Best WWII Air-Force

Best WWII Air-Force

  • Royal Air Force

    Votes: 72 22.0%

  • Luftwaffe

    Votes: 104 31.8%

  • United States Air Force

    Votes: 132 40.4%

  • Royal Australian Air Force

    Votes: 9 2.8%

  • Regia Aeronautica

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • Royal New Zealand Air Force

    Votes: 8 2.4%

  • Royal Canadian Airforce

    Votes: 15 4.6%

  • Chinese Air Force

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Russian Air Force

    Votes: 13 4.0%

  • Japanese Air Force

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Total voters
    327

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


As stated by many people in many ways, only the USAAF had the industrial, scientific, logistics and manpower base to produce excellent aircraft in every category. And it was global in reach.

No shall we talk about the vast hordes of well trained pilots, aircrew and support personell that made the whole machine run?

Admit to the obvious. The USAAF (and USN) was magnitudes better (in sum total) than everyone else!
 
In numbers and and in infrastructure only but not quality
 
pbfoot said:
In numbers and and in infrastructure only but not quality
Click to expand...


heres a partial list of aircraft built by the US that can be considered as being excellent in one regard or another.

P38
P47
P51
F6F
F4U
A20
A26
B25
B26
B17
B24
B29
TBF
SBD
C46
C47
C54
PBY

Now what were you saying about a lack of quality?
 
Very simple - medical reasons and enlisment problems (age). Some of those who went with the RAF/ RCAF were denied commissions or were told that if they switched over there would be a reduction in rank and pay....
 

I respect all the Air/Naval Air Forces that fought in WWII.

Having said that, which Air Power had the resources, quality, depth of power in the field and reserves to perform all the missions everywhere in the world and win?

Those (if more than one) can be put into a short list - RAF is close.

I am not dimissing Germany or RCAF or Japan or USSR. But, for example, none of those could field the air and naval power to assault Japan, or by comparison Japan or Germany mount any kind of meaningful campaign against the Americas.

You can debate the point through 1942 as the US was not the 'best' at the end of 1942 (in my opinion). 1943 is the transition when US put quality AND numbers everywhere on the globe. 1944 (again, my opinion) is when USAAF and USN were clearly the best and August 6, 1945 forever changed the meaning of 'best'.
 
pbfoot said:
could the RAF accomplish the same thing as the USAAF in all theatres of the war . The Usaaf the dominant force in both the ETO and PTO what else can you say .That is something I don't think any other force could say
Click to expand...
from page one of this discussion. Now as for the guys from the US that wouldn't revert to the USAAF they were not old and unable to receive commissions Blakesee didn't want to go , McCarthy of Dambusters fame became Canadian . Most were all offered equivilant rank or higher in the USAAF and the higher pay .I think if you'd ask them the RCAF was more fun . Heres a little blurb from one of the Yanks in the RCAF talking about the possibility of joining the Eagle Squadrons as they were switching over to USAAF
"Don Blakeslee, whose name would become synonomous with the Fourth Fighter Group, wanted nothing to do with the Eagles when he got to England in 1941. "They were getting all kinds of publicity," he remembered with disdain, "they were newspaper fighter pilots." Jim Goodson flew with 416 Squadron RCAF. After Pearl Harbor there were already rumors that the Eagles would join the U.S.A.A.F., but he made no move to change his assignment."
 


But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????

I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????

I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.
Click to expand...
I probably think it was camadrie but the numbers are correct. Blakesee was caught banging 2 WAAF (enlisted) and given the option to transfer to USAAF or court martial he didn't want to go to the USAAF. and lets not forget Gentile, Beeson Godfrey we trained them so our methods can't be all that bad .
 
Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.

Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best.

My point, and my opinion, is that a country with ONLY 12 million people had an truly excellent airforce, based on it's population and financial resources. 2% of Canadas population was in the airforce in 1945. Can anyone top that?

Canada started the war with 3 overseas squadrons, and grew to 48, that I believe is an unprecedented growth rate. Training 80 operational squadrons is also a significant contribution. RAF would have struggled without it.

Canada had the leading fighter squadron in the 2TAF, if you want an example of performance excellence.

Canada also quite correctly choose the P51 as its primary fighter; post 1945, due to it's long range capabilities which are well suited to the long distances involved in North America, an indication of good leadership and planning. (they could have chosen the Spit, which every canadian loved, but it wasn't the right plane for the job)

The leading British ace, Johnnie Johnson, preferred to fly with Canadians.

And let's not forget the Canadian contribution on the ground, we had our own beach on D-Day, and Canadians were commonly used as shock troops and earned the respect and admiration of all allied commanders.

But now I must go and plow the snow out of my driveway....
 

I'm not denigrating RCAF which was one hell of an organization, nor Canada's contribution to WWII (as well as and especially WWI). I just have a problem accepting a thesis that it was the 'best AF in WWII', that's all.

Convince me that it outperformed Texas and California, then I will throw in the State of Washington and New York to boost my production of high quality aircraft at same as or better quality in just about every combat mission in WWII. I concede several designs not built in US were were singularly better in several instances. Name for me 5 aircraft designed and built and fought by Canada better than B-32, F4U, P-51, C-47 (or C-46 or C-54), A-26 to name a few categories designed and built in the two states.

At the end of the Day, if Churchill and Stalin and Hitler and Tojo had been offered US airpower resources and infrastructure, quality and quantity in both ships and crews, in an even swap for their own AF, versus trade for RCAF, what is your opinion of their decision?
 
syscom3 said:
And it was such a distant 4th to the AAF, it didnt even count.

The USN had an even larger naval air corps than Canada did.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that this statement pissed me off so I have to defend. Yes the US forces were larger and more comprehensive and as I stated in the 1st page of the thread the most powerful and yes they had for the most part good/better equipment but to say they were better trained is not fact
 
drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.

Convair, North American, Chance Vought etc, were not part of the USAAF, they were contractors. The question is not who had the best designers, factories etc. Germany had better designers, Grunmman stole the best things of the FW 190 for the Bearcat. Same situation for Me262. They had better factories too, they were bombed constantly, and still managed to increase fighter production in 1944. No US factories were bombed.

Just looking back over this thread, the argument that the US was the biggest producer seems to be the strongest one for it being the best airforce, and yet the fact that the VVS outproduced the Luftwaffe and managed a 20 to 1 superiority in numbers isn't used as an argument for the VVS being the best airforce?

Finland didn't have any production capability, but who had better success against greater odds?

I don't have my books with me to give exact figures, but a Canadian squadron led in air to air kills in the 2nd Tactical Air Force (411?), and another led in ground targets attacked and destroyed (442?). I'm not comparing 2TAF to 8th Airforce, since they had completely different roles and situations. Just using it as an example of excellent performance.

Sure, all those leaders would have loved to have the production of the US, (and in fact 8% of VVS planes were from USA, and 25% of RAF planes were from USA). But they would have all had home grown boys flying em.

Poll said pick an airforce, I pick RCAF.

That being said, If I was Russian, I'd pick the VVS. Only country invaded by Germany that didn't capitulate, lost 2000 planes on first two days of fighting, recovered from its losses and ended up being one of the principal contributors to the Allied victory. If there was a "most improved" category.......

Americans have every right to be proud of their contribution, (albeit a slightly late one), and the US certainly did a number of things that no other country could have done. I just don't happen to subscribe to the whole "America won the war" attitude.

One interesting little story. Early 42, before the US had deployed any of its airforce in Britain, a US officer was observing operations by the RAF. He offered the opinion that the bombers shouldn't need escort fighters. The RAF guy said that they had noticed that when they sent the fighters along, the bombers came back, and when they didn't send the fighters, the bombers didn't come back. Of course the Americans knew better, didn't listen to the experience of the British, and the rest as they say, is history.
 
claidemore said:
drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.
Click to expand...

Check out the Arrow thread on here - The Arrow fell from a decision of the Canadian Government, not some dark hand of the US. In its day it was an magnificent aircraft but it wasn't the "superplane" many try to make it out to be....

But that's another story.....
 
The UK was invaded and did not capitulate, the Channel Islands were occupied by the Nazis.

Fighter Command saved an entire country from disaster in The Battle of Britain. No other air force can claim the same.

The Royal Air Force also fielded Bomber Command which with the Lancaster (bigger payload than B-17) pounded German industry to a pulp and did so on extremely hazardous night raids. This strategy was an RAF one. I understand that once the USAAF joined the war, their bombers were flying under a different kind of danger as they bombed in daylight but we often forget just how hazardous flying was then especially at night. Many returning night bombers just could not find home in the dark, especially if crippled. I believe that one-third of all the 67,000 or so Bomber Command aircrew died in accidents. Bomber Command was bigger than and lost more men than the USAAF 8thAF.

The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic and here the RAF's Coastal Command and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm pushed the absolute endurance limits with what was available and what was possible to defeat Germany's greatest weapons, its Battleships and U-Boats.

The RAF trained aircrew and supplied aircraft, airfields and support to many invaded nations like Poland, Czechoslovakia, USSR and the Free French in excile. Many Dutch, Norwegian etc. Air Forces still carry their RAF Sqn. Nos. as a mark of respect. So do the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF.

My Canadian friends were right to remind us that they were there on day one, so were the Aussies and Kiwis and other members of the Commonwealth. They fought a long hard six years and had had three years of battering before our US Allies joined in. And still continued to operate.

British aircrew flew in all extremes of this planet's weather under terrible conditions, with many falling from disease. The South East Asian Command operated against appauling odds in outdated aircraft (due to war pressures in Europe) and against immense odds. It is worth remembering that British Commonwealth Forces (including Indian Forces) killed one million Japanese troops in Burma, four times that of the US Military's valiant island hoping campaign. (The reason you didn't know that is that John Wayne wasn't British!)

The Mustang was ordered to British spec, and it didn't come into its own until it was improved with a British engine, the Rolls-Royce Merlin. (The RAF also wanted the P-38 but Roosevelt wouldn't sell them the superchargers with it).

As a UK citizen I fully appreciate the efforts made by all Allied aircrew in determining that I was born in a free democracy. It is interesting that the Canuck loves the RCAF and the Yank loves the USAAF, but how about going to bat for someone else? Would that be unpatriotic? You are both offside panning the RAF as you do. People all over the world owe them a lot. I had a long hard think about other countries first but we should also remember that this was the day of British Empire, before the 48-State USA grew to lead the world and whilst the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF etc. were all small parts of a greater British Commonwealth. Same aircraft, same roundels? Go figure!

So, concious that I am falling prey to shouts of bias, I want to fight the case for the RAF here, and as an ex-Royal Navy man that smarts!

And as an ex-RN man I also want to remind our friends from the US that the Corsair was a great plane but that the USN and USMC couldn't land them on carriers without crashing them due to the long nose. They were designated as airfield-ops only until it was the British Fleet Air Arm who showed the USN how to land them by approaching the carrier deck from an angle. Also, we avoided your Kamikaze losses from day-one by having armoured decks on our carriers which bounced the Kamikaze off. The USN ignored our advice and paid dearly for it. The USAAF also ignored the advice of the visiting and very experienced RAF advisor not to park all the aircraft together at Pearl Harbor. (See how the movie Pearl Harbor shows him as a lilly-livered nancy-boy in awe of the handsome Yanks!...arse!)

Finally, the USAAF wouldn't let non-whites fly. The Tuskeegee Airmen story is one we all know (even if we can't spell it). The British Commonwealth allowed all races to fight and to fly.

We owe the women of the US a huge debt for working those factories etc. but the women of the RAF kept working all those Allied aircrews (inuendo), so for best Air Force of WWII it has to be the British Commonwealth.

The defence rests.
 
Simonsays, and in the end....

By 1945, only the US had the numbers, industrial and scientific capabilities, the bases and the aircraft to project power globally.

The commonwealth didnt.

And did I mention we had the atomic bomb and the B29's to carry it?
 
The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme. They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later. The US was worried about the Arrow becoming the standard NATO interceptor and that the USAF would need to buy it too. The US aviation industry would lose out to the Canadians and they could not have that. So, so much for friends and alliances, the US did the dirty and then sold the Canadians aircraft like the Voodoo and F-5 which lacked the range to protect a huge country like Canada. I used to look at RCAF Voodoos and Starfighters and admire their paint-schemes etc. but now I see the political bullying that forced the Canucks to buy them. I am an aviation nut and therefore love US aircraft but you guys are politically unreliable allies and you don't mind doing the dirty on your mates to get what you want.
 
you know simon, you make some pretty good arguments. I guess i gotta agree with you.

Of course you know the RCAF still had a better hockey team.

This is in reply to the post about RAF. I need to type faster.
 
The question was best Air Force of WWII.

Nothing about weapons built by Nazi defectors or civilian scientists, or aircraft manufacturers. And not only 1945.

WWII started in 1938 for the Czechs, 1939 for the Poles, French, Brits etc.

Try to turn off the 'Star-Spangled Banner' playing in the background and let's get back to the question. This is an aviation site, and as I said, I love US aircraft. The USAAF is definitely in the picture here.

But trying to take a look at the question, best air force of WWII we must ask what makes an air force good. I don't think any statement about having an atom bomb or the B-29 in 1945 even begins to cover the question. Europe was devastated by the war and in 1945 no European powers were in a position to project political, economic or military power abroad as before.

British Forces operated and won in many post-war conflicts: Korea, Suez, Kenya, Borneo, Aden, and our own Vietnam which was Malaya...which we won. We are still the World's No.2 arms producer after the USA, so 1945 was not a total end to British Military prowess.

My point is that looking at the bigger picture, the RAF operated longer and harder and in tougher circumstances, and in more diverse parts of the world. The British Empire was vast and that many now wholly independent air forces were part of that greater RAF.

I am not trying to offend your patriotism. Just talk intelligently about aircraft. Take it easy.

Got to love the Canadians!

You would woop our arses at ice hockey but I am sure the WRAF tea-ladies field hockey team would give the WRCAF ladies a run for their money. Go Tea-Ladies! Give me a T! ...milk and two lumps please, dear!

Might even swop shirts after the game.....hot bath ladies?....hang on, must...think...about...planes!

Flaps! ...oh, Jesus!

Oh, and here is another point. The USAAF didn't have a jet aircraft until Frank Whittle was forced to sell rights to his patent to the US for 48,000 pounds.

Invention of Radar (and Sonar), Spitfire and Mosquito photo-recon developments, Lysander flights behind enemy lines, pathfinder raids, RAF Air-Sea Rescue innovations, bouncing bomb, Grand Slam bomb, rocket-firing Typhoons, Hawker Hurricane operations, sea, desert, jungle, snow, the defence of Malta, aerial sinking of the Tirpitz etc., Frank Whittle...

Lots of hardship, but lots of guts, lots of innovation, I could be swayed but I think the RAF gets my vote.

If its a movie then the Yanks win!
 
simonsays said:
The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme.
Click to expand...
Name them and show proof - nothing more than a conspiracy theory
simonsays said:
They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later.
Click to expand...
There was more worry about the fabrication of titanium and processes that were used on the Arrow and later showed up on the MiG-25.

Again more conspiracy theory - if you look into the program it was behind schedule, over budget and being run pretty poorly. The Arrow, while it would of been a great interceptor but did not hold any more promise for future roles as such aircraft as the YF-12 or the F-108. There were a lot of "what ifs" behind the program and perhaps a gamble the Government at that time did not want to make. I challenge you to show one ounce of substantial proof to back your claim. Diefenbaker bowed to Social pressure within Canada and could not justify a cash cow (as it was becoming) like the Arrow. As far as the Canadian purchase of the F-101 - that wasn't forced upon Canada and with the F-5 Canada (Canadair)had manufacturing rights which I know employed many people and made Canadair some good money.

And had the Arrow been built? It's fire control system was being built by a company owned by the richest and most influential man of that period - Howard Hughes - even if built under license Hughes would of made millions off the Arrow program - had there been any influence there it "would of" came from him....

Also look where the Falcon and Sparrow missiles that would of armed the Arrow came from - again there would have been millions to be made on this side of the border as well....

Bottom line - some of the same program errors made on the Arrow was found many years later on the Challenger.....

BTW I spent 5 years as a tech rep for Lockheed in Canada. I worked at Canadair, Bristol, Fleet Industrial, IMP and Enheat. I met many people who were on the Arrow program and there is always a stigma among some Canadians to blame the fall of the Arrow on the US when in essence one man with one pen killed a very promising aircraft design and crippled the Canadian aviation industry for a number of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
926
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
Menu
Log in
Register