you can't directly compare that to BoG. Here is why: USAF bombers which much much tougher to bring down compared to LW bombers in BoB. Also USAF bombers could and did inflict many more LW fighter losses then LW bombers could ever inflict on RAF in BoB.
I don't agree with you when comparing LW losses in BoG to RAF losses in BoB.....simply I don't believe you can even compare them.....two very different battles with very different variables to compare. I think the only way to compare LW in BoG with anyone else's air force would be to ask this:
Could any other air force fighting on all the fronts, facing all the quality enemies, facing all those combined numbers, with all the same problems and variables that LW had......win that battle?
My simple answer is.....no. No one could win under those conditions.
I am not taking anything away from UK and what she did in BoB which was impressive. I am not taking anything away from USAF in the BoG, she crushed LW in a matter of time. I am not trying to be pro German, I am just saying you can't compare what RAF did BoB with what LW was facing in BoG......its not fair.
RAF, USAF beat the LW thats the end of the story. I am not saying LW is some great air force that was undefeatable. What I am saying is that no one could of won BoG if they were facing the same odds and problems that the LW was. Germany had lost the war before BoG even started, without the addition of some "super weapon" by Germany the war was lost......BoG was just a loss of life........just a country trying to fight on when she did not even know she had already lost. But that often happens in wars.
Sad really when you think of all the lost lives, by all sides when the war was all but won already.
1) Like I said radar was still far from "great". Also the difference between Battle of Britain and Battle of Germany as far as this point goes only: Germany AF had much more ground to cover then RAF did in BoB. Which makes defending much harder. You point about warning times is very valid but USAF also used tricks to help battle that point. Sudden turns, feints, fake raids, etc which helped reduce that Germany advantage, job well done by USAF.
Also USAF attacked at much higher altitude then LW did in BoB, which created a problem for LW to get defenders up that high in time to defend the attack. Also a small point that hurt LW was the limited endurance of its defending fighters.
2) USAF did have longer return flights but she also used her allies/ neutral air fields to land in rare cases. Overall when comparing BoB bomber vs BoG experience I would say that USAF had a harder time of it when considering ranges. But USAF had other advantages over LW bombers never had.
3) UK fighters problem, in BoB, when talking about guns is not even close to LW problems in BoG. Many UK pilots pefered the rifles rounds compared to cannons in BoB.......they would not even think about using rifle rounds vs the huge 4 engine armored USAF giants. UK pilots would be begging for cannons also, which would of hurt their fighter performance vs other fighters. In BoB they did not have to worry about that problem.
4) I agree at the start of 43 it was not a problem talking about fuel. But part way through 44 like we are talking it started to become a problem and got worse and worse.....as did safe air space. 100% agree the problem in 43 was replacing their massive losses with quality pilots, they still had many experts......but air forces win wars. UK and USA was doing a far better job at this then LW.
5) Agree both were untested, just that LW in BoB lacked the ability to step on UK throat and hold her down......USAF had the ability and she did step on the LW throat and never let her back up. RAF did not face the USAF.......no one could stop the USAF once she got rolling in 44.
6) I agree with you to a degree. USAF had to fly deeper into Germany which was a problem for them, but they also had many more targets to hit....which created a problem for LW trying to defend.
7) Agree but in BoG it hurt more b/c of the sheer numbers of bombers and the weight they could drop with higher accuracy then LW could in BoB.
8) In 44 and 45 the average pilot quality was dropping for Germany and Allied qualities were increasing......LW could not hope to keep up. Again I will say this there were no magic way or race that created quality pilots. It took time, planes, fuel and safe air space and a massive amount of effort. USAF and UK did very good job in this field, much better then LW or Japan.
10) Again while what RAF did in BoB was impressive.....you can't directly compare that to BoG. Here is why: USAF bombers which much much tougher to bring down compared to LW bombers in BoB. Also USAF bombers could and did inflict many more LW fighter losses then LW bombers could ever inflict on RAF in BoB.
I don't agree with you when comparing LW losses in BoG to RAF losses in BoB.....simply I don't believe you can even compare them.....two very different battles with very different variables to compare. I think the only way to compare LW in BoG with anyone else's air force would be to ask this:
Could any other air force fighting on all the fronts, facing all the quality enemies, facing all those combined numbers, with all the same problems and variables that LW had......win that battle?
My simple answer is.....no. No one could win under those conditions.
I am not taking anything away from UK and what she did in BoB which was impressive. I am not taking anything away from USAF in the BoG, she crushed LW in a matter of time. I am not trying to be pro German, I am just saying you can't compare what RAF did BoB with what LW was facing in BoG......its not fair.
RAF, USAF beat the LW thats the end of the story. I am not saying LW is some great air force that was undefeatable. What I am saying is that no one could of won BoG if they were facing the same odds and problems that the LW was. Germany had lost the war before BoG even started, without the addition of some "super weapon" by Germany the war was lost......BoG was just a loss of life........just a country trying to fight on when she did not even know she had already lost. But that often happens in wars.
Sad really when you think of all the lost lives, by all sides when the war was all but won already.
drgondog
Major
Thanks Bill,
Bill 100% agree with your post. I also agree to a degree with Hop on many of his points, the only things I added about his points was when he was compared BoG with BoB and thinking they were fair comparisions. I just think its unfair to directly compare BoB with BoG, both were very different battles with very different conditions variables.
I give 100% kudos to RAF in BoB and USAF in BoG, but I also say LW did about as good as job as anyone could fairly expect under such conditions.
Bill 100% agree with your post. I also agree to a degree with Hop on many of his points, the only things I added about his points was when he was compared BoG with BoB and thinking they were fair comparisions. I just think its unfair to directly compare BoB with BoG, both were very different battles with very different conditions variables.
I give 100% kudos to RAF in BoB and USAF in BoG, but I also say LW did about as good as job as anyone could fairly expect under such conditions.
Give it to the USAAF/USAF. Second would be the RAF. And not a very close second but definitely second.
USAF created an effective Heavy/Strategic bomber force. Only other airforce that did that was the RAF. Great difference was the USAF airforce fought in Daylight in the teeth of the Enemy's defenses. But, that, in and of itself is not enough to make it the best Air Force of the War. It was the best because it won. It won because it adapted and brought new aircraft to the forefront to destroy the Luftwaffe (the real threat, the IJA/IJN airforces were not in the same league as the Luftwaffe).
The RAF attacked and fought at night because it did not have the equipment to fight in the day. Everyone knows that. But they never went back to Strategic Day bombing. They never developed a long range fighter to go deep into Germany and destroy the LW. The US produced three (P38, P47, P51). The effectiveness of each of them varied, but they all fought over the enemy's airbases. That makes the air superiority fighters. Not interceptors as is found in the RAF and LW. Both airforces created aircraft that were point inteceptors or local defense fighters.
For an Airforce to be considered great in WW2, it had to have the ability to both bomb and dogfight effectively over the enemy's bases by day as well as destroy strategic targets. The LW tried it and failed in 1940, switching to night bombing. Same with the RAF. Only the USAF/USAAF managed to do it by day to the point of Air Supremecy. Granted, it was at the end of the war and they had help, but they did get it done.
USAF created an effective Heavy/Strategic bomber force. Only other airforce that did that was the RAF. Great difference was the USAF airforce fought in Daylight in the teeth of the Enemy's defenses. But, that, in and of itself is not enough to make it the best Air Force of the War. It was the best because it won. It won because it adapted and brought new aircraft to the forefront to destroy the Luftwaffe (the real threat, the IJA/IJN airforces were not in the same league as the Luftwaffe).
The RAF attacked and fought at night because it did not have the equipment to fight in the day. Everyone knows that. But they never went back to Strategic Day bombing. They never developed a long range fighter to go deep into Germany and destroy the LW. The US produced three (P38, P47, P51). The effectiveness of each of them varied, but they all fought over the enemy's airbases. That makes the air superiority fighters. Not interceptors as is found in the RAF and LW. Both airforces created aircraft that were point inteceptors or local defense fighters.
For an Airforce to be considered great in WW2, it had to have the ability to both bomb and dogfight effectively over the enemy's bases by day as well as destroy strategic targets. The LW tried it and failed in 1940, switching to night bombing. Same with the RAF. Only the USAF/USAAF managed to do it by day to the point of Air Supremecy. Granted, it was at the end of the war and they had help, but they did get it done.
Agreed
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The RAF did try day bombing and it was a disaster. Must remember that the USAAC also suffered heavy losses in daylight bombing and it was only the new fighter escorts that saved the day.
Britain didn't develop a long range fighter because the need wasn't there and we could use American fighters when we did.
I wouldn't compare the Battle of Britain to the Battle over Germany. It is just so different. The Germans failed not for pilots or for aircraft types but for sheer scale. The Americans could build aircraft and train new pilots until hell froze. And the Luftwaffe had to fight the RAF and Soviets as well. They did very well just to keep flying combat sorties.
Britain didn't develop a long range fighter because the need wasn't there and we could use American fighters when we did.
I wouldn't compare the Battle of Britain to the Battle over Germany. It is just so different. The Germans failed not for pilots or for aircraft types but for sheer scale. The Americans could build aircraft and train new pilots until hell froze. And the Luftwaffe had to fight the RAF and Soviets as well. They did very well just to keep flying combat sorties.
No actually the need was there. They wouldn't have needed to jump to Nighttime sorties if they had had the long range escorts. Therefore there was a need for them.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Remember adler though it was great pressure being bombed around the clock imagine it nailed by the Yanks in the daytime and by the Pomes at night time. It would have been hell to be in berlin at the time...
