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
I think it took me about 30 seconds.. I still have a lot of respect for Yeager but I do understand and respect Dan/Joe POV as I have seen the 'other side'.
I sometimes have a tendency to speak my mind - when no one is particularly hanging on every word and usually forgot to ask me for it!
I am no fan of Yeager either, but I do respect what he has done.
Thats why we love you Bill, that and you do have lots of good information to offer on USAF.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Ditto all round'
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
If one is to use geography to determine whether a battle is big or not, well then I believe the Battle of the Pacific would be a bigger battle than the Battle of the Atlantic. The Allies never came close to losing either. Using geographical size as a criteria, The Battle in the Far West culminating in Glorieta Pass was the biggest battle in The War of Northern Aggression. Much bigger than the Battle of the East. I wonder how Lee and Sibley felt about that? Let's see, at Sharpsburg, there were more than 23000 casualties in one day. In the Battle of the West over a period of months there were a few thousand casualties. The size of the geography involved doesn't work for me to define the size of a battle or it's importance.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
drgondog
Major
Still sore about losing a war 150 years ago?
I am.
It won't be long now, that those Confederate Dollars we stashed away in 1865 will be worth more than the US dollar.
I'm not actually sorry that the South (and Texas) did not prevail, but think how much fun we could have with Yankees if we were part of Opec now?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You guys are killin me...
drgondog
Major
Soren - neither do I.
In all seriousness the industrial revolution was killing slavery just based on economics. That isn't what the unpleasantness was about.
It was all about Power in the Legislature going increasingly to the North based on Population growth, and those industrial interests forcing South 'buy Yankee/No England' for machinery and equipment (by taxing crap out of English goods), then 'sell cheap' to Yankees/not England' for agricultural good from the south.
Slavery actually went past it's natural death in the South because 3/5 of the slave population in the South counted toward census and Districting for House of Representatives, and even with that the South was losing ground in Congress.
So imagine the helpless feelings the Southerners had in this scenario when the Emancipation movement (or freeing the slaves voluntarily) threatedned to reduce the balance of power even more. In a limited sense the South was feeling like they were 'Sharecroppers' for the North, with the North in complete control of the Agricultural economy via taxes and trade tariffs.
Back to this little sidetrack - I'm with Rich...
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Back to WW2
I don't believe I stated that Great Britain had the industrial capacity of the U.S, sys. What I did say was that if Great Britain had deployed strategic forces to the CBI/PTO then both forces would have been projecting power in all their theatres, making them equal.
The size of the air force was not important; you seem to have a Soviet mindset. And I know you have to drag the rest of the world to America's feet to try to prove a point, but don't forget that support worked both ways in World War II.
The size of the air force was not important; you seem to have a Soviet mindset. And I know you have to drag the rest of the world to America's feet to try to prove a point, but don't forget that support worked both ways in World War II.
Glider
Captain
At the end of the day the UK were behind the USA in a number of areas.
Heavy Bombers
The Lanc and the Halifax were good comparisons to the B17/B24 but the Lincon wasn't close to the B29
Long Range Fighter
We had nothing to compare to the P51
Transport
An area often not considered but at least as important as any other types. We had some good designs but only a handful in service.
Naval Aircraft
Basically we had lash ups (Seafire, Sea Hurricane) obsolete design criteria (Firefly 1), or embarrasments (Barracuda)
In most of these areas the UK had some good designs but as Germany found out, good designs don't win wars. Good designs in production and widespread service, win wars.
Heavy Bombers
The Lanc and the Halifax were good comparisons to the B17/B24 but the Lincon wasn't close to the B29
Long Range Fighter
We had nothing to compare to the P51
Transport
An area often not considered but at least as important as any other types. We had some good designs but only a handful in service.
Naval Aircraft
Basically we had lash ups (Seafire, Sea Hurricane) obsolete design criteria (Firefly 1), or embarrasments (Barracuda)
In most of these areas the UK had some good designs but as Germany found out, good designs don't win wars. Good designs in production and widespread service, win wars.
You're right, design vs. design the U.K was behind the U.S in a lot of areas. But that's not what's important; the ability to project power in varying degrees and in various areas is what's important.
If it's wanted to compare the best of every countries aircraft type in every area then that's fine. But the fact will always remain that the U.S was on top simply because it projected tactical and strategic power in all its theatres. The U.S could have been using fleets of Stirlings instead of B-17s and escorting them with Zekes ... to me, to an extent, the amount of and designs of aircraft is unimportant.
If the U.K had no U.S designs, it'd still have been better than the Luftwaffe.
If it's wanted to compare the best of every countries aircraft type in every area then that's fine. But the fact will always remain that the U.S was on top simply because it projected tactical and strategic power in all its theatres. The U.S could have been using fleets of Stirlings instead of B-17s and escorting them with Zekes ... to me, to an extent, the amount of and designs of aircraft is unimportant.
If the U.K had no U.S designs, it'd still have been better than the Luftwaffe.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
There is a persistent story floating around that has been used here to demonstrate that the US may not have had the "best" AF in WW2. That story is that the RN "taught" the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers. Being perhaps the most ardent Corsair supporter on this forum I thought I would try to research this to ferret out the truth. The following is my effort. Most of the research has come from Dean's "America's One Hundred Thousand" but some is from a book By Tom Blackburn and some from the Web. The first two Corsairs were accepted by the USN on July 31, 1942. The first Corsair Sqd is VMF 124 and it gets it's first AC late in Sept. 1942. On Sept. 25 the USN performs initial carrier tests on CVE26.(note this is a jeep carrier) they note that visibility on landing is poor, cowl flap actuators leak, oil leaks from engine, bounces on landing and tail swings on landing because flaps blank tail surface because of short tail wheel. Oct. 3, 1942, VF12 rec. 1st AC. November, 1942, the 5th production AC has been modified with raised pilot seat and new canopy to improve visibility. This is included on all production after #689 in 1943. December, 1942, cowl flap actuators are changed and upper cowl is sealed over on all production. January 14, 1943, first ten AC of VF12 are operational. Feb. 15, 1943, VF17 gets first F4U. March 1943 VMF 213 becomes operational in SW Pacific. March 4, 1943 VF 12 is aboard CVE 13(jeep carrier) Tires tend to blow out on the new long strut tail wheels. During training 14 pilots are killed and the AC is considered tricky to fly with bad stalling characteristics. June 1, 1943, RN SQD #1830, first RN SQD to receive Corsairs is formed and begins training on Corsairs at Quonset Point, R.I.(not carrier training) July 15, 1943, VF17(Jolly Rogers) goes aboard Bunker Hill for a Carribean shakedown cruise. They encounter tail hooks that break off and have to be replaced. Vought promises to relace their F4U1s with F4U1As with the raised cockpits and canopies when they return from the cruise. September 28, 1943, VF17 fully operational with F4Us leaves aboard Bunker Hill for the South Pacific. Upon arriving on the West Coast their Corsairs are off loaded and they are sent to the pacific as a land based SQDN. The Navy has decided that because the pipeline of spares is already filled with Hellcat parts the Corsairs will not be used on carriers for the time being. Blackburn is disgusted. November 11, 1943, During air strikes on Rabaul VF17 who have had it's tail hooks put back on lands on carriers to refuel and then take off to return to land bases. All Corsairs land and take off safely. January 9, 1944(around six months after the first RN squadron receives it's first Corsairs and begins training (not on carriers) four F4U2s(night fighters) begin operating off the USS Enterprise. May 16, 1944, the Navy Evaluation Board decides the F4U1D is the best all around fighter available and reccomends that all carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to F4U types. It seems clear to me that although the RN operated the Corsair successfully off of carriers during the war and may have contributed to the overall effort in getting the Corsair ready to go to sea, they did not even come close to "teaching " the USN how to operate the Corsair off of carriers. I don't believe that information gotten from the History Channel or Wikipedia is always accurate. Whew, I am exhausted, I need to tke a nap!
