Best WWII Air-Force

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

The RAF role in Korea was minimal when compared to what the US had there...

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.

That's a load of Crap - Korea, Vietnam, Central and South America, Antarctica to name a few

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

And right now that last statement made no sense.

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.

FORCED? Mind Explaining that? Did Churchill put a gun to his head? 48,000 pounds was about $72,000 USD. In 1944 dollars that would of been about $865,000 in today's money - what's the problem???

The technology given by Whittle to the US just excellerated US jet development. Lockheed and GE were looking into jet propulsion before the US even entered the war and although the narrow minded AAF at the time showed no interest, the technology lay dorment. WW2 just kicked the door open for the jet in the AAF.

Lockheed J37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938, although this initial design was far more complex that what eventually emerged as the J37. In an effort to keep the fuel economy of the engine similar to existing piston engine, Price used a combination of low-compression axial compressor stages feeding a high-compression reciprocating compressor. In 1941 he was hired by Lockheed to evaluate the General Electric superchargers being fit to the experimental XP-49, a high-altitude version of their famous P-38. By this time Price had the basic design of his jet completed, and was able to gain the interest Kelly Johnson, chief engineer at Lockheed's Skunk Works. Johnson had been thinking about a new high-speed design after running into various compressibility problems at high speed with the P-38. During 1941 he ordered the development of a new aircraft to be powered by Price's engine, developing the engine as the L-1000, and the aircraft as the L-133."

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!

You're entitled to your opinion but you seem to be one Continent focused. While the contribution of the RAF will never be undermined it was a combined effort and at the end of the day it was the weight of the USAAF that played the differance - so much that RAF leased B-29s until their modern bomber force could get up and running, and there's no need to make a move about that...

BTW - instead of making 3 post please post once or combine your posts when finished - thank you.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.

So the USAAF had no aircraft that were of "quality".

Lets see:

P-51D
B-17
P-47
P-38
B-24

Just to name a few...

And they put them up in very large numbers which is a plus.

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

Okay but I want facts from you please that proves that the RCAF was better than the USAAF in these ways:

a. Could project its power in mass force all over the world.

b. Was better in quality.

c. Was better trained.

No opinions please, just facts. National pride can only go so far.

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?

Were they great airforce? Yes they were. Were they the best though?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

You are only speculating.

It is a would have, should have, could have....

...did not.

 

[simonsays]

Thanks for your input, Flyboy. I don't really have the resources or time to prove the Arrow 'conspiracy'. The US company 'The History Channel' did a great programme all about it. That's all I have got. I bow to your greater knowledge and experience. Why do the Canadians still hold a grudge about it?
Do they know something that you don't or are they all simply misinformed?


With reference to the Korean War, I was referring to post-War conflicts that the UK was involved in around the world. This was is response to claims that the UK had no post-war ability to project air power overseas. If you read my post again you will understand. In fact as far as I know, the RAF had almost no role in the Korean War and the Royal Navy represented the UK's air power. I was not comparing the US role in Korea to the UK's either.

My comment about the RAF operating over vast distances etc. was referring back to the original question about WWII, not post-war.

If you want to know about Frank Whittle's patent being sold to the US then I invite you to look it up. I am not even sure if Churchill was still Prime Minister then. I think that your currency conversion might be out since the value of the dollar was way less then. And I am sure you would agree that Pratt Whitney, GE and all of the USA's other aviation companies would consider that amount (less than a million dollars) the greatest US bargain since the Louisiana Land Purchase.

Finally, it would be nice to keep things pleasant on here, especially since you are a moderator and I have no axe to grind. Just trying to have fun and learn about aircraft. If you look at the 47 pages of this post then you will see that although there are people from all over the world writing here, it is consistently the Americans who try to upset everyone and then spit the dummy when someone says something that puts a dent in your patriotic furver.

The USAAF did a splendid job and were world beaters by 1945, but they were only in for the latter half of the war so have to lose points for the nearly three years when they weren't even in the fight like everyone else.

I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.

You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.

 

[claidemore]

So the USAAF had no aircraft that were of "quality".

I never said that.
And they put them up in very large numbers which is a plus.

Yup, they had the most money, everyone knows that.

Okay but I want facts from you please that proves that the RCAF was better than the USAAF in these ways:

a. Could project its power in mass force all over the world.

b. Was better in quality.

c. Was better trained.

a-48 squadrons overseas, not as many as US of course, but shows capability (BTW we also had aircraft carriers which later had Sea Furys, one of the best prop driven carrier aircraft ever. )
b-only test between Canadian pilots and American pilots that I know of, (I'm sure there were others) Hurricanes vs Wildcats at Halifax,Nova Scotia. Two Wildcats from a carrier just returned from combat in pacific did a mock dogfight against two Hurricanes from an anti-sub squad that had seen no combat. Hurri's won. Next day, Wildcat guys challenged the Hurricane guys again. Only two hurris ready for flight had depth charges strapped on. Flew the mock combat anyways, Hurricanes won again.
c- 3 years more experience at training mass numbers for wartime



Were they great airforce? Yes they were. Were they the best though?
Actually I already conceded to Simonsays that RAF was best in previous post. And if we were to include the other Commonwealth airforces with the RAF, since they fought together, they would be the hands down choice just for length of service. After all, why have a poll if you can't choose anything but who has the biggest? That's way too simple.

PS. An interesting statistic I found while looking for some numbers of people in service and casualties. 61 million people from Allied nations died during WWII, 11 million form Axis nations. Makes you wonder who really won.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks for your input, Flyboy. I don't really have the resources or time to prove the Arrow 'conspiracy'. The US company 'The History Channel' did a great programme all about it. That's all I have got. I bow to your greater knowledge and experience. Why do the Canadians still hold a grudge about it?
Do they know something that you don't or are they all simply misinformed?

Both - there is a lot of speculation and folklore about the program. It was a great aircraft and probably should have been built. I don't believe it was a super plane and its roles would have been limited. In an air to air confrontation for the most part it would have been dogmeat even with an F-5.

If you want to know about Frank Whittle's patent being sold to the US then I invite you to look it up. I am not even sure if Churchill was still Prime Minister then. I think that your currency conversion might be out since the value of the dollar was way less then. And I am sure you would agree that Pratt Whitney, GE and all of the USA's other aviation companies would consider that amount (less than a million dollars) the greatest US bargain since the Louisiana Land Purchase.

In the greater picture it was a bargain but in that day I'm sure Whittle wasn't too disappointed with the money - its the over all impact and technology rights where the problem is but in that day things like that were hardly thought of..

Again, it was a stepping stone - in that later years the real jet engines were axial flow, something that was being worked on in the US before the war. It would of been just a matter of time before the US would of developed their own jet technology, with or without help from the UK or anywhere else.

Finally, it would be nice to keep things pleasant on here, especially since you are a moderator and I have no axe to grind. Just trying to have fun and learn about aircraft. If you look at the 47 pages of this post then you will see that although there are people from all over the world writing here, it is consistently the Americans who try to upset everyone and then spit the dummy when someone says something that puts a dent in your patriotic furver.

While I could almost agree with you I suggest you keep your arguments with those specific individuals - some folks like Bill (Dragondog) will offer up overwhelming information to support their claims

I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.

No redkneck agenda here - just support your clams with facts, it's that simple...

And if you want to keep things plesent I suggest you refrain from using a statement like "redneck agenda." I'm originally fron the northeast and the furthest thing from a "redneck."

You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.

Not once in my posts were there any indication of me "dissing" any American ally, all that was shown here is the evidence to support a claim and some on both sides have provided overwhelming evidence to support their argument.

It sounds like you have a chip on your sholder - if you want to keep things pleasent and stay around here I suggest supporting your arguments with facts and examples, not some smart assed comment....

As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.

You cant prove your point, so you have to resort to insults and stereotypes huh?

You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.

 

[renrich]

While we are talking about Canada's contribution to the war effort during WW2, let us examine this from,"Duel of Eagles" by Peter Townsend. In 1937, General Milch was in England and said,"England had the training resources of her Empire and I wonder what would happen if war came. In the Luftwaffe we had no experienced leaders. Milch did not know that plans for the Empire Training Scheme were at that moment held up. Australia and New Zealand had readily responded but the Canadian Premier, W L MacKenzie King, stubbornly refused. Later Canada's help would be immense-but too late to help England in 1940." Sounds like the contributions from Canada were, at first, somewhat reluctant. So, Leroy Grumman stole his ideas for the Bearcat from the FW190? Sounds like a myth to me. Just like the myth that the A6M was a copy of some American airplane. Just as well say that the designer of the Spitfire stole the ideas of the Wright Brothers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I never said that.

No but you are argueing that the RCAF was the better airforce and you said that best is quality. That implies to me that the RCAF was better quality than the USAAF.

I disagree with this. I believe the best airforce had the best capability. It is true that at the beginning of WW2 the USAAF did not have the best capability. In a very short period of time however that changed.

The USAAF soon became the most strategic airforce that was able to project its power over the whole world with aircraft that were of great quality and capability.

Is this truth or not?

I am no way saying the RCAF was not a good airforce. I believe all the major powers of WW2 allies and axis had great airforces and that the victory was an allied contribution.

It is fact however that the most capable airforce since mid WW2 is the USAAF and now the USAF.

Yup, they had the most money, everyone knows that.

That does not change the facts of what was the most capable airforce.

a-48 squadrons overseas, not as many as US of course, but shows capability (BTW we also had aircraft carriers which later had Sea Furys, one of the best prop driven carrier aircraft ever. )[/quote]

The US still had more squadrons in the ETO, PTO and N. Africa equiped with quality aircraft.

The US had more Carriers than the rest of the world combined with aircraft just as capable.

b-only test between Canadian pilots and American pilots that I know of, (I'm sure there were others) Hurricanes vs Wildcats at Halifax,Nova Scotia. Two Wildcats from a carrier just returned from combat in pacific did a mock dogfight against two Hurricanes from an anti-sub squad that had seen no combat. Hurri's won. Next day, Wildcat guys challenged the Hurricane guys again. Only two hurris ready for flight had depth charges strapped on. Flew the mock combat anyways, Hurricanes won again.

That does not prove anything as a whole. All it will prove is that those two pilots were either:

a. Better than the other pilots.

or

b. Luckier than the other pilots.

Probably a bit of both, but you can not base a whole Airforce off of one mock engagement.

c- 3 years more experience at training mass numbers for wartime

That does not prove anything either. I do not have the numbers myself but I am sure that Bill can post them for us that will prove that US Pilots had the most hours training prior to being put into combat.

Sorry Bill if I am offering you up for something here....

Actually I already conceded to Simonsays that RAF was best in previous post. And if we were to include the other Commonwealth airforces with the RAF, since they fought together, they would be the hands down choice just for length of service. After all, why have a poll if you can't choose anything but who has the biggest? That's way too simple.

No...

Length of sevice does not have anything to do with capability.

I am not saying the biggest is the best. You are the only one that is bringing that up.

I am saying that the USAAF was the most strategic, best trained, and most capable airforce to see service in WW2.

 

[drgondog]

PS. An interesting statistic I found while looking for some numbers of people in service and casualties. 61 million people from Allied nations died during WWII, 11 million form Axis nations. Makes you wonder who really won.

The 'National language' and leadership test for US, USSR, Canada, UK, etc would help you in this one, but I take your point..

Neither Japanese nor German is the common language and culture, Jewish population high and thriving in Europe, Chinese/Formosa and Korea not reporting to Japan.

 

[simonsays]

WWII signal:
US Warship to Royal Navy Warship: How's it feel to be the 2nd Biggest Navy in the World?

Royal Navy Warship to USN: Great, how does it feel to be the 2nd best?

Keep at 'em Canuck!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

WWII signal:
US Warship to Royal Navy Warship: How's it feel to be the 2nd Biggest Navy in the World?

Royal Navy Warship to USN: Great, how does it feel to be the 2nd best?

Keep at 'em Canuck!

And your point?

 

[simonsays]

Don't want to leave on a bad note, so Flyboy, I apologise for the 'redneck' comment.
Leaving the kitchen.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't want to leave on a bad note, so Flyboy, I apologise for the 'redneck' comment.
Leaving the kitchen.

Fair enough...

 

[drgondog]

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.

You may have missed my point.

What I was contrasting is the resources cradle to the grave, including designer, production capability, recruit pools, instructin facilities, peripheral combat logistics capacity (Crude, refined product, ammunition, bombs, prophylactics, etc for pilots and crews to fight those specific weapon against the Axis - just to compare two states of the US vs the 12,000,000 country of Canada. I may have over (or under) stated the comarisons trying to make a point that quality was built into that process at all stages.

"Better factories"?? - your definition is - productivity?, quality?, scale?, application of slave labor versus wage earners to repair? what are your metrics to prove the statement?

I give great respect to the a/c designers of all the major powers - that is one component of the equation to arrive at 'best'. As to Germany being the 'best' you have to be very specific about your examples and class (and effectiveness) to place this component in the "best AF". Trot out your LW examples for 'best' in class for 'short range interceptor (I would pick Me 262), 'long range interceptor', 'Escort Fighter", Best "Nuclear equipped long range bomber", Best 'long range transport', best intermediate range transport, Best "Most versatile Bomber", Best "primary trainer, basic trainer, Advanced trainer", best long range "patrol Bomber", etc, etc. I might add we had no comparison to me 163 or V-1 or V-2. The LW had several of these as did the RAF in 1943-1945. Do you contend that the list here should be ranked a.) RCAF, b.) LW, RAF/RN, d. USAAF/USN/USMC? for weighted ranking of all atrributes you choose (not me) for 'Best AF at the end of WWII"?

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?

I didn't use production as sole determinant. I used ability (and results) to execute any mission anywhere in the world. And you will find no such advantage of LW over USAAF (as VVS) and the LW didn't have to be confronted with the 'USN piling on in ETO'. Remember the OTHER half of US airpower was in the Pacific, at home, in the Americas, on Greenland, etc. etc

So, what dimension do YOU wish to use for 'best projected' power and Best reserves"?? Take the Luftwaffe at full strength at any period you wish and place them to fight the Other Half of US airpower in 1945.

The LuftFlotte Reich fighter arm, at peak strength, more than all their strength fighting the Russians - could not stop the 8th AF (plus 354 and 363FG) long Range escorts in the battle of Germany,

Over Germany, where no other US or Allied fighters could fly from Dec, 1943 through June 1944. I will say that the RAF had Mustangs and were very effective in the missions they were used in, supporting RAF and RCAF daylight strikes, but most were in France, Holland, Belgium and Norway strikes. It was 8th AF FC in fule heavy a/c defeating the best the LW had until the Me 262 - when it was basically 'over'

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

How well did the Finns do against RAF, USAAF, USN, RN, or RCAF. So is Finland your choice for Best?

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.

That is impressive - how long were they flying combat ops in ETO? How many squadrons racked up more than 300 air from say, may 1943-EOW?

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.

OK with me.

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.......

How much of Germany's industrial capacity was taken out by VVS? Would you perhaps concede that just the 8th AF accomplished two things the VVS did not do? First, brutalize LW day fighter capability - the LW transferred 20+ Gruppe's from Italy and East to LFR to try to stop daylight bombing by USAAF. (have to look it up). The 8th decimeated the ranks of experienced fighter pilots - most of which the VVS didn't have to fight again. b.) destroy nearly equaly numbers of LW a/c on the ground, c.) virtually remove oil and gasoline from German war machine. (I KNOW the 15th AF, and RAF made huge contributions attacking these targets but 8th was dominant on aircraft industry, refineries/chemical plants and precison targets) - to compliment the Lend lease equipment of aircraft?

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.

Don't recall that I ever held (or stated) that notion - this argument is about the best air force at end of WWI, isn't it?

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.

Yes, the USAAF learned bitter lessons, but learned them well. What is your point?

The same RAF guy might have also mentioned that 'You Yanks can't succeed bombing in daylight, we know what's best 'you know'. So, was all the advice from our friends in the Commonwealth correct?

I might point out that the RAF had far more 'bad nights' than USAAF had 'bad days' in context of numbers of bombers that didn't match a safe landing with a take off? And I suspect that those losses were largely without escort fighters, correct? right up to end of war, right? Would you say the RAF followed the sage advice of the gentleman from 1942 that helped us eventually?

Back to topic, forums are largely opinions and i sure respect yours even if I don't quite agree with them.

 

[claidemore]

Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor,

The US still had more squadrons in the ETO, PTO and N. Africa equiped with quality aircraft.

The US had more Carriers than the rest of the world combined with aircraft just as capable.

then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum.

I've never seen anything to indicate that US had better quality aircrew, or better trained and I'm not sure how you would measure that. If the numbers of hours is the criteria, then the best trained aircrew in the world would probably be the Soviet women pilots, they had to have 500 hours to even be considered!

Which airforce was most capable in 1945? The biggest one, USAAF.
Which airforce was most capable in 1940, 41, 42 or even 43? For four of the six war years, that was definately not the USAAF. Poll is for best WWII airforce, not best in 1945 airforce. Length of service is a BIG factor.

 

[drgondog]

Fair enough...

Hey Joe, he doesn't have to apologise to me. I AM one, I'm from Texas!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey Joe, he doesn't have to apologise to me. I AM one, I'm from Texas!

 

[drgondog]

That does not prove anything either. I do not have the numbers myself but I am sure that Bill can post them for us that will prove that US Pilots had the most hours training prior to being put into combat.

Sorry Bill if I am offering you up for something here....

Thanks a lot Chris!

I have zero idea what constitues 'Best' but here are some interesting facts.

in 1938 Congress authorized the Civilain Pilot Training Program in anticipation we would need far more pilots than USA and USN could produce in next several years.

The curricula was 72 hours of ground school, 35-50 hours of solo time with instruction of solo, spin/stall/simple aerobatics/cross country ---> license

The government encouraged universities and flight schools to open this curricula by supplying them with one trainer (usually a Piper J-3, Taylorcraft BL-65, or a Waco F-2, but they could buy equivalent if same price or less)

By the time the program was suspended as no longer necessary there were 1100+ educational facilities and 1400+ flight schools in operation - producing 430,000+ civilian trained pilots.. this was equivalent of USAAF and USN Primary. Neither the USAF or USN were thrilled about the program but had no choice and found that the quality was essentially the same.

The USAAF and USN Aviator Programs were very much similar, starting with Classification (Bombadier.Navigator, Pilot selection) then PreFlight (about 2 months) training w/instructors in a/c like BT-13 doing the same stuff the CPT did with ground school and flight school leading to solo, spin, aerobatics, and a flight check for proficiency -------> on to Primary (PT-17 Yellow Peril) more solo, precision flight skills, turn and climb and level flight precision, instruments, honing flight skills) ----> then to Basic for formation, night flying, more instrument, short field ops, dead stick landing, etc (back to BT-13) ----> Advanced (first about 10 hours in AT-6 then maybe P-40 or F-6F) where bomb/gunnery training, precision formation flying, manuever skills, Link Trainer time, a/c identification, etc).. if the Pilot was in Multi Engine training he might get his first time in a Twin Beech and start that track).

Elapsed time 18 -22 months on the average and 240-260 hours when he gets his wings and commission.

Then some intermediate training with an operational squadron to develop combat structure operations familiararity - maybe first he goes to Goxhill for transition to P-51 or P-47 then into a live unit where he goes through 10-25 hours of Clobber College wher he matches up with real combat pilots in ACM before his first mission - and a high percentage of operational losses were in the first 5 missions.

The USN was a close track except in Advanced they spent more time in Carrier landing practice before going to fleet.

Net - USAAF and USN/USMC were about 300 hours before first combat mission in 1944, maybe 250 in 1943.

A lot of RAF pilots received their training in US. My father was CO of one such flight school in Oklahoma in 1943 before he escaped from ATC in late 43.

When he taught me to fly it was basically 'by the book' as noted above - just different a/c until the At-6. I emerged from his process with about 220 hours before my first back seat ride in the P-51 and 30 hours more in the AT-6 before my first solo in the 51. I didn't log back seat time in the 51 but it was perhaps 30 hours in parallel with it and I did some takeoffs and shot 3 landings before he let me go.

This is the process and fairly accurate recollection of the program AFAIR.

Have no idea how this stacks up with wartime RCAF/RAF/LW or VVS. I guess the VVS females were the best equipped from a training program.. how did they do?

 

[drgondog]

Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor, then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum.

I would say you aren't looking very hard. Size IS important, but the training, the doctrine, the mission capable aircraft, the logistics base, the manufacturing pipeline, the ability to quickly replace losses in men and aircraft, the ability to repair in-theatre, the ability to perform all missions in every theatre independent of support from another AF should be things You should look for.

If another AF fits that profile better than the US we are pleased to learn something.. or if you have other compelling selection criteria not named above please name them for discussion?

I've never seen anything to indicate that US had better quality aircrew, or better trained and I'm not sure how you would measure that. If the numbers of hours is the criteria, then the best trained aircrew in the world would probably be the Soviet women pilots, they had to have 500 hours to even be considered!

A reaaly good way is to evaluate the process for training and see whether the resultance achievements met the mission. For example both the LW and IJN had more 'end to end' training than US in 1939-1942. Was this enough to achieve the mission demanded of them in 1944-1945?

Was the RAF and RCAF and US training adequate to meet or exceed expectations for achievement? I think so. Was the US training infrastructure adequate to train US, Germany, Japan and RAF collectively if called to do so? Probably. Could any of the AF other than the dismal ol' USN/USAAF perform that volume of good to excellent pilot training? I don't think so.

What were the total number of civilian and military pre-flight schools in operation for other Allied or Axis countries in 1944? How many pilots did RCAF and/or Commonwealth train independent of US? I really don't know but would be interested - from 1940 through 1945.

Which airforce was most capable in 1945? The biggest one, USAAF.
Which airforce was most capable in 1940, 41, 42 or even 43? For four of the six war years, that was definately not the USAAF. Poll is for best WWII airforce, not best in 1945 airforce. Length of service is a BIG factor.

I would argue 1943 is the turning point, at which time the US Airpower and it's capability to prosecute every mission every where was in place.

Length is big factor - than means LW.
Tactical and Strategic and Logistic Capability is big factor - that means US
Mission depth and breadth is a big factor - that means US
Achievement and contribution in winning the war - your choice- if not US then? (cant' picj Japan or Italy or Germany, if you pick RAF I need to hear a lot more about PTO and how RAF achieved air superiority over Germany)

Infrastructure to Grow beyond last day of WWII - US
What are the other criteria we should use? Ability to defend one's own country? Skilled work force, Self contained natural resources?

If you read the thread you will see that quite a few agree that LW early, RAF middle and US late middle to EOW are the choices we would make - Strictly opinion but trying to present facts and logic and leave the red necks on the beach..