Most underrated air forces in WWII?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As Grey Ghost noted, all airforces had their share of brave and resourceful men.

Also, How do you really define "underrated"? Achieved more with less? Actually had good machines and pilots but this was not widely appreciated at the time or today?

While I have utmost admiration for all things Finnish, I wouldn't consider the Finnish airforce "underrated" at all. We all know about its great sucess against the USSR in the winter war with mostly hand-me-down equipment, as well as its later successes in the continuation war as German allies with a lot of more modern German equipment. Nobody who knows anything undervalues the skill and resolve of the Finns.

How about France? Because France as a nation bellied up very quickly as a result of poor strategic planning and defeatist leadership, not many people realize the excellent materiel and training French fighting forces had. France had introduced, or was introducing in 1939-40, fighters and bombers in the same calibre as what Germany and Britain had, and these were far better than what Italy had. In the little appreciated "southern" front after Italy invaded, the French airforce gave the Italians far more than they could handle.

I'd second the votes for some of Germany's other Allies, particularly Hungary and Romania, who both produced effective warplanes and flew them effectively against the Allies.

I'd also second the votes for the Canadians, South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders. During WW2 many people tended to lump each of these individual Dominions into a generalized British" effort.
 
zoomar said:
As Grey Ghost noted, all airforces had their share of brave and resourceful men.

Also, How do you really define "underrated"? Achieved more with less? Actually had good machines and pilots but this was not widely appreciated at the time or today?
Click to expand...

Can be any one or a combination of those things, really. Only reason I put the Regia Aeronautica ahead of the Finns (and only slightly) is because of the even greater logistical challenges they faced on several fronts, battling top-rated air forces such as the RAF, FAA, USAAF, and (early on) Armée de l'Air.

I think the Finns were at least equal, probably better, to the Italians overall in terms of pilot skill and their ace count bears that out to a degree but it's also worth mentioning that they were in a very target rich environment and the VVS was both seriously lacking in well trained pilots and quality aircraft until at least '42. Also the FAF were largely defending their home soil, not trying to wage large air offensives like the RA was.


Seconded--my grandfather was a Finnish national who fought in three conflicts over his homeland, including the 1918 civil war. I know what sisu means.

I still think they deserve the mention, because the Winter and Continuation Wars were considered "minor" conflicts in the broader scope of WWII and thus don't get much (or at least AS much) attention when the truth was that they were anything but minor. If the USSR managed to steamroll Finland I have no doubt that Sweden and Norway would've been next on the agenda. The Finnish forces not only served admirably land, sea and air, they played a great part in ensuring that Scandinavia would not fall under the Iron Curtain.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you mean by underrated, and when. If you are looking at air forces most under-rated by their opponents at the time of entering combat, I'd say it would be the Japanese by a mile. At the time of Pearl Harbour most of the Allies thought of the IJN and IJA as myopic midgets flying scond rate reproductions of obselescent western aircraft. The reality was they had the best pilots flying the best aircraft and they spent the next six months wiping the floor with everyone they faced. I can't think of a greater disconnect between peception and reality than that.
 
Very true Cobber - there was a rather arrogant attitude to the 'Yellow Peril' (note - no offence intended - this was a derogatory term at the time and is not intended this way in my post, it is used merely to illustrate my point). The Germans also under rated the RAF on the eve of the Battle of Britain.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
The contributions of the Commonwealth countries are often under appreciated.
Click to expand...

Who by? certainly in Britain the Commonwealth airforces and aircrew are not under appreciated. You only need to attend a British Legion and speak to the veterans and you will hear glowing accounts of Commonwealth airmen, sailors and soldiers. In 1939 it wasnt the Commonwealths fight but they didnt let the Old Country down and you will never hear a bad word said about the volunteers who came to our countries aid.
 

An excellent point and completely true up to the beginning of the Pacific War.

However, I would argue this attitude basically flip-flopped after the first few months when the Commonwealth and US realized they were up against a modern and well-trained IJNAF and IJAAF. Then, the Japanese pilots became invinciple supermen and their airplanes the best in the world. This image is no more correct than the negative image. Japan went to war with aircraft that were cleverly designed around underpowered engines to acheive as much as speed, manuverability and range as possible. The Zero, Hayabusa, G4M, Ki-21, and others were compromises that - at no point in their deployment - were absolutely better than the best British and American counterparts they faced. They seemed so superior because the the allies were technically and emotionally unprepared to face large numbers of modern Japanese planes that were well-flown by extremely well-trained and experienced aviators, who themselves were riding a wave of success.
 

I would not say under appreciated per say, but certainly overlooked. I am not one of them. Their contribution was immense in my opinion.

You don't have to look far though to see what I mean by overlooked. There are some people on this forum that consider them nothing but a side show to the USAAF.

As I said though, I am not one of them.
 
I would make a vote for the IJAF, The navy get most of the attrention but I have been very impressed with how well the IJAF did in burma even towards the end of the campaign. Their standard aircraft the Ki43 was totally outclassed but reading the Shores history of the war they often gave as good as they got right up to the end.
 
andy2012 said:
What about the Polish AF? Polish pilots in PZL-11 fighters shot down over 170 Germans. Plus look at there contribution in the exiled Polish Air Force in the UK, though they were not using Polish planes, the still had a large impact.
Click to expand...

Totally correct, antiquated gullwinged open cockpit fighters, more suited to the first world war then what they were actually required to do. the level of training that the polish pilots were given in the cadet schools was second to none. My father was an instructer pre-WW2 at Deblin flying school and he told me that thier gunnery and formation and air to air training was coveted by the germans as it was extremely rigourous. for example, formation flying was done with the wings of thier planes joined to eachother by cord. they were required to take off, circuit and land with the cord unbroken!
The air to air gunnery and air to ground gunnery far exceeded any thing that an RAF squadron could achieve. this is documented in a book entitled `Destiny can wait'. A gunnery competiton between the RAF and attached PAF squadrons had Polish squadrons in the top 2 or 3 positions everytime they competed.
The Polish pilots were fighting from foreign soil to free thier country and thier history with the Germans fuelled the hatred that they had. They were dedicated to the point of ramming to bring down the German fighters. It is a known fact that several Polish pilots did not count the kill unless the pilot was dead ('Mike' Gladych my father included)
 
The Poles. A short sharp campaign in which, in the air at least they gave better than they got. After a months hard fighting, much of its personnel escaped firstly to France, then to England, fighting the whole way. Despite losing their country and many aware of the impending threat from the east, they continued to fight, and well.

And what did we do to repay them? The story did not end well
 
I would say, if we are talking on opinions in the West, the Soviet Air Forces. It had major weaknesses, fighter tactics were much too rigid, but somewhat the same situation was with Fighter Command and in 1941 it was just getting in service a new generation of war planes but majority of fighters and attack planes in service when Germans attacked were obsolescent, a bit like France a year before. Most of the pilots were reasonably well trained, but not with the just appearing new fighters. Also the command system was much too rigid and thanks to the Stalin purges, many in upper echelons were inexperienced. But at least older I-16 and I-153 were much nimbler than Bf 109, so their pilots had at least some aces in their hands. DB-3F was very reasonable medium bomber for its time and there were plenty of them. And VVS did reasonably well against JAAF in Khalkin Gol during the summer of 1939.

After the catastrophe of the early summer of 1941, Soviets were forced to drastically to cut the training of the new pilots which led to the continuation of the massive losses. But that was not anything unique, Fighter Command cut its training during the summer of 1940, LW, IJAAF and IJNAF did the much of same in later war years. Always the results were same, you cut the training to keep your AF manning level at reasonable level but the end result was growing losses. With the Fighter Command cuts were not so drastic but with LW, IJAAF and IJNAF situation developed into deepening downward spiral. VVS survived and with better planes, better tactics, better control and command system and better training (Soviet say that the Germans were hard but good teachers) and by the fact that bigger and bigger part of the LW, especially fighters , were moved to other fronts up to the early 1945, when the German high command saw that the air war in the west was irrevocable lost and moved most of its fighters to the east.
 
Last edited:
great post ... Soviet say that the Germans were hard but good teachers .... so true ... so true.
The Great Patriotic Ideological War made the modern USSR ... tested it with the best.
Perhaps the same can be said of China ... the Japanese invasion and occupation created a unified spirit in the people .... anti-japan ... and for the first time in centuries the people identified with their Army. This grassroots willingness to accept sacrifice was the fertile soil that the Communists were able to cultivate. Japanese Invasion the bond, the enabler that made a cohesive, modern, industrial-state China feasible. ["Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze" - Peter Harmsen] Brilliant read.
 
Last edited:
China's biggest issue were their pilots early on had been trained by the Italians, who gave more credence to status the person held in society over their skill. As an example of the mentality when Chennault took over, training by a number of their pilots was seen as being beneath them. It took them awhile to weed out that philosophy.

I have to go with the Poles, they fought a two front war from day 1 not fully equipped and when Poland fell, joined other Air Forces and continued to fight.
2nd place I would go with the Siam Air Force. They fought the French, Chinese, Japanese, British and American and remained a viable fighting force.
 
The Fleet Air Arm. Before 1944 the Royal Navy was always short of Carriers, Aircraft and Pilots. In certain ways the RN in the Med and Indian Ocean theatres was in a similar position to the Finnish Air Force, fighting overwhelming odds against aircraft that sometimes had overwhelming performance advantages.
 



Plus James "Stocky" Edwards who was an Air Force unto himself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

11th Air Force
Replies
7
Views
716
GreenKnight121
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
Info on air crews?
Replies
1
Views
672
Snautzer01
D
"Self-inflicted" heavy bombers damages in 8th Air Force
Replies
2
Views
1K
Daniel BASTIEN
D
Menu
Log in
Register