Best WWII Air-Force

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.

Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best.

So, in your opinion the 'biggest' in 1945 not only wasn't the best but Canada differentiated itself as 'best' by a.) ability to better perform all missions than the US, b.) more able to perform some missions while holding its ability on all others at par or even with US?

What would your definition of 'best' be?

My point, and my opinion, is that a country with ONLY 12 million people had an truly excellent airforce, based on it's population and financial resources. 2% of Canadas population was in the airforce in 1945. Can anyone top that?

I don't know but here are questions that come to mind.

Take the State of Texas and California (roughly the same population as Canada) and contrast a.) the design capabilities of Texas and California with respect to Convair, North America, Douglas, Chance Vought to name a few. Then contrast the production of aircraft of all types that originated from those two states with both the innovation and production capability of Canada. Then contrast the amount of production of oil, aviation gasoline and lubricants from those two states, as well as the number of avaiation schools running from Basic through Advanced.

I don't know the answer to all the contrasts above but suspect if you focused on just the airframe designs and types and numbers, as well as the pilots and crews that came from them plus the fuel and parts - you might have an Aipower (Air Force and Naval) greater and more self contained from process of pencil on paper to delivery to battlefields than Canada?

Canada started the war with 3 overseas squadrons, and grew to 48, that I believe is an unprecedented growth rate. Training 80 operational squadrons is also a significant contribution. RAF would have struggled without it.

RAF would have struggled without the number of students that were processed through US also.

Canada had the leading fighter squadron in the 2TAF, if you want an example of performance excellence.

As measured how? Or as measured against the 10th ranking squadron in RAF or 8th AF for air to air, 10th ranking in 9th, 12th or 15th for ground destruction of trains, aircraft, air scores, etc. in USAAF or perhaps same standard against LW?

I really don't have facts for an argument but don't know how your best ranking is achieved?

Canada also quite correctly choose the P51 as its primary fighter; post 1945, due to it's long range capabilities which are well suited to the long distances involved in North America, an indication of good leadership and planning. (they could have chosen the Spit, which every canadian loved, but it wasn't the right plane for the job)

Great airplane but another country designed it and put into combat to test it's quality and fitness for the mission.. ditto the Spitfire

The leading British ace, Johnnie Johnson, preferred to fly with Canadians.

He had loads of fun flying with Americans in Korea.

And let's not forget the Canadian contribution on the ground, we had our own beach on D-Day, and Canadians were commonly used as shock troops and earned the respect and admiration of all allied commanders.

But now I must go and plow the snow out of my driveway....

I'm not denigrating RCAF which was one hell of an organization, nor Canada's contribution to WWII (as well as and especially WWI). I just have a problem accepting a thesis that it was the 'best AF in WWII', that's all.

Convince me that it outperformed Texas and California, then I will throw in the State of Washington and New York to boost my production of high quality aircraft at same as or better quality in just about every combat mission in WWII. I concede several designs not built in US were were singularly better in several instances. Name for me 5 aircraft designed and built and fought by Canada better than B-32, F4U, P-51, C-47 (or C-46 or C-54), A-26 to name a few categories designed and built in the two states.

At the end of the Day, if Churchill and Stalin and Hitler and Tojo had been offered US airpower resources and infrastructure, quality and quantity in both ships and crews, in an even swap for their own AF, versus trade for RCAF, what is your opinion of their decision?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by syscom3

And it was such a distant 4th to the AAF, it didnt even count.

The USN had an even larger naval air corps than Canada did.

Aside from the fact that this statement pissed me off so I have to defend. Yes the US forces were larger and more comprehensive and as I stated in the 1st page of the thread the most powerful and yes they had for the most part good/better equipment but to say they were better trained is not fact

[claidemore]

drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.

Convair, North American, Chance Vought etc, were not part of the USAAF, they were contractors. The question is not who had the best designers, factories etc. Germany had better designers, Grunmman stole the best things of the FW 190 for the Bearcat. Same situation for Me262. They had better factories too, they were bombed constantly, and still managed to increase fighter production in 1944. No US factories were bombed.

Just looking back over this thread, the argument that the US was the biggest producer seems to be the strongest one for it being the best airforce, and yet the fact that the VVS outproduced the Luftwaffe and managed a 20 to 1 superiority in numbers isn't used as an argument for the VVS being the best airforce?

Finland didn't have any production capability, but who had better success against greater odds?

I don't have my books with me to give exact figures, but a Canadian squadron led in air to air kills in the 2nd Tactical Air Force (411?), and another led in ground targets attacked and destroyed (442?). I'm not comparing 2TAF to 8th Airforce, since they had completely different roles and situations. Just using it as an example of excellent performance.

Sure, all those leaders would have loved to have the production of the US, (and in fact 8% of VVS planes were from USA, and 25% of RAF planes were from USA). But they would have all had home grown boys flying em.

Poll said pick an airforce, I pick RCAF.

That being said, If I was Russian, I'd pick the VVS. Only country invaded by Germany that didn't capitulate, lost 2000 planes on first two days of fighting, recovered from its losses and ended up being one of the principal contributors to the Allied victory. If there was a "most improved" category.......

Americans have every right to be proud of their contribution, (albeit a slightly late one), and the US certainly did a number of things that no other country could have done. I just don't happen to subscribe to the whole "America won the war" attitude.

One interesting little story. Early 42, before the US had deployed any of its airforce in Britain, a US officer was observing operations by the RAF. He offered the opinion that the bombers shouldn't need escort fighters. The RAF guy said that they had noticed that when they sent the fighters along, the bombers came back, and when they didn't send the fighters, the bombers didn't come back. Of course the Americans knew better, didn't listen to the experience of the British, and the rest as they say, is history.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by claidemore

drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.

Check out the Arrow thread on here - The Arrow fell from a decision of the Canadian Government, not some dark hand of the US. In its day it was an magnificent aircraft but it wasn't the "superplane" many try to make it out to be....

But that's another story.....

[simonsays]

The UK was invaded and did not capitulate, the Channel Islands were occupied by the Nazis.

Fighter Command saved an entire country from disaster in The Battle of Britain. No other air force can claim the same.

The Royal Air Force also fielded Bomber Command which with the Lancaster (bigger payload than B-17) pounded German industry to a pulp and did so on extremely hazardous night raids. This strategy was an RAF one. I understand that once the USAAF joined the war, their bombers were flying under a different kind of danger as they bombed in daylight but we often forget just how hazardous flying was then especially at night. Many returning night bombers just could not find home in the dark, especially if crippled. I believe that one-third of all the 67,000 or so Bomber Command aircrew died in accidents. Bomber Command was bigger than and lost more men than the USAAF 8thAF.

The biggest battle of WWII was The Battle of the Atlantic and here the RAF's Coastal Command and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm pushed the absolute endurance limits with what was available and what was possible to defeat Germany's greatest weapons, its Battleships and U-Boats.

The RAF trained aircrew and supplied aircraft, airfields and support to many invaded nations like Poland, Czechoslovakia, USSR and the Free French in excile. Many Dutch, Norwegian etc. Air Forces still carry their RAF Sqn. Nos. as a mark of respect. So do the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF.

My Canadian friends were right to remind us that they were there on day one, so were the Aussies and Kiwis and other members of the Commonwealth. They fought a long hard six years and had had three years of battering before our US Allies joined in. And still continued to operate.

British aircrew flew in all extremes of this planet's weather under terrible conditions, with many falling from disease. The South East Asian Command operated against appauling odds in outdated aircraft (due to war pressures in Europe) and against immense odds. It is worth remembering that British Commonwealth Forces (including Indian Forces) killed one million Japanese troops in Burma, four times that of the US Military's valiant island hoping campaign. (The reason you didn't know that is that John Wayne wasn't British!)

The Mustang was ordered to British spec, and it didn't come into its own until it was improved with a British engine, the Rolls-Royce Merlin. (The RAF also wanted the P-38 but Roosevelt wouldn't sell them the superchargers with it).

As a UK citizen I fully appreciate the efforts made by all Allied aircrew in determining that I was born in a free democracy. It is interesting that the Canuck loves the RCAF and the Yank loves the USAAF, but how about going to bat for someone else? Would that be unpatriotic? You are both offside panning the RAF as you do. People all over the world owe them a lot. I had a long hard think about other countries first but we should also remember that this was the day of British Empire, before the 48-State USA grew to lead the world and whilst the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF etc. were all small parts of a greater British Commonwealth. Same aircraft, same roundels? Go figure!

So, concious that I am falling prey to shouts of bias, I want to fight the case for the RAF here, and as an ex-Royal Navy man that smarts!

And as an ex-RN man I also want to remind our friends from the US that the Corsair was a great plane but that the USN and USMC couldn't land them on carriers without crashing them due to the long nose. They were designated as airfield-ops only until it was the British Fleet Air Arm who showed the USN how to land them by approaching the carrier deck from an angle. Also, we avoided your Kamikaze losses from day-one by having armoured decks on our carriers which bounced the Kamikaze off. The USN ignored our advice and paid dearly for it. The USAAF also ignored the advice of the visiting and very experienced RAF advisor not to park all the aircraft together at Pearl Harbor. (See how the movie Pearl Harbor shows him as a lilly-livered nancy-boy in awe of the handsome Yanks!...arse!)

Finally, the USAAF wouldn't let non-whites fly. The Tuskeegee Airmen story is one we all know (even if we can't spell it). The British Commonwealth allowed all races to fight and to fly.

We owe the women of the US a huge debt for working those factories etc. but the women of the RAF kept working all those Allied aircrews (inuendo), so for best Air Force of WWII it has to be the British Commonwealth.

The defence rests.

[syscom3]

Simonsays, and in the end....

By 1945, only the US had the numbers, industrial and scientific capabilities, the bases and the aircraft to project power globally.

The commonwealth didnt.

And did I mention we had the atomic bomb and the B29's to carry it?

[simonsays]

The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme. They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later. The US was worried about the Arrow becoming the standard NATO interceptor and that the USAF would need to buy it too. The US aviation industry would lose out to the Canadians and they could not have that. So, so much for friends and alliances, the US did the dirty and then sold the Canadians aircraft like the Voodoo and F-5 which lacked the range to protect a huge country like Canada. I used to look at RCAF Voodoos and Starfighters and admire their paint-schemes etc. but now I see the political bullying that forced the Canucks to buy them. I am an aviation nut and therefore love US aircraft but you guys are politically unreliable allies and you don't mind doing the dirty on your mates to get what you want.

[claidemore]

you know simon, you make some pretty good arguments. I guess i gotta agree with you.

Of course you know the RCAF still had a better hockey team.

This is in reply to the post about RAF. I need to type faster.

[simonsays]

The question was best Air Force of WWII.

Nothing about weapons built by Nazi defectors or civilian scientists, or aircraft manufacturers. And not only 1945.

WWII started in 1938 for the Czechs, 1939 for the Poles, French, Brits etc.

Try to turn off the 'Star-Spangled Banner' playing in the background and let's get back to the question. This is an aviation site, and as I said, I love US aircraft. The USAAF is definitely in the picture here.

But trying to take a look at the question, best air force of WWII we must ask what makes an air force good. I don't think any statement about having an atom bomb or the B-29 in 1945 even begins to cover the question. Europe was devastated by the war and in 1945 no European powers were in a position to project political, economic or military power abroad as before.

British Forces operated and won in many post-war conflicts: Korea, Suez, Kenya, Borneo, Aden, and our own Vietnam which was Malaya...which we won. We are still the World's No.2 arms producer after the USA, so 1945 was not a total end to British Military prowess.

My point is that looking at the bigger picture, the RAF operated longer and harder and in tougher circumstances, and in more diverse parts of the world. The British Empire was vast and that many now wholly independent air forces were part of that greater RAF.

I am not trying to offend your patriotism. Just talk intelligently about aircraft. Take it easy.

Got to love the Canadians!

You would woop our arses at ice hockey but I am sure the WRAF tea-ladies field hockey team would give the WRCAF ladies a run for their money. Go Tea-Ladies! Give me a T! ...milk and two lumps please, dear!

Might even swop shirts after the game.....hot bath ladies?....hang on, must...think...about...planes!

Flaps! ...oh, Jesus!

Oh, and here is another point. The USAAF didn't have a jet aircraft until Frank Whittle was forced to sell rights to his patent to the US for 48,000 pounds.

Invention of Radar (and Sonar), Spitfire and Mosquito photo-recon developments, Lysander flights behind enemy lines, pathfinder raids, RAF Air-Sea Rescue innovations, bouncing bomb, Grand Slam bomb, rocket-firing Typhoons, Hawker Hurricane operations, sea, desert, jungle, snow, the defence of Malta, aerial sinking of the Tirpitz etc., Frank Whittle...

Lots of hardship, but lots of guts, lots of innovation, I could be swayed but I think the RAF gets my vote.

If its a movie then the Yanks win!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by simonsays

The US held the Canadians by the throat over farm subsidies until they cancelled the Arrow programme.

Name them and show proof - nothing more than a conspiracy theory

Originally Posted by simonsays

They also felt that there was a Soviet spy in the factory leaking secrets to the Kremlin. Their suspicions were upheld when the Foxbat came out as it shares many features created in the Arrow, but came seven years later.

There was more worry about the fabrication of titanium and processes that were used on the Arrow and later showed up on the MiG-25.

Originally Posted by simonsays

The US was worried about the Arrow becoming the standard NATO interceptor and that the USAF would need to buy it too. The US aviation industry would lose out to the Canadians and they could not have that. So, so much for friends and alliances, the US did the dirty and then sold the Canadians aircraft like the Voodoo and F-5 which lacked the range to protect a huge country like Canada. I used to look at RCAF Voodoos and Starfighters and admire their paint-schemes etc. but now I see the political bullying that forced the Canucks to buy them. I am an aviation nut and therefore love US aircraft but you guys are politically unreliable allies and you don't mind doing the dirty on your mates to get what you want.

Again more conspiracy theory - if you look into the program it was behind schedule, over budget and being run pretty poorly. The Arrow, while it would of been a great interceptor but did not hold any more promise for future roles as such aircraft as the YF-12 or the F-108. There were a lot of "what ifs" behind the program and perhaps a gamble the Government at that time did not want to make. I challenge you to show one ounce of substantial proof to back your claim. Diefenbaker bowed to Social pressure within Canada and could not justify a cash cow (as it was becoming) like the Arrow. As far as the Canadian purchase of the F-101 - that wasn't forced upon Canada and with the F-5 Canada (Canadair)had manufacturing rights which I know employed many people and made Canadair some good money.

And had the Arrow been built? It's fire control system was being built by a company owned by the richest and most influential man of that period - Howard Hughes - even if built under license Hughes would of made millions off the Arrow program - had there been any influence there it "would of" came from him....

Also look where the Falcon and Sparrow missiles that would of armed the Arrow came from - again there would have been millions to be made on this side of the border as well....

Bottom line - some of the same program errors made on the Arrow was found many years later on the Challenger.....

BTW I spent 5 years as a tech rep for Lockheed in Canada. I worked at Canadair, Bristol, Fleet Industrial, IMP and Enheat. I met many people who were on the Arrow program and there is always a stigma among some Canadians to blame the fall of the Arrow on the US when in essence one man with one pen killed a very promising aircraft design and crippled the Canadian aviation industry for a number of years.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by simonsays

British Forces operated and won in many post-war conflicts: Korea, Suez, Kenya, Borneo, Aden, and our own Vietnam which was Malaya...which we won. We are still the World's No.2 arms producer after the USA, so 1945 was not a total end to British Military prowess.

The RAF role in Korea was minimal when compared to what the US had there...

Originally Posted by simonsays

My point is that looking at the bigger picture, the RAF operated longer and harder and in tougher circumstances, and in more diverse parts of the world.

That's a load of Crap - Korea, Vietnam, Central and South America, Antarctica to name a few

Originally Posted by simonsays

I am not trying to offend your patriotism. Just talk intelligently about aircraft. Take it easy.

And right now that last statement made no sense.

Originally Posted by simonsays

Oh, and here is another point. The USAAF didn't have a jet aircraft until Frank Whittle was forced to sell rights to his patent to the US for 48,000 pounds.

FORCED? Mind Explaining that? Did Churchill put a gun to his head? 48,000 pounds was about $72,000 USD. In 1944 dollars that would of been about $865,000 in today's money - what's the problem???

The technology given by Whittle to the US just excellerated US jet development. Lockheed and GE were looking into jet propulsion before the US even entered the war and although the narrow minded AAF at the time showed no interest, the technology lay dorment. WW2 just kicked the door open for the jet in the AAF.

Lockheed J37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938, although this initial design was far more complex that what eventually emerged as the J37. In an effort to keep the fuel economy of the engine similar to existing piston engine, Price used a combination of low-compression axial compressor stages feeding a high-compression reciprocating compressor. In 1941 he was hired by Lockheed to evaluate the General Electric superchargers being fit to the experimental XP-49, a high-altitude version of their famous P-38. By this time Price had the basic design of his jet completed, and was able to gain the interest Kelly Johnson, chief engineer at Lockheed's Skunk Works. Johnson had been thinking about a new high-speed design after running into various compressibility problems at high speed with the P-38. During 1941 he ordered the development of a new aircraft to be powered by Price's engine, developing the engine as the L-1000, and the aircraft as the L-133."

Originally Posted by simonsays

Invention of Radar (and Sonar), Spitfire and Mosquito photo-recon developments, Lysander flights behind enemy lines, pathfinder raids, RAF Air-Sea Rescue innovations, bouncing bomb, Grand Slam bomb, rocket-firing Typhoons, Hawker Hurricane operations, sea, desert, jungle, snow, the defence of Malta, aerial sinking of the Tirpitz etc., Frank Whittle...

Lots of hardship, but lots of guts, lots of innovation, I could be swayed but I think the RAF gets my vote.

If its a movie then the Yanks win!

You're entitled to your opinion but you seem to be one Continent focused. While the contribution of the RAF will never be undermined it was a combined effort and at the end of the day it was the weight of the USAAF that played the differance - so much that RAF leased B-29s until their modern bomber force could get up and running, and there's no need to make a move about that...

BTW - instead of making 3 post please post once or combine your posts when finished - thank you.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Let's keep in mind that 'best' is a qualitative, and not a quantitative term and is always a matter of opinion.

So the USAAF had no aircraft that were of "quality".

Lets see:

P-51D
B-17
P-47
P-38
B-24

Just to name a few...

And they put them up in very large numbers which is a plus.

Originally Posted by claidemore

Yes, the USA had the most industrial capacity, so of course it was the biggest. Biggest ain't always best.

Okay but I want facts from you please that proves that the RCAF was better than the USAAF in these ways:

a. Could project its power in mass force all over the world.

b. Was better in quality.

c. Was better trained.

No opinions please, just facts. National pride can only go so far.

My point, and my opinion, is that a country with ONLY 12 million people had an truly excellent airforce, based on it's population and financial resources. 2% of Canadas population was in the airforce in 1945. Can anyone top that?

Were they great airforce? Yes they were. Were they the best though?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by claidemore

drgondog:
If you want to talk design capabilities, consider the Avro Arrow, which would have been the best fighter in the world at that time, if Diefenboomer hadn't been cowed by the US president into scrapping the program. But that's another story.

You are only speculating.

It is a would have, should have, could have....

...did not.

[simonsays]

Thanks for your input, Flyboy. I don't really have the resources or time to prove the Arrow 'conspiracy'. The US company 'The History Channel' did a great programme all about it. That's all I have got. I bow to your greater knowledge and experience. Why do the Canadians still hold a grudge about it?
Do they know something that you don't or are they all simply misinformed?


With reference to the Korean War, I was referring to post-War conflicts that the UK was involved in around the world. This was is response to claims that the UK had no post-war ability to project air power overseas. If you read my post again you will understand. In fact as far as I know, the RAF had almost no role in the Korean War and the Royal Navy represented the UK's air power. I was not comparing the US role in Korea to the UK's either.

My comment about the RAF operating over vast distances etc. was referring back to the original question about WWII, not post-war.

If you want to know about Frank Whittle's patent being sold to the US then I invite you to look it up. I am not even sure if Churchill was still Prime Minister then. I think that your currency conversion might be out since the value of the dollar was way less then. And I am sure you would agree that Pratt & Whitney, GE and all of the USA's other aviation companies would consider that amount (less than a million dollars) the greatest US bargain since the Louisiana Land Purchase.

Finally, it would be nice to keep things pleasant on here, especially since you are a moderator and I have no axe to grind. Just trying to have fun and learn about aircraft. If you look at the 47 pages of this post then you will see that although there are people from all over the world writing here, it is consistently the Americans who try to upset everyone and then spit the dummy when someone says something that puts a dent in your patriotic furver.

The USAAF did a splendid job and were world beaters by 1945, but they were only in for the latter half of the war so have to lose points for the nearly three years when they weren't even in the fight like everyone else.

I only joined this site today, but I think I will think again before getting caught up in any posts here filled with a redkneck agenda.

You have confirmed my opinion. The British Commonwealth air forces were the best WWII air forces if only because they never spent the next 60 years dissing their Allies and believing their own movie industry propaganda about how great they are. Nice job convincing me.