Best WWII Air-Force

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.

I was going to mention that since the B25 was carrier capable as compared to the JU88, it made it a better medium bomber. But I figured you and Flyboy would slap me down for it!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes we most certainly would have.....

[The Basket]

To my knowledge only the Germans had nerve agents during WW2. German invention,see.

The UK had huge stockpiles of mustard gas which we would fired at any invading army.

British scientists were shocked at what the Germans really had. They assumed they had old WW1 gases as well.

Dammit...I'm having flashbacks to all those CW drills...sure not nice in summer.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by The Basket

To my knowledge only the Germans had nerve agents during WW2. German invention,see.

That is what I thought as well. The Germans invented Saren, Soran, and Tuban before and during WW2.

The allies did not have Nerve Agents until after they captured them before the end of the war.

The same team that invented Saren, Soran, and Tuban invented Cyclosarin in 1949 after the war.

The British invented VX Gas in 1952 and later traded the technology to the US.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Actually if you really wish to get technical then Japan was first bombed by B-25s from a Carrier.

Chris - you are of course right - but my command of the English language failed me. What I intended by the sentence was that B-29's started bombing Japan from China before the Marianas (which required Carrier Task Force to secure).

The intent was to demonstrate to Soren that all kinds of strategic strikes were carried out by USAAF without England or Carriers.

BTW - I was wrong about Sarin being in production in late WWII. It was only Discovered by US (and Britain and Soviets) at end of WWII.

Mustard Gas was the 'threat' by Allies if Germany used poison gas - apparently we were not aware of the Nerve Agents - only the Respiratory types until end of WWII. I believe GB had large stocks of Mustard from WWI still in Britain during WWII

[syscom3]

3) Global Reach.
The AAF by two or three magnitudes better than the LW. The US DID fight in multiple theaters throughout the world, and the LW didnt.

Global reach is the same if Carriers aren't counted - England is what permitted the USAAF to wage war against Germany.

The AAF fought in several theaters in the world, as well as having an operating sceduled intercontiental transport service (beginnings of the MATS?) The LW really only fought in one contienent. It doesnt matter if England wa sint he picture or not. The US could project its power to nearly any place on Earth. There was a B17 pilot in the forum that told us in 1943, his route to the war took him from Florida, to S America, acroos the Atlantic to Africa and then up to Italy. As far as I know, the LW didnt have that capability.

4) Industrial capabilities.
Facts showed that the US was at a magnitude better than the LW and an argument can be made it was 3 or 4 times better. Just the size of the USN was staggering, and if that power was added to the AAF, the LW would be dwarfed. Some thing for Soren to ponder..... the US economy in 1944 was just gathering steam and up to the end of the war in 1945, had no signs of slowing down and factual statistics of the time showed that the war production was getting more efficent each week. The AAF had the resources to build planes AND produce pilots to fly them. The LW didnt.

Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs & priorities.

To some extent? The US had a vast pool of managerial, scientific, technical and engineering personell in which to draw talent to produce things. Plus we had a far richer economy in which to build more of them. Soren, the US industrial capacity was so vast, even for those progams and projects that wasted resources, it had no impact on the overall war effort. Show me where the Germans built more aircraft than the US after Jan 1 1944. The facts are indisputable. The US built far more aircraft and kept them supplied and in operation than anything the LW was capable of.

5) Strategic Bombers.
Again the AAF had a one or two magnitude advantage over the LW. The AAF had two in production before the entry into the war, and had 1 and a half in production added to it during the war. These were bombers in mass production and deployed. The LW had none, except what was on the drawing boards. Soren, ponder this. Multiply the number of heavy bombers built by each air force, times the number of sorties, times the tons of bombs dropped. The LW couldnt be compared in any meaningfull way to the AAF (or RAF).
No one cares about how good your heavy bombers were on paper as they basically never flew a mission that counted (if at all).

The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

So I'd say they're equal.

I dont care about the excuses for fuel and "priorities". The US had the capacity to build vast numbers of fighters AND bombers AND transports AND naval aircraft. The LW didnt. End result, and its extremely clear on it..... in 1944, every week, the US had thousands of heavy bombers available, flying tens of thousands of sorties, dropping tens of thousands of bombs. The LW had only a few planes that were of dubious reliability, or existed only on paper.

Soren, in Dec 1943, tell us how many LW squadrons there were and the number of sorties they flew?

And stop with this nonsense about lack of materials, lack of fuel and lack of pilots. All that proves is your LW might have been to large for what it could actually do.

Its not nonsense, its fact, and the sooner you learn to deal with it the better.

No fuel = no training
No fuel = limited operations
Lack of materials = production and logistics issues.

Sorry Soren. Fuel is the number one sonsideration of any AF.

The size of an airforce is dictated by the number of pilots, and the amount of fuel that can be used for operations.

6) Long range fighters.
The AAF had three long range fighters capable that flew actual 1000 mile (radius) missions on numerous occasions. The P38, P47N and P51. The LW had none.

The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.

The P38 flew 2600 mile and 3200 mile missions. The P51 flew 2600 mile missions. Note that i used a plural form of "mission". The P47N had a design spec for 2000 miles. Now what were you saying about the Ta-152?

Soren, dont say anything about the P38 being inferior to your fighters. The P38 performed supurbly in the PTO and this is about the best AF in the war, not just the ETO.

What a load of rubbish! The P-38 was a turkey compared to the fighter in the ETO, the only reason it did well in the PTO was because it was much faster than its opponents.

The P38 was also used for recon, as a light bomber in "droop snoot" missions. It was the best fighter in the Pacific due to its range. It was good enough in the ETO for the escort role. And as was proven on many occasions in the air-to-air role..... a good P38 pilot flying a P38L, and keeping his aircraft in its best flight "envelope" could dish it out to the -109 and -190 pilots.

7) Fighters.
Tough call on this. Id call it even. A good pilot always flew his plane at the peak of its performance envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake. All fighters had their good points and bad points. The P38, P47 and P51 could just as easily handle their LW and Japanese opponants if they flew smart, and vice versa.

Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 & Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.

In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.

I would agree that using the fighters in a purely defensive role would make them better. But defense is what cost you the war. Your fighters couldnt handle the ranges needed to go on the offensive.

And read many of the threads regarding what plane was the best. Many people proved that every single fighter had its optimum flight paramaters. And any pilot who kept his fighter in that envelope, and his opponant got out of his...... was probably going to shoot him down.

You think that your LW fighters were only the most maneuverable, fastest, heaviest armed and best climber/diver? Think again.

8 ) Fighter bombers.
AAF gets a edge in superiority over the LW. There was only one LW fighter bomber that was good. The -190. The AAF had two. The P47 and P38. Both of which could carry higher payloads than the -190.

Could the P-47 or P-38 carry a 1,800 kg bomb ?? No! So the LW might only have one really good fighter-bomber but, its better than those of the USAAF - So again the LW is better.

The P38 was used as a light bomber on occasion. The P47 had the second strongest framework of any single engined fighter of WW2. Only the F4U had a stronger body. Speaking of which, if we include the Corsair, the AAF would have three fighter bombers.

The AAF maintains its edge.

9) Light/Attack bombers.
Id give the LW an edge in magnitude in superiority over the AAF. The LW had more dedicated types than the AAF. So credit goes to where its due.

Wow! Being generous are we ?

I call them as I see them.

11) Training.
The AAF ended up being a magnitude or two better than the LW personell wise simply because the AAF spent more time in training for the pilots. The LW was hampered by fuel shortages (as we know) but in the real world of war.... thats tough luck.

Its not tough luck, its what happens when an incompitent man is calling the shots for you and you cannot question his decision.

Its tough luck that you didnt have fuel to train your pilots. The AAF was giving its pilot-trainee's more and more hours, while the LW was cutting back.

[syscom3]

15) Advanced weapons.
Edge to the AAF. Simply put, the allies ended up with an atomic bomb and the Germans didnt. Rocket technology would go to the Germans, but they didnt do anything did they? Same with the jets. Advanced over the AAF, but in a case of the technology wasnt mature and political meddling...they came to nothing when it came to winning a battle or the war.

Again a complete load of rubbish from Syscom3!

The LW was FAR ahead in terms of advanced weaponary, the multitude of superior jets, rockets, guidance systems etc etc. made by Germany more than makes sure of this.

The fact that the US acquired the A-bomb first (By the help of German scientists & espionage) doesn't at all mean they were ahead in advanced weapons - firstly because the splitting is a rather simple concept, one first thought of & carried out by the Germans btw but again rejected by Hitler, and secondly because its just ONE thing - its really the only important advanced weapon deployed by the US - all the while the Germans were deploying MANY more advanced weapons.

Wars are fought in the here and now, not in the future. If your advanced weapons were used in the conflict to effect the outcome of a battle, then I would give the LW credit. But they werent. If you want a seperate catagory for advanced wepaons for future use, I will be glad to make one for it. But then again, why waste energy in producing weapons for years down the road, when you only have months to live.

So tell us how the V1 and V2 swung the war in favor of the Germans? And tell us how many bombers were shot down by ME262's?

BTW, the atomic bombs were collarborative effort by many scientists and technicians, not just the German ones. You also forget that the US itself provided the vast ammount of industrial expertise to build the things in the first place. And dont you think an atomic bomb WAS the advanced weapon of all time?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Agreed to some extent, however US production-methods weren't superior at all, they were just imbracing different needs & priorities.

Neither the Germasn or the British had anything like Willow Run but to be fair there is one important difference. The USA wasn't under any real danger of attack. Had Germany built or tried to build a Willow Run type of factory it would have been wiped out by allied bombers before completion.

The LW prioritized fighter development, that and that there was not enough fuel or trained men made sure that the LW bombers didn't get the flying time they deserved - again something you should've known.

This I fundamentally disagree with. To all intents and purposes the Germans didn't have any strategic bombers. The nearest they had, the 177, was built in very limited numbers, was dreadfully unreliable not to say dangerous and the only time it came to being used in this fashion (The Mini Blitz Jan to Mar 1944) it sufferred very heavy losses.
It should also be noted that it only had to as far as London say 120 miles from base or 50 miles from the French coast. Not, many Hundreds of miles as undertaken on hundreds of thousands of sorties by B17/B24/Lanc/Halifax and others.

The Ta-152H was capable of flying over 2000 miles with a drop tank.

This doesn't matter at all. The post is about the best best WW2 airforce. A plane that only entered the war in the last few months when the war was already lost, in very very limited numbers, unless it did something remarkable is irrelevant [/quote]

Ha ! In terms of fighters LW is definitely superior! The Ta-152H, Me-262 & Fw-190D are all better fighters than ANY USAAF fighter of WW2! - Only the Spitfire Mk.XIV is close to the fighters above, being the equal of the Dora-9.

In terms of defensive fighters the LW is far superior to the USAAF.

If the LW had the best defensive fighters they would have won the air war over Germany. The 152, 190D and 262 were remarkable aircraft but were to late. The LW had already lost the war over Germany.

[Soren]

Your knowledge of world history beyond England-Germany Russia is faulty.

No it is not.

Ploesti, the most important single source of Petroleum for the 3rd Reich was bombed to oblivion from a former Axis state - Italy. Much of the SE Germany and Austria aircraft industry at Weiner-Neustadt and Regensburg and Augsburg and Leipzig was bombed (as well as England based 8th) by 12th and 15th AF from Italy. Italy was invaded from Sicily - not England.Japan was first bombed by B-29s from China. In short Global Reach far exceeding the LW even w/o carriers

LoL, Britain contributed to the invasion of Italy. The USAAF alone didn't have a longer reach than the LW, both depended on captured or Allied ground to reach out further.

Name three LW plants combined that put as many a/c as Willow Run GM plant

You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas. The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time & care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict & thurough - hence the longer production time & hence why I said what I said.

And no I'm not saying that the Allies were building low quality products, not at all, however they weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans were.

They prioritized Fighter production when it became clear in early 1944 that German industry would die from USSAF precison attacks - and German bombers weren't doing much against anybody

They prioritized fighter production because they realized they were hopelessly out-numbered in the air, which is also why German bombers weren't operating as intended.

PS: USAAF bombers weren't very precise and no'more precise than the bombers of the LW or RAF, so forget your little precision-attack theory.

Syscom 'not dealing well' with your world?

Insults from Bill again, how surprising, he seems to rely on these very much.

Ha! Syscom3 is not dealing well with reality if anything, but he's certainly dealing well with your world though Bill.

Did it? Did it fly 100o miles? did it escort anything? - but it was 'the greatest escort fighter"? Perhaps in a different world of 'possibility' in which reality counts for nothing.

No it didn't, there wasn't enough fuel. But thats not the point, the point is the LW possessed a long range fighter a/c.

It was also faster than its LW opponents and solved its compressibility problems in mid 1944.

It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again.

NO Bill, the P-38 was not faster than its LW opponents, the P-38 was slower & far less nimble.

The Ta152H got how many kills?

11 kills to 0 losses.

The Fw190D got how many kills?

Plenty, and amazingly many considering the circumstances under which it had to operate.

The Me262 was the best of all fighters that actually flew combat - including the Ta152 and Fw190D - what did it contribute to the war effort?

Too few, too late, too little fuel.

So great that they were virtually driven from the skies beginning with mere defeat in early to mid 1944 when they had local air superiority over Germany, to complete disarray in early 1945 even with fighter vs fighter air superiority during Operation Bodenplatte?

Bill again demonstrates his excellent ability to completely ignore the fact that by 1944 trained men & fuel was in scarse supply in the LW, and that the LW didn't enjoy local air-superiority AT ALL when you count how many LW a/c actually went airborne in that period.

So what. A 3000 pounder might be effective against Sub Pens but who cares re: fighter Bomber. I'd rather carry 3 x 1000 pounders like the P-38 and F4U and P-47

Bill again playing loosely with the facts..

The P-47 could NOT carry a bomb-load of 3,000 lbs, let alone 3x 1000 lbs bombs !! The P-38 could carry close 3,000 lbs in total but it could NOT carry 3x 1000 lbs bombs.

How far is far?? I forget. Multitude? Me 262 and Ar234 versus Meteor and P-80?

The Me-262 & Ar-234 were both much superior jet aircraft.

The P-80A was downright dangerous to fly, plus it was too slow & sluggish compared to the Me-262A-1a.

The Meteor was a fine & serviceable Jet aircraft but just waay too slow.

Sarin versus Sarin and the A-Bomb. V-2s versus 4000 B17/B-24 plus 2000 lancasters with escort fighters? plus all the Medium bombers capablre of the same load actually Hitting the target instead of the cornfields?

The V-1 & V-2 weren't inaccurate if thats what you're implying, they were infact amazingly accurate considering range travelled - London was hit with good consistancy by both weapons.

As to avanced weapons & equipment, the German LW employed a/c AA rockets, self-guided bombs & missiles, night-vision, auto-pilots, auto-engine & prop management computers etc etc..

So yes the German were FAR ahead in advanced weapons & equipment.

The V1 was totally worthless and the V-2 essentially the same - indefensible against cornfield attacks

Sarin was one - and the US had a stockpile in Colorado. Had Hitler used it against the allies there might not be much German spoken today

Both had this weapon so why mention it ?

- any other weapons that 'might have made a difference' ??

Had there been enough fuel, many. The Allies would've been in a very dire situation had the Me-262 been deployed in 1943 as intended and there being enough fuel for it to operate in full numbers. There's no chance the Allies were going to set foot on mainland Europe then thats for sure.

Think Soren, if anything you mentioned as the wonder weapon managed to extend the war in Europe three more months - what do you think Berlin would look like today - instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Says Bill who is clueless as to how short the war would've been had the Allies possessed weapons & machines which could've matched the ones deployed by Germany on an individual basis. Also I have a feeling dropping a nuclear bomb in Europa wasn't going to be liked by many of the surrounding countries and would be seen as a very serious war-crime & a no less serious crime against humanity - esp. considering the fact that it wasn't needed in order to come to terms with the Nazis, the Nazi party could be disposed of in many other ways had the war dragged on - Hitler wasn't a very well liked person during 44-45, even his own stab attempting to do dispose of him.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Yeah, roll those eyes. Syscom is pretty much dead on

No he is clearly not, he is infact almost completely wrong.

[Soren]

If the LW had the best defensive fighters they would have won the air war over Germany. The 152, 190D and 262 were remarkable aircraft but were to late. The LW had already lost the war over Germany.

Glider, just because you have the best weapons & machines doesn't mean you're automatically going to win: Quality vs quantity. Numbers count for as much as quality in many situations.

The Germans fielded superior small-arms, AFV's & aircraft throughout the war, yet they didn't win, the reason being they were fighting against too many at once from to many directions.

What does it matter that you have far better tanks if you're losing them faster than you can build new ones ? And what does it matter that you have far better fighters if they can't land or take-off in safety and are lacking fuel & trained pilots ? And what does it matter that you have better equipment if your army is simply too few in numbers for these to ever make up for this huge disadvantage in numbers?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

You think that the best production technique is the one which churns out the most a/c ? well sorry but that only happens sacrificing in some areas. The Germans prioritized quality over quantity, their designs were more advanced in terms of engineering, more time & care being used on each build. German quality inspections were also all alot more strict & thurough - hence the longer production time & hence why I said what I said.

And no I'm not saying that the Allies were building low quality products, not at all, however they weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans were.

In some instances you're correct but in fact where "German quality inspections were also all a lot more strict & thorough" there was also a lot of needless inspection which hampered "quantity" which was so desperately needed by the end of the war. In essence German quality turned out to be its own worse enemy...

[Soren]

Very much agreed FLYBOYJ.

[Soren]

Now just incase someone has forgotten it, I still have never claimed that the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, so now you people hopefully won't forget this and make it up that I did once again.

[Hop]

The V-1 & V-2 weren't inaccurate if thats what you're implying, they were infact amazingly accurate considering range travelled - London was hit with good consistancy by both weapons.

The V-1 was certainly inaccurate.

RV Jones has a couple of maps in his book Most Secret War showing the impact points of the V-1s fired on the 16th July 1940. They are scattered all over southern England, covering more than 50 miles in bearing, more than 60 in range.

Jones notes in the text that 90 V-1 impacts are plotted on the map (I haven't counted them) and that of those, 30 are in the built up area of London.

Partly that's because the missiles were tending to fall short, but Jones points out even if the pattern was shifted so that the average range was correct, only 45 would fall within the built up area. And that's out of 200 fired that day, of which 144 crossed the coast, and only 30 were shot down (and 11 of those shot down actually fell in London)

That means far less than half the missiles fired hit London, even excluding the actions of the defences.

As to the V-2, Germans fired about 1350 rockets at London, of which just over 500 hit within the greater London civil defence zone. The zone was about 20 miles in diameter.

If You are firing at the largest city in the world and getting less than 50% hit rate, just how accurate can you claim to be?

And range doesn't seem to make much difference, to the V-2 at least. The other major target for the V-2 was Antwerp, with again well over 1,000 missiles fired, of which about 30% actually hit the city. Granted Antwerp is a lot smaller than London, but the range was much shorter as well.