Best WWII Air-Force

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I guess this forum is too "Redneck" for claidemore as well.

Too Redneck? HA!. I spent my most of my life working with rednecks, rig-hands, cowhands, carpenters, wrench spinners and other horny handed sons of toil. Even married a redneck gal.

I use these formus as motivation and research for a writing project, and I really can't afford to use up too much time in lengthy debates with wide paramaters, interesting though they may be.

Thanks for thinkin of me though!

Claidemore (of the same opinion still!)

[renrich]

Bill, we(all of us) have had these dialogues before and I enjoy them a great deal and am in accord with you on your reasoning. Regarding this thread, best air force WW2, quantitatively, the US Forces stand alone. Qualitatively, I believe the US wins hands down. Not to denigrate the other air forces because they made a lot of chicken salad out of chicken feathers but the US had the designers, manufacturers and most of all the financial ability to, once they got going build more and better AC than anyone else. Best strategic bomber-B29, Best long range escort fighter-P51, Best fighter bomber overall-F4U,(ETO-P47), best carrier fighter-F4U, best transport-C47,best twin engine fighter-P38,best light-medium bomber-A26, best true medium bomber-B26, best carrier torpedo bomber-TBF,best long range patrol plane-PBY. Other categories might be best short range interceptor-Spitfire,(the TA152 might be a contender here but I view it as virtually an experimental model with so little operational experience as to still have a lot of bugs in it.) best gas turbine fighter-ME262, best true light bomber, multi role AC-Mosquito. The training of the US pilots was excellent and US air operated all over the globe in all conditions. One factor which I believe is underappreciated which most US designed AC had in common was long range. This probably had to do with the geographical size and location of the US. The designers in Europe just did not envision warfare over the great distances that those in the US and in Japan did. That range capability paid enormous divdends in the long term.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The US war machine was so vast, only the AAF and USN could have so many different types and still be able to provide the spares and the ground crews to keep them flying.

True, but maybe it could have been better having one plane for one purpose instead of having a dozen of them?

Renrich,

remember that the US benefit greatly from british experience. When they rolled into the war, they had had 2 more years to develope aircraft. Still in 1940 they were clearly inferior to european AF's (IMHO of course). Also keep in mind that the US was not a battleground as Germany and the UK were. They had save factories and all the time in the world to develope new a/c whil in the mean time using the already very good a/c from the British (think for instance of the beaufighter in the nightfighter role). In the end the US was the biggest airforce in the world. And they should be, as they had the peace to savely design and build new a/c where the others were in the midst of the battle and had the benefit of 2 more years of peace.

On quality we could debate (the Tempest was a very capable longrange fighter, too and maybe better than the Mustang, the FW190 or the Typhone was maybe as good in fighterbombing as the corsair etc).
I'm still wondering if the USAAF would have been the best if they had been in the middle of the fight like the LW or the RAF in 1940.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Marcel

True, but maybe it could have been better having one plane for one purpose instead of having a dozen of them?

If the Army and Navy did not fight among themselves so much for Defense dollars and had something like a Joint Command this would have been a natural selection process limiting some of the designs - on the other hand our fighters may have been less than optimal trying to make one type do all - and getting nothing superlitive?
Renrich,

remember that the US benefit greatly from british experience. When they rolled into the war, they had had 2 more years to develope aircraft. Still in 1940 they were clearly inferior to european AF's (IMHO of course).

If your blanket statement means the flying aircraft in early development stage were inferior to existing Production British A/C, you are right. Having said that do you suppose the RAF might have taken a different mix if they had total control over development and modifications of P-38 (1939), P-51 and F4-U (1940) and P-47 (mid 1941). All these ships matured into the upper tier of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Also keep in mind that the US was not a battleground as Germany and the UK were. They had save factories and all the time in the world to develope new a/c whil in the mean time using the already very good a/c from the British (think for instance of the beaufighter in the nightfighter role). In the end the US was the biggest airforce in the world. And they should be, as they had the peace to savely design and build new a/c where the others were in the midst of the battle and had the benefit of 2 more years of peace.

True but the fact that RAF aircraft were being used until US production lines delivered a/c to the different theatres. What comes to mind most is the early use of Spitfires for several US Fighter Groups, ending with 31st in 1943..

Some Beaufighters, some Mossies but what else?

On quality we could debate (the Tempest was a very capable longrange fighter, too and maybe better than the Mustang, the FW190 or the Typhone was maybe as good in fighterbombing as the corsair etc).
I'm still wondering if the USAAF would have been the best if they had been in the middle of the fight like the LW or the RAF in 1940.

I suspect the US would have accelerated production improvements if US lives were lost due to aircraft of lower performance, earlier, as contrasted with delivering B-17C and D plus P-39B and P40D's to themselves in 1940 and 1941.
Debating Tempest for long range escort is similar to Ta 152, namely it wasn't assigned that role much and didn't contribute much in that role. .. the ultimate extension would have been to project it to provide target escort from Berlin to Brux to Posnan and Munich - or to Tokyo from Guam.

Demonstrating that the Tempest flew those type missions as escort (significant part of mission at low cruise 'essing' over the bombers) for those ranges would lead you (and me) to believe this capability to western Poland and Czechoslovakia.. do you have some actual extensions and scenarios we could look at?

[Marcel]

Hi Bill,

Originally Posted by drgondog

If your blanket statement means the flying aircraft in early development stage were inferior to existing Production British A/C, you are right. Having said that do you suppose the RAF might have taken a different mix if they had total control over development and modifications of P-38 (1939), P-51 and F4-U (1940) and P-47 (mid 1941). All these ships matured into the upper tier of fighter aircraft in WWII.

Pardon my English, it's sometimes difficult for me to make clear statements in English. What I meant was that on average, in 1939/1940, the operational USAAF aircraft were inferior to their German and English brothers, being P39/P40B against Bf109/Spitfire etc.
The P38, P51 and P47 might have been in the upper part, but so were the Spitfire (1936), Bf109 (1934), Fw190 (1939), Typhoon (1941) etc. And most of them much older than the american design.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Debating Tempest for long range escort is similar to Ta 152, namely it wasn't assigned that role much and didn't contribute much in that role. .. the ultimate extension would have been to project it to provide target escort from Berlin to Brux to Posnan and Munich - or to Tokyo from Guam.

Demonstrating that the Tempest flew those type missions as escort (significant part of mission at low cruise 'essing' over the bombers) for those ranges would lead you (and me) to believe this capability to western Poland and Czechoslovakia.. do you have some actual extensions and scenarios we could look at?

You're right, I don't have accounts of Tempest doing longrange escorts. The british bombed at night and if they needed escort fighters it would have been nightfighters, for which either the Tempest or the P51 would have been wholy unsuited. The Americans had the requirement with their daybombing and used their 'own' P51. My mentioning of the Tempest only had the purpose of showing that the british could and did design a fighter with the same range as the mustang which was at least as capable as the P51. So the Tempest wasn't assigned to the role, but on contrary to the Ta152 has been used for a longer period of time, showing it's capabilities.

I'm not opposing that the USAAF was the best A/F in WWII, but the argument of quality of the planes is not a very strong one IMO. Of course their planes were of great quality, but so were the British and German's. The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?

[renrich]

Marcel if my ability to speak your first language was half as good as your english I would be elated. My second language is either spanish or german and I know just enough to order one beer. Re your comments about British and German fighter development being ahead of the US. The first Martlets were delivered to the RN in July, 1940, and that AC had performance on par at least with the Hurricane. If war had been imminent for the US as it was in Europe, the development of the F4F could have been accelerated so that it could have been ready at least a year earlier. The first flight of the F4F was in 1937. The C47 was in service long before Europe had any comparable AC. The Boeing 299 which became the B17 first flew in July of 1935 and the first operations began in 1937. This was long before anything in Europe comparable was operational. The engine developers in Europe were ahead in inline liquid cooled engines, the US was ahead in air cooled radial engines. The B25 and B26 both flew in 1940 and were operational in 1941. Britain and Germany had nothing comparable. Of course this does not relate to US air power but the A6M was operational in 1940 and in that time frame it was arguably superior to both the BF109, Hurricane and Spitfire.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by claidemore

(of the same opinion still!)

Opinions are like Assholes. Everyone has one...

Please dont take that as an insult, it was not meant to be one. All I mean by it is that opinions are great and everyone is entitled to one, but for this thread the facts say it all.

Now that does not mean it is not fun to debate this subject.

[pbfoot]

Dragon how many men were in a US Group, aircraft ,pilots ,maintainers admin logistics in total?
In a RCAF fighter wing it was 54 aircraft 78 pilots 345 maintainers and 300 admin ,logistics etc. for a total of 728 all ranks and trades

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marcel

The question still remains, would the USAAF have been as good in circumstances like the Uk in the beginning of the war or Germany in the latter half of the war?

Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.

Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.

In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Irrelevant, because in 1944, the USA was ascendent. In 1945, the US just got stronger and stronger.

Ultimatley, its who has what in the end, not what the score is at the start.

In every conceivable catagory, with the exception of point defense fighter, night fighter and jet fighter, the US was supreme.

and radar

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

and radar

In 1945, US radar systems were as good as anyones.

From my list, I show the US as having advantages in the following:

1) Production capacity
2) Heavy bombers
3) Long range fighters
4) Ground attack fighters
5) Escort fighters
6) Every single aspect of naval aviation
7) Types of aircraft
8 ) Transports
9) Global capabilities
10) Aircrew numbers
11) Ground crew numbers
12) Wartime potential (numbers of aircraft x relative quality x logistical support)
13) Firepower per daily theater missions (payload x rounds of ammo x fighter radius of action x number of bombers [fighters carrying bombs included])
14) Industrial reserves
15) Manpower reserves.

Finally .... I like this quote by a B29 assembly worker appraising on how the B29 ended up being produced ...."It seems like the US accomplishes more by accident than most countries do by design"

[Soren]

Originally Posted by renrich

Regarding this thread, best air force WW2, quantitatively, the US Forces stand alone. Qualitatively, I believe the US wins hands down. Not to denigrate the other air forces because they made a lot of chicken salad out of chicken feathers but the US had the designers, manufacturers and most of all the financial ability to, once they got going build more and better AC than anyone else.

Sorry Renrich that just doesn't hold water, infact it's pure BS.

Germany had the designers, engineers & scientists that the US, UK & USSR were dreaming about, hence their race at obtaining these men and their material after the war.

The Germans were the leaders in the field of physics being way ahead in aerodynamics & ballistics, and their science within optics, metallurgy & chemistry was ahead as-well.

In terms of the best quality equipment made during WW2 Germany takes the prize hands down, designing and producing the most advanced aircraft, AFV's, small-arms, guns & submarines in the world;


Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 & Ju-388.
Small-arms: StG.44, FG-42 & MG-42
AFV's: Pzkpfw. VI Ausf. E & B Tiger, Pzkpfw. V Panther, JagdPanther, JagdTiger, hetzer, Sd.Kfz. 234/4 Puma etc etc..
Guns: 128mm KwK44, 88mm KwK43, 75mm KwK42 & 173/210mm K-18 etc etc..
Submarines: Type XXI

And regarding the Ta-152 not being tested, again that's pure BS, the Ta-152 was thuroughly and meticulously tested before even being allowed field testing with the LW and later enter service in late 1944. The only problem ever to plague the Ta-152 was its Jumo 213E engine, otherwise it was one first class piece of machinery, the pilots knowing it was a world beater.

[syscom3]

Soren, this thread is about the aircraft of the countries. Not of the other weapons.

"Aircraft: Me-262, Ta-152H, Ar-234, FW190 Dora--13, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 & Ju-388.". All advanced aircraft that had little impact on the war.

Germany gets the advantage on designing aircraft for a future war.

[Soren]

Syscom3, the Me-262, Ta-152H, Fw-190 Dora-13, Ar-234, He-162, Ar-232, Me-163 & Ju-388 were very real in WW2 though.

The Ta-152H first saw service in late 1944 and it was far superior to any Allied fighter throughout.

The Me-262A1 first flew in 1943 and was far superior to any Allied fighter.

The FW-190 Dora-13 first saw service in late 1944 and was better than any Allied fighter.

The Ar-232 saw service beginning in 1943 and was the first truly modern transport a/c.

The Ar-234 & Ju-388 both saw service in 1944 and were both the best recce a/c of the war.

[Ramirezzz]

why there's no Finnish AF? They could have some bad planes in terms of quality, but when it comes to quality of pilots and organisation, very few of the WW 2 AF compares with them