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
drgondog
Major
Soren, why do you suppose that Tank put so much internal fuel in this very good interceptor? and why so much more than the Dora?
Can you point me to some references that might shed light on Ta 152 to look at specific fuel consumption in cruise for example?
I suspect that would be very tough to find but even if lower than the 51 it could not be significant - meaning it would for all practical purposes have the same range as the 51.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Bill, I admit my writing skills are lacking as far as making myself clear. After I have written it I sometimes have difficulty understanding the point I was trying to make. My intention in the beginning re this thread was to demonstrate one of the qualitative achievements by the US which(in my opinion)stood head and shoulders above the rest of the world. That achievement was to design, build and produce a fighter which could successfully operate from carriers but could also compete on an even basis, on balance, with all other fighters in the world from 1942 through 1945. That AC was, I believe, inarguably the best fighter bomber of the war(the ability to perform as a fighter bomber or multi-role fighter came to be the role the majority of all fighters aspired to be) and arguably was the best recip fighter of the war and arguably came to be the best recip fighter of all time. It is in the context of best recip of all time that I bring up the F4U5. As far as best recip fighter bomber we should perhaps use the F4U7. My numbers for the F4U5 come from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" They may not be accurate but the numbers on the F4U4 in that book jibe pretty well with Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand." The numbers in "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" on the TA152 show that on paper the F4U4 or 5 compete well with that AC. There may be some figures on the various Corsairs which are anomalous floating around. Richard Linnekin, a former Navy fighter pilot, test pilot and aero engineer remarks about that in his book,"Eighty Knots to Mach 2" If you have not read that book, I heartily encourage you to find it as it is a great read if you like air planes. He only flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam(he was in surface ships in WW2) but his remarks about ACM would be educational for many on this forum. I suspect that a lot of the performance figures we quote on this forum are suspect and relatively meaningless but what the heck, that is about all we have to go on since few have the background and the experience that you have. Hope I have explained my reference to the F4U5.
drgondog
Major
Rich - I agree with nearly all your points.
What I have done in the past is make a studied judgement on 'best' based on a lot of my criteria, then get bogged down in justifying it in other areas where it maybe wasn't "best' but at end of day was 'good enough'.
The F4U-4 is that airplane for me.. but using the case of the Ta 152H-1 I can't argue that it wasn't 'best' unless you take into account that except for design and performance it was 'insignificant' just like the P-80 which was in most cases except maybe range and ceiling, was 'better' than the Ta 152.
I suspect LW pilots after flying the P-80 would have embraced it if the other choice was Fw 190D or Ta 152..
Relative to the ETO, the Corsair wasn't the 'best' because it was mostly no-show and insignificant' in same way as Ta 152.
For me the Mustang was most Important but not the 'best' against Germany because it did what no other Allied Fighter could do - namely make US Strategic Bombing doctrine a success and kill more German pilots and a/c in the process.
Stacked against the F4U in Pacific it can't be judged the 'best'..
So this forum is a great place to argue whatever points we want to make.
Regards Rich,
Bill
What I have done in the past is make a studied judgement on 'best' based on a lot of my criteria, then get bogged down in justifying it in other areas where it maybe wasn't "best' but at end of day was 'good enough'.
The F4U-4 is that airplane for me.. but using the case of the Ta 152H-1 I can't argue that it wasn't 'best' unless you take into account that except for design and performance it was 'insignificant' just like the P-80 which was in most cases except maybe range and ceiling, was 'better' than the Ta 152.
I suspect LW pilots after flying the P-80 would have embraced it if the other choice was Fw 190D or Ta 152..
Relative to the ETO, the Corsair wasn't the 'best' because it was mostly no-show and insignificant' in same way as Ta 152.
For me the Mustang was most Important but not the 'best' against Germany because it did what no other Allied Fighter could do - namely make US Strategic Bombing doctrine a success and kill more German pilots and a/c in the process.
Stacked against the F4U in Pacific it can't be judged the 'best'..
So this forum is a great place to argue whatever points we want to make.
Regards Rich,
Bill
I guess this forum is too "Redneck" for claidemore as well.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
One thing that the US had an advantage in over all of the other combatants was the many varied types that had advantages (as well as disadvantages) that allowed the AAF and USN find niche roles for them in which they excelled.
In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.
What did the others have compared tot he US?
In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.
What did the others have compared tot he US?
Eh more standardisation and thus less presure on logistics?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The US war machine was so vast, only the AAF and USN could have so many different types and still be able to provide the spares and the ground crews to keep them flying.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Too Redneck? HA!. I spent my most of my life working with rednecks, rig-hands, cowhands, carpenters, wrench spinners and other horny handed sons of toil. Even married a redneck gal.
I use these formus as motivation and research for a writing project, and I really can't afford to use up too much time in lengthy debates with wide paramaters, interesting though they may be.
Thanks for thinkin of me though!
Claidemore (of the same opinion still!)
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Bill, we(all of us) have had these dialogues before and I enjoy them a great deal and am in accord with you on your reasoning. Regarding this thread, best air force WW2, quantitatively, the US Forces stand alone. Qualitatively, I believe the US wins hands down. Not to denigrate the other air forces because they made a lot of chicken salad out of chicken feathers but the US had the designers, manufacturers and most of all the financial ability to, once they got going build more and better AC than anyone else. Best strategic bomber-B29, Best long range escort fighter-P51, Best fighter bomber overall-F4U,(ETO-P47), best carrier fighter-F4U, best transport-C47,best twin engine fighter-P38,best light-medium bomber-A26, best true medium bomber-B26, best carrier torpedo bomber-TBF,best long range patrol plane-PBY. Other categories might be best short range interceptor-Spitfire,(the TA152 might be a contender here but I view it as virtually an experimental model with so little operational experience as to still have a lot of bugs in it.) best gas turbine fighter-ME262, best true light bomber, multi role AC-Mosquito. The training of the US pilots was excellent and US air operated all over the globe in all conditions. One factor which I believe is underappreciated which most US designed AC had in common was long range. This probably had to do with the geographical size and location of the US. The designers in Europe just did not envision warfare over the great distances that those in the US and in Japan did. That range capability paid enormous divdends in the long term.
True, but maybe it could have been better having one plane for one purpose instead of having a dozen of them?
Renrich,
remember that the US benefit greatly from british experience. When they rolled into the war, they had had 2 more years to develope aircraft. Still in 1940 they were clearly inferior to european AF's (IMHO of course). Also keep in mind that the US was not a battleground as Germany and the UK were. They had save factories and all the time in the world to develope new a/c whil in the mean time using the already very good a/c from the British (think for instance of the beaufighter in the nightfighter role). In the end the US was the biggest airforce in the world. And they should be, as they had the peace to savely design and build new a/c where the others were in the midst of the battle and had the benefit of 2 more years of peace.
On quality we could debate (the Tempest was a very capable longrange fighter, too and maybe better than the Mustang, the FW190 or the Typhone was maybe as good in fighterbombing as the corsair etc).
I'm still wondering if the USAAF would have been the best if they had been in the middle of the fight like the LW or the RAF in 1940.
drgondog
Major
I suspect the US would have accelerated production improvements if US lives were lost due to aircraft of lower performance, earlier, as contrasted with delivering B-17C and D plus P-39B and P40D's to themselves in 1940 and 1941.
Debating Tempest for long range escort is similar to Ta 152, namely it wasn't assigned that role much and didn't contribute much in that role. .. the ultimate extension would have been to project it to provide target escort from Berlin to Brux to Posnan and Munich - or to Tokyo from Guam.
Demonstrating that the Tempest flew those type missions as escort (significant part of mission at low cruise 'essing' over the bombers) for those ranges would lead you (and me) to believe this capability to western Poland and Czechoslovakia.. do you have some actual extensions and scenarios we could look at?
Hi Bill,
Pardon my English, it's sometimes difficult for me to make clear statements in English. What I meant was that on average, in 1939/1940, the operational USAAF aircraft were inferior to their German and English brothers, being P39/P40B against Bf109/Spitfire etc.
The P38, P51 and P47 might have been in the upper part, but so were the Spitfire (1936), Bf109 (1934), Fw190 (1939), Typhoon (1941) etc. And most of them much older than the american design.
I'm not opposing that the USAAF was the best A/F in WWII, but the argument of quality of the planes is not a very strong one IMO. Of course their planes were of great quality, but so were the British and German's. The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?
Pardon my English, it's sometimes difficult for me to make clear statements in English. What I meant was that on average, in 1939/1940, the operational USAAF aircraft were inferior to their German and English brothers, being P39/P40B against Bf109/Spitfire etc.
The P38, P51 and P47 might have been in the upper part, but so were the Spitfire (1936), Bf109 (1934), Fw190 (1939), Typhoon (1941) etc. And most of them much older than the american design.
You're right, I don't have accounts of Tempest doing longrange escorts. The british bombed at night and if they needed escort fighters it would have been nightfighters, for which either the Tempest or the P51 would have been wholy unsuited. The Americans had the requirement with their daybombing and used their 'own' P51. My mentioning of the Tempest only had the purpose of showing that the british could and did design a fighter with the same range as the mustang which was at least as capable as the P51. So the Tempest wasn't assigned to the role, but on contrary to the Ta152 has been used for a longer period of time, showing it's capabilities.
I'm not opposing that the USAAF was the best A/F in WWII, but the argument of quality of the planes is not a very strong one IMO. Of course their planes were of great quality, but so were the British and German's. The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Marcel if my ability to speak your first language was half as good as your english I would be elated. My second language is either spanish or german and I know just enough to order one beer. Re your comments about British and German fighter development being ahead of the US. The first Martlets were delivered to the RN in July, 1940, and that AC had performance on par at least with the Hurricane. If war had been imminent for the US as it was in Europe, the development of the F4F could have been accelerated so that it could have been ready at least a year earlier. The first flight of the F4F was in 1937. The C47 was in service long before Europe had any comparable AC. The Boeing 299 which became the B17 first flew in July of 1935 and the first operations began in 1937. This was long before anything in Europe comparable was operational. The engine developers in Europe were ahead in inline liquid cooled engines, the US was ahead in air cooled radial engines. The B25 and B26 both flew in 1940 and were operational in 1941. Britain and Germany had nothing comparable. Of course this does not relate to US air power but the A6M was operational in 1940 and in that time frame it was arguably superior to both the BF109, Hurricane and Spitfire.
Opinions are like Assholes. Everyone has one...
Please dont take that as an insult, it was not meant to be one. All I mean by it is that opinions are great and everyone is entitled to one, but for this thread the facts say it all.
Now that does not mean it is not fun to debate this subject.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Dragon how many men were in a US Group, aircraft ,pilots ,maintainers admin logistics in total?
In a RCAF fighter wing it was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades
In a RCAF fighter wing it was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.
Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.
In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
and radar
