Best WWII Air-Force

[Glider]

Examples are almost endless.
T34 wasn't up to German build standards but they destroyed a lot of German tanks.
The DB601 was built using sophistated shrink techniques which to a purist made it a better built engine than the Merlin. But the Merlin was at least its equal in performance, became a legendary engine and powered many tens of thousands of aircraft. It also made the 601 a very expensive engine in both cost and man hours build time for no extra gain.
The Panther was a superb tank but a nightmare to mantain and repair due to its over sophistication.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Welding? There you re dead wrong - the US was at the forefront of machine welding techniques as a result of the automotive industry, as a matter of fact by the time WW2 started the US had automated welding machines that were the anceastors of today's CNC welding machines. Toward the end of the war weldments found on many German aircraft were poor, probably due to using

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

[bigZ]

So the germans where the best producers of aircraft?

Howcome they where using the almost the same allocation of aluminium in 43 as 38 but producing thousands more aircraft, but Milch still complained of the waste?

When did the Germans moblise the female population into making aircraft to meet the growing demand?

Quality did drop with the increase of slave labour and skilled workers being drafted into the army. But still you can't deny the germans built the finest bomber seats right upto the wars end and where still polishing the welds on 190 tailwheels till 43.

German production was hardly spectacular and Gorings insistance on higher production figures by sacrificing the availability of spare engine and parts also had a detrimental effect on front line serviceabilty.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?
Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1

The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird

Manufacturing is all about meeting spec with lowest cost, ACCEPTABLE quality.

SR71 much more demanding than UH 1E,H and J and Ive done 'em all.

This is an area that I believe Soren wishes he could take back - and still can..

How many Germans (even as percent of population) were driving low cost, high quality autos before WWII compared to US? That's all about high quality and low cost - General Motors and Ford and Chrysler had ZERO problem converting tons of steel to thousands of aluminum a/c per month

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Are we talking aluminium or steel products?

Both but mainly aluminum. The only significant steels being welded in the US were mild steels, 4130 and 4140 for steel tubing on fabric aircraft and for some structural parts on all-metal aircraft.

Originally Posted by Graeme

Only ever having used a stick arc welder, I thought aluminium (MIG?) welding was only a very 'recent' industrial capability?

"Heliarc, and later "mig, tig" welding been around for a long time and was perfected in the late 30s early 40s. Hydrogen was used as the inert gas and the rod was tungsten but the form as many know it today wasn't really perfected until after the war where the process was slightly altered for easier use as well as cost.

[Graeme]

Another example of American wartime fabricating ingenuity, the Budd Conestoga, the worlds first large stainless steel aircraft.


(Thanks for the information FLYBOY and drgondog)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

When I was very wet behind the ears we were welding 6064. If you look at the Bell 13 (pre Korean war) both steel and aluminum welding was predominant as so litte 2024 used in that helicopter. I cannot recall a weld on a 51 (doesn't mean there weren't any I just don't remember) - none on the SR71 or U-2, none on the UH-1

The issue on 2024 vs 7076 was all about malleability (fatigue) vs ultimate strength - REALLY important for high repeatable loads like a helicopter - much less important in higher performance a/c unless aeroelasticity in play near the natural frwuency of the bird

Manufacturing is all about meeting spec with lowest cost, ACCEPTABLE quality.

SR71 much more demanding than UH 1E,H and J and Ive done 'em all.

This is an area that I believe Soren wishes he could take back - and still can..

How many Germans (even as percent of population) were driving low cost, high quality autos before WWII compared to US? That's all about high quality and low cost - General Motors and Ford and Chrysler had ZERO problem converting tons of steel to thousands of aluminum a/c per month

To add on Bill, most 7075 aluminum were used in major structural components (landing gear trunnions, wing attach points, etc.) 2024T3 (24T) was usually used for skins and 2024 T6 for structural components (ribs, intercostals, etc.) 6064 and 6061 aluminum was usually used for fluid plumbing and tubing.

The A&P school I went to had an old heliarc machine that looked like it was from the 40s or 50s. I was afraid to use it....

[Soren]

Adler,

Make fun all you want, I cannot converse with somone who refuses to listen.

I never claimed the LW possessed a longer global reach than the US, again that is something you made up yourself. What I said was the global reach of the LW was the same as that of the USAAF - Unless the USAAF had a base in Europe to operate from there was no way they could attack Germany, and its the same for the LW, unless the LW had bases to operate from in the America's then there was no way they could successfully attack the USA. The LW possessed long range bombers as-well, bombers with equal range & bomb-load as those of the USAAF. These are facts Adler, but you're welcome to dispute them.

I never claimed the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, I even made it clear that it couldn't be because of its lack of fuel & trained pilots - without these two it doesn't matter what a/c you possess.

The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234 & Fw-190 Dora-13 were the best of their kind & category of WW2, this is fact.

Now as to the He-177, He-277, Me-264 & Ju-390, again I stand by what I have said before, they were the equal of the Allied bombers, they just didn't get to operate in the same fashion or enjoyed the same level of protection.

FLYBOYJ,

You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans - which turned out to be an advantage in the end.

So other than this were are like before in full agreement.

And as to slave labor, well this is a good point and also proved a nuisance to the Germans although it was mainly utilized in the production of ammunition during the end of the war, some slave labor was also used for the manufacture of the V-2 rockets & aircraft.

Bill,

If you're interested in the metals used during WW2 by each country, their manufacturing process & quality then read the book "WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston, then you'll see just how much more durable German armor & metals were in general compared to Allied plates & metals - German armor was more carefully crafted and refined, hence for example the Tiger Ausf.E's amazing armor protection level despite its main armor surfaces being vertical - this is explained in the book as-well. And like FLYBOYJ pointed out the Germans also used more durable metals for use in aircaft production.

As to you're quouted incident, I don't see the LW being trashed here at all ! They infact did a marvelous job shooting down a good number of bombers, and considering that by far the majority of LW a/c in the air were heavily armed bomber interceptors the shoot down of 6 Mustangs isn't bad. As to the actual LW commitment & losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.

Glider,

The T-34 was a shock to the Germans at the beginning of its deployment, however as soon as the better armed StuG's arrived the T-34's were being pounded badly, the new StuG in a short time period of time establishing itself kill loss ratio of over 10 to 1. And the arrival of Pzkpfw IV F-2 & Pzkpfw VI Tiger pretty much turned the T-34 into pure gun-fodder for the Germans.

The T-34, like pretty much all Russian tank designs, relied purely on its advantage in numbers to simply swarm its opponents on the battlefield - the battle of Kursk being the ultimate example of this.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ,

You're correct that the US utilized mechanical welding machines and that this was an advantage, however these machines didn't make better welds, the welds were slightly more crude than those made in German factories by hand, and the quality control in US factories weren't as frequent or strict either. Does this mean that the quality was poor ? No, not at all, however the Americans weren't as obsessed with quality as the Germans.

Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.

The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Sorry Soren, you're wrong there as well. Machine welds are ALWAYS more superior to hand welds. The machines are set for the proper depth, temperature, and rod feed and even in the early days of automated welding, these machines out did even the most skilled welders except in close quarters or small applications.

I have to disagree abit here, a skilled welder can make as good or better welds than the early automated welding machines of the 40's, and close quarters & small applications are many on a tank body or an airplanes airframe - There are stories of Allied welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas or of welded joints failing under even mild stress in the 1940's because of weak welds made by these early welding machines. Today ofcourse the welding machines can easily out do any welder in the sheer consistancy of perfect welds - a human welder is bound to make some mistakes or less perfect welds at some point.

The only way you're going to accurately compare welds is to visually inspect them for bead width and height, cut a coupon in half and compare weld depth or compare tensile strengths, again using coupons. Based on warbirds I seen over the years (especially German) you could almost guess the date of the aircraft's construction based on weld and rivet quality, providing those original parts are still there.

Roger that.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

I have to disagree abit here, a skilled welder can make as good or better welds than the early automated welding machines of the 40's, and close quarters & small applications are many on a tank body or an airplanes airframe - There are stories of Allied welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas or of welded joints failing under even mild stress in the 1940's because of weak welds made by these early welding machines. Today ofcourse the welding machines can easily out do any welder in the sheer consistancy of perfect welds - a human welder is bound to make some mistakes or less perfect welds at some point.

The reason why ship welds failed was becuase of inherent stress in the metal that was not relieved when the ship was completed, a very common thing on Victory Ships. The human hand cannot continually achieve a consistant perfect weld, especially over a long period of time and that's one of the reasons why welding machines were developed.

"The advantages of arc welding -- low cost compared to riveting, speed of application and strength -- were apparent. One worker could do the work of two. Properly welded joints and seams were as strong or stronger than the surrounding steel. In spite of these advantages, however, welding was slow to supplant riveting. Not until World War II created demand for rapid ship construction did welding replace riveting as the principal means of joining steel. Automatic seam-welding machines and new alloys and welding methods added even greater speed to the process but also revealed some disadvantages. Welded steel plates tended to buckle and warp more than riveted ones. Uneven heating could result in stress fractures. Use of improperly sized electrodes could produce weak joints. Stories of welded ships breaking apart in heavy seas, or of welded joints failing under even mild stress, were partly justified.
A skilled welder can make a good solid seam almost anywhere, horizontal, vertical, overhead, angled. A novice welder, as many of the new shipyard workers were, had neither the skill or experience to match an old hand. Welding seams on flat deck plates with gravity helping the flow was simple enough but overhead welding was much more difficult. One solution was to position seams so that the welder could work in a "down-hand" position, that is, with the electrodes held at waist level or below to avoid fatigue. That often meant bringing the work piece to the worker. Large vertical parts to be welded were turned horizontal. Ceilings and overhead structures were welded inverted then reversed when completed. Scaffolding was built to place the welders in optimum position. Welding became the basic glue of steel shipbuilding, allowing for fabrication of almost any shape in any size. Without high-speed welding, much of the innovative methods applied to World War II shipbuilding would not have been possible."

Sealift in World War II

[Soren]

Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places. My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places.

Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight & open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed.

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Soren

And as to slave labor, well this is a good point and also proved a nuisance to the Germans although it was mainly utilized in the production of ammunition during the end of the war, some slave labor was also used for the manufacture of the V-2 rockets & aircraft.

We have a nice family story about my wife's grandfather working as a slave at the Fiesler factories. He sabotaged V-1's. Thus quality checks were absolutely nescessairy

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Agreed, however it is naive to believe that the welding machines of the period produced as good welds as the machines of today, an experienced welder most likely being capable of making better welds in the some places.

Agree, but no one was comparing welding machines of today to those used during WW2.

Originally Posted by Soren

My old man was an expert welder, and seeing his work I doubt a machine of that period could do better, esp. in some of the more narrow places.

Welding machines were never meant to be used in narrow places or on small parts and assemblies. Even today small parts, tubing and ducting is mainly made by hand.

Originally Posted by Soren

Anyway the point is having these welding machines was an advantage in that the same quality welds on the straight & open pieces could be done faster, but there would still be far more places were a human hand was needed.

See above.....

Originally Posted by Soren

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

OK....

[drgondog]

[quote=Soren;262789


[B]Bill,[/b]
As to you're quouted incident, I don't see the LW being trashed here at all ! They infact did a marvelous job shooting down a good number of bombers, and considering that by far the majority of LW a/c in the air were heavily armed bomber interceptors the shoot down of 6 Mustangs isn't bad. As to the actualy LW commitment & losses well I'll check this for myself just to be sure.

Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..

Remember, the thesis of our running argument is a.) that USAAF long range escort at the point of the spear where the 8th AF and 9th AF P-47s could not go, did in fact - or did not in fact encounter large German fighter strength in numbers such that the USAAF escorts were outnumbered, and b.) that the LW single engine fighter force was not - or was - outnumbered 8:1 or greater by the USAAF in those battles over Germany in the January1 -May 30, 1944.

are you limiting the argument to the Me109G6-A/S? and excluding all Fw190s in that timeframe?

For the sake of definition I am talking about a.) aerial combat between the hopelessly outclassed Mustangs in that timeframe (the less nimble, slow rolling, slow climbing P-51B) - and I am talking about 'trashed' in the context of those outnumbered Mustangs shooting down far more LW fighters than they lost in turn

At no time have I denigrated, or will denigrate the courage (throughout the war) or effective ness of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm against the B-17 and B-24. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that daylight bombing must have escort fighters to succeed.

Yes, the LW also 'trashed' 40 8th AF bombers that day in the 3 pronged strike - one of the last 3 in which the LW achieved 10% of the bomber force.

But back to the thesis of LW s/e fighter force versus USAAF escorts in aerial combat with each other. Please don't comment until you have either verified or found a material discrepancy in each of the examples I give you about the strengths of both fighter forces in the engagements? Then we can move to next one
QUOTE]