Best WWII Air-Force

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree but by 1944 as stated by other no nation could match the abilities of the USAAF. I am not saying that the RAF and Luftwaffe were not good airforces.

The Luftwaffe had great planes but not eneogh of them...

The RAF had great aircraft but it was the USAAF that ultimatly took the fight to the Germans.

The sheer numbers of the USAAF and the help of the RAF was too much for the Luftwaffe to overcome.

[Desert Fox]

Agreed, it was a good effort by all. It was certainly needed to defeat the Luftwaffe, they did advance in leaps and bounds in the field of aeronautical engineering.

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox

Yes, I shouldve put the Finnish Air Force in, they did do some extraordinary things, even though they were vastly outnumbered. But remember, if it wasnt for the RAF (yes, im including the polish, aussies, kiwis, belgians etc in there as well) winning the Battle of Britain, then Europe would have been lost to the Germans. The US, strong as they were, could not have beaten the Germans by themselves, even with the help of Resistance and Partisans

The single biggest problem I could see for the USAAF in getting a foothold, in the event of a British defeat in the BoB, would have been bases, obviously. A place to call home. The Russians wouldn't have been much help there.

[Cyrano]

I think the problem here is are we judging by the

a) planes they flew
b) quality of pilots
c) quality of infrastructure
d) size
e) achievements in battle
...or all combined?

For an example, Luftwaffe had superior planes, but no reserves, Red Army had wast masses of planes and pilots, but of poor quality. Finland had good achievements in battle, but small airforce and poor planes.... et cetera.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

I think the problem here is are we judging by the

a) planes they flew
b) quality of pilots
c) quality of infrastructure
d) size
e) achievements in battle
...or all combined?

For an example, Luftwaffe had superior planes, but no reserves, Red Army had wast masses of planes and pilots, but of poor quality. Finland had good achievements in battle, but small airforce and poor planes.... et cetera.

But you guys did marvelous considering what you were up against - shoot, I think the Russians are still scared of you folks!!!!

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think the Russians are still scared of you folks!!!!

I sincerely hope so since our politicians won't let us join the Nato

But anyways, when judging by all matters combined, I think USAAF and Luftwaffe come quite even... US planes were fit for combat, not so very sofisticated at all the times, but they did the job & their infrastructure was superb. And Luftwaffe held out extremely well, considering they were on the losing side and stretched on three fronts against two most powerful nations in the world...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

.......
But anyways, when judging by all matters combined, I think USAAF and Luftwaffe come quite even... US planes were fit for combat, not so very sofisticated at all the times, ....

In January 1945:
The US had four heavy bombers in service and production, the B17, B24, B32 and B29. The B29 was undoubtably the most sophisticated aircraft of WW2.

There were no equivalents in the LW.

The US single engine fighters had ranges exceeding 1000 miles.

Again the LW couldnt match it.

The US also had three main transports in service that were superior to anything the LW had. The C47, C46 and C54.

Now what were you saying about the US aircraft not being sophisticated?

[mkloby]

The B-29 was a damn marvel of engineering!

Cyrano - I would, however, tend to argue that unnecessarily sophisticated equipment is a weakness, not an advantage. Murphy always wins. Basic day VFR operations did not require particularly tech savvy A/C.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by mkloby

The B-29 was a damn marvel of engineering!

Cyrano - I would, however, tend to argue that unnecessarily sophisticated equipment is a weakness, not an advantage. Murphy always wins. Basic day VFR operations did not require particularly tech savvy A/C.

And without some of those gizmo's, when its nighttime or inclimate weather, your AF would be sitting on the ground doing nothing.

Gizmo's for gizmo's sake is not smart engineering. But when its value added and increases your capability, then its a good thing.

[Emac44]

Again have to go home grown As father served in the RAAF during WW2 and in peace time

[Glider]

As a statement of fact is has to be the USA.
However they had the unique advantage of building their aircraft in essentially benign environment. No concerns over supplies, raw materials, bombing raids, fuel, plus having the huge advantage of a highly developed mass production ethos which they applied to everything that they did.
The other unique advantages that the USA had was that they were able to learn from the war in Europe apply those and take advantage of the technical advances and tactical lessons from the UK which were freely shared.

If it was a matter of the Best Airforce with what they had available then I wouldn't like to chose between the Germans and the British. In 1939/40 no other airforce could touch either of them. The 109 and the Spitfire even the Hurricane could take on any other fighter in service. The Wellington, HE11 were the best in their class and the Ju88 had no equal. The use of Radar in both countries was well ahead of the rest of the world as well as the technical quality.
As the war developed choices were made the British didn't build many transports, we had the designs (e.g. York) but it was agreed that we would rely on the USA for this requirement. Germany didn't have the facilities to replace the Ju52, again they had the designs but not the infrastructure to deliver. Germany didn't have any long range bombers, but that was a tactical choice.
All through the war, the British and Germans always had the best nightfighters and were ahead of the game re Jet engines, the Germans having a clear lead in aerodynamics over everyone.

That said, as I said at the begninnng if the question is who had the best airforce then it has to be the USA from 1942 onwards.

[Marcel]

But then again, USAAF was the best airforce after 1943. So if you're looking at the end of the war, all people who voted USAAF are right. But if you're looking at performance from the beginning to the end, I'm not so sure who would be the best.

[Emac44]

Ok. here is the number of British and Commonwealth Bomber Crew Airmen lost in the Air War of Europe. Out of 125,000 Aircrew that Bomber Command had during WW2. Bomber Command lost approximately 62,000, Either Killed in Action Died of Wounds Missing in Action Prisoners of War or Killed During Training Accidents. You can say the USAF was the best equiped or you can say the the US had the manufacturing areas of supply. And yet the USAF suffered heavy losses in Air Crew as well as the RAF RAAF RNZAF or RCAF etc etc. Having said that. it doesn't make one Air Force better than the other. Including the Russian Air Force or the Germans or Italians or even the Japanese etc. But when it came right down to it. I believe it was committment which made each and every Air Force in this poll equally up to the challenge at hand. If not even unique in aspects all their own etc

My personal choice is that of the Royal Australian Air Force was well and truly up to the rigors of battle. Not only in European Air War but also in North Africa Middle East and the Pacific. But the same can be said of all Allied and Axis Forces as well. for me its personal, as my Father flew with Bomber Command and the RAAF

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

In January 1945:
The US had four heavy bombers in service and production, the B17, B24, B32 and B29. The B29 was undoubtably the most sophisticated aircraft of WW2.

There were no equivalents in the LW.

They were on the defensive. They did not need those.

Originally Posted by syscom3

The US single engine fighters had ranges exceeding 1000 miles.

Again the LW couldnt match it.

Again by 1945, the Germans did not need those. The 109s and 190s were just fine, just in too little numbers. They needed those longer ranges back in 1940 though.

Originally Posted by syscom3

Now what were you saying about the US aircraft not being sophisticated?

I dont think he was saying that the US was not sophisticated but that the quality of the aircraft for the most part was about the same but that the superior numbers was overwelming.

[SpitfireKing]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

FINLAND!!!!

Hah a! Yeh, okay, that made my day there.
RAF, mainly because they had good pilots/plains/ etc.