Best WWII Air-Force

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Gotta agree with that. Thats why I allways think it is funny when people automatically choose a fighter as the best aircraft of WW2.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

All this comparison of fighter numbers...

I hope we're all aware that bombers win the war, not fighters. The important aircraft for the Luftwaffe was the bomber - for a proper look at the Battle of Britain you should be looking at how many bombers the RAF shot down for a loss of RAF fighters. Shooting down the German escorts was a bonus.

And if you want to be really technical, try and find out how many German bombers were shot down before they dropped their bombs on target to see how well the RAF really did when intercepting.

I do have to admit the debate is good reading.

And the USAAF was the best air force of World War II, it was strategic and tactical in every theatre of U.S operation. The only one that came close was the RAF but it only performed strategically in Europe.

Plan_D - I agree your major points. I suspect that discussing the role of fighter aircraft is about the contribution toward enabling bombers to do their jobs - with losses acceptable from both a military and political POV.

If you conclude that Daylight Strategic Bombing was an important component toward shortening the war then Fighters were extremely important in achieving the goal.

The LW (like the RAF in BoB) had wrested control of the air over Germany after October 14, 1943. The P-38 was proving a disappointment due to multitude of low temp issues at high altitude, the P-47 and Spitfire had inadequate range and there were no Continental bases to eliminate rang issues. Without the Mustang, Germany inflicts unacceptable losses over Germany - and US may not have been able to re-start until thos problems of range and cold weather were solved - probably June 1944 before P-47s started getting more legs and P-38L solved it's problems..

In the meantime, wresting control over Germany is a major question.

It was the combination of a successful long range fighter, the resurgence of deep strikes over Germany by 8th, then 15th AF, plus the orders to 'seek and destroy the LW on air and ground' - that led to the battles that ultimately enabled successful attacks and destruction of Oil and Chemical Industry - and the RAF also played an important role in that.

The Mustang was the 'tool' that sought out and destroyed the LW over its own airfields - places where the Spits and Typhoons and Thunderbolts could not go.

Interestingly enough - escort fighters were important over Japan - but the major destuction was caused by low level night attacks with unescorted B-29s... different game even from RAF in ETO

Regards,

Bill

To summarize the point I think you are making - except for some scattered attempts to use P-38s (and Mosquitos) to bomb strategic targets, the heavy lifting and destruction (and most losses) was the bomber force.

[Hunter368]

Bill,

Do you then agree with the voting totals in the thread?

RAF 33

LW 51

USAF 76

Would you rank thus #1 USAF, #2 LW and #3 RAF?

[syscom3]

Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................

After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.

Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................

After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.

Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!

I don't think he was insulting the P-38......just saying it had problems. Not to mention I think if you had sent "any" fighter with the bombers it would of helped a fair bit reduce bomber losses, it just happened to be the P-38 was the fighter. Not saying the P-38 was a bad fighter, but it did have problems. B/c of several reasons the USAF eventually went with the P-51.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I don't think he was insulting the P-38......just saying it had problems. Not to mention I think if you had sent "any" fighter with the bombers it would of helped a fair bit reduce bomber losses, it just happened to be the P-38 was the fighter. Not saying the P-38 was a bad fighter, but it did have problems. B/c of several reasons the USAF eventually went with the P-51.

The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO.

As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 & -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Drgondog, dont denigrate the P38 so fast........................

After the P38 started escorting the 8th AF bombers, bomber losses went down drastically.

Was it an air superiority fighter? No. Did it keep the LW away from the bombers? YES!!!!

Syscom - I'm not denigrating the 38. It was less efective in the January through May 1944 for three reasons.

The first and most important reason is that the J model didn't have dive brakes and when they did engage with German fighters they could easily out dive because of immediate entry into compressibility - coupled with sustained high altitude engine/supercharger problems causing a lot of aborts and in some cases losses. When the P-38L came in in June all this changed and the 38 became formidable at high altitude against the 109 and 190.

The last reason is that the 38 was so distinctive, the LW was never really caught by suprise and could engage or flee pretty much at will. I'm sure you have read a lot of the 20th, 55th and 364th Mission summaries - most of which stated no 'enemy fighters sighted'..

AFAIK the 8th AF P-38's claimed less than 225 German fighters from 10/43-5/44 in those three groups - far lower than the Mustang totals for Jan-May1944

It's hard to make a case that the introduction of the P-38 dramatically reduced 8th BC command losses as the 8th pretty much slowed or stopped deep penetrations after the disasters in October '43 until Big Week in February 1944.

On the other hand, to your point, the bombers they escorted were less likely to be attacked because it was easy to note they were being escorted and easier to try to find out an unescorted task force particulary in the early days of P-38 ops when they were only groups capable of Target escort... one or two groups to cover 35 Bomb Groups was just spread way too thin to do much good.

Who knows what the history of 8th AF FC would look like if P-38L's had been operational in August 1943?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO.

As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 & -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.

100% agree we have debated this before, the P-38 was a good fighter but it had problems.

Cold cockpit, cost and hard to handle (could be dangerous even) for a rookie pilot, harder to maintain. PTO was a better fit for it, two engines was a good idea flying over long spans of water, added a level of comfort.

P-51 was cheaper, easy to maintain, great plane overall, few faults, easy to fly.

It would of made my choice between them easy to make. P-51 every time when talking about an air force full of average pilots. In the hands of an ace pilot the P-38 could be very lethal indeed.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Bill,

Do you then agree with the voting totals in the thread?

RAF 33

LW 51

USAF 76

Would you rank thus #1 USAF, #2 LW and #3 RAF?

Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.

From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best.

In 1943 I felt RAF and US were a 'toss up' with RAF having an edge. This was transition time before full weight of quality aircraft and trained pilots in USAAF started to weld very strong combat units in both Europe and Pacific.

From Big Week forward, when USAAF again committed and sustained long range daylight operations all over Germany, and B-29 Operations over Japan started, I just see no comparison in ability to project overwhelming force everywhere.

And unlike others I also count a VERY strong Naval/USMC sea based airpower as an added part of the equation.. but would state that USAAF could stand alone in the judgment.

The only aspect of air combat that the USAAF did not excell in was strategic operations at night in a heavily defended target spectrum. No airforce executed like RAF/RCAF in that role.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.

From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best.

In 1943 I felt RAF and US were a 'toss up' with RAF having an edge. This was transition time before full weight of quality aircraft and trained pilots in USAAF started to weld very strong combat units in both Europe and Pacific.

From Big Week forward, when USAAF again committed and sustained long range daylight operations all over Germany, and B-29 Operations over Japan started, I just see no comparison in ability to project overwhelming force everywhere.

And unlike others I also count a VERY strong Naval/USMC sea based airpower as an added part of the equation.. but would state that USAAF could stand alone in the judgment.

The only aspect of air combat that the USAAF did not excell in was strategic operations at night in a heavily defended target spectrum. No airforce executed like RAF/RCAF in that role.

Yes I have to 150% agree with every single word you said in that post. I see it exactly the same way to the letter. You reading my mind?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

The P-38 could've been "the" fighter in the ETO, but the Mustang was introduced just about the time they had finally ironed out the majority of the problems with the P-38 (the "L" model); by that time, it was just easier to go with the single-engine fighter than to try and keep soldiering on with the P-38, especially when the limited production of P-38's were more badly needed in the PTO.

As near as I can tell, one of the main things that held the P-38 back from more widespread service was it's higher production cost vs. other single-engine fighters (i.e.: the P-47 & -51); if I remember correctly, a P-38 cost approximately 50% more to produce than a contemporary single-engine fighter due to it's higher finish quality (the P-38 was practically hand-assembled) and more materials required.

SoD - I quite agree your main point as I agree Syscom comments... but the P-38L was only introduced in June, 1944 timeframe and by that time Doolittle had committed to 100% conversion to 51s (except for 56th FG).. whereas the 51s flew first missions in Dec 1943, going fully operational in Jan1944 and four operational in early March.

The 51s did the most damage by far in the Jan to D-Day timeframe.

The P-38 was 50% more expensive than the P-47 but 100% more than the 51 (a nit but a possible factor) - more materials, two engines, complex dual systems.

I am not denigrating the P-38 - it was one heckuva multi role fighter that flew ALL of the possible roles, unlike the Mustang which never flew as a night fighter or high altitude level bomber or even bomber interceptor..it was the only fighter we put out that was nearly as versatile as the Mosquito.

Regards,

Bill

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Hunter, I think I commented to Chris and Soren early in the thread what my perspective was... but this is what I believe.

From start of war through 1942 I felt LW was best.

In 1943 I felt RAF and US were a 'toss up' with RAF having an edge. This was transition time before full weight of quality aircraft and trained pilots in USAAF started to weld very strong combat units in both Europe and Pacific.

From Big Week forward, when USAAF again committed and sustained long range daylight operations all over Germany, and B-29 Operations over Japan started, I just see no comparison in ability to project overwhelming force everywhere.

For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.

True in 43 it was very very close.

USAF was new to ETO and just building. Lacked night fighting ability.

RAF was building but was more concerned with night raids, which was good but not decisive in BoG. RAF could not carry out day raids successfully.

LW was good but used its bomber strength in a battle field support role, not a strategic role. Its bomber force was never a very good strategic force in the first place but better then none.

1939-1942 LW was best.

1943 close tie between all three forces. Here a person could make a argument for any of the three and not by far off.

1944-1945 USAF hands down the best by far, no one is even close.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

For the most I completely agree. The only thing I see differently is I would call 1943 a complete toss up between the RAF/LW/USAAF.

Chris - good point, ditto Hunter. I viewed the LW trailing in 1943 originally based on losing nearly all offensive initiatives due to Allies (including VVS) getting control of their own air space - but in fact all three were in transition in 1943.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see it as pretty much as Hunter put it for 1943.