Best Air Force 1943-1945

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What was the best Air Force from the period of 1943 to 1945?

[tomo pauk]

Fighters - Allied forces have better prop planes for the period, but LW introduces jets.
SE bombers - IL-10 is the bird here.
TE bombers - Axis forces lose badly here, RAF has Mossie (with Bristol offering good ones), USAAF receives A-26, Russians get the Tu-2.
4-engined bombers - USAAF has the best bird here. Along with nuke.
Transport - USAAF has the lead.
MP - USAAF (Consolidated's planes) - but here we have USN to interfere?
Numbers - USAAF.
Manpower - USAAF.
Radars - RAF & USAAF.

The winner is clear.

[parsifal]

my opinion, the USAAf is clearly ascendant. LW is in a full nose dive, RAF now subordinated to the US, japan is also in a nosedive. VVS has some really good equipment, but the aircrews still are not quite up to standard

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you completely by this point. By this point the USAAF was the most formidable air force in the world. Combination of equipment, quality, pilots and training as well its world wide projection make it the finest in the world by this point. The Luftwaffe was on a serious decline by 1944. Still had top notch aircraft but either not in the quanitities needed or lack of fuel and trained pilots. The end was obvious by this point.

[renrich]

Yep, by January, 1944, the USAAF had to be rated as the most powerful in the world with the RAF next and the LW hanging in there but struggling. As a tactical air force, the VVS was effective.

[Saetta66]

Among the Others there was a bunch of unbeatable losers called Aeronautica nazionale Repubblicana (northern Italy) e Aeronautica Cobelligerante (Southern Italy) who tried to keep on doing their duty even if everything was lost ...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Among the Others there was a bunch of unbeatable losers called Aeronautica nazionale Repubblicana (northern Italy) e Aeronautica Cobelligerante (Southern Italy) who tried to keep on doing their duty even if everything was lost ...

Certainly commendable, but in your opinion what sets it apart from the other air forces?

[pbfoot]

one has no choice but to place the USAAF overall first particularly in numbers and in certain equipment like long range intercepters,B29, transport, logistics and industrial might however I quibble about quality of aircrew . I cannot figure out how aircrew were superior in the USAAF over Commonwealth crew most , from what I've read most USAAF aircrew were not as capable in a bad weather enviroment as their flight training for the most part took place in areas not kmown for inclement weather. The USAAF was also well behind in nightfighting and intruding
I also ask if you wanted a precision mission performed which would you prefer the Commonwealth or USAAF.

[buffnut453]

I'd also point out that the B-29 only entered operational service halfway through the period in question and it probably took some time to build up sufficient numbers for it to be a viable force. Until that time, the Lanc (IMHO) ruled the roost as the best long-range heavy bomber. Perhaps things aren't so cut and dried in favour of the USAAF?

[parsifal]

B-29s were not really effective until very late in 1944, when tthey began flying low, at night and using incendiary packages that had been developed earlier by the brits in their offensive over Germany. High level HE armed raids just couldnt deliver enough tonnage of bombs to destroy Japanese cities. For some reason the US had determined that the japanese population had to be targetted as wel as point targets like factories

Converting to low level incendiary raids added the fuel load of the cities themselves to the fuel load, and hugely increased the leathality of the b-29....and then came THE bomb, of course

[syscom3]

While the USAAF was not #1 in everything, it was at the top in most. And even where it was lacking, it was still good enough to be near the top.

The USAAF had the resources to build what it wanted, in any quantity, and piloted and maintained by competent crews.

The RAF never had that capability. A very fine organization. But putting out a few great aircraft types manned by a limited number of superb crews, doesn't hold up to the shear industrial and organizational powers the US had at its disposal.

[parsifal]

A good summary Sys, and correct of course

[pbfoot]

While the USAAF was not #1 in everything, it was at the top in most. And even where it was lacking, it was still good enough to be near the top.

The USAAF had the resources to build what it wanted, in any quantity, and piloted and maintained by competent crews.

The RAF never had that capability. A very fine organization. But putting out a few great aircraft types manned by a limited number of superb crews, doesn't hold up to the shear industrial and organizational powers the US had at its disposal.

I disagree with the comment of limited competent crews there was never a shortage of crews in fact it was the reverse . I also would like to mention how much of a jump start the USAAF was given when in Dec 41 when approx 5000 trained aircrew transferred from RCAF to USAAF. I say RCAF rather then RAF as only approx 250 Americans were in the RAF and near 10000 were in RCAF even though many Americans servedd with RAF Squadrons they were RCAF and remained so as the pay was much better

[Saetta66]

It sets apart form the other air forces simply because the ratio aircrafts/number of ennemies was so high that the percentage of comin back safe was probaly almost zero. That's it . The German and the Jap aviations have got this gap only in the last months or weeks of war ....

[buffnut453]

While the USAAF was not #1 in everything, it was at the top in most. And even where it was lacking, it was still good enough to be near the top.

The USAAF had the resources to build what it wanted, in any quantity, and piloted and maintained by competent crews.

The RAF never had that capability. A very fine organization. But putting out a few great aircraft types manned by a limited number of superb crews, doesn't hold up to the shear industrial and organizational powers the US had at its disposal.

Syscom,

I think we need to be a bit careful here. Whilst the US undoubtedly had amazing manufacturing capacity, it did not have unlimited resources although I fully accept that its full resources were never reached. The comment about Brit limitations must also be placed in context - the RAF was, after all, over 1,100,000 men in uniform in 1944.

Despite the large scale of the USAAF, there were still some things it didn't do very well, particularly during the early stages of the period in question - integrated air defence, night fighting, massed shipping strikes, precision night bombing (although I accept this was as much doctrinal as technical as the USAAF wanted to persist with daylight attacks), support to resistance operations etc.

I guess it depends on how you define "best". If it's the biggest, then the USAAF easily wins, although again I think that's more the case towards the end of the period rather than in the 1943-early 1944 timeframe.