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
And they lost....
Would of could of should of....
Damn right.
Because of the lack of decent arguments for the Luftwaffe. I get a feeling that most people are voting for Luftwaffe just on the basis of a range of sexy aircraft towards the end of the war and the high scores of the aces.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
The luftwaffe was on its heals after the 8th af started to seriously attacking the Germany proper in a head to head challenge in 1944 the USAAC beat down Luftwaffe strength and became the prey no longer an attacking force but one that was cornered fighting for its very existance. I believe the air force that was 2nd best would be a better poll. The luftwaffe never had a strategic component worth talking about and although they tried the transports and coastal forces were totally lacking
What are you talking about? The Army and the Navy have nothing to do with what is the best airforce? Sorry...
Granted a good military can use its Airforce and Army combined in joint operations but tanks on the ground and infantry and the Battleships on the seas do not determine what is the best airforce.
Herr Scheiker said:
Bit off more than they could chew.
The Luftwaffe had great aircraft but the best aircraft in the world are not going to save you from the massive numbers of allied aircraft in the air.
Combine that with poor leadership, and lack of specialized aircraft such as strategic bombers and a better strategic cargo and transport for logistics and inferior numbers they were certainly not the best.
I love Luftwaffe aircraft and think that the best aircraft of the war were German but I will not kid myself into believing that the Luftwaffe was the best airforce in WW2. From 1939 to 1942 I would say yes they were, but after that it went downhill real fast.
These sort of topics deserve special treatment. It is in a way similar to those "Best/Worst" "Fighter/Bomber/Bomber Destroyer" type of aircraft.
In the end the allies reached the adequate balance of ingredients in the recipe to defeat the enemy:
(i) A huge red army that proceeded ahead with complete disregard for losses; this is probably one of the most critical elements within the allied chain: the guys of the US Army and British Army were simply not willing to spend too much of their own blood -ask the U.S. Army after getting gutted by Rommel in the Kasserine experience-; if you have an ally that simply does not give a crap about any number of his own dead, wounded or missing, better impossible. Make a smart use of such condition, but also respond to his whining urging you for more support -opening more fronts-; sure, support him, but in the manner that suits you better.
Still, all that size and willingness to loose soldiers and war materiel is of very little use for the USSR if the USAAF is not in the air farther west Europe, and if the U.S Army and Brits do not land in North Africa/Mediterranean/Normandy.
(ii) A good and powerful combination of naval assets in the atlantic (USN/RN);
(iii) A large, powerful and competitive USAAF making the bigger part of the aerial work, and also a RAF and a less competitive VVS.
Still, my vote goes for the USAAF, hands down.
Although there are many aspects regarding the overall perfomance of the USAAF in the ETO that are way too much overhyped also featuring an interesting and juicy menu of myths (Mustangs, "Big Week" type of battles, accuracy of bomber missions, etc.) it is simply the best overall aerial branch in the war.
Without the type of display of the USAAF in the ETO the poor RAF goes nowhere and the aid of the soviet air force is simply not enough either.
In the end the allies reached the adequate balance of ingredients in the recipe to defeat the enemy:
(i) A huge red army that proceeded ahead with complete disregard for losses; this is probably one of the most critical elements within the allied chain: the guys of the US Army and British Army were simply not willing to spend too much of their own blood -ask the U.S. Army after getting gutted by Rommel in the Kasserine experience-; if you have an ally that simply does not give a crap about any number of his own dead, wounded or missing, better impossible. Make a smart use of such condition, but also respond to his whining urging you for more support -opening more fronts-; sure, support him, but in the manner that suits you better.
Still, all that size and willingness to loose soldiers and war materiel is of very little use for the USSR if the USAAF is not in the air farther west Europe, and if the U.S Army and Brits do not land in North Africa/Mediterranean/Normandy.
(ii) A good and powerful combination of naval assets in the atlantic (USN/RN);
(iii) A large, powerful and competitive USAAF making the bigger part of the aerial work, and also a RAF and a less competitive VVS.
Still, my vote goes for the USAAF, hands down.
Although there are many aspects regarding the overall perfomance of the USAAF in the ETO that are way too much overhyped also featuring an interesting and juicy menu of myths (Mustangs, "Big Week" type of battles, accuracy of bomber missions, etc.) it is simply the best overall aerial branch in the war.
Without the type of display of the USAAF in the ETO the poor RAF goes nowhere and the aid of the soviet air force is simply not enough either.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bingo!
Lex McAulay
Recruit
- 2
- Mar 5, 2007
Given the state of the various air arms in 1939 and in 1945, it has to be the USAAF/USN, with enormous air fleets in the war theatres backed by a huge training program and an engineering and logistics support endeavour across the globe, with aircraft that were consistently at the leading edge in performance, improved as time went on, and also supplied their allies.
Very few clunkers in the line-up, unlike the Brits.
Apart from the insistence on unescorted bomber formations, through to October 43, the USAAF/USN was flexible and willing to learn and showed the other side what air power was all about.
Unlike the Germans and Japanese, the US air effort was commanded by people who understood what air power could do, and were backed by a great collection of engineering design offices.
People like Galland were basically ineffective in high command because they were not heeded by the very highest command folks who were yes men to the Fuhrer. No way to run an air force at war. (In Vietnam, different situation but same result from political stupidity.)
1939-1945, consider the size of the air forces and locations of operations and it has to be USAAF/USN.
Very few clunkers in the line-up, unlike the Brits.
Apart from the insistence on unescorted bomber formations, through to October 43, the USAAF/USN was flexible and willing to learn and showed the other side what air power was all about.
Unlike the Germans and Japanese, the US air effort was commanded by people who understood what air power could do, and were backed by a great collection of engineering design offices.
People like Galland were basically ineffective in high command because they were not heeded by the very highest command folks who were yes men to the Fuhrer. No way to run an air force at war. (In Vietnam, different situation but same result from political stupidity.)
1939-1945, consider the size of the air forces and locations of operations and it has to be USAAF/USN.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
They lost the War before that...
Even with all its organizational and managerial flaws, the Luftwaffe is ranked second.
The RAF performance was mediocre during the so called Battle of Britain, and although it managed to survive, it was badly battered and in real bad shape.
Keep in mind the Luftwaffe put the most brutal pressure against them during only a very few months; since Great Britain was not the plan, the Germans put their eyes in the east, even if aerial operations over England were maintained until the spring of 1941.
Although British keepers of the truth love mingling, twisting and manipulating the "official dates" for the occurrence of the BoB, the periods of most intensity of the German aerial offensive are only a fistful of months.
I would have liked to see the RAF fighting against two or three enemy air forces at the same time; if against the Luftwaffe their performance was mediocre, enough to survive though, not forgetting Germany was not seeking anything like "complete surrender" of Great Britain, rather trying to make peace.
Put the RAF to fight two or more enemy air forces and they do not last a month.
RAF organization and management was not any better than the Luftwaffe. The Spitfire Mk. V was still the main stay of the RAF when the Luftwafffe had already phased out the F series having the Gustav as the mainstay. And the Bf 109 G was clearly better than the Mk. V.
The RAF performance was mediocre during the so called Battle of Britain, and although it managed to survive, it was badly battered and in real bad shape.
Keep in mind the Luftwaffe put the most brutal pressure against them during only a very few months; since Great Britain was not the plan, the Germans put their eyes in the east, even if aerial operations over England were maintained until the spring of 1941.
Although British keepers of the truth love mingling, twisting and manipulating the "official dates" for the occurrence of the BoB, the periods of most intensity of the German aerial offensive are only a fistful of months.
I would have liked to see the RAF fighting against two or three enemy air forces at the same time; if against the Luftwaffe their performance was mediocre, enough to survive though, not forgetting Germany was not seeking anything like "complete surrender" of Great Britain, rather trying to make peace.
Put the RAF to fight two or more enemy air forces and they do not last a month.
RAF organization and management was not any better than the Luftwaffe. The Spitfire Mk. V was still the main stay of the RAF when the Luftwafffe had already phased out the F series having the Gustav as the mainstay. And the Bf 109 G was clearly better than the Mk. V.
JG57_Rall
Airman
Okay you folks are gonna get my nickels worth, ("inflation"). A lot of folks think Britain was victorious over Germany and that the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. The truth is America defeated Germany. The RAF were getting their butts kicked and America bailed them out. Anyone remember the Lend Lease program. By the way did the Brits ever pay the Americans back?
I "100%" agree that the concentration of equipment and manpower defeated the Luftwaffe. But to say it was the best airforce is an exercise in patriotism.
If the Luftwaffe had attacked Britain and not fought on so many fronts the RAF would have been destroyed. But the leaders of Germany bit of more then they could chew. And America would have been hard pressed to fight a battle in Europe without British bases. And if I remember correctly Hitler did not want to tangle with the US anyway. That was Tojo who started the fight with America. A fight that would not have lasted as long if America had not had to split its forces.
Of course this is an argument that will go on forever. But if you study the history of the conflict. It was simply a matter of money. The US had more. The war the American Air Force fought was fought on foreign soil. And the American industrial complex was safe from attack. Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
Rall
I "100%" agree that the concentration of equipment and manpower defeated the Luftwaffe. But to say it was the best airforce is an exercise in patriotism.
If the Luftwaffe had attacked Britain and not fought on so many fronts the RAF would have been destroyed. But the leaders of Germany bit of more then they could chew. And America would have been hard pressed to fight a battle in Europe without British bases. And if I remember correctly Hitler did not want to tangle with the US anyway. That was Tojo who started the fight with America. A fight that would not have lasted as long if America had not had to split its forces.
Of course this is an argument that will go on forever. But if you study the history of the conflict. It was simply a matter of money. The US had more. The war the American Air Force fought was fought on foreign soil. And the American industrial complex was safe from attack. Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
Rall
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
Rall
Would of, could of, should of.....
Okay you folks are gonna get my nickels worth, ("inflation"). A lot of folks think Britain was victorious over Germany and that the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe. The truth is America defeated Germany. The RAF were getting their butts kicked and America bailed them out. Anyone remember the Lend Lease program. By the way did the Brits ever pay the Americans back?
I "100%" agree that the concentration of equipment and manpower defeated the Luftwaffe. But to say it was the best airforce is an exercise in patriotism.
If the Luftwaffe had attacked Britain and not fought on so many fronts the RAF would have been destroyed. But the leaders of Germany bit of more then they could chew. And America would have been hard pressed to fight a battle in Europe without British bases. And if I remember correctly Hitler did not want to tangle with the US anyway. That was Tojo who started the fight with America. A fight that would not have lasted as long if America had not had to split its forces.
Of course this is an argument that will go on forever. But if you study the history of the conflict. It was simply a matter of money. The US had more. The war the American Air Force fought was fought on foreign soil. And the American industrial complex was safe from attack. Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
Rall
Well lets see here:
Yes, USA had the greatest b/c :
- B/c its industries were not under attack by air or land. The best bomber there is, is a tank sitting right on top of an enemy's plant.
- It had the greatest industrial base in the world, no one was even close.
- It's planes were of the finest quality (not always the best but very very good), top quality.
- It had the best long range bomber in the world.
- It had bucket loads and very highly trained pilots.
- It had the BOMB, that no one else had.
- It adapted proven tactics quickly.
The end.
Next you said the LW was "could" of defeated RAF...? When in the BoB? During all of WW2? When are you talking about?
Next you said USA defeated Germany. How? During the air war? In WW2?
Actually it does not matter when you were talking about in this case. USA did not defeat Germany by herself. The Allies defeated Germany, thats including Russia, USA, UK (including all her allies also) they defeated Germany together.
To end this post I agree with Joe:
Would of, could of, should of.
That is rediculous! Sorry but you are wrong. The RAF was able to defeat the Germans in the BoB without the US. I will go as far as saying the Luftwaffe was better than the RAF during the BoB but the simple fact remains the Luftwaffe did not win airial superiority and did not win the BoB. So how did the US defeat Germany in the BoB? Come on now...
Yes it is true the allies could not have done it without the US lend lease but when it came to fighting the war, it was an allied effort. THE ALLIES DEFEATED GERMANY.
JG57_Rall said:Things may have been a little different if the Me-264 had been built in the numbers the B-17s were built in.
Rall
As others stated Could have, Should have.....did not.
The Germans realised the need for heavy Strategic bombers when it was too late.
Wold you guys agree with the notion it was the entrance of the U.S.A. in the war that sealed the destiny of the conflict?
If for some reason the U.S.A. remains isolated, i do not think Germany can be defeated.
What´s interesting is the fact there are people in the west who gets pissed off at the idea of USAers believing it was the USA who won the wat "alone".
If most of these guys could visit or stay in Russia for a while, they´d be likewise pissed off to discover the bulk of the russians do believe and affirm it was the USSR who won the war alone, and that any sort of contribution made by UK and USA is either marginal or non-existant.
They´d be discovering an entirely new approach to the matter. 8)
If for some reason the U.S.A. remains isolated, i do not think Germany can be defeated.
What´s interesting is the fact there are people in the west who gets pissed off at the idea of USAers believing it was the USA who won the wat "alone".
If most of these guys could visit or stay in Russia for a while, they´d be likewise pissed off to discover the bulk of the russians do believe and affirm it was the USSR who won the war alone, and that any sort of contribution made by UK and USA is either marginal or non-existant.
They´d be discovering an entirely new approach to the matter. 8)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
To a point I agree...
That's what Joseph Kennedy (Ambassador to the UK) wanted.
Rightfully so - the US involvement was certainly a "deal sealer" but we didn't or couldn't do it alone
I met people from Russia who knew little or nothing about the war in the Pacific. It seems that part of history was conveniently left out of their history books.
I would say it was a mixture of the entrance of the US and the invasion of Russia that sealed Germany fate. Germany could not fight both of these massive nations in terms of equipment and man power.
-Yes USA sealed the deal, the last nail in the coffin.
-Not sure about Germany being beaten by UK and Russia alone. But damn it would of been alot more Russians killed thats for damn sure. It would of been a real slobber nocker, drag out fight. Very hard to call who would of won.
-Yes I also have read, seen and talked to people from USA who believe "they won" the war for the allies. Russia also believes that without Russian involvement the allies would of lost.
I will say this, if one or the other, USA or Russia, were not on the allied side then the war would of been much harder for the allies to win. Russia and USA were both HUGE help to the allied effort, which did more to aid the allies win? Thats a different thread, but a good one to debate.
Flyboy and hunter: agreed.
Being the member of a family highly involved in the military is that as boy, all i had heard was USSR did it all by itself.
It was not until i grew out of childhood and going to live abroad that i commenced hearing others stories.
I recall a small party we had at the appartment of a big friend of mine in Moscow a few years ago; with me was one of my Brit cousins, visiting Russia for the first time. Of course he did not -and does not- speak russian and to one point the lengthy conversation branched out to ww2. The debating increased the heat in the room, and my cousin asked me, "what the hell are they saying?" my response was "they are pissed off at the americans who claim to have won the war all by themselves".
Then, one of the other russian guys who handles english repeated the same thing to my cousin, but added "that is a lie...WE WON THE WAR ALONE!!!"
My cousin was with his eyes wide open to hear the comment. He already had issues with the notion of USAers saying they won the war alone, but that night he learned something new, from the other guys -and felt deeply pissed off to know of one of the parties claiming to have baked the cake all by themselves-. 8)
Being the member of a family highly involved in the military is that as boy, all i had heard was USSR did it all by itself.
It was not until i grew out of childhood and going to live abroad that i commenced hearing others stories.
I recall a small party we had at the appartment of a big friend of mine in Moscow a few years ago; with me was one of my Brit cousins, visiting Russia for the first time. Of course he did not -and does not- speak russian and to one point the lengthy conversation branched out to ww2. The debating increased the heat in the room, and my cousin asked me, "what the hell are they saying?" my response was "they are pissed off at the americans who claim to have won the war all by themselves".
Then, one of the other russian guys who handles english repeated the same thing to my cousin, but added "that is a lie...WE WON THE WAR ALONE!!!"
My cousin was with his eyes wide open to hear the comment. He already had issues with the notion of USAers saying they won the war alone, but that night he learned something new, from the other guys -and felt deeply pissed off to know of one of the parties claiming to have baked the cake all by themselves-. 8)
Hell everyone knows John Wayne won WWII single handed. Seriously though the whole Team America "We saved your ass" crap from certain individuals does tend to piss the few Brits with some national pride left. Even on the outbreak of the BOB their were some US journalists who gave us 6 weeks at most.
I am very much aware/indebted to the US contribution to the war but don't try pissing on are chips by taking away the victories achieved by both the RAF and her allies pre 1941 and their subsequent involvement.
In terms of numbers of Germans killed on the eastern front, the Russians could claim to have done more to defeat them. In terms of the land war German tank design should give us a pointer in who the Germans thought where the main threat post 41.
In the end it was a victory for all the allies apart from the Polish. But all paid the price in blood.
PS. Me264 in greater numbers than the B-17 never gonna happen even in a thousand years.
I am very much aware/indebted to the US contribution to the war but don't try pissing on are chips by taking away the victories achieved by both the RAF and her allies pre 1941 and their subsequent involvement.
In terms of numbers of Germans killed on the eastern front, the Russians could claim to have done more to defeat them. In terms of the land war German tank design should give us a pointer in who the Germans thought where the main threat post 41.
In the end it was a victory for all the allies apart from the Polish. But all paid the price in blood.
PS. Me264 in greater numbers than the B-17 never gonna happen even in a thousand years.
