Best WWII Air-Force

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren you whole arguement is based off of what ifs and should have and could haves.

The problem, it did not....

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

What does this have to do with the events of WW2?

Taken out of context, nothing.

From the few sorties it made, it did look like the best by the end of the war in Europe. But only one problem Soren, It wasn't a magnitude better than other allied types so you were going to need to build huge numbers of them just to be effective. Its a plane that was too little too late. Unable to influence the battle when it counted.

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The P38L didn't have compressibility problems, the Tempest was not an interceptor/escort fighter, The P47 was a low altitude great fighter bomber and the F4U was a carrier fighter that was great in some roles and not so great in others.

No no Syscom3, I'm not the one mixing apples & oranges, Bill is, he compared the Tempest to these a/c, not me.

Inferior in defensive firepower, inferior in avionics, inferior in payload/range in actual combat enviornment, inferior in reliability, inferior in production numbers and inferior in combat record, blah blah blah.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war & daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew & escorts being the prime reason for it.

Soren, air power is the ability of an air force to project power and destroy the enemy. If your air force can do neither, then its inferior. Your LW could neither project power nor did it influence the battle after 1943.

Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!

So you admit that the Allies were using good aircraft flown by good pilots?

They mostly were yes.

BTW Soren, in the first part of 1944, the US only had several P38 and P51 groups (using early model types) that had to cover all of the B17's and B24's. Yet they inflicted some nasty loss's on the LW. Thats a great indication that one of two things occurred.... the pilots were superior to the LW, or they were "good enough" but flew better fighters. Which is it?

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's & Fw-190's were giving the RAF & USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

So its 1944 that the AAF could do that. And it was the navy that did the sub hunting, not the AAF. By the way, the AAF gave the various naval air forces around the world a lot of B24's to go U boat hunting. Thats something the LW never had during the war.... a good 4 engine bomber for maritime patrol.

Condor is the word.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

Soren, you still haven't come to grips that the US industrial supremacy was building 1st rate products on a massive scale. Training vast numbers of pilots and ground crews to a high quality standard. And then using the superiority of those air forces to destroy anyone opposing them.

And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale - the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.

Your LW was deficent in the following:
long range fighters

Wrong.

strategic doctrine

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?

industrial techniques (untill it was too late)

German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.

training programs for new pilots

Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).

four engine bombers.

We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.

fighter bombers

You must be kidding me right ??!!

The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!

command structure (Hitler and his minnions just couldn't keep their hands off, could they?)

Agreed.

Your LW was ahead in the following:
Jet technology
Night fighters
advanced concepts for the "next war"

Agreed.

The AAF and LW were equal in the following:
Fighters

German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc

medium bombers

Agreed, the Mosquito made sure of that.

avionics

Agreed, they both featured some advanced products that the other didn't.

And I'm sure the RAF experts would like to add a thing or two on portions of their AF that were superior to the LW.

Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??

[mosquitoman]

Army Air Force, you dipstick.
BTW, the Kondor had a minor fault in that it's wings had a tendency to fall to bits on landing because it was originally a passenger plane and the heavy extra equipment made it too heavy for it's construction.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

Better, but not fantastically so. The latest models of the Spit were comparable, and the P47N had similar high altitude capabilities. A generational difference would be similar to a Ta-152 vs a P47D.

In the end, it was a great airplane but it came on the scene right when the war ended and it had no impact.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war & daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew & escorts being the prime reason for it.

Every stat I have seen on the -277 had it carrying several manually aimed light MG's compared to a CFC system on the B29 which controlled 12 heavy MG's. Avionics? Since when? Its developement stopped when the B29 was in production and being upgraded from time to time. Reliability? How do you know its reliability since it never went on a combat mission. Payload? There never was a WW2 bomber that actually carried its stated payload to maximum range simply because of weight growth.

Wrong, look abit more into 1943 Syscom3 - the LW could certainly project its power!

Care to tell us about the big bombing campaigns in 1943 that amounted to something?

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's & Fw-190's were giving the RAF & USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

I was referring to 1944. Not 1943 when I would agree with you.

Condor is the word.

That piece of crap? I would venture to say that even the -177 and -277 were superior to that. If even a F4F could shoot it down with impunity, then I'd say the Condor had no business flying into battle.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

CVE's had no problem doing it. Even sank more than a few U-boats, didnt they? Besides, that naval aviation, not AF stuff.

And you haven't come to grips with the fact the LW was deploying better quality a/c, some also in a massive scale

If they were so good, why were they swept from the sky's before the summer of 1944? The LW also had the advantage of returning most shot down pilots back to duty while the AAF didnt. And yet the AAF kept producing air crews and airplanes.

- the only huge problem was the lack of fuel, pilot training didn't go worse than that of the Allies until 1944.

And beginning in 1944, the LW began to collapse due to misplaced priorities and programs from the prior years.

Wrong.

The LW had no theory or doctrine of strategic bombing. It showed that by not designing any long range bombers untill well after hostilities began, and then never fully supporting the concept and making sure the bombers were built and staffed.

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten ?

We are talking about 1944 and 1945, not the glory years of 1940 and 1941.

German industrial techniques certainly weren't inferior, they were infact better in many ways. The Allies benefitted from quicker production methods though.

Quicker production methods = better industrial techniques. Ever hear of Willow Run?

Nope, the training programs were always excellent, it was only when they weren't exactly followed anymore that they weren't (1944).

So youre saying that the LW had an inferior training program in 1944. That makes the US and allied trainigng programs better.

We've already been over this, and yes the Germans did have good 4 engined bombers.

You havent shown anyone where a single -277 mission proved they were better.

You must be kidding me right ??!!

The FW-190 was one of the very best of WW2 !!

The LW had one, which was good. The AAF had three (P38, 47 and F4U)

German fighters were better: Ta-152H, Me-262 etc etc

Individually, yes. As raw combat power, no.

Errr, AAF means Allied Air Force doesn't ??

Ha!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

One problem Syscom3, the Ta-152H was infact a magnitude better than the Allied fighters. The Ta-152H's Speed, climb rate, maneuverability and ceiling was all much better than that of nearly any Allied fighter.

I certainly could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Ta152 only fought in very very limited numbers on the Russian front. If this is the case how can we be so certain that it was so much better?

Also its worth remembering that Germany was in a desperate situation. Had the RAF been in that position then the Hornet, Vampire would have been in service by then. For the USAAF the later P51's and P80s would have been in service.

Completely Incorrect Syscom3, the defensive firpower was as good or better, avionics were certainly as good, payload was comparable, reliability as good when the bugs were later ironed out. The low production number you should know what is attributed to - a multiple front war & daily bombing raids. The combat record you should know about as-well, lacking fuel, crew & escorts being the prime reason for it.

Defensive firepower wasn't as good lacking the sophisticated controls and as for bugs. Don't assume that they would be easily sorted out.

Its none of them. Go look at the loss records of 1943 Syscom3, the 109's & Fw-190's were giving the RAF & USAAF a licking, and the bombers felt anything but safe in that period, suffering huge losses to the LW.

German fighter pilot losses 1943.
Average strength 2105
Pilot losses 2967
Loss ratio 141%

When the 8th Airforce cut back its daylight raids in November December the German fighter pilots losses reduced by a third.

And even in 1944 it would still be dangerous to sail carriers to the ETO, very dangerous.

I must disagree with this. There were dozens of escort carriers operating in the ETO acting as escorts and assisting with landings. These were a top priority target for the germans and losses were exceptionally low. Can I ask how you back up this statement

Wrong, remember how close the RAF was from being beaten

The RAF were never close to being beaten. Can I ask when this situation arose?
Remember that the LW only grew by around 15% in the entire war. The RAF went from 137 squadrons to 405, hardly the sign of a force on the verge of being beaten.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by drgondog

All other fights were over Russia, France, Italy and the Lowlands where the RAF, RCAF, VVS and P-47 equipped USAAF units had the range to engage. No question that P-47s were scoring in Western Germany plus Holland and Belgium but the 51s and 38s were the primary punishers of the LW in that short period of time.

Regards,

Bill

Of course you're right about the fact that the USAAF did most of the fighting over Germany, but I think the VVS did as much to break the LW's back. I agree with Soren on this. They are often overlooked in discussions like this as their planes were inferior, but the had so many of them and were so willing to sacrifice that they achieved considerable success. I think (but admitted cannot prove it at this moment, I'll read up on this) that the LW lost as many or even more planes to the VVS as to the USAAF.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

I can't remember post from you that ever showed any praise towards anything non-american.

Check my posts more carefully - particularly when I stipulated that the Me262 was the Best aircraft (in my opinion) built and flown in combat during WWII and agreed the Ta152 as best piston engine Fighter and Interceptor (not P-51H or Spitfire or Meteor or F4U)

Read carefully when I say the Luftwaffe was the Best AF through 1942 and into 1943.

Read carefully when I say I think the Lancaster was better than the B-24 (and B-17) all things considered.

Read carefully when I opine that the Me262 was the best Bomber Destroyer (over the Fw190A and why I think so.

Read carefully about my praise for the Mosquito.

Then see if you can make that statement. Your opinion - my written record on this forum.


I have praised the F4U Corsair many times on this forum as one of the very best fighters of the entire war, considering all the roles it could carry out only the FW-190 was really the equal of it.

Actually the Tempest and the P38 were equal to the Fw190 in 'All the roles' even though the Tempest was not used as an Interceptor

You should take a look at the statistics my friend, approx. 80-85% of all German casualties were inflicted on the eastern front,

You made these bold comments before including the statement that the LW was deployed 85% on East Front. I debunked that using Price's Luftwaffe Data Book which you have yet to refute other than waving your arms and saying 'You must believe me!".

I would be interested to see if the entire Ost front even lost the number of LW pilots KIA during the same period, that were KIA in LuftFlotte 3 and LuftFlotte Reich from 1 January through 30 April, 1944 - just battling the 8th AF over Germany alone

If you exclude the Ta-152H then yes, of not then most certainly not. The Ta-152H was the best prop fighter of WW2, and equipped with drop tanks the Ta-152H was the most lethal escort fighter of WW2.

Well the 'situation' didn't permit the Meteor, P-80 or F8F or P-51H to fly escort either and the Ta152H never flew 'escort' missions to my knowledge - so no, you don't have a basis to make the claim as Best Escort Fighter

The P-38 wasn't the equal of the Tempest and neither was the P-47, the P-38 suffered from some serious compressibility issues and the P-47 was a pig at low altitude. The F4U on the other hand is superior to all three.

LOL - the Pig certainly scored well against both the Dora 9 and other 'more agile' LW fighters on the deck - no question about less acceleration on the deck but a superb Attack Fighter, nevertheless. The 38L forward had zero compressibility issues

No, the He-277 was just as good. Had there been enough fuel, trained crew and escorts it would've proven just as good.

If this, if that - you are all about 'IF". So, why did Soviets copy B-29 and produce instead of 'superior' He277?

Incorrect, Germany & Japan used just as good training aircraft, a task which wasn't hard btw.

Name one?

LoL and you call me biased ?! What about the Ju-88, Ju-188, Mosquito & Ju-388 ?? All these were much better than the B-25, A-26 & B-26 !

Ju 88 and series were excellent a/c but noticably absent in 1944 through 1945 timeframe in Tactical or Strategic Bombing role.. On what basis would you describe the Ju 88 series as better than the A-26 or B-26 as Medium Bombers? Cite missions and results please, along with performance with payload. I already stated that the Mosquito could have been a superb Medium Bomber but it really was too valuable to be used in daylight bombing role except for 'special' situations.


Well thats just the thing, this topic isn't about Air power its about the best airforce, but you amongst others see it as if its about the most powerful airforce, well it isn't.

So, an Air Force with one Fw190D, a Me262 a Ta152 and Ar234 becomes the nominated Best Air Force because of quality - not power? Is this how you have been 'objectively' judging the poll question? That would explain a lot.

Do you think the LW would have traded its a/c and pilots for US in 1944? No?


LoL, so excellent that it was restricted from military service in the ETO & MTO yes, it was doomed dangerous to fly! It had many lethal bugs by 1945 and was no where near as servicable an a/c as the Me-262 or Meteor!

You are correct - and the Fw190D-13 and Ta152H and He277 was flawless in the same timeframe? Look up the records for fatal accidents for those a/ in the January 1945-March 1945 timeframe. The USA had the luxury of withdrawing the P-80 for two months while they fixed the fuel pump problem - but the LW did not.

And yet the Me-262 accelerated, climbed & maneuvered better in comparative flights with the P-80 conducted in the US after the war.

check your climb and manueverability comparisons again before making the blanket statement. Cite the facts not your opinion please

I disagree, the F7F was too heavy - the F8F is another story though

Disagree all you wish, facts please

What a load of complete & utter rubbish Bill! The LW was hugely out-numbered in the air, they couldn't initiate an attack without having to oppose a force 5 times their own size - THAT is why the Allies made it through, superior numbers of able aircraft, the LuftWaffe's aircraft were excellent but there were way too few. And it was the exact same thing going on on the ground, where a single Tiger or Panther tank would often have to fight off 5 - 6 Sherman tanks at a time.

I have cited the USAAF Fighter strength available to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany between January 1944 and April 1944 and the available single engine fighters for LuftFlotte Reich and you are completely wrong for the airbattles over Germany with respect to USAAF fighters available to fight LW Fighters. Quit using 5:1 or 8:1 figures until you cite the facts - The 8th AF P-38s and P-51s plus 354FG on loan from the 9th AF was the only Fighter force capable of intercepting German attacks past Frankfurt in that time frame. It is a matter of public record how many were available for both sides.

No, you'll have to go abit further than 1943, mid to late 1944 infact. See the problem with you is that your eyes are completely closed to what the rest of the world possessed at that time, your ridiculous statement that the US could project its power everywhere with impunity in 1943 shows this clearly. Sail your carriers to the ETO in 1943 and your seriously risking loosing alot of them to the German U-boat force.

No I don't, not really. My thesis was "From late 1943 to the present, American airpower was/is the best" . I said with near impunity - and that comment was incorrect for perhaps 10 missions over Germany from December 1943 through the end of the war and completely correct for the PTO.

If you wish to deny the statement for the other 400+ missions it is ok with me but you might seem pretty foolish.

As to the carrier fleets - there was no real purpose other than placing a few on convoy duty to assist in the eradication of the U Boat fleet.. ah, you don't happen to have an example of the US Navy losing a capital ship to U-Boats do you, particularly the 'vulnerable' carrier? I guess the German U-Boat wasn't all that effective in late 1943 and 1944 and 1945? Oh, I know - it was all about numbers not 'quality'

Again your eyes are closed! The US alone merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR & UK had done - the USSR drained the German war-machine more than anything else during the war, and the RAF also certainly took its part in bombing the German industry, it wasn't all US bombers buddy!

LOL Soren. So, the USAAF 'merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR and UK had done"?? Yes the RAF bombed hell out of Germany and forced round the clock approach to defense. Do you wish to present a thesis that the LW devoted more or even same fighter reaction to RAF bombing as USAAF from late 1943 onward? Do you wish to postulate that even the RAF and VVS COMBINED, destroyed as many German fighters as the USAAF? Go for it. Facts please. I suspect without proof that the P-51 destroyed more German aircraft in the last 15 months of the war than the the VVS and RAF combined - I could be wrong but that number is around 9600.

Forget about the VSS ???

No, but it did NOT destroy the Luftwaffe Fighter Arm nor did it inflict as many casualties as USAAF all by itself from Dec 1943 forward.

I am, but unlike you I'm also objective about the rest.

Excuse me but I haven't yet noticed that quality about you

Look up the numbers Soren. Just four of 21 Air Forces within just the USAAF dropped more tonnage and destroyed more German A/c than the RAF and VVS combined from Jan 1944 through the end of the war.. but you think it 'close' choice between US and RAF? And you think you are objective?

Define Objective please

Regards,

Bill

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren no offense but Bill is right. The majority of your arguement is based on "If", "If It", "It almost", "Another few more months" and you state a lot of things but put down no sources or facts to back it up.

You say that best is not allways most powerful. Well I am sorry but the the most powerful in WW2 won and you can not base the quality of an Airforce off of "what ifs".

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Soren no offense but Bill is right. The majority of your arguement is based on "If", "If It", "It almost", "Another few more months" and you state a lot of things but put down no sources or facts to back it up.

You say that best is not allways most powerful. Well I am sorry but the the most powerful in WW2 won and you can not base the quality of an Airforce off of "what ifs".

Chris - an interesting question is "Which Country would NOT trade their Airpower (all aircraft delivered, all aircraft on assembly lines that day, logistics, pilots, pipeline of trained crews) for the US Existing capability Worldwide on Jan1 1944?

Soren? Could you resist holding on to the Luftwaffe? Anyone think the RAF or VVS would stand pat?

Regards,

Bill

[Soren]

Check my posts more carefully - particularly when I stipulated that the Me262 was the Best aircraft (in my opinion) built and flown in combat during WWII and agreed the Ta152 as best piston engine Fighter and Interceptor (not P-51H or Spitfire or Meteor or F4U)

Well I'd certainly like to see where you've said this.

Read carefully when I say the Luftwaffe was the Best AF through 1942 and into 1943.

I agree, and I also agree it wasn't the best in 1944 - 45 but somehow you guys like making it sound like I do, again putting words into my mouth - a very bad habbit of yours Bill!

Then see if you can make that statement. Your opinion - my written record on this forum.

Well considering that I have praised thew F4U as one of the top 3 best fighters of WW2 I'd certainly like you to claim that I am biased again Bill - Your opinion vs My written record on this forum.

Actually the Tempest and the P38 were equal to the Fw190 in 'All the roles' even though the Tempest was not used as an Interceptor

No they weren't, the Tempest was much less agile than the Fw-190 and so was the P-38, the Tempest couldn't be used at high alt because of poor performance and the P-38 at low alt because of poor performance - the Anton suffered poor high alt performance.

You made these bold comments before including the statement that the LW was deployed 85% on East Front. I debunked that using Price's Luftwaffe Data Book which you have yet to refute other than waving your arms and saying 'You must believe me!".

No I said that 85% of ALL german forces were deployed on the Eastern Front, and ~80-85% of all casualties were as-well.

Well the 'situation' didn't permit the Meteor, P-80 or F8F or P-51H to fly escort either and the Ta152H never flew 'escort' missions to my knowledge - so no, you don't have a basis to make the claim as Best Escort Fighter

Again seemingly oblivious to you the reason for the fact that the Ta-152H never acted as escort or as a high altitude fighter was because of lack of fuel.

LOL - the Pig certainly scored well against both the Dora 9 and other 'more agile' LW fighters on the deck

Really ??! Care to prove that claim ?? Remember we're talking LOW alt here !

- no question about less acceleration on the deck but a superb Attack Fighter, nevertheless.

It dived well & could take alot of punishment, plus it featured very good performance at high alt - thats it - at low alt it was a pig, and I've got German test-flight results to back that up as-well.

If this, if that - you are all about 'IF". So, why did Soviets copy B-29 and produce instead of 'superior' He277?

Bad excuse Bill. The B-29 was used because the Russians had a captured example of it, thats why.

Name one?

Sure, BF-108 & Bf-109G-12 - thats two...

Ju 88 and series were excellent a/c but noticably absent in 1944 through 1945 timeframe in Tactical or Strategic Bombing role..

And why the heck do you think ?!! No fighters to protect them or fuel was available !!

On what basis would you describe the Ju 88 series as better than the A-26 or B-26 as Medium Bombers?

Sure, the Ju-88 & Ju-188 were faster, could carry more bombs, higher ceiling, and had a longer range than the B-26. The Ju-388 was much faster in both cruise and max speed compared to the A-26 & could carry a larger payload, plus it had a MUCH higher ceiling - infact all three LW a/c had a higher ceiling than the A-26.

Cite missions and results please, along with performance with payload.

LoL, you're traying to bore me out of this discussion by me having to look up successful missions !

There's too many to cite on this page !

So, an Air Force with one Fw190D, a Me262 a Ta152 and Ar234 becomes the nominated Best Air Force because of quality - not power? Is this how you have been 'objectively' judging the poll question? That would explain a lot.

Don't be stupid Bill, ONE of each ???? No wonder you see things your way

Do you think the LW would have traded its a/c and pilots for US in 1944? No?

Nope, but it would've happily traded its resources for Allied resources.

You are correct - and the Fw190D-13 and Ta152H and He277 was flawless in the same timeframe? Look up the records for fatal accidents for those a/ in the January 1945-March 1945 timeframe.

No you tell me about these fatal accident please ?? Esp. those suffered by the Dora-13, I'd be very interested in hearing about them please !

:Rolleyes:

The USA had the luxury of withdrawing the P-80 for two months while they fixed the fuel pump problem - but the LW did not.

So the fuel pumps was the only problem ?? Dream on.

check your climb and manueverability comparisons again before making the blanket statement. Cite the facts not your opinion please

Right back at you ! I cited the facts, cause fact is that the Me-262A-1 out-accellerated, out-climbed and out-maneuvered the P-80 in post-war comparative flights made in the US.

Disagree all you wish, facts please

I agree, facts please bill.

I have cited the USAAF Fighter strength available to defeat the Luftwaffe over Germany between January 1944 and April 1944 and the available single engine fighters for LuftFlotte Reich and you are completely wrong for the airbattles over Germany with respect to USAAF fighters available to fight LW Fighters. Quit using 5:1 or 8:1 figures until you cite the facts - The 8th AF P-38s and P-51s plus 354FG on loan from the 9th AF was the only Fighter force capable of intercepting German attacks past Frankfurt in that time frame. It is a matter of public record how many were available for both sides.

No Bill, all you have cited is the number of a/c available to the LW, NOT how many could actually leave the ground ! Remember you need fuel to go fly buddy

The number of a/c available to the LW in the air was FAR less than that available to the Allies, so yes 5:1 - 8:1 scenarios were very common, esp. for the dedicated fighters.

No I don't, not really. My thesis was "From late 1943 to the present, American airpower was/is the best" . I said with near impunity - and that comment was incorrect for perhaps 10 missions over Germany from December 1943 through the end of the war

Huh ?? Look up the bomber losses please - I certainly wouldn't refer to that as showing any signs of impunity!

If you wish to deny the statement for the other 400+ missions it is ok with me but you might seem pretty foolish.

Deny ? No need for that, one only has to look up the bomber losses.

As to the carrier fleets - there was no real purpose other than placing a few on convoy duty to assist in the eradication of the U Boat fleet.. ah, you don't happen to have an example of the US Navy losing a capital ship to U-Boats do you, particularly the 'vulnerable' carrier? I guess the German U-Boat wasn't all that effective in late 1943 and 1944 and 1945? Oh, I know - it was all about numbers not 'quality'

Again you don't know what you're talking about - by late 43 to wars end the German U-boats weren't operating near any US carriers.

LOL Soren. So, the USAAF 'merely scratched the Germans compared to what the USSR and UK had done"?? Yes the RAF bombed hell out of Germany and forced round the clock approach to defense. Do you wish to present a thesis that the LW devoted more or even same fighter reaction to RAF bombing as USAAF from late 1943 onward? Do you wish to postulate that even the RAF and VVS COMBINED, destroyed as many German fighters as the USAAF? Go for it. Facts please. I suspect without proof that the P-51 destroyed more German aircraft in the last 15 months of the war than the the VVS and RAF combined -

LoL, the USSR and UK certainly both caused many more German casualties than the US - the USAAF stood for most of the bombing yes, but the damage caused by the bombing wasn't anywhere near as much as that caused by the war on the eastern front, its not even close ! 80 - 85% of all German casualties were on the Eastern front !

I could be wrong but that number is around 9600.

And that figure is made up of pure guess-work and claims, the accurate figure is far less.

No, but it did NOT destroy the Luftwaffe Fighter Arm nor did it inflict as many casualties as USAAF all by itself from Dec 1943 forward.

Combined the RAF & VSS certainly did as much damage to the LW as the USAAF.

Excuse me but I haven't yet noticed that quality about you

And I'm afraid I haven't seen that quality about you either - esp. regarding you complete lack of knowledge on the shortage of fuel in Germany by 1944 -45 and its consequences.

Look up the numbers Soren. Just four of 21 Air Forces within just the USAAF dropped more tonnage and destroyed more German A/c than the RAF and VVS combined from Jan 1944 through the end of the war.. but you think it 'close' choice between US and RAF? And you think you are objective?

Its all about numbers again Bill, the USAAF was present in more numbers. And I'd really like to see you back up the claim that the USAAF destroyed more LW a/c than the RAF & VSS did combined with reliable sources & accurate figures instead of claimed ones.