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

If we are talking about best, I assume that quality plays a big role in that question. In the US a carrier borne fighter was designed,(first flew in 1940) that turned out to be without question the finest fighter bomber of WW2 and was arguably the finest piston engine fighter of WW2 and possibly of alltime. Of course, that was the F4U. No other country during WW2 came close to that accomplishment. Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.
 

Man - you will have a LOT of women kicking your arse, that ferried a LOT of RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF, USSR, etc aircraft all over the world from US.

How many women pilots were working for RAF vs USAAF and USN in these roles?
 

The Ta-152H-1 and Me-262 are both far superior fighters, far more advanced and higher quality a/c !

Now the F4U was a great design no doubt, one of my favorites, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. The F4U-4 was on par with some of the latest FW190's in terms of air to air fighter bomber capabilities, however the latest FW190's were faster, more agile, climbed faster and they all featured lighter better harmonized controls. Ofcourse with boosted ailerons the F4U approached the FW190 in roll rate, but AFAIK the F4U's in service by WW2 weren't fitted with these.

Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.

The F4U, the latest best carrier based fighter of the war, couldn't compete with the latest best landbased fighters of the war, so conventional visdom holds.
 
I cannot help posting in this thread again. It's hard to argue about this as it is still not clearly defined what "Best" means. It's hard to argue about the fact that the USAAF was the most capable airforce in the world in 1945. How could they not be. They had an unspoiled country, not affected by the effects of war, all the time and peace in the world to train their people, build their planes in non bombed factories etc. It was the only major country that didn't have war within it's borders (apart from a few pacific islands of course).
The question is, would the USAAF have done as good as the RAF, keeping the germans at bay under the circumstances, or as good as the Finnish airforce under their circumstances, or shoot down 381 german planes in 5 days with 50 poldfashioned planes like my little country, or... (fill in yourself). I think nobody can answer that.
The first answer is simple and you're all right about it, no doubt about that, the second one is much more difficult...
 

From my perspective, if the US could choose between Ta 152 and any other piston engine fighter available, in mass production, at the end of the war it would be a relatively easy choice... if it could be modified for three roles - Carrier ops, Long Range Escort and Close air support.

I suspect the airframe has that extendability.

I wouldn't choose the Dora, particularly, over the 51H or the F4U-5 or maybe even the P-38L because ALL the other choices were capable of all three roles to varying comparisons with Fw 190D-9 right off the assembly line.. air to air combat would largely be determined by pilot skill and tactical situation (in my opinion) between all four of these..
 

No my point is this. The US could put out more aircraft into the field of the same or better quality.

I never said that the size of the airforce is what it made it best.

Go back and read my post. I said that the capibility of the airforce combined with force projection, training, quality of aircraft and size is what made it the best.

I dont think anyone can argue with that.


Agreed

Did I ever say that this was the best airforce of 1945?

Using your logic the best airforce can not be the RAF either. Why? Because it was not the best airforce in the world either for the whole war. So RAF is out of the equation then, because this thread is not about the best airforce of 1940...
 

It most surely had.


I'd choose the Dora-9 over the P-38L any time, and with higher boost pressure GM1 I'd choose it over the rest as-well, esp. considering the 640 km/h top SL speed and 770 + km/h top speed at alt, plus the 13.8 km ceiling. Also the Dora could carry a good deal more than the P-51.

In other words the FW190 Dora-9 F4U-4 were equals, and the Dora-13 F4U-5 were as-well.
 

I would argue that the D-9 and D-13 own the F4U (any version) starting at 30,000 feet with some performance parity to the -13 have very significant climb and top speed, same dive, probably better roll in most speed ranges over the F4U, but pretty equal versus 51H and maybe more over the P-38 than F-4U-4. I recall the -5 being optimized for middle to low 20's for best engine performance, so if correct, it starts losing against the -9 and -13 lower than the -4? doesn't it.

In other words at escort altitudes a lot of equality among the 3 US fighters and the two Doras, but start to lose edge to -13 as altitude increases with 51 still holding it's own in pure dash speed and perhaps climb at 12,000 m, but P-38L lower in dash, excellent roll at high speed, faster (?) climb and equivalent ceiling to -13 is what I think I recall.

I only introduced my picks above over the Dora 9 based on the proven long range capability in comparison, to go with the other two missions. What was internal fuel load for -9 and -13 and Ta 152H-1? Maybe I was mistaken.
 

Forgot to ask what the external rack capabilities for the Dora 9 and Ta 152H-1 were in comparison with 51D/H (both could carry the 160 gallon ferry tank and 200 in an emergency with careful attention and a long runway)?
 
As usual Soren you get your exercise jumping to conclusions, I believe that the ME262 had gas turbine engines. I said that the F4U was the finest fighter bomber and arguably the finest PISTON ENGINE fighter of WW2 and arguably the finest PE fighter of all time. The TA152 played almost no role in WW2. The F4U played an enormous role. You can argue all you want to about best PE fighter of all time. The Germans never fielded a carrier borne fighter. Simon, The Battle of Atlantic the biggest battle of WW2. That is like saying that Gallipoli was the biggest battle of WW1. Have you no knowledge of the Russian Front. The Germans never came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, thanks to US ship building capacity. On June 1, 1943, the first Royal Navy Sdn. #1830 was formed at Quonset Point, RI using Corsair Is. In January, 1943, the first US Navy squadron VF12 was operational. In June, 1943, VF17, the Jolly Rogers was aboard the Bunker Hill. Do you seriously think the British, training at Quonset Point, not even aboard a carrier, beat the US Navy to learning to operate the Corsair off a carrier. That is another wartime myth, like the "Forked Tail Devil." Take a little friendly advice. Before you jump head long into this forum, be advised that there are people on here who have twice the knowledge of you and I put together and we would both do well to be cautious and not expose too much of our ignorance.
 
Dragon you asked how many pilots were graduated in Canada from 40-45 the number is 49707 other aircrew such as navs gunners and the like move it up to total 131000 they started to wind down in mid 44 as there was a large surplus of aircrew .
Now i'd like to bring up a point that might be overlooked the RAF and RCAF and others had been escorting the 8th and 9th airforce for most of 42 and 43 from what I've gleaned they were instructed to stick like glue to the bombers . They could see the LW lurking but were not allowed to pursue,(much to their chagrin) now I'm assuming this has something to due with extending the range of the escort for the heavies.
This would be the first tour of ops for most of these fighter crews and from what I've gleaned that most finished their 2nd tours approaching June 44 . Now I don't know for sure but am guessing the LW stared to wane in the quality of aircrew in late 43 early 44 from attrition on both fronts and in mid 44 there was a marked decline in general aircrew quality for the LW. This being hastened by the 51s/47s. of the 8th . Are we talking about apples and oranges in relation to the skill level of the LW between 42-early 44 and mid 44 -45 and the number of kills achieved
 
Bill, my source says that the F4U5 had a critical altitude of 31, 400 ft where it could reach 462-470 mph. It's service ceiling was 41400 feet and it had an initial rate of climb of 4250 fpm. It could exceed 400 mph at sea level and of course mounted 4-20mm cannon and had a range on internal fuel of 1036 miles and could still tote a 4000 pound bomb load. The F4U4's critical altitude was 26200 ft. The F4U5 was a production air craft and played a fairly major role in the Korean War. All in all, I would take it over the wunderkind TA152 all day(and night) long.
 

Totally and completely agree.

The LW had their way (mostly) with USAAF in 1942 and to a degree in the first eight months of 1943. They had some spectacular successes from August 17, 1943 through April 1944 - carving out 10+ of 8th AF attacking force multiple times... but only once in aggragate from 30 April 1944 (May 12) and several times on an isolated Combat Wing thereafter (July 7, Sept 27 and Nove 26 come to mind when the LW ripped a couple of Bomb Groups in an area where they simply overwhelmed the escorts - but suffered equally when chased down and caught.

I have made that distinction when my perception is that LW was dominant through 1941 and well into 1942 - then the RAF was probably superior in late 1942 as measured by fighting on all fronts with all missions and doing it well - the the US transitioned in mid 1943 (Global coverage - all missions, high quality, overwhelming quantity) and achieved clear superiority in Airpower when the Mustang took away air superiority over Germany in 1st six months of 1944. No air force dominated Germany over Germany until that period of time.

I could be wrong but that is my view for the reasons I have posed?

Regards,

Bill
 
Renrich,

You're the one jumping to conclusions, not me. That the Ta-152H didn't see much action isn't an argument as it more than proved itself with a 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio, out-performed every LW fighter in comparative tests and was a far more advanced piston engined fighter than any other in the world. The F4U like I said was a great a/c, however the Ta-152H-1 trumphs it in every way, and the late FW190's were faster, climbed faster were more agile, so there's nothing to justify your claim than the F4U was the best.

That having been said the F4U was definitely among the best mass produced fighters of WW2, no doubt in the top 3 along wiith the FW190, but not the best.

Bill,

The Ta-152H-1's internal fuel capacity was ~1,000 Liters, compared to the 640 Liters of the FW-190. Both could carry one, two or three 300 L drop tanks. Bomb load capability was two 250 kg bombs + one 500 kg bomb, or up to a single 1,800 kg centerline bomb. Now AFAIK not even the P-38 could haul such a load, which just goes to show how sturdy the FW190 airframe actually is.

FW-190 G-3 with 1x 500 kg bomb and 2x 300 L drop tanks.
 

Rich - the Vought website has the top speed at 469mph at 26,800 feet, initial (best) climb at 3780 fpm. This could be wrong but the P&W R2800-32 delivering 300 HP more at EWP, that sounds about right over the F4U-4.

Looking at that profile, performance in climb and dash speed goes downhill from 26K.

The critical altitude for the P-38L was 28,000, its dash speed there was 443 which probably compares well with the F4U-5 at 28K. Ditto the P-38L intial climb at 4750 fpm at SL strongly implies better climb performance than the F4U-5 across all profiles by a significant margin until 44-45K where they both topped out.

I'm not going into a debate about any of these - we have been there and done that - I like all of them..

However the -5 shouldn't be in the comparison unless you want to compare with one more year of development on both the Ta 152H and the Fw 190D-13 since the -5 wasn't produced until 1946 and really doesn't fit in WWII?

I kind of stand on my earlier comments about the equivalence of the 51H, 190D-9 or -13, P-38L and F4U-4. I would pick one only if you told me which missions all had to fly. If you wanted one that could perform long range escort 1500 miles away and operate at 42,000 feet I narrow the selection down to one. If you tell me it is Naval Air multi Purpose, it is an easy choice also.
 

The P-38L could (theoretically) could carry two 2,000 pund bombs and Lindbergh apparently did that (as for F4U-4) but it was not an operational standard. The AU-1 Corsair of pre Korean War vintage apparently DID fly combat ops w/5,000 pound of combined ordinance (two wing 2,000 pounders plus 8 HVAR rockets)..
 
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.
from the Legion magazine up here
.....Canada declared war on Germany on Sept. 10, 1939. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) had been expanding in anticipation of this; now it fairly exploded, doubling in size within four months. Meanwhile, on Dec. 17, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand signed an agreement creating the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP). Canada was about to become a vast air force training centre, with schools from the Atlantic to the Pacific and students from around the globe. Many of those trained would be American citizens.


Initially, the RCAF did not seek out Americans; there were more than enough Canadians volunteering. Moreover, with the United States still neutral, there would be diplomatic problems if American citizens were enlisted, much less courted. However, U.S. nationals began to arrive, motivated by everything from love of adventure to political convictions.

As more BCATP schools opened, the RCAF found itself short of trained pilots. It began looking for experienced Americans to perform non-combat duties. This led to the formation of the semi-secret Clayton Knight Committee, the brainchild of aviation artist Clayton Knight and the RCAF's Director of Recruiting, Air Marshal Billy Bishop VC.

The committee opened its first office in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel in the spring of 1940; other bureaus were established in Spokane, Wash., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Atlanta, Memphis and San Antonio. Various devices were used to create the fiction that the Clayton Knight Committee was a private advisory unit. In practice it was recruiting Americans on American soil in violation of the Neutrality Act. Moreover, although its goal was to direct trained pilots to Canada, increasingly the committee gave information to untrained Americans who wanted to join the RCAF. These raw recruits constituted 85 per cent of the Americans ultimately enrolled in the RCAF.

One problem was the Oath of Allegiance to King George VI. An American taking the oath could be deemed to have forfeited his U.S. citizenship. In June 1940, Canada waived its Oath of Allegiance for foreign nationals, who henceforth were asked only to take an Oath of Obedience. In other words, they were to follow the rules of military discipline for the duration of their RCAF service.

Training centres began to resonate with American accents; some courses were comprised of 50 per cent of American students. Many more claimed to be Texans than was actually the case; girls who would not have been attracted to somebody from Rhode Island, might find a man from Texas more interesting.

As of Dec. 8, 1941, approximately 6,129 Americans were members of the RCAF. Just over half--3,883--were still undergoing training, but 667 were on operations overseas while others were engaged in flying duties in Canada itself, instructing, flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. With America's entry into the war, RCAF recruiting there ceased and American volunteers began heading for USAAF offices instead. Americans residing in Canada were still being enrolled, however. Ultimately, the RCAF calculated that more than 8,860 U.S. nationals joined that force
Within a month of Pearl Harbor, talks were underway for the transfer of Americans from the RCAF to U.S. flying services. In May and June 1942, a board of Canadian and American officers travelled across Canada by special train, affecting the release of 1,759 Americans from the RCAF and enrolling them simultaneously in American forces. Transfers continued throughout the war. The RCAF calculated that 3,797 Americans switched back to their own national forces. That left 5,263 Americans who elected to stay with the RCAF throughout their service careers.
 

or were KIA/POW before they had a choice? All kidding aside that is good information..
 

Users who are viewing this thread