Best WWII Air-Force

[syscom3]

and radar

In 1945, US radar systems were as good as anyones.

From my list, I show the US as having advantages in the following:

1) Production capacity
2) Heavy bombers
3) Long range fighters
4) Ground attack fighters
5) Escort fighters
6) Every single aspect of naval aviation
7) Types of aircraft
8 ) Transports
9) Global capabilities
10) Aircrew numbers
11) Ground crew numbers
12) Wartime potential (numbers of aircraft x relative quality x logistical support)
13) Firepower per daily theater missions (payload x rounds of ammo x fighter radius of action x number of bombers [fighters carrying bombs included])
14) Industrial reserves
15) Manpower reserves.

Finally .... I like this quote by a B29 assembly worker appraising on how the B29 ended up being produced ...."It seems like the US accomplishes more by accident than most countries do by design"

 

[Soren]

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.

Sorry Renrich that just doesn't hold water, infact it's pure BS.

Germany had the designers, engineers scientists that the US, UK USSR were dreaming about, hence their race at obtaining these men and their material after the war.

The Germans were the leaders in the field of physics being way ahead in aerodynamics ballistics, and their science within optics, metallurgy chemistry was ahead as-well.

In terms of the best quality equipment made during WW2 Germany takes the prize hands down, designing and producing the most advanced aircraft, AFV's, small-arms, guns submarines in the world;


Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388.
Small-arms: StG.44, FG-42 MG-42
AFV's: Pzkpfw. VI Ausf. E B Tiger, Pzkpfw. V Panther, JagdPanther, JagdTiger, hetzer, Sd.Kfz. 234/4 Puma etc etc..
Guns: 128mm KwK44, 88mm KwK43, 75mm KwK42 173/210mm K-18 etc etc..
Submarines: Type XXI

And regarding the Ta-152 not being tested, again that's pure BS, the Ta-152 was thuroughly and meticulously tested before even being allowed field testing with the LW and later enter service in late 1944. The only problem ever to plague the Ta-152 was its Jumo 213E engine, otherwise it was one first class piece of machinery, the pilots knowing it was a world beater.

 

[syscom3]

Soren, this thread is about the aircraft of the countries. Not of the other weapons.

"Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388.". All advanced aircraft that had little impact on the war.

Germany gets the advantage on designing aircraft for a future war.

 

[Soren]

Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.

The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.

The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter.

The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.

The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.

The Ar-234 Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.

 

[Ramirezzz]

why there's no Finnish AF? They could have some bad planes in terms of quality, but when it comes to quality of pilots and organisation, very few of the WW 2 AF compares with them

 

[syscom3]

Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.

And what impact did they have?

The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.

It did have great performance. But it was in far too few numbers to show what it was able to do. The war was over by the time the allies had their fighters ready to counter it.

The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter.

Yes indeed. No question about it. But unfortunatly for the LW, they had zero impact on the war (besides scaring the crap out of the allies). Their lack of impact can be descibed as an abject failure on the German commanders and political heirarchy. Which thrusts Germany as a whole to the bottom tier of combatants for doctrine and organizational value.

The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.

More than a few Spitfire, P38, P47 and P51 pilots would say otherwise.

The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.

It didnt even compare to the C47 and C54.

The Ar-234 Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.

I will grant you that one.

 

[drgondog]

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.

Your English is far better than my Italian, French and Spanish combined

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.

Totally agreed - but the P-38 emerged in 1939 along with Fw 190 and Typhoon and except for the disastrous 'publicity mission, which crashed the prototype and set the program back two years might have put a P38L quality version into mid 1943. (another 'what if'

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 am a great fan of the Tempest V and not denigrating the 'what if' possibility. The USAAF would have loved to had this fighter in production and in 8th AF inventory in 1943.. there might not have been a Mustang Story

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?

No, to beginning of the war. Having said that it is clear that neither of the Axis powers combined EVER had the capability to hurt US Production - at any level of 'pain'. This by and of itself represents a serious flaw in discussion of even giving Germany an edge in the discussion once we got into the war, at least through Midway when we basically broke the IJN capability to destroy our fleets.

RAF combined with RN (in my opinion) could not have achieved the results against the Japanese in PTO that US achieved from mid 1942 forward so your focus on RAF as 'best' airpower at a point in time should be a global focus?


I have been careful to express the notion that 1939 through 1941 the LW was more powerful, more diverse except for long range bomber capability, their a/c were mostly 'as good or good enough or better' to either defeat their adversaries over their own airspace (Soviet/East) or defeat their adversaries over their own homeland (Germany)

I felt that the RAF delivered same or better a/c in 1942 to 1943 (pick your own timeframe - but largely projecting force in Europe and to a lesser degree in Pacific

I felt the 8th AF, 9th AF and soon the 12th and 15th gained traction in Europe after being bloodied in Africa and MTO and ETO from 1942-mid 1943 then quickly ramped up with both high quality ('as good, good enough, or better') depending on mission and absolutely took control of Pacific airwar on land and sea.

The RAF did not have the capability to defeat German airpower over Germany when it was a critical mission, but the US achieved the potential in late 1943 with the arrival of the Mustang and better P-38s (the L) starting production in early 1944. I would have the opinion that if the P-38L had been in service in 1943 that the push for the Mustang would have been less urgent on the part of Doolittle in October 1943.

Even near the end of the war the LW was inflicting far more damage on the night bomber forces of RAF than the daylight losses of USAAF in early to spring 1944, RAF night fighters probably kept the carnage down a little - but not much - and ceratinly nowhere near the effectiveness of the Mustang.

The RN was excellent, but in my opinion had nowhere near the force projection capability to contribute equally to the power of USN from 1943 (maybe June 1942) forward and ditto RAF for land based versus USAAF in Pacific - all while 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th were scaling to achieve same tonnage as RAF in 1944 to parity to exceed RAF at the end of April 1945 - while the heavy bomber contribution for example in PTO far exceeded RAF nearly from Jan 1, 1942 and accelerated from there.

Those are my reasons.

The 'who's aircraft is best/better etc is interesting but the question of who put the best trained pilots in the air - and then fooded the market with them, the resources to take the losses to gain combat experience, then put overwhelming quality of pilots in 'good' aircraft is probably a better question.

I would argue (subjectively) that the USAAF put average same or higher pilot/crew trained quality in mid 1943, in far more numbers than the rest of Allies combined - in all theatres (except Russia) and accelerated to the end of the war. I have no immediate way to prove this last thesis.

But these are my reason for mid 1943 to EOW and today,

Regards,

 

[drgondog]

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

Pb - it 'depends' on stage of war. The standard TO&E authorized was far higher (108) than ever practiced. 72 was std TOE for all combat groups in 1945.

A bomb Group was 48 'target operational on a mission, in four squadrons of twelve, same for fighters, except three of 16 for normal order of battle.

Having said that the typical base strength for 8th and 9th, etc ETO bomb groups in 1943 was around 64, growing to 72 by mid 1944. Attriton was less in mid 1944 through EOW so the base strength of ships that 'might or could' be assigned was closer to 60.

Typical for fighters in 1943 was 64 base strength (and less depending on mission damaged and salvaged and lost - before replacements) the 72 was about right for mid 1944... same caveats applying to 'effectives'.

Standard tactical doctrine was to put up the 'normal' 48 of heavies or fighters, with spares, striving for 48 over the target.

The pilot strength was typically 32 (4 lights of 8 pilots) per squadron, plus at least 4 from HQ (GP CO, Exec, Ops and asst Ops).

For a fighter Group (wing) the total number of personnel was closer to 900, bomg group larger because of number of ground crew and air crew for multi engine, large, ships.

A fighter ground crew was Crew Chief, Asst Crew Chief and Armorer. Specialized ground personnel included armament, communications, service group mechanics (engine change core teams, sheet metal, hydraulics, electrical, etc) in the Service Group plus MPs, Base Defense, Admin, Chaplain, Medical officers, etc.

 

[Marcel]

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.

Maybe whe should rename the thread to "Who was the strongest in the end", Syscom?

Bill,

I think we more agree than disagree. From 1943/44 to the end of the war, the USAAF had the advantage. Same for the US Navy, which was the largest and most modern in the world at the end of the war.

Marcel

 

[drgondog]

Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.

The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.

I thought the first operational Ta 152H-1 was in mid Jan 1945. When did it replace a Squadron for first time? How many squadrons were ultimatel deployed. The 51H was deployed in March to operational squadrons in March, ditto F7F to USMC in PTO

The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter.

I wouldn't argue that it wasn't superior but point out that it didn't have enough of an edge over the P-80 to compensate for inferior pilot. The P-80 could have been pressed into combat in 1945 - at least in same stage of development and production status as He-162 which as I recall did not see combat in squadron unit strength until April 1845

The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.

Soren - I have seen flight test docs pertaining -13 Dora but have not seen where it went operational into squadron units? Which units received them first and when?

I agree excellent performance, disagree that it is flat better - depends on mission and operating altitude doesn't it? It was faster at higher altitudes than 190D-9 because of engine choice for extreme high altitude - but less than Ta 152, for which it was the 'bridge'. The 51H would have been a formidable adversary as well as latest Tempests and Spits, dropping in comparison above 33-35,000 feet, but would the -13, even in large numbers with reliable 213E engines been 'batter than Meteor and P-80?

The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.

The Ar-234 Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.

Soen - But only 20+ Ar -232 were built? And LW didn't think enough of them to replace the Ju 52. My impression was that it could called a forerunner of the C-82/C-119 or even C-130 and I am impressed with it's potential as a medium haul transport but to call it best means that its performance and role would have to demonstrate that it was better in fast, heavy haul transports like the Constellation or C-54 (both requiring hard runways) or versatile transports like the C-47 and C-46.

Wermacht would like it a lot, is that enough to call it the 'best'. Would it have been the transport of choice for say, Normandy or Operation Market Garden invasion or perhaps the Berlin Airlift in 1949? or caarying supplies to China over the Hump?

From my perspective I would have liked it for airborne ops because of the ability to land in rough fields and eliminate need for Waco sized gliders.. but I have a hard time on rest because of payload/range but as near as I can tell it was in a class with C-46 for payload to range and well under the Constellation for range (1/3), top speed (2/3), and payload (1/3 to 1/2)?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Soren]

Regarding the Ta-152H, the H-0 saw service before the H-1 in 1944, the H-1 entering service in Jan 45.

The Dora-13 didn't see service in many numbers, ~15 a/c IIRC, however with a 770 + km/h top speed at alt and 612 km/h top speed at SL it swiftly out-peformed any Allied fighter. It also featured many of the advanced features of the Ta-152.

The Me-262 was faster, climbed faster turned better than the P-80A, so even if the P-80 was rushed into production it wouldn't have mattered. Besides the Me-262A1 was ready and flying in 1943, a good deal earlier than the P-80.

I don't know about the std. Constellation but the Ar-232B could haul very big loads. Remember that the Constellation of the 1940's is a whole different animal than the Super Constellation of the 50's!

Also the Ar-242 was allot better in the way that it could load larger pieces of equipment than the constellation by virtue of its wider hull and rear loading ramp.

Anyway if we were to go by max loading capacity and speed the Germans had quite a few other a/c, the Ju-290, Ju-252 (VERY high speed load capability!) BV-222 just to name a few. In terms of highest and biggest loads carried the Me-323 easily takes the prize though, being used to transport panzers amongst other heavy material to the frontline.

Me-323

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I love Luftwaffe aircraft especially the Bf 109 which is my favorite aircraft. I just think it is funny how an airforce that is "superior" in all regards to the allied airforces and can never do anything wrong did not win the war.

Does anyone else wonder this as well?

 

[Glider]

Just a thought. If this debate was about the Best submarine force in 1940 and I was to argue that it was Holland because they had an excellent design. I am sure everyone would complain because only two were in service.

So why do people think that the Germans had the best airforce because they had some excellent designs but only had insignificant numbers in service.

 

[drgondog]

Regarding the Ta-152H, the H-0 saw service before the H-1 in 1944, the H-1 entering service in Jan 45.

So, how many Ta 152H-0 went to operational squadron - and which squadron/Gruppe?

The Dora-13 didn't see service in many numbers, ~15 a/c IIRC, however with a 770 + km/h top speed at alt and 612 km/h top speed at SL it swiftly out-peformed any Allied fighter. It also featured many of the advanced features of the Ta-152.

Understood. How many had fully functioning 3 stage Jumo 213E's? to achieve the high altitude performance? Otherwise it's a D-9, isn't it, or maybe less?

The Me-262 was faster, climbed faster turned better than the P-80A, so even if the P-80 was rushed into production it wouldn't have mattered. Besides the Me-262A1 was ready and flying in 1943, a good deal earlier than the P-80.

I thought we were discussing end of war, and while the 262 was 'flying' when did it go to it's first operational combat unit - JV 44? and in Jan 1945 would you say it was 'far superior' to P-80 or Meteor. I would buy 'better' but far superior brings into play aspirations of lower quality pilots having a chance against pros because the airplane is that good - would you say that was the case against the Meteor and YP-80 say in March-April 1945

I don't know about the std. Constellation but the Ar-232B could haul very big loads. Remember that the Constellation of the 1940's is a whole different animal than the Super Constellation of the 50's!

The C-69 L049 was 7800 # payload, at 275mph for 3680 miles and 18,400 # payload for 2290 miles. I can't find a reference that shows the Ar 232 carrying more than 6,000 at 191mph for 660miles. Point me to a better source?

Also the Ar-242 was allot better in the way that it could load larger pieces of equipment than the constellation by virtue of its wider hull and rear loading ramp.

I like that feature- hence my comment on C-82 and 119. But payload and speed is crucial for transport, and while only 69 were produced as C-69 before war, that was a lot more than the Ar 232, which the LW never really contemplated to replace the Ju 52. Why?

Anyway if we were to go by max loading capacity and speed the Germans had quite a few other a/c, the Ju-290, Ju-252 (VERY high speed load capability!) BV-222 just to name a few. In terms of highest and biggest loads carried the Me-323 easily takes the prize though, being used to transport panzers amongst other heavy material to the frontline.

I didn't judge - I compared the C-69 and C-46 and C-47 utility versus the Ar 232 which you posed as 'best'. If that wasn't 'best' what do you propose as alternative?

Me-323

Lockheed Constellation Specifications:
Dimensions:
Model 049 Model 749 Model 1049G Model 1649
Wing span: 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 0 in (37.49 m) 123 ft 5 in (37.62 m) 150 ft 0 in (45.72 m)
Length: 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m) 95 ft 2 in (29.00 m) 113 ft 7 in (34.62 m) 116 ft 2 in (35.41 m)
Height: 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m) 24 ft 9 in (7.54 m)
Wing Area: 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,650 ft² (153.28 m²) 1,654 ft² (153.66 m²) 1,850 ft² (171.87 m²)
Weights:
Empty Weight: 55,345 lbs (25,104 kg) 58,970 lbs (26,748 kg) 73,016 lbs (33,120 kg) 91,645 lbs (41,969 kg)
Loaded Weight: 86,250 lbs (39,122 kg) 107,000 lbs (48,534 kg) 137,500 lbs (62,369 kg) 160,000 lbs (72,575 kg)
Performance:
Max. Speed: 329 mph (529 km/h)
@ sea level 358 mph (576 km/h)
@ 19,200 ft (5,852 m) 370 mph (595 km/h)
@ 20,000 ft (6,095 m) 377 mph (606 km/h)
@ 18,600 ft (5,669 m)
Cruising Speed: 275 mph (442 km/h) 327 mph (526 km/h) 305 mph (491 km/h) 290 mph (466 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 25,500 ft (7,770 m) 22,300 ft (6,795 m) 23,700 ft (7,223 m)
Max Range: 3,680 miles (5,920 km) with
7,800 lb (3,538 kg) payload 4,150 miles (6,678 km) with
3,300 lb (1,496 kg) payload 5,250 miles (8,449 km) with
8,500 lb (3,856 kg) payload 6,180 miles (9,945 km) with
8,000 lb (3,628 kg) payload
Range
Max Payload: 2,290 miles (3,685 km) with
18,400 lb (8,364 kg) payload 1,760 miles (2,832 km) with
16,300 lb (7,393 kg) payload 4,140 miles (6,660 km) with
18,300 lb (8,301 kg) payload 4,940 miles (7,950 km) with
19,500 lb (8,845 kg) payload
Powerplant: Four Wright Cyclone
R-3350-745C-18BA-1
engines rated
@ 2,200 hp (1,640 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone
R-3350-749C-18BD-1
engines rated
@ 2,500 hp (1,864 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone
R-3350-972TC-18DA-3
turbo-compound rated
@ 3,400 hp (2,535 kw) each Four Wright Cyclone
R-3350-988TC-18EA-2
turbo-compound rated
@ 3,400 hp (2,535 kw) each

 

[Soren]

I love Luftwaffe aircraft especially the Bf 109 which is my favorite aircraft. I just think it is funny how an airforce that is "superior" in all regards to the allied airforces and can never do anything wrong did not win the war.

Does anyone else wonder this as well?

What I'm wondering about is why do people want to twist what I'm saying ??

Did I ever claim that the LW was ahead in EVERY REGARD ???

What I'm saying is that in terms of quality equipment the LW was the best, but in terms of quantity it was obviously behind.

Also important to the success of an AF is properly trained pilots, wittout this it almost doesn't matter what a/c you have, and the LW seriously lacked these trained pilots in 44 to 45.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What I'm wondering about is why do people want to twist what I'm saying ??

Did I ever claim that the LW was ahead in EVERY REGARD ???

What I'm saying is that in terms of quality equipment the LW was the best, but in terms of quantity it was obviously behind.

Also important to the success of an AF is properly trained pilots, wittout this it almost doesn't matter what a/c you have, and the LW seriously lacked these trained pilots in 44 to 45.

You need to calm the **** down Soren. Did I mention "Soren" anywhere in my post?

If it does not apply to you then you dont need to worry about it. If it does apply to you, well....

 

[pbfoot]

The pilot strength was typically 32 (4 lights of 8 pilots) per squadron, plus at least 4 from HQ (GP CO, Exec, Ops and asst Ops).

For a fighter Group (wing) the total number of personnel was closer to 900, bomg group larger because of number of ground crew and air crew for multi engine, large, ships.

A fighter ground crew was Crew Chief, Asst Crew Chief and Armorer. Specialized ground personnel included armament, communications, service group mechanics (engine change core teams, sheet metal, hydraulics, electrical, etc) in the Service Group plus MPs, Base Defense, Admin, Chaplain, Medical officers, etc.

just for arguments sake as i agree the USAAF was the best in size and in projecting power but was it as efficient as I mentioned earlier a RCAF fighter wing was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades so for an extra 10 aircraft you have 170 more personal .
you asked earlier for the breakdown on numbers trained in Canada
Pilot
RCAF 25,747
RAF 17,796
RAAF 4,045
RNZAF 2,220
Total 49,808 include in the RAF numbers are the Czechs ,Poles , Dutch, Norwegians

 

[Soren]

Come on Adler, who else was giving the LW some credit in the last few posts but me ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Like I said. If it does not apply to you then dont worry about.

Back on topic now...

 

[syscom3]

I gave you credit for the advanced aircraft catagory.