Best WWII Air-Force

[Hunter368]

Agreed 100 percent. I have never claimed anything different.

I just get tired of the everything the allies built was inferior to what the Germans built thing that goes around...

I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.

I am not saying or suggesting that you do this I am just giving you my opinion and beliefs on the matter.

I know at times is is hard to walk away, I have argued with Syscom many times on such things. Some people just can get to you when you are having a bad day......and then it goes from there. I turn a blind eye as much as I can to such behavior no matter who is doing it.

Soren certainly is not the only one guilty of being one sided at times here. Perhaps he believes he has to be to offset those who believe the USA did everything right in WW2.

Oh well, it will never change. PS I voted the USA best AF by the way. LOL


Hmmmm my 2000th post, hero cookie for me today!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.

Agreed...

Lets get back on topic though. I think I have derailed this eneogh.

 

[Marcel]

I agree with you but I think you would agree that there are those on both sides of the fence on this site. Those who think USA built everything perfectly and those who think Germany did like wise. Both are wrong, sometimes a person just has to walk away and let people think what they want.

Good post and exactly what I thought.

 

[plan_D]

Back on topic,

Single machines were not important in making a great air force - a mixture of aircraft types and the ability to perform all tasks required to win the war are what make a good air force.

I've said it before; the USAAF is 1st because they achieved everything in every theatre they fought in. The RAF is second because they never had a strategic campaign in the CBI. The Luftwaffe is third because it had no strategic arm, but achieved greater tactical superiority and flexibility than the VVS and IJAAF.

 

[drgondog]

Back on topic,

Single machines were not important in making a great air force - a mixture of aircraft types and the ability to perform all tasks required to win the war are what make a good air force.

I've said it before; the USAAF is 1st because they achieved everything in every theatre they fought in. The RAF is second because they never had a strategic campaign in the CBI. The Luftwaffe is third because it had no strategic arm, but achieved greater tactical superiority and flexibility than the VVS and IJAAF.

Excellent Summary Plan_D.. I also do think the relative positioning was most certainly a function of time with the 'early days' led by LW, 'middle period' by RAF and 'last phase' by USAAF.

 

[plan_D]

That is true. In terms of years the Luftwaffe was No.1 from '39 - '41; the RAF was No.1 from '42 - '43 and the USAAF was No.1 '44 - '45. The RAF strategic arm really came to the front in '42. And I think the USAAF didn't truely step far and ahead in the ETO until '44, maybe very late '43.

In the PTO/CBI the IJAAF was number one (obviously not including the USN and IJN air power) 'til about '43, I reckon.

 

[drgondog]

That is true. In terms of years the Luftwaffe was No.1 from '39 - '41; the RAF was No.1 from '42 - '43 and the USAAF was No.1 '44 - '45. The RAF strategic arm really came to the front in '42. And I think the USAAF didn't truely step far and ahead in the ETO until '44, maybe very late '43.

In the PTO/CBI the IJAAF was number one (obviously not including the USN and IJN air power) 'til about '43, I reckon.

I tend to lump in all arms that project force via aircraft as Airpower whether by naval supplied island bases, carriers, land bases, etc... which is why the Brits and then the Yanks surpassed the Japanese, then the LW as the war unfolded. That is a key reason I considered that Britain surpassed Germany in 1942 from a depth and reach position of strength.

The AAF and USN were mostly defensive in Pacific, even Midway, through Solomon Island Campaigns - and CBI until late 1942. After that, combined with RAF and ANZAC airpower, started hounding Japan everywhere except Formosa and Okinawa and Japan.

I guess it was B-29 strikes from China that the war (somewhat ineffectively) was finally moved to mainland in 1944.

 

[syscom3]

I tend to lump in all arms that project force via aircraft as Airpower whether by naval supplied island bases, carriers, land bases, etc... which is why the Brits and then the Yanks surpassed the Japanese, then the LW as the war unfolded. That is a key reason I considered that Britain surpassed Germany in 1942 from a depth and reach position of strength.

The AAF and USN were mostly defensive in Pacific, even Midway, through Solomon Island Campaigns - and CBI until late 1942. After that, combined with RAF and ANZAC airpower, started hounding Japan everywhere except Formosa and Okinawa and Japan.

I guess it was B-29 strikes from China that the war (somewhat ineffectively) was finally moved to mainland in 1944.

For the Pacific, after middle 1943, the AAF and USN were growing exponentially stronger as each month went by, untill by the end of the year, it essentially was a AAF/USN airwar. The domination of the US in the airwar was complete, whether it was AAF/USN air groups or aircraft supplied to the allied units.

 

[Barrett]

Did anybody nominate the US Navy?

 

[syscom3]

Did anybody nominate the US Navy?

The USN was incorporated into the rankings of the AAF.

 

[Njaco]

With all that has been posted I think it downright near impossible to decide who had the best AF - for all the arguments stated. Of course whoever wins the war can lay the claim.

Best has many ingredients - not just the largest or best quality or longest served. If I was Erich Hartmann flying the only airplane that Luxembourg has (a P-51 say) would that make Luxembourg best?

That being said, I would choose the way Plan D did - for the years he posted, for all the reasons previously posted.

 

[simonsays]

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.

You seem unaware of the difference between a 'war', a 'campaign' and a 'battle'. The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic. Take a look at a map and look at the huge area the battle took place over, and include the distance north to south. I am not ignorant enough to have grown up unaware of the Eastern Front. In fact if any one country 'won the war' it was more likely to have been the Soviets. The reason they did this was by countering then driving the Germans right back to Berlin. But suppose the Soviets Union had failed at Stalingrad. Image what would have happened. German forces tied up holding the western Soviet Union against continual partisan attacks and a campaign from the East. How would this have impacted the overall outcome of the war compared to an Allied defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic? The Allies came very close to losing this battle and support from across the Atlantic was a vital life-line to the UK. Had the Kriegsmarine triumphed the game would have been over. Again, this is my opinion formed from a strategic point of view. There are very few military historians who do not refer to the Battle of the Atlantic as the biggest battle of WWII. Yet again, the Soviet numbers of killed etc. are not the whole picture. Do you see my point now?

(My Grandfather and his brother were both wounded at Gallipoli and I still fail to see the connection you made)

As for the Pacific War, the clue is also in the title. Does exactly what it says on the can.

As for the original point I made over the Corsair. It was a superb airplane once mastered. The Royal Navy receiving 95 Mk Is and 510 Mk IIs. By the end of the war they furnished 19 FAA Sqns. However, the point I made related more to aircrew standards of training and wartime experience, and I stated that the USN had had such a terrible time with accidents trying to land them with the units formed (like USS Bunker Hills' Jolly Rogers...yada...yada...yada...) that Corsairs were seen as ineffective as carrier aircraft as they were impossible to land safely. As such they were then farmed off to the USMC with the tail hooks removed to operate from airfields only.

The early US aircraft had poor stall characteristics for carrier approaches, leaked oil on the windscreen and the long nose obscured the pilot's view. They bounced too much on landing often causing the aircraft's tail hook to miss the arrester wire. After prolonged tests the USN stated that their new 'wonderplane' was a dud. It had the ability to outperform and outgun the Zero but it needed time to get its sea-legs and the Navy was not prepared to wait. They decided to relegate the Corsair to play only a supporting role in the Pacific theatre. (Remember the theme of this thread- Best Air Force of WWII)

The USMC found a place for the Corsair in the Soloman Islands campaign as a close air support aircraft. There can be little doubt that what the USN and USMC pilots lacked in initial experience and strategic know-how they more than made up for in bravery. In fact, it was 'The Black Sheep' squadron's bending of the rules and regulations counter to what they were told to do that made them so successful. (Remember the theme...best air force)

The Fleet Air Arm was the first operational carrier Corsair force. The FAA corrected most of the Corsair's faults and resurrected it as a carrier aircraft in 1944. The Royal Navy used it in both Europe (for air cover during the attacks on the Tirpitz etc.) and in the Pacific.

'Red' James, the USMC Corsair pilot stated that "Well, they gave the Corsair to the Limeys to let them worry about it, and they worried about it, and they fixed it. The Royal Navy played a great role in the Corsair's development".

According to Hill Goodspeed from the Naval Aviation Museum in the USA, the Royal Navy had Corsairs operating from flat-tops a full 8 months before the US did. I have just watched film of Fleet Air Arm pilots teaching the USMC pilots how to land. They taught the USN and USMC pilots how to land on carriers by approaching the flight deck at a right angle from the port quarter so as to increase visibility, then to swing that aircraft round in a gentle curve on final approach to land it safely. It was this event that heralded the first use of USMC aircraft on USN carriers.

The entire story is recounted on the Corsair episode of the History Channel's 'Battle Stations' TV series as well as on the Corsair's Wikipedia entry.

I think you should perhaps take your own advice about spouting off. I have something to contribute but lots to learn, and that's the way I like it. I would like to point out that it was my contribution to the discussion that breathed new life into the British Commonwealth Air Forces being the best, when the American contributors to this site could only see the USAAF as the one winner. It is a question of lateral thinking, at being able to see the bigger picture, of sticking to the original question, of appreciating the circumstances under which the RAF operated, the huge area they operated over and of considering the long, hard 6 years they fought. I would like to think that by raising these points, I have at least put them in the Best Air Force of the middle of WWII in even the most cynical mind.8)

As a European, I was accused by Flyboy of thinking only in terms of one continent (Europe, I suppose). Prior to that statement I had already mentioned the British campaign in Burma killing four times as many Japanese troops as were killed in the US Island hopping campaign.

I have a BA in Int'l Business Japanese from both a UK and a Japanese University, an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies, live in Japan with my Japanese wife, am a Japanese language translator/interpreter and have been in Japan since 1994. I live in a city totally destroyed by USAAF bombing and have frequent coversations with older Japanese in Japanese about those raids. I have also been many, many times to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Tokyo. I have also spoken to A-Bomb victims and the orphans of those killed by the A-Bombs in their own language. I am well aware of the Pacific War and the massive US effort in it. Perhaps now I have showed my hand I may pass your strict criteria for taking part in this discussion?

By the way, my specialisation in the Japanese academic world is wartime responsibility, the rewriting of history, creation of patriotic myth and general epistemology (why we think we 'know' what we 'know'). This whole discussion has been as revealing on that subject as it has on WWII air forces!

Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.

It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.

Many thanks for your understanding in advance.

 

[syscom3]

The following is where I see the US having the lead over the rest of the combatants.

1) Types of aircraft in all catagories
2) Heavy bombers
3) Global reach
4) Production capabilities
5) Industrial capabilities
6) Economy
7) Naval aviation
8 ) Skilled manpower base

All of these taken together means the US was the best in 1944 and essentially became magnitudes better in 1945.

 

[plan_D]

syscom, the only part of the U.S Air Power that makes them No.1 is the fact that they had a strategic force in the PTO - if the RAF had a strategic force in the CBI or PTO it would still be a level playing field for me.

 

[drgondog]

Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.

Be grateful. Joe enjoys letting me make an idiot of myself with my 'long running' posts!

It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.

Many thanks for your understanding in advance.

That is the way forums with a lot of participants work - administrators 'administrate' and if we fail to see the humor in it, we live with it and somehow life goes on.

I have been whacked (mostly appropriate) but have found it makes a lot more sense to take my perceived 'injury' off line?

Regards,

Bill

 

[syscom3]

syscom, the only part of the U.S Air Power that makes them No.1 is the fact that they had a strategic force in the PTO - if the RAF had a strategic force in the CBI or PTO it would still be a level playing field for me.

The US had more heavy bomber groups in the PTO than the RAF had in its entire inventory.

Not to mention the huge numbers of other aircraft we supplied to the RAF and
RAAF.

Now show me where your production capabilty came close to what the AAF had.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy, please do not feel free to group a double-posting of mine into one. You have not done that for your own sequential posts or those of Bill etc. By doing this a few pages ago you made my two different comments run together and lose their intended, individual meanings. You then admonished me for it.

It is a fact that, when many are writing, online posts come in within minutes of each other. The new ones unseen whilst the current one is being typed. Often one post refers to a different post than the other. The fact that they appear sequentially one immediately after the other is not on purpose.

Many thanks for your understanding in advance.

No - you will not run numerous posts and I will combine them and edit as I feel required. Based on some of your intial posts I'm going to tell you straight out you're on thin ice. - if you don't like it go play in another sandbox, and I'm only going to tell you this ONCE! I hope I make myself abundantly clear!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is the way forums with a lot of participants work - administrators 'administrate' and if we fail to see the humor in it, we live with it and somehow life goes on.

I have been whacked (mostly appropriate) but have found it makes a lot more sense to take my perceived 'injury' off line?

Regards,

Bill

Thanks Bill....

And by the way - I posted two consecutive posts on purpose!!!!

 

[drgondog]

You seem unaware of the difference between a 'war', a 'campaign' and a 'battle'. The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic.

I am curious regarding the distinction you make between Campaign and Battle when illustrating the Battle of Atlantic as a 'Battle'. It seemed more a Campaign in which combatants engaged frequently in many locations, over time, in which clashes occurred frequently in the same loacations despite the passage of time, and never truly was over until approximately May 8, 1945?

As a European, I was accused by Flyboy of thinking only in terms of one continent (Europe, I suppose). Prior to that statement I had already mentioned the British campaign in Burma killing four times as many Japanese troops as were killed in the US Island hopping campaign.

I have a BA in Int'l Business Japanese from both a UK and a Japanese University, an MA in Advanced Japanese Studies, live in Japan with my Japanese wife, am a Japanese language translator/interpreter and have been in Japan since 1994. I live in a city totally destroyed by USAAF bombing and have frequent coversations with older Japanese in Japanese about those raids. I have also been many, many times to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Tokyo. I have also spoken to A-Bomb victims and the orphans of those killed by the A-Bombs in their own language.

Why is this relevant to 'Best Air Force'?

I must admit I took personal offense with this comment for personal reasons and experience as a child in Tokyo, Itazuke and Tachikawa from 1948-late 1950. I was not made to feel exceptionally 'adored' as a Gai jin. Nor did I expect it, but didn't understand the hostility. I suspect that we may not have killed as many civilians as the Japanese managed just in China alone.

I'm not proud of achievements relative to civilian deaths, particularly children. I am reminded that Japanese leaders had the full and unyielding support of all their people old enough to think and believe in the Emperor's divinity and infallibilty. I know tens to hundreds of thousands of orphans resulted from actions by both the 'forces of light and darkness' in that struggle. .. except for nations that chose to remain 'neutral' to the issues at stake.

So, what is your reason for bringing up Japanese orphans absent context of Chinese, Burmese, Phillipino, Korean, Australian, New Zealand, Indonesian, American, etc 'orphans'. ?? What point were you making?

By the way, my specialisation in the Japanese academic world is wartime responsibility, the rewriting of history, creation of patriotic myth and general epistemology (why we think we 'know' what we 'know'). This whole discussion has been as revealing on that subject as it has on WWII air forces!

It is always nice to be corrected in both attitudes and facts as we progress the journey of life.

Having said that, many 'academics' are the very worst at revisionist history and in a particularly strategic position, via teaching to advance their POV.

I would offer one for your comment if you choose. There seems to be widespread acceptance within the UK teaching community that presenting details and 'facts' about the Holocaust is Politically offensive to many, and therefore should be stricken from teaching curricula? This is an example for UK, perhaps for various interests in Middle East. Do you see that trend moving to the EU?

Was Gen'L Eisenhower right when he said in 1945 'Show them, record it in detail. There will be far too many who wish to deny this and we must never let the world forget what happened here' - (paraphrased but essentially the comment when he visited the Third Reich Rest Homes for the Jewish' after VE Day.

This thread is NOT the place for this, but if you open one in Politics, I would like your thoughts?

Regards,

Bill (aka 'Texas Redneck')

In your notes and observations regarding Japanese 're-writing' of history - which fact bases do your draw from? Other historical accounts?

 

[drgondog]

Thanks Bill....

And by the way - I posted two consecutive posts on purpose!!!!

Lol. Considering I have a.) posted the same post TWICE consecutively, not on purpose, b.) posted twice consecutively much of the same posts but with another comment rather than edit my first.. I have no righteous dogs in THIS hunt.