WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Lucky13]

Fellow gentlemen, members of the "family" and worshippers of the golden joystick........ With all the talk about the best this and best that, I can't remember any talk about the quality of the machines itself. So, who had the best quality in their products between '39 and 45, the best way of solving problems with their machines etc.? We're not putting Supermarine Spitfire against Messerschmitt 109, Vought F-4U against Focke Wulf 190....no, let's do it country by country. U.S., Russia, Germany, GB, Italy, Japan..... Who was the better builder in UK, Supermarine or Hawker, Germany, Messerschmitt or Focke Wulf, U.S., North American or Grumman, Russia, Mig or Lavotchkin etc.? You get the point....

[Njaco]

Brewsters out.

I would say, especially with US and Germany, quality might be hard to pinpoint on one company seeing as a manufacture was sometimes undertaken by several companies for the same aircraft. I could be wrong.

But if anything, I would choose (with my limited knowledge) North American had some quality machines.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Quality of Luftwaffe aircraft declined as the war progressed. I am not saying that the Germans were incapable of making quality machines but the lack of raw materials made for using materials that normally would not be used.

I would say for the most part the allies quality remained about the same throughout the war. Having said this they had the raw materials to do so.

I do however agree with Njaco that you can not really pinpoint it because different companies were making the same aircraft and the quality could vary from company to company.

Either way this is going to make for an interesting discussion especially with some of the members here.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Quality of Luftwaffe aircraft declined as the war progressed. I am not saying that the Germans were incapable of making quality machines but the lack of raw materials made for using materials that normally would not be used.

I would say for the most part the allies quality remained about the same throughout the war. Having said this they had the raw materials to do so.

I do however agree with Njaco that you can not really pinpoint it because different companies were making the same aircraft and the quality could vary from company to company.

Either way this is going to make for an interesting discussion especially with some of the members here.

Chris - you don't really think there are members with strong opinions on this subject do you?

I would speculate (without proof) that the Brits certainly were on par with anyone in context of quality and ahead in context of pioneering use of wood in high performance a/c.. having said that is comparing the Mossie to Ta154 a fair comparison? I don't know, and certainly USSR has to compete here also

I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did. We went from mass producing razor blades and cars to aircraft that are still in service today (i.e C-47 last built in 1944).. Nobody compares to methods used to produce a Liberty ship in less than 5 days (Great Brit design!). Nobody consistently put pencil on paper to innovative new aircraft first flight like we did.

Having said that the He162 is an example of German capability also

As to specific unit quality - interesting question with too many variables largely time based. On one hand we started w/all man force and quickly trained new workforce with no prior skills including black and female and turned 'em out. On one hand Germany started with highly skilled labor and gravitated to slave labor whose enthusiasm for quality may have been 'suspect'.

Jes my thoughts

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Chris - you don't really think there are members with strong opinions on this subject do you?

It will be interesting my friend....

Originally Posted by drgondog

I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did.

Agreed

Originally Posted by drgondog

Having said that the He162 is an example of German capability also

Agreed as well.

Originally Posted by drgondog

As to specific unit quality - interesting question with too many variables largely time based. On one hand we started w/all man force and quickly trained new workforce with no prior skills including black and female and turned 'em out. On one hand Germany started with highly skilled labor and gravitated to slave labor whose enthusiasm for quality may have been 'suspect'.

Jes my thoughts

Agreed as well.

[ppopsie]

Quality; an interesting subject to me. I would like to ask you guys about what was the best quality manufacturers in each nations.

An excellent reading; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ysis-6399.html

As for Japan and of the production of A6M Zero either by Mitsubishi and Nakajima, some people saying in favor of Mitsubishi for its workmanships. That was however after major part of skilled male workers were drafted from the factories.

[Njaco]

I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did.

Drgn, would you give the USSR some credit for their production methods, ie moving whole assemblies within days? I know the thread is aircraft quality but were Russian machines of quality or just quanity? I agree with you on the US and we probably take the cake, hands down, but when bringing in the subject of mass production I think the Russians might have a slight edge in that. The quality of their machines I'm not that familiar with.

[plan_D]

Off my knowledge of tank production; the Soviet Union was poor. It was all quantity.

T-34s were rolling off production lines without optics and IS-2Ms did not have tempered frontal armour. Just a couple of examples ... they were crap.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed pD. Credit must be given to the Soviets for there ability to work under the conditions that they did but they were all about pumping out quanitities of equipment but were not to worried about quality.

It did work for them though. It got the job done.

[Njaco]

Thanks Pd,You always hear about how the T-34 changed tank warfare but I guess it was design over quality. Learn something new everyday. Thanks.

[AL Schlageter]

The fit and finish of the Me262 was certainly not that good with the amount of body filler used as can be seen in photos of non camouflaged 262s.

[plan_D]

The best built T-34s would have not been as well built as the Western Allied or German machines; they certainly would not have had the added features (radio being left from many Soviet tanks) and, as I said, some were rolling off without optical sights leaving the gunner to guess ... even those with optical equipment did not compare to the Germans or Western Allied.

The armour production of the Soviet Union was pathetic, at best. And the T-34 was not reliable ... it was just easier to fix. The reliability, probably, comes from the poor build quality.

[AL Schlageter]

That sounds like early war T-34 production plan_D. Did this continue for the rest of the GPW?

[plan_D]

Yes it did. The IS-2M had the exact same problems with quality of build.

The only improvements in Soviet armour forces was the slow (and slow has to be bold) introduction of radio sets.

[Njaco]

And the T-34 was not reliable ... it was just easier to fix.

What would be the definition of Quality? If something is easy to fix would that count?