Best WWII Air-Force

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Thats sounds about the same as bombing results for the USAAC and Bomber Command

[The Basket]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Thats sounds about the same as bombing results for the USAAC and Bomber Command

They were bombing London? The swines.lol.

The V weapons were not accurate at all. Interesting story is that British Intelligence ran double agents who told their Berlin Controllers that the weapons were falling short or too long.

Now put a sarin warhead in a V2 and you got big trouble right there.

Far more deadly that a ton of explosive.

[syscom3]

Soren, I just looked at the production figures for the US and Germany for the years up to 1944, and you were being swamped in every single catagory.

How can you say the US was not at least 2 to 3 magnitudes better than the LW in producing top notch aircraft?

Its obvious the US not only had sufficent industrial resources to build vast numbers of aircraft, but also had a huge technical and scientific pool in which to build high quality products. Many of which were equal to or better than what the LW could offer during those years.

I also contemplated the definition for the fighters, of "defensive and offensive".

I will concede that the LW had a great purely defensive fighter (years 1944 and 1945) in the -190. But it wasnt all the much better than the P51. Considering that the allied definition for success for a bombing mission is the LW did not get to the bombers, and the LW had to get to the bombers, then the P51 was proved to be more successfull. Ditto for the P38 and P47. All they had to do was keep the LW away from the bombers and its mission accomplished.

In the end it was offensive fighters that won the war, not defensive. A close and unbiased look at all the fighters of WW2 will show the following:
1) Each fighter had an optimal speed and altitude envelope in which it was dangerous.
2) Each fighter had good points which an opposing pilot ignored at their own peril.
3) In the Pacific, range was paramount. The P38 was highly successfull because of that.
4) Each fighter had a different role to perform, so their relative worth or ranking depends on what they were supposed to do and whether their air forces considered them to be a success.

Over all, I would continue my assessment of the fighters of both the LW and AAF were similar in success's and failures. In this catagory, both are equal.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why I am even argueing with you in this thread I do not know because Soren is going to ignore my posts anyhow....

Where to begin?

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

And could still reach out further than the Luftwaffe. Allied fighters had much better range...

You can not deny this? Fact is Fact. You can not church it up....

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.

Soren please go back and read what you just wrote.

What is going to win the war?

A. A few things that have great quality?

B. Lots of things that have really really good quality?

Just ask yourself that question and go back and read your post again.

I really find this very funny.

Again fact is fact. History can not be changed. Dont church it up.

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

And what does that tell you? They were losing the war. You are not the best airforce (overall or at any point during the war) unless you have it all and the Luftwaffe did not come close.

Again I love the Luftwaffe. My favorite planes are Luftwaffe aircraft and I think that some of the best aircraft of the war were Luftwaffe aircraft but that does not change the fact that the Luftwaffe did not have:

The Strategic Bomber Capability that the allies had. (I dont care why they did not, they did not have it. Period!)

Originally Posted by Soren

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

Soren I am not trying to take sides here. I am just trying to debate something that I do not agree with you on.

However go back and read all the threads that you have ever posted and you will see that you do the same thing. I have talked to you so many times about it.

Therefor what I am saying is this before you go and say things like that, quit doing it yourself...

Originally Posted by Soren

It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again.

You proved my point right there Soren.

Originally Posted by Soren

11 kills to 0 losses.

While I love the Ta 152 and I truely think that it was the best piston fighter built by wars end I have to ask you this.

What did 11 kills to 0 losses do for the Luftwaffe?

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

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

And again you just proved the point that the Luftwaffe was not better than the allied airforces at that time. Thankyou very much...

Bill again playing loosely with the facts..

Originally Posted by Soren

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

Who cares if they were superior?

Its the end result that matters....

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

Soren I could hit something the size of London....

What you are saying does not prove accuracy.

Originally Posted by Soren

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..

Those are great but did they win the war?

Again how do they make the Luftwaffe better?

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

Could have, Should have, you got it... Did not!

Why do you bring up things that did not happen. You can not change History Soren.

So again please stop bringing that up and lets talk about what actually happened.

Originally Posted by Soren

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

Soren for as much as I hate agreeing with syscom, In my opinion you are the one that is wrong.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

[b]....
Soren for as much as I hate agreeing with syscom, ...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I will give credit where it is due.

[Konigstiger205]

Sure the USAF was great...sure the RAF pilots were great...sure the LW planes were great....but I'd like to remind you of a small country named Romania, who fought on both sides of the war and although our air force was not much our pilots still managed to shot down soviets, americans and later germans and hungarians.Our top ace Constantin "Bâzu" Cantacuzino managed to shot down 60 planes until the end of the war including a P51 Mustang.Almost every time outnumbered our pilots managed to do wonders with small numbers, outdated planes and a not so great logistic.It may not deserve the number 1 spot but it deserves to be remebered.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

So, the LW had the same reach as the USAAF? and for example was able to bomb Britain from Berlin based He111 or Do17 types, or able to bomb Moscow from Berlin? and the fact that 'Britain' helped capture Italy or China let us base B-29s neutralized the range and payload advantages B-24s had over LW bombers - much less B-29s? Curious perspective 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.

Name an area of quality that the US 'sacrificed' in its production methods? You want to stress the 'quality of the He177' or the 'quality of the Me262 engines' as illustrative of emphasis by German production/design focus?

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.

You could say it but the facts don't back it up

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.

Herr Speer was in complete disagreement with you, and your stated opinion on this subject - Most would look to him over you for a professional and knowledgeable expert on this subject. I know I do.

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

I apologise for the insults- real or perceived, but candidly you started with them in our original tangle over F4U vs P-51B flight tests and have never let up - If you don't like what I say, or ask you for facts you respond with insults

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

Syscom pretty well trashed your arguments on the B-29, and proceeded to roll over you on this subject also - as have most on this thread. I am the only one you defeat with your compelling logic.

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.

No, actually the point is Best AF and you brought up the point that the Ta152 was better than the Mustang (or by definition the P-47 and P-3 as a long range fighter. I said interesting but no it wasn't a very good long range fighter simply because that isn't how it was used, did not have a track record for it and did not have the achievements of the other 3. Other than that it was a great fighter design


It seems Bill is spewing out lies once again.

I try not not to 'spew' if at all possible - may I dribble them for you?

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

So, the opponents of the P-38 included the Me109F-K series, the Fw190A-G series, and of course the Me262. It was slower than these all (or even most) fighters? The 38 L could carry 2x2000 bombs, max speed 414mph at 25,000 ft and a ceiling of 44,000 feet, max climb of 4750fpm - please show even a 109 or even an Fw190D that could match the P38L in all of these attributes - or even two? It was NOT as nimble in a turn for sure

11 kills to 0 losses.

That record for the Ta152 would place it below the Brewster Buffalo in the hands of the Finns on the basis of impact or importance in practical combat ops. It was a great design, rushed into production and barely able to start combat ops - yet you use it to illustrate 'an escort' fighter? why?

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.

Soren, if I can demonstrate several missions in which a.) USAAF escort fighters were outnumbered locally, and b.) severely thrashed the Luftwaffe fighter they engaged under those circumstances in the January - July 1944 timeframe - would you make a public apology to me on this subject - or I to you if I can't prove it?

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.

Actually I apologise for the P-47. The 47D could carry two 1,000 pounders under each wing plus one 500 on c/l. It was capable of carrying a 1k pounder on C/L and I assumed that all three could be carried. As to the 38 it could only carry two 2,000 pounders not 3x1,000 - I was a little loose on my facts. Which versions of the fw190 carried the 3,000 pound bomb? I couldn't find reference

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

The XP-80, one of the ones in Lesina, was the allegedly the one used in the flight tests against the Me262 in 1946 in Augsburg area. The 'wikipedia' comments you quoted were from that book I cited... you still have a reference you owe me on the flight test results that you say are a production P-80A which started delivery in March 1945. I am still looking for the "Wright Patterson flight test" from which Wikipedia quotes superiority of the 262 in level speed and acceleration" - I am not denying that a report exists I just can't find it and so far, neither have you>

Of the prototype and pre-production YP and XP-80s, three crashed that I know of - one from turbine blade failure, one from a fuel pump failure (US)and one (Burtonwood) from a failure in the steel exhaust pipe. Following that crash, the 2nd one at Burtonwood was tested to destruction and the two at Lesina were grounded for three months - but care to compare the 'dangerous' P-80 to ANY LW jet in prototype through first ptoduction stage? Make your point


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.

???? what does this have to do with Best AF?

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

Sigh, Soren. You 'feel' Europe would have been outraged? Who? the French, the Dutch, the Poles? the Russians?

Does Aushwitz, Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald, SS, Gestapo, Warsaw, etc, etc, seem to you roots for sympathy??? or "Outrage". Do you really believe this? I'm glad it didn't happen but pretty confident Germany would have been first if war had gone into August - nut could be wrong

Or was the US spared the outrage for Hiroshima only because the Japanese weren't European and the atrocites in Chuina, Phillipines, Malaysia were somehow worse than WWII Germany - making them somehow 'subhuman' instead of the refined and cultured Germans in WWII?


No he is clearly not, he is in fact almost completely wrong.

Syscom wasn't wrong

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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!

Yep!

[Soren]

Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.

"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."

I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!

And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.

You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.

There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms & equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's & smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.



PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.

[Soren]

Bill,

Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself.

As to the P-38, it was sluggish compared to the single engined fighters in the ETO, its top speed was a low 414 mph, the Bf-109 G-6/AS, G-10, -14, -14/AS & K-4 all being faster, far more maneuverable and better climbers. The FW-190 Dora-9 is faster, climbs faster and is far more maneuverable as-well, the Me-262A-1a is much faster, climbs better and is more maneuverable at all but the slowest of speeds.

Also the P-38L cannot climb at 4,700 + ft/min, the max climb rate of the P-38L is ~4,100 ft/min - the 4,700 + ft/min figure is suspect and was only achieved in a single test, in which the a/c wasn't fully loaded.

And as to the Me-262A-1a and its superior acceleration and speed compared to the P-80, you should note that the Me-262's "official" performance figures are very conservative figures by Messerschmidt AG to Rechlin for placing a performance guarantee to avoid recieving complaints about performance not matching the listed figures - the performance of different batches of engines varying because of the lack of refined metals needed but not falling below the guaranteed figure. The British tested the Me-262A-1a post-war multiple times and established the top speed of the Me-262 to be in excess of 908 km/h (568 mph), demonstrating the performance when the engines were running as intended.

Name an area of quality that the US 'sacrificed' in its production methods? You want to stress the 'quality of the He177' or the 'quality of the Me262 engines' as illustrative of emphasis by German production/design focus?

Name just one ? US weldings & external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough & frequent for each product batch. German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough & frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully & precisely crafted.

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals. The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.


And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Now Adler I'm going to assume you didn't read the below, but If you infact have read it then you're ignoring what I'm writing.

No I read everything but you just keep repeating yourself but not posting any sources or facts. You are only stating your opinion which happens to be a very biased one not based off of historical facts. You bring up a lot of what ifs. This is not about whats ifs. This is about what actually happening.

Originally Posted by 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."

I NEVER CLAIMED THE LW WAS THE BEST AIRFORCE in 1944-45 - Is this hard to understand ? If not you guys seem awfully good at ignoring this!

Okay then why are you argueing the fact that the Luftwaffe was better than. Your whole arguement has been that. Go back and read it.

Here is basically how this whole debate has gone (and its been about 1944 to 1945, I will sum it up right here. This whole debate is very funny...)

P.S. I have altered the convo a bit for humor factor.

Soren: I am not saying the Luftwaffe was the best in 1944 or 1945 okay.

Bill: The Luftwaffe did not have the strategic bombing capability the USAAF had.

Soren: That lies!!! The Luftwaffe had the He-177, He 277, Me 264, Ju 390 which were all superior to or equal to the B-29!

Bill: The He 277, Me 264, and Ju 390 did not reach operational status or were just prototypes. The He 177 had many many problems and was not built in sufficient numbers.

Soren: More lies from Bill! Those aircraft were ready! There was just no fuel or trained pilots and the Luftwaffe put priority on fighters!

Adler: Does that not mean they are not ready or can not used and therefore the Luftwaffe does not have the strategic capability of the USAAF?

Soren: Ignore

Syscom: The Luftwaffe did not really have a long range fighter.

Soren: No the Luftaffe had the Ta 152 which was better than any long range fighter that the allies could put in the air.

Syscom: Umm but that was the last few months of the war they did not accomplish anything...

Soren: Syscom not living in the real world! The Ta 152 was better! If they had eneogh fuel the allies would not have won!!!

Bill: The Luftwaffe did not have the global reach of the USAAF.

Soren: More lies from Bill! The only reason the allies could attack Germany was because of England!

Bill: Thats not the point Soren. If the Allies could reach thousands of miles into Germany from England and the Luftwaffe could barely make London and with only 30 min over England doesn't that mean the Luftwaffe did not have a bigger reach?


Do I need to continue?


So basically in a thread about The Best Airforce you are not argueing that the Luftwaffe is the best but everything that people say the Luftwaffe was weaker in you dispute saying the Luftwaffe was better.

That is saying the Luftwaffe is the best....

Originally Posted by Soren

And no Adler I am not wrong, Syscom3 is though and very much so at that.

Then I would like you to post sources that show:

1. How the Luftwaffe had a better strategic bombing capability.

2. How the Luftwaffe had a bigger global reach.

I wont ask any more because I can go on and on....

Now Sources please?

Originally Posted by Soren

You cannot discount what I have said cause I haven't said anything wrong, I've just stated the facts.

Then show sources and hard facts. Lets go...

Originally Posted by Soren

There were a good number of aircraft, AFV's, smallarms & equipment which only saw limited service but was some of the very best or THE best in its category to see service during WW2 - Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, Vampir IR equipment for AFV's & smallarms etc etc.. just to name a few.

And those do not make you the best all around airforce.

Originally Posted by Soren

PS: There's no angry tone in any of the above.

Go and read all your other posts.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

Go ahead show me some incidents where the USAAF trashed the LW in a fight where they were inferior in numbers - and I want the LW reports on losses and a/c committed to the fight as-well, if you can't then even the date is good enough cause then I can check it myself.

Start with 1st Bomb Division Attack on Munich Area 24 April, 1944. The 3 Task Forces of B-17s flew a track East to West arriving in Leipheim area at approximately 1305, flying an echelon right formation with General Robert Travis leading 1st Task Force designated 41A comprised of 303BG plus 379BG.

The first target bombed was by Third TF at Erding at 1331, the force turned south to a point SE of Munich at 1338 and then West to the IP SW of Munich at 1344, then the 1st TF bombed Landsberg and 2TF bombed Oberpfaffenhofen (Dornier-Werke GmbH turbine blade factory)

In order the Luftwaffe put up Sturmstaffel I, I. & III./JG3, III./JG26, StabIII./JG3, I./JG27, IV./JG27, I./JG5, III./ZG26 ~ 200+ German fighters.

The sole Target Escort for the Munich area from 1320-1420 was 47 Mustangs each from the 355th FG and the 357th FG for a total of 94 P-51s. The two groups combined for 43-2-13 for a total loss of 4 shot down by Me109s, two lost in mid air collisions with Me110s and two lost to flak strafing on the way home... They arrived approximately 10 minutes after JG3 and JG26 had already shot down 4 B-17s near Gablingen.

BTW- This was a specific example of skilled LW controller picking up the gap when the Penertration Support turned back, the B-24 Strike Force and escorts were gone and the B-17s were 'early' to the Target Escort R/V.

So, Soren, the basic match up 2:1 (minimum) local superiority of LW fighters over USAAF in target area resulted in 43 destroyed German fighters in air combat to 6 losses for USAAF Mustangs.

In Crandall's latest book, LW admits to 60 losses that day, but that includes the battles near Worms between 4th FG and JG1/JG11.

US Loss sources, 355th Fighter Group and 357th FG Histories by Marshall and Olmstead respectively, Kent Miller's Fighter Units of the 8th AF, Mighty Eighth Combat Chronology (complete w/Macrs, loss to flak/fighters, etc) by Andrews and Adams,

USAF 85 for the awards (not claims).

The LW shot down by flak and fighters 27 B-17s of the 1st AD in these battles including those landing in Switzerland, shot down over France or ditched in Channel

More to come. Prien is at least one good source for your own research. For the units involved Tony Woods LW Claims list is a good source

Also the P-38L cannot climb at 4,700 + ft/min, the max climb rate of the P-38L is ~4,100 ft/min - the 4,700 + ft/min figure is suspect and was only achieved in a single test, in which the a/c wasn't fully loaded.

Soren, those are official Lockheed and USAAF performance figures. If you want to say they aren't correct, please cite your source

Name just one ? US weldings & external finish wasn't as carefully done as that of the Germans, and German metal inspection was also more thurough & frequent for each product batch.

Comparison source and reference please - and BTW there are/were very few welds in USAAF combat a/c as most structure was rivets, bent sheetmetal ribs and formers and aluminum panels..B-17 engine mounts were welded tubes, ditto B-24. P51 had forged mounts

German metals were generally also of better quality and strength, until the required refined metals went in very scarse supply. German product testing was also more thurough & frequent, and there were more strict demands. German optics were much more carefully & precisely crafted.

Source and reference please

That the Me-262's engines lacked in reliability has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the precision of the finished work or quality of the design, the relibility issues all originated from the fact that the right metals necessary to build the fan-blades were in VERY short supply and so many blades lacked the strenght intended, the better quality control couldn't stop this from happening as there simply was no solution to the problem unless they had the required metals. The He-177's engine problems originated from some small design flaws of which most were solved, but the lack of funding meant that this took much longer than it would've otherwise taken with proper funding.

I know this - but metallurgy IS part of quality Soren. And the He177 problems were a fault of German Specifications that stated the performance targets must be achieved with but two engine nacelles requiring that two engines be crammed into the each nacelle to make it dive bomb capable - it was a HUGE design flaw because of the oil leaks onto very hot exhaust stacks internally (IIRC) ... how long did this 'minor flaw' set back an otherwise nice design? The Brits were smart enough to ditch the idea on the Manchester and voila - the Lancaster!

And about Syscom3, yes he is wrong Bill, and very much so.

Funding had nothing to do with the He177 design issues. Making it dive bomb capable had much more to do with the approach - Heinkel finally was able to get a four engine/four cyclinder design out and it was a good one.