Best WWII Air-Force

[renrich]

If we are talking about best, I assume that quality plays a big role in that question. In the US a carrier borne fighter was designed,(first flew in 1940) that turned out to be without question the finest fighter bomber of WW2 and was arguably the finest piston engine fighter of WW2 and possibly of alltime. Of course, that was the F4U. No other country during WW2 came close to that accomplishment. Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by simonsays

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

No question regarding the contribution, however I might point out that the English Channel was more important factor - along with Royal Navy? After all the RAF did nothing to beat back the Luftwaffe in France and Belgium.

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.

So, the USAAF had nothing but 'pulp' to bomb and gnats to shoot down in the Strategic Bombing Campaign? And the RAF and Churchill said US couldn't possibly succed in daylight - the only sensible thing to do was join the RAF in night attacks? Is that your thesis?

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.

Anybody forget the length and duration of the Eastern Front? Another candidate for intensity and loss could be RAF night Raids and USAAF daylight raids, Other campaigns for blood and intensity might be PTO island hopping road to Japan. All pretty important.

And I know the USAAF long range patrol bombers, Jeep Carriers, surface fleet and Merchant Marine were insignificant to Battle of Atlantic but I didn't realize how insignificant until now..

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.

All true and you are leading to Best WWII Air Force?

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!)

But somehow the island hopping campaign re-took Philllipines, eliminated Japanese tactical and strategic capabilities, erased the Japanes Navy, took Okinawa, and burned Japan to the ground?

This is a really tacky comment and I hope my Japanes friends forgive me... but it didn't take 4 years for USAAF to kill a million Japanese and destroy their industial capability. And the loss of lives (US vs Commonwealth) was probably less (not sure about this) in the Pacific

So, without denigrating the enormous sacrifice and skills of all Commonwealth fighters could you contrast the strategic importance of Commonwealth versus US in PTO?

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).

Actually the British were impressed by the design which Dutch Kindleburger presented to them as an alternative to having NA produce more P-40's.. but not correct to imply a 'British Spec' as in 'British conceptual design'

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!

I don't and won't 'pan' any of the fighters, army or navy or air/naval air forces. I will argue my points that US fielded the best, the most powerful, the most capable, the largest AF in the world. It took several years to achieve that and it was not the Best in any category I can think of at the beginning of the war.

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!

Your opinion is entirely welcome

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.

Until 1943 you are correct for Black fighters in USMC, USN, USAAF, USA..

incorrect otherwise Nisei Japanese who were unbelievable combat troopers in the Army in Italy and France, Korean and Chineses immigrants, Canucks migrating from the North, expatriate French, American Indian trackers, scouts and combat troopers, Hispanics in all arms, German second generation, Poles, Italians, Dutch, etc, etc. So what races/nationalities did we leave out?

That's what we are - all mongrels in the strictest sense of the word - hard to find purity here.

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.

Man - you will have a LOT of women kicking your arse, that ferried a LOT of RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF, USSR, etc aircraft all over the world from US.

How many women pilots were working for RAF vs USAAF and USN in these roles?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by renrich

If we are talking about best, I assume that quality plays a big role in that question. In the US a carrier borne fighter was designed,(first flew in 1940) that turned out to be without question the finest fighter bomber of WW2 and was arguably the finest piston engine fighter of WW2 and possibly of alltime. Of course, that was the F4U. No other country during WW2 came close to that accomplishment.

The Ta-152H-1 and Me-262 are both far superior fighters, far more advanced and higher quality a/c !

Now the F4U was a great design no doubt, one of my favorites, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. The F4U-4 was on par with some of the latest FW190's in terms of air to air & fighter bomber capabilities, however the latest FW190's were faster, more agile, climbed faster and they all featured lighter & better harmonized controls. Ofcourse with boosted ailerons the F4U approached the FW190 in roll rate, but AFAIK the F4U's in service by WW2 weren't fitted with these.

Just think, before the F4U conventional wisdom said that an AC designed to operate off carriers could never compete with a landbased AC of the same mission. A tour de force in quality.

The F4U, the latest & best carrier based fighter of the war, couldn't compete with the latest & best landbased fighters of the war, so conventional visdom holds.

[Marcel]

I cannot help posting in this thread again. It's hard to argue about this as it is still not clearly defined what "Best" means. It's hard to argue about the fact that the USAAF was the most capable airforce in the world in 1945. How could they not be. They had an unspoiled country, not affected by the effects of war, all the time and peace in the world to train their people, build their planes in non bombed factories etc. It was the only major country that didn't have war within it's borders (apart from a few pacific islands of course).
The question is, would the USAAF have done as good as the RAF, keeping the germans at bay under the circumstances, or as good as the Finnish airforce under their circumstances, or shoot down 381 german planes in 5 days with 50 poldfashioned planes like my little country, or... (fill in yourself). I think nobody can answer that.
The first answer is simple and you're all right about it, no doubt about that, the second one is much more difficult...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ta-152H-1 and Me-262 are both far superior fighters, far more advanced and higher quality a/c !

Now the F4U was a great design no doubt, one of my favorites, but you're giving it more credit than it deserves. The F4U-4 was on par with some of the latest FW190's in terms of air to air & fighter bomber capabilities, however the latest FW190's were faster, more agile, climbed faster and they all featured lighter & better harmonized controls. Ofcourse with boosted ailerons the F4U approached the FW190 in roll rate, but AFAIK the F4U's in service by WW2 weren't fitted with these.



The F4U, the latest & best carrier based fighter of the war, couldn't compete with the latest & best landbased fighters of the war, so conventional visdom holds.

From my perspective, if the US could choose between Ta 152 and any other piston engine fighter available, in mass production, at the end of the war it would be a relatively easy choice... if it could be modified for three roles - Carrier ops, Long Range Escort and Close air support.

I suspect the airframe has that extendability.

I wouldn't choose the Dora, particularly, over the 51H or the F4U-5 or maybe even the P-38L because ALL the other choices were capable of all three roles to varying comparisons with Fw 190D-9 right off the assembly line.. air to air combat would largely be determined by pilot skill and tactical situation (in my opinion) between all four of these..

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Let me reiterate. If size is the determining factor, then this discussion has no purpose. I haven't seen a single pro-US argument that didn't beat that drum.

I've never seen anything to indicate that US had better quality aircrew, or better trained and I'm not sure how you would measure that. If the numbers of hours is the criteria, then the best trained aircrew in the world would probably be the Soviet women pilots, they had to have 500 hours to even be considered!

No my point is this. The US could put out more aircraft into the field of the same or better quality.

I never said that the size of the airforce is what it made it best.

Go back and read my post. I said that the capibility of the airforce combined with force projection, training, quality of aircraft and size is what made it the best.

I dont think anyone can argue with that.

Originally Posted by claidemore

Which airforce was most capable in 1945? The biggest one, USAAF.
Which airforce was most capable in 1940, 41, 42 or even 43? For four of the six war years, that was definately not the USAAF. Poll is for best WWII airforce, not best in 1945 airforce. Length of service is a BIG factor.

Agreed

Did I ever say that this was the best airforce of 1945?

Using your logic the best airforce can not be the RAF either. Why? Because it was not the best airforce in the world either for the whole war. So RAF is out of the equation then, because this thread is not about the best airforce of 1940...

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

From my perspective, if the US could choose between Ta 152 and any other piston engine fighter available, in mass production, at the end of the war it would be a relatively easy choice... if it could be modified for three roles - Carrier ops, Long Range Escort and Close air support.

I suspect the airframe has that extendability.

It most surely had.

I wouldn't choose the Dora, particularly, over the 51H or the F4U-5 or maybe even the P-38L because ALL the other choices were capable of all three roles to varying comparisons with Fw 190D-9 right off the assembly line.. air to air combat would largely be determined by pilot skill and tactical situation (in my opinion) between all four of these..

I'd choose the Dora-9 over the P-38L any time, and with higher boost pressure & GM1 I'd choose it over the rest as-well, esp. considering the 640 km/h top SL speed and 770 + km/h top speed at alt, plus the 13.8 km ceiling. Also the Dora could carry a good deal more than the P-51.

In other words the FW190 Dora-9 & F4U-4 were equals, and the Dora-13 & F4U-5 were as-well.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

It most surely had.



I'd choose the Dora-9 over the P-38L any time, and with higher boost pressure & GM1 I'd choose it over the rest as-well, esp. considering the 640 km/h top SL speed and 770 + km/h top speed at alt, plus the 13.8 km ceiling. Also the Dora could carry a good deal more than the P-51.

But, if the mission became escort from Guam to Japan, which ship do you pick?

In other words the FW190 Dora-9 & F4U-4 were equals, and the Dora-13 & F4U-5 were as-well.

I would argue that the D-9 and D-13 own the F4U (any version) starting at 30,000 feet with some performance parity to the -13 have very significant climb and top speed, same dive, probably better roll in most speed ranges over the F4U, but pretty equal versus 51H and maybe more over the P-38 than F-4U-4. I recall the -5 being optimized for middle to low 20's for best engine performance, so if correct, it starts losing against the -9 and -13 lower than the -4? doesn't it.

In other words at escort altitudes a lot of equality among the 3 US fighters and the two Doras, but start to lose edge to -13 as altitude increases with 51 still holding it's own in pure dash speed and perhaps climb at 12,000 m, but P-38L lower in dash, excellent roll at high speed, faster (?) climb and equivalent ceiling to -13 is what I think I recall.

I only introduced my picks above over the Dora 9 based on the proven long range capability in comparison, to go with the other two missions. What was internal fuel load for -9 and -13 and Ta 152H-1? Maybe I was mistaken.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

It most surely had.



I'd choose the Dora-9 over the P-38L any time, and with higher boost pressure & GM1 I'd choose it over the rest as-well, esp. considering the 640 km/h top SL speed and 770 + km/h top speed at alt, plus the 13.8 km ceiling. Also the Dora could carry a good deal more than the P-51.

In other words the FW190 Dora-9 & F4U-4 were equals, and the Dora-13 & F4U-5 were as-well.

Forgot to ask what the external rack capabilities for the Dora 9 and Ta 152H-1 were in comparison with 51D/H (both could carry the 160 gallon ferry tank and 200 in an emergency with careful attention and a long runway)?

[renrich]

As usual Soren you get your exercise jumping to conclusions, I believe that the ME262 had gas turbine engines. I said that the F4U was the finest fighter bomber and arguably the finest PISTON ENGINE fighter of WW2 and arguably the finest PE fighter of all time. The TA152 played almost no role in WW2. The F4U played an enormous role. You can argue all you want to about best PE fighter of all time. The Germans never fielded a carrier borne fighter. Simon, The Battle of Atlantic the biggest battle of WW2. That is like saying that Gallipoli was the biggest battle of WW1. Have you no knowledge of the Russian Front. The Germans never came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, thanks to US ship building capacity. On June 1, 1943, the first Royal Navy Sdn. #1830 was formed at Quonset Point, RI using Corsair Is. In January, 1943, the first US Navy squadron VF12 was operational. In June, 1943, VF17, the Jolly Rogers was aboard the Bunker Hill. Do you seriously think the British, training at Quonset Point, not even aboard a carrier, beat the US Navy to learning to operate the Corsair off a carrier. That is another wartime myth, like the "Forked Tail Devil." Take a little friendly advice. Before you jump head long into this forum, be advised that there are people on here who have twice the knowledge of you and I put together and we would both do well to be cautious and not expose too much of our ignorance.

[pbfoot]

Dragon you asked how many pilots were graduated in Canada from 40-45 the number is 49707 other aircrew such as navs gunners and the like move it up to total 131000 they started to wind down in mid 44 as there was a large surplus of aircrew .
Now i'd like to bring up a point that might be overlooked the RAF and RCAF and others had been escorting the 8th and 9th airforce for most of 42 and 43 from what I've gleaned they were instructed to stick like glue to the bombers . They could see the LW lurking but were not allowed to pursue,(much to their chagrin) now I'm assuming this has something to due with extending the range of the escort for the heavies.
This would be the first tour of ops for most of these fighter crews and from what I've gleaned that most finished their 2nd tours approaching June 44 . Now I don't know for sure but am guessing the LW stared to wane in the quality of aircrew in late 43 early 44 from attrition on both fronts and in mid 44 there was a marked decline in general aircrew quality for the LW. This being hastened by the 51s/47s. of the 8th . Are we talking about apples and oranges in relation to the skill level of the LW between 42-early 44 and mid 44 -45 and the number of kills achieved

[renrich]

Bill, my source says that the F4U5 had a critical altitude of 31, 400 ft where it could reach 462-470 mph. It's service ceiling was 41400 feet and it had an initial rate of climb of 4250 fpm. It could exceed 400 mph at sea level and of course mounted 4-20mm cannon and had a range on internal fuel of 1036 miles and could still tote a 4000 pound bomb load. The F4U4's critical altitude was 26200 ft. The F4U5 was a production air craft and played a fairly major role in the Korean War. All in all, I would take it over the wunderkind TA152 all day(and night) long.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Dragon you asked how many pilots were graduated in Canada from 40-45 the number is 49707 other aircrew such as navs gunners and the like move it up to total 131000 they started to wind down in mid 44 as there was a large surplus of aircrew .

Same for US 'wind down'.

And your stats bring up an unfair comparison versus the US Civilian Pilot Training Program. The 430,000+ pilots were 'graduated' to point of solo/complete Primary - not getting Wings and ready for assignment to Squadron. I would be pretty sure many of these washed out during more advanced training

Pb - good feedback. Do you have a feel for how much training the RCAF provided all Commonwealth?

Now i'd like to bring up a point that might be overlooked the RAF and RCAF and others had been escorting the 8th and 9th airforce for most of 42 and 43 from what I've gleaned they were instructed to stick like glue to the bombers .

The instructions were same for ALL escort until ~ Jan 11, 1944 when Doolittle issued his now famous instructions which turned the 8th AF FC loose. He was accused by many Bomb Group commanders of being a 'murderer' for that bold move. No question - The ETO USAAF FC was in fledgeling stage until mid to latter 1943 with RAF picking up much of the escort load. MTO more advanced because of North Afrika/Italy operations period of growth.

Unfortunately the Spits from RAF and RCAF were good to about Paris or Zwolle. LW simply shadowed until the Spits had to turn back

They could see the LW lurking but were not allowed to pursue,(much to their chagrin) now I'm assuming this has something to due with extending the range of the escort for the heavies.

This had EVERYTHING to do with the initial stress on Daylight Strategic Bombing and how close USAAF came to bowing to RAF advise.

This would be the first tour of ops for most of these fighter crews and from what I've gleaned that most finished their 2nd tours approaching June 44 . Now I don't know for sure but am guessing the LW stared to wane in the quality of aircrew in late 43 early 44 from attrition on both fronts and in mid 44 there was a marked decline in general aircrew quality for the LW.

By my way of thinking the attrition on the West/Kanalfront was medium high with steadily losses of experienced and replacement LW crews in mid to late 1943. The RAF, then RCAF, etc first inflicting most of the losses until June-Nov 1943 when the 47's got more range and the experience levels combined with generally excellent pre combat flight training started to give the 8th AF an edge in fighter versus fighter combat.

The Luftwaffe reacted to the daylight threat by transferring many Gruppes from other theatres to try to Maintain air superiority over Western, then Central and East Germany. The Mustang started deep target escorts in Dec 1943 to compliment two P-38 groups.

In my opinion this was the straw that started to break the back. The LW could no longer 'pull back' until the escorts ran out of range, then pile on with twin engine me 110 day fighters plus conscripted NJG night fighter D0 217, Ju 88s. They were hurt badly forcing the split of Me 109 fighter force to a.) still be a bomber defense force and b.) an escort for the twins. Very soon the t/e fighter was completely neutralized, the 109s were largely outclassed until the 109G-6 AS came in and even Fw 190s were struggling at 26,000 feet.

The LW could have reacted by pulling strength from Coast back to Germany, leaving invasion front un covered... or could have put more fighter strength in France and Holland to help out JG1 and JG26 - but the sheer numbers of RAF/RCAF plus 8th and 9th AF fighters that could cover to West Germany was far more than over German targets where only the 51 and 38 could go. In my opinion the latter decison loses more LW fighters quicker, hastening the end(or accelerating the Me 262 in desparation)

This being hastened by the 51s/47s. of the 8th . Are we talking about apples and oranges in relation to the skill level of the LW between 42-early 44 and mid 44 -45 and the number of kills achieved

Totally and completely agree.

The LW had their way (mostly) with USAAF in 1942 and to a degree in the first eight months of 1943. They had some spectacular successes from August 17, 1943 through April 1944 - carving out 10+ of 8th AF attacking force multiple times... but only once in aggragate from 30 April 1944 (May 12) and several times on an isolated Combat Wing thereafter (July 7, Sept 27 and Nove 26 come to mind when the LW ripped a couple of Bomb Groups in an area where they simply overwhelmed the escorts - but suffered equally when chased down and caught.

I have made that distinction when my perception is that LW was dominant through 1941 and well into 1942 - then the RAF was probably superior in late 1942 as measured by fighting on all fronts with all missions and doing it well - the the US transitioned in mid 1943 (Global coverage - all missions, high quality, overwhelming quantity) and achieved clear superiority in Airpower when the Mustang took away air superiority over Germany in 1st six months of 1944. No air force dominated Germany over Germany until that period of time.

I could be wrong but that is my view for the reasons I have posed?

Regards,

Bill

[Soren]

Renrich,

You're the one jumping to conclusions, not me. That the Ta-152H didn't see much action isn't an argument as it more than proved itself with a 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio, out-performed every LW fighter in comparative tests and was a far more advanced piston engined fighter than any other in the world. The F4U like I said was a great a/c, however the Ta-152H-1 trumphs it in every way, and the late FW190's were faster, climbed faster & were more agile, so there's nothing to justify your claim than the F4U was the best.

That having been said the F4U was definitely among the best mass produced fighters of WW2, no doubt in the top 3 along wiith the FW190, but not the best.

Bill,

The Ta-152H-1's internal fuel capacity was ~1,000 Liters, compared to the 640 Liters of the FW-190. Both could carry one, two or three 300 L drop tanks. Bomb load capability was two 250 kg bombs + one 500 kg bomb, or up to a single 1,800 kg centerline bomb. Now AFAIK not even the P-38 could haul such a load, which just goes to show how sturdy the FW190 airframe actually is.

FW-190 G-3 with 1x 500 kg bomb and 2x 300 L drop tanks.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Bill, my source says that the F4U5 had a critical altitude of 31, 400 ft where it could reach 462-470 mph. It's service ceiling was 41400 feet and it had an initial rate of climb of 4250 fpm. It could exceed 400 mph at sea level and of course mounted 4-20mm cannon and had a range on internal fuel of 1036 miles and could still tote a 4000 pound bomb load. The F4U4's critical altitude was 26200 ft. The F4U5 was a production air craft and played a fairly major role in the Korean War. All in all, I would take it over the wunderkind TA152 all day(and night) long.

Rich - the Vought website has the top speed at 469mph at 26,800 feet, initial (best) climb at 3780 fpm. This could be wrong but the P&W R2800-32 delivering 300 HP more at EWP, that sounds about right over the F4U-4.

Looking at that profile, performance in climb and dash speed goes downhill from 26K.

The critical altitude for the P-38L was 28,000, its dash speed there was 443 which probably compares well with the F4U-5 at 28K. Ditto the P-38L intial climb at 4750 fpm at SL strongly implies better climb performance than the F4U-5 across all profiles by a significant margin until 44-45K where they both topped out.

I'm not going into a debate about any of these - we have been there and done that - I like all of them..

However the -5 shouldn't be in the comparison unless you want to compare with one more year of development on both the Ta 152H and the Fw 190D-13 since the -5 wasn't produced until 1946 and really doesn't fit in WWII?

I kind of stand on my earlier comments about the equivalence of the 51H, 190D-9 or -13, P-38L and F4U-4. I would pick one only if you told me which missions all had to fly. If you wanted one that could perform long range escort 1500 miles away and operate at 42,000 feet I narrow the selection down to one. If you tell me it is Naval Air multi Purpose, it is an easy choice also.