Best WWII Air-Force

lesofprimus · 03-11-2007, 10:02 AM

Well, there was Kommando Elbe...

Erich · 03-11-2007, 10:07 AM

but the original plan was not to be suicide. it is the same with the written document for the Sturmgruppen pilots that the Gruppenkommandeurs did not force their pilots to sign ....... at all costs bring down a heavy bomber even by ramming as the last cause. The pilots were too valuable the a/c were not. Kornatski who came up with the insane idea later became leader of II.Sturm/JG 4 falling in their second mission so it is just as well the guy was a certified kook.

the for the Rammkommando Elbe it was volunteer to shave the tails off the B-17's and bail out. there may have been 4 kills if that on the April 45 mission most were shot down as they were only armed with mg 131's and no cannons. I've had very lengthy conversations with my friend F.M. who was part of this crazy idea and who has a wealth of info on the mission and the participants

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-11-2007, 10:08 AM

Yes but with that the pilots were supposed to bail out before impact with the bomber. The Germans were not keen on suicide like the Japanese.

Udet · 03-11-2007, 11:42 AM

Japanese air force the best...Rudolph Galland...

Ummm, what the hell is going on here? Was there some party or gathering where legal and illegal substances were distributed?

FLYBOYJ · 03-11-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Udet

Japanese air force the best...Rudolph Galland...

Ummm, what the hell is going on here? Was there some party or gathering where legal and illegal substances were distributed?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-11-2007, 12:42 PM

Sure seems like it huh.

Udet · 03-14-2007, 04:16 PM

Received a message from someone who read my comment saying the Red Army with its huge size was essential in the balance attained by the allied nations to in the end defeat Germany.

He told me that in all 61 divisions were fielded by the U.S. Army in the ETO alone, which is by no means a "small" presence. I agree, and also those divisions were used to open new fronts in North Africa/Mediterranean and later in Normany, giving a great aid to the Red Army.

Still, the ones willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIAs were the soviets, but the remark is accurate and welcome.

Hunter368 · 03-14-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Udet

Still, the ones willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIAs were the soviets, but the remark is accurate and welcome.

I never dimish Russia's role in final victory in WW2 (not saying you are). But to say they were "willing to have whatever number of KIA/MIA" not sure if I 100% agree with that or I would perhaps ask you to explain that comment in more detail. I think they were forced to suffer like they did do to the nature of their army, AF and the fact that the Eastern front was so brutal, it was kill or be killed.

It is an interesting idea to think about actually, why was it so brutal compared to the western front (list reasons why I think but lets see what others think also)?

renrich · 03-14-2007, 05:54 PM

A lot of people seem to think that the BOB was the sole reason that Hitler gave up any plan to invade England. I don't mean to deprecate what the RAF accomplished in the BOB. The effort was magnificent but they did not decimate the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical air force and was not really suited to the task it undertook. The factor that saved Britain from invasion was the age-old English channel and the Royal Navy. In 1940 the German Navy had not the ability to protect an invasion fleet from being sunk by the Royal Navy as long as the RAF could put up even a small amont of support for the Navy. If the RAF during the BOB had been in dire enough straits they could have withdrawn the bulk of their fighters out of range of the Luftwaffe until they were needed to help counter a cross channel invasion. Even without air support it is not a foregone conclusion the Royal Navy couldn't have defeated a German invasion force. I think the German planners realised this and the cool headed ones always realised they had not much of a chance to invade the British Isles.

plan_D · 03-15-2007, 09:12 AM

That has been discussed indepth before renrich. The saviour of the British Isles in 1940 was the English Channel and RAF. The Royal Navy did not need to partcipate because the Royal Air Force deprived Germany of the air support.

In my opinion there are only two air forces that could be in the running for number one spot; that would be the USAAF and RAF. Even disregarding the actions of these two forces they provide the framework for a well-rounded, well-organised air force.

Both the USAAF and RAF had tactical and strategic force in mind. This generated effective ground support for troops and devestating strategic bombardment. No other air force provided strategic arms like these two did and, in fact, no other air force except the Luftwaffe provided tactical organisation on the level of the 9th US Air Force and 2nd Tactical Air Force.

Taking the tactical side alone the USAAF and RAF provided much better support to their troops than any other air force. And could operate in the battlefield for a longer time due to the two party movement system with the battlelines. The Luftwaffe never did this so when a group moved, it would all have to move which took it out of the battle for a few, maybe crucial, days.
No other air force had the organisation of these tactical forces. The Ninth Air Force, as well as 2nd TAF, were organised in a manner that left them seperate from any strategic attacks on the enemy. Given transport, light bombers, medium bombers, fighter-bombers and fighters these units were from one command that co-ordinated the operations to near perfection.

While the tactical side offered pure tactical support, the strategic arm of these forces act seperately but with equal skill and determination. It is this strategic arm that no other air force could match. Without the heavy bombers with doctrine, organisation and fighter escort to support - no other air force could be recommended for No.1.

The logistics provided to both these forces was immense and amazing. Both countries kept their forces supplied throughout the globe from Duxford to Ramat David to Rangoon. From Los Angeles to Kiska to Iwo Jima.

No other air force could do this. No other air force rounded itself to the task of strategic and tactical support, no other air force operated in every task in every theatre.

So, it's close between them both. But I have to vote for the USAAF because while it was behind the RAF in 1939 - overall it achieved something the RAF never did. The USAAF operated both tactical and strategic arms in every theatre it was fighting in, the RAF only operated tactically except in North-West Europe.

102first_hussars · 03-20-2007, 11:11 PM

k good, im not the only who voted RCAF, i voted USAAF and RAF too

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-21-2007, 11:22 AM

And you can only vote once so I will take one of those away. Knowing you, you want to keep RAF though correct. If not let me know and I will change it to the USAAF.

102first_hussars · 03-21-2007, 10:18 PM

oh so were being generalizing now eh? lol yeah well change it to USAAF, because its true

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-22-2007, 10:44 AM

No problem.

HealzDevo · 06-03-2007, 11:08 PM

I would go USAAF as it was able to beat back air power in the Pacific and the European Theatre Of War at the same time. Of course it had help but by and large the USAAF was a big part in helping win WWII. Aircover was especially important in D-Day and the move through Europe. It stopped the German tanks getting through in large numbers. Also in the Pacific it devastated Japanese positions and supported the invading forces in their island hopping.