Best WWII Air-Force

[Cyrano]

Sorry I haven't responded earlier.

When I said that American warbirds were'nt always so sophisticated, I meant more about the beginning of the war than years 1944-1946. Zeke dominated the Pacific for years before US could deploy more efficient carrier-borne fighters. The US never had fighters that significantly exceeded the performance of their Luftwaffe counterparts, and in the beginning of the war the situation was exactly the opposite. The Germans could keep up with fighter design and production almost to the end of the war, but for an example the Japanese could not.

But I must say that I'm a bit on thin ice since I know more about USAAF late war operations in Europe than those of Pacific and North Africa.

Another post says the Buff had a ratio of 26:1.. difficult to believe. Are there any built in means of inflation ie. lots of transport aircraft shot down, ground "kills"?

Actually the number might be slightly bigger, since FAF didn't claim damaged Russian planes that never reached home. Same thing with Luftwaffe, Russians reported much more planes lost than Germans reported destroyed.
Check out Wikipedia site about Buffaloes in Finland

[ndicki]

pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.

The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by ndicki

pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents!

The US pilots and aircrew were just as capable as their empire equivalents.

Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following.

The US pilots in the PTO and CBI were quite capable navigators in going on missions over the vast reaches of the pacific. In fact, the longest missions of the war were flown by indivdual B24's at night, hitting a a relatively small target 1600 miles from base, something the RAF never accomplished. And youre a bit mistaken that the navigators in the "box's" were along for the ride, as they all had to know their positions in case they were seperated from the formation or had to take the lead.

RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.

Yes, and the B29's brought that a level higher.

The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again.

In 1941 and 1942, the lesson from the RAF was to not send lightly armed or armoured bombers, flying at middle altitudes, in small formations. The B17 and B24 were going to do things different. Through out 1943, they were doing fine, untill the LW began hammering them with new eqmt and tactics.

That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.

Tactics were worked out by both AF's and the end result was aerial supremecy. Remember, untill the forward operating bases in France were established, it was only the AAF bringing the fight to the LW.

Nikki, look at it this way..... the US had an abviously better industrial base in which to design and build aircraft. And when it came to logistics, we were magnitudes above everyone. For pilot skill, the Empire had hundreds of excellent pilots. The US had thousands of "good" pilots of which hundreds became excellent pilots. Just from shear numbers alone, the US rated above the Empire in being able to produce aircrews for the planes we built.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Great I can see this now. A pissing match at whos country has the biggest balls. Oh yeah my country can kick your countries ass... Oh yeah my countries daddy is bigger than your countries daddy...

[lesofprimus]

I can see syscoms agruments as being very valid ones... I dont think there really is a way of determining which Air Force was the better, as each had their own attributes...

But I will say this... Without the aid, manpower and determination of the 8th, 9th and all the other American Air Corps in the ETO, the Western Allies would have been in a different battle for the skies over Germany...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Great I can see this now. A pissing match at whos country has the biggest balls. Oh yeah my country can kick your countries ass... Oh yeah my countries daddy is bigger than your countries daddy...

Not at all.

If you have to look at this in macro sense.

1) Did the country have a scientific base in which to develope totally new weapons?

2) Did the country have a technological base in which to convert scientific advances into a usable product?

3) Did the country have an industrial base in which to build a lot of products without going bankrupt?

4) Did the country have the capacity to change production in the middle of a "run" and incorporate the newest changes , all without shutting the line down?

5) Did the country have the capacity to train lots of pilots that had a good chance of surviving their first missions in combat?

6) Did the country have the capacity to maintain all the planes in the field?

The US excelled so much in the production of aircraft and pilot training, that it dwarfs the runner up(s).

I would also say that the USN carrier pilots were arguably the best in the world. And there were so many of them, they would have qualified as being a whole seperate AF in the ranking.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by ndicki

pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.

The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.

and the reply was for the best I don't really think that Harris matched up to Spaatz nor Arnold what did the RAF ignore daylight bombing big deal the reason the RAF/we didn't is because we couldn't stand the losses of equipment or men
. The RAF/we didn't crush the LW it was the USAAF with their daylight missions over Europe

Trust me I'm quite proud of our accomplishments and would like to believe as you think but being realistic I can't honestly back that theory

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I voted for the USAF and the RAF. What other Airforce could man over a 1,000 plane raids every day? The US Air Force. The British were close but such a number was exhausting for them to keep up on a daily basis, no offence. I admit, the United States is lucky in being so big and with a lot of mechanically minded people. We made our war machine simpler than any others and so we made a lot, a lot, a lot, more than was needed.

The RAF with the Battle of Britain, second Battle of Britain, Defeat of Rommel in Africa, Firebombing cities better than the Germans, earns it a place along side the USAF.

I think the Luftwaffe was great, but Hitler made Goring do dumb things and it never was operated to it's best capacity. Look at Africa. Kesselring couldn't give Rommel good air support. Even if he had decided that Malta was more important than Africa, why didn't he destroy it's defences? Because the Luftwaffe didn't hit Malta with all it got, The Germans lost Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, and Italy.

The Luftwaffe was handled poorly in supporting Nazi troops at Stalingrad. The whole "Air Bridge" idea out of Gorings brain didn't work.
Where was the Luftwaffe on D-day?
Couldn't the Luftwaffe have done any better in preventing the Eighth Force from sacking Germany the way it did? The bloodied the bombers very well, but I still wonder.

The Luftwaffe had all the weapons and men to fight well but if leadership is bad those men stick to bad orders.
Japan had good pilots and planes deadly to themselves and others, but a poor factory line hurt them.
The Italian Air Force did ok, but it should have conquered Malta.

I know the Allied Air Forces made a lot of mistakes, but at least they were quicker on their toes to fix the situation. When Ira Eaker had to go, he went. Doolittle took his place.
The terrible losses of the Allied Bombing campaign might be considered as a setback, but at least everybody tried to run the missions effectively and didn't mess around with a good plan like Goring did a bit in the BOB.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ndicki

pbfoot, the question was "best", not "biggest" - there was no way that the individual quality of USAAF, USN and USMC air and ground crews were as good as their Empire equivalents! Just look at navigation; during the day, boxes of B-17s or B-24s were navigated by the lead aircraft only, with the other navigators in the formation following. RAF and Dominion aircraft, Lancs, Halibags or Stirlings by this time, were navigating individually to the target - admittedly with some pretty sophisticated aids which the Americans did not use by day - and achieving similar or better results.

The leadership orientation of 8th USAAF consisted essentially in ignoring everything the RAF had already learnt about flying over Germany in daylight, and getting huge numbers of men killed uselessly while they learnt the lessons again. That changed in 1944 with the advent of the P-51 in sufficient numbers, and with the decline in capacity of the Luftwaffe, but it was still a case of mindless obstinacy at the cost of thousands of lives. They had much the same approach to ground tactics, too, I seem to remember. Not the best air force. Sorry.

Originally Posted by pbfoot

and the reply was for the best I don't really think that Harris matched up to Spaatz nor Arnold what did the RAF ignore daylight bombing big deal the reason the RAF/we didn't is because we couldn't stand the losses of equipment or men
. The RAF/we didn't crush the LW it was the USAAF with their daylight missions over Europe

Trust me I'm quite proud of our accomplishments and would like to believe as you think but being realistic I can't honestly back that theory

While ndicki brings up the negatives of the 8th AF bomber campaign, The bombing of Germany needed to be accomplished round the clock for the end result. Although it seemed like there was a huge loss of US men and equipment, that was situation we were placed in was the cost of war and the US was able to accept those losses. Based on the equipment of the day I think the 8th AF did a fine job, but as always stated the bombing campaign of Germany wouldn't of been a success without the continual bombing by both RAF AND USAAF.

ndicki - we had the same Nav equipment you guys did and navigating across vast portions of the South Pacific was no picnic as well.

[mkloby]

Just a few comments:
Ndicki: With regard to the lead plane leading the formation and every other soul following blindly - that makes no sense. If you are a single piloted aircraft flying wing off your lead - you absolutely are entirely consumed in flying your position you can't do much of your own navigation. However, with a crew such as the B-17, with a pilot, CP, bombardier, and a nav - you have a lot of heads to back up the plane that is flying lead. Also, in formation flight, you follow your lead. You don't break off and go on your own way.

Sys: don't forget the USMC pilots! We're naval aviators too, and go through navy flight training as well!

[pbfoot]

Now if I was to be Nationalistic I would say the RCAF which went from 4000 men and 12 Hurricanes as our frontline equipment to arguably the 4th most powerful air force in 6 years with 78 squadrons not including the BCATP which trained 167,000 aircrew I'll give the RCAF second . But one must agree the USAAC, USN, USMC could and did project air supremecy whereever they went it was the force . Now Finland certainly deserves accolades for its accomplishments including the production and development of fighters but not the best

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Three Cheers for the Canadians!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Not at all.

If you have to look at this in macro sense.

1) Did the country have a scientific base in which to develope totally new weapons?

2) Did the country have a technological base in which to convert scientific advances into a usable product?

3) Did the country have an industrial base in which to build a lot of products without going bankrupt?

4) Did the country have the capacity to change production in the middle of a "run" and incorporate the newest changes , all without shutting the line down?

5) Did the country have the capacity to train lots of pilots that had a good chance of surviving their first missions in combat?

6) Did the country have the capacity to maintain all the planes in the field?

The US excelled so much in the production of aircraft and pilot training, that it dwarfs the runner up(s).

I would also say that the USN carrier pilots were arguably the best in the world. And there were so many of them, they would have qualified as being a whole seperate AF in the ranking.

You are barking up the wrong tree here syscom.

I allready gave my vote to the US 40 posts ago...

[comiso90]

Perhaps I’m insane but the notion of selecting the best AF of WW2 is freaking silly.

The Awards go to:

Most Consistent Quality… RAF
Most Adaptive … USAAF
Most Innovative … Luftwaffe
Best Naval Overall… USN
Most Defiant … Finnish (Honorable mention Malta and Wake Island)
Best Naval Air Power 1937 – 1943 Japanese
Best Naval Air Power 1943 – 1945 USN
Best daylight strategic bombers … USAAF
Best night strategic bombers … RAF
Best anti-armor … Soviets
Best overall 1943.5 – 1945 … USAAF
Best Problem Solvers … RAF
Most unfulfilled potential.. Italian Air Arm
Most effective Interdiction … RAF
Best Interceptors … Luftwaffe
Best High Altitude Long Range Escort ... USAAF
Most Improved … USAAF
Best Ground Support Pacific ... USMC
most cool markings ... Romainia
most women pilots ... ruskies


>>>>>>>>>> The options are endless!

Best Navel.... Veronica Lake

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by comiso90

Perhaps I’m insane but the notion of selecting the best AF of WW2 is freaking silly.

The Awards go to:

Most Consistent Quality… RAF
Most Adaptive … USAAF
Most Innovative … Luftwaffe
Best Naval Overall… USN
Most Defiant … Finnish (Honorable mention Malta and Wake Island)
Best Naval Air Power 1937 – 1943 Japanese
Best Naval Air Power 1943 – 1945 USN
Best daylight strategic bombers … USAAF
Best night strategic bombers … RAF
Best anti-armor … Soviets
Best overall 1943.5 – 1945 … USAAF
Best Problem Solvers … RAF
Most unfulfilled potential.. Italian Air Arm
Most effective Interdiction … RAF
Best Interceptors … Luftwaffe
Best High Altitude Long Range Escort ... USAAF
Most Improved … USAAF
Best Ground Support Pacific ... USMC
most cool markings ... Romainia
most women pilots ... ruskies


>>>>>>>>>> The options are endless!

Best Navel.... Veronica Lake

Now condense it into which AF was the best.