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.