Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The most effective air force in WW2
dead-cat
Posted: August 13, 2004 11:14 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



probably depends on the type.
AFAIK B17C could carry 4800lbs while the He111 H6 could carry 2800kg of bombs (which amounts about 5600lbs, if i'm not mistaken)

taken from here

but i'm no aircraft specialist, so if anyone has more reliable data, i stand corrected.
PMYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: August 13, 2004 11:32 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



The bombload of 12,800lb is given for B-17G while the 4,400lb is given for He111H3
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: August 14, 2004 05:28 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
What is \"less accurate\"? Bombing Switzerland or Sweden by mistake?


That actually happened.

QUOTE
Could you point me to a believable source for this? I thought most air forces frowned on this, but that it really depended on the pilots. There can always be a gap between the theory and the reality.


On 21 April 1944, adj. av. Spiridon Matei from the 58th Fighter Squadron/7th Fighter Group was shot down near Ramnicul Valcea by 31st Fighter Group's P-51s. He bailed out, but was shot in the parachute.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: August 14, 2004 03:02 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



There were more than one occasion when American pilots shot on Rumanian pilots descending on their parachutes.
One can find same reports from Hungarian sources as well (not to mention German).

Col. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: August 14, 2004 03:10 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE
On 21 April 1944, adj. av. Spiridon Matei from the 58th Fighter Squadron/7th Fighter Group was shot down near Ramnicul Valcea by 31st Fighter Group's P-51s. He bailed out, but was shot in the parachute.

I have a note in my loss files that he was shot down by Lightnings.
BTW, do you have the tail number of his I.A.R. 80/81?

Col. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
mabadesc
Posted: August 14, 2004 06:36 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



I've been watching this thread from its inception and have been quite amused and sympathetic with Victor's repeated attempts to prove his point through objective statements, only to be shut down by completely irrelevant, subjective arguments which have nothing to do with Air Force "EFFICIENCY". :lol:

Victor came up with simple, objective, and to-the-point arguments, all relevant to the USAAF/RAF's efficiency in WWII.
It seems, however, that some people cannot put aside their dislike/hatred/envy of the US even for one moment. Their dislike of the US is so great that they simply will not concede that the US was the best at anything, never, ever, period. If you bring objective arguments that they have no answer to (like Victor did), they will just change the topic or come up with irrelevant criticism. :lol:

I knew this was going to happen in this thread as soon as someone would mention the USAAF as being the most efficient airforce in WWII, and surely enough, that's how it happened.

So, in conclusion, here is the summary of this thread:

The Luftwaffe was the most efficient WWII airforce at all levels and at all types of missions.
(Even though the USAAF had the best fighter of the war (P-51) and the best strategic bombers of the war (B-17, B-24), and even though they could conduct any type of mission, including large-scope strategic ones, which the Luftwaffe could not)

Why was the Luftwaffe the most efficient WWII airforce? Simple: it's because their pilots exhibited chivalry and would not shoot at parachuting pilots with the same frequency the allies did. :D

How can you argue with this line of thinking? These are rock-solid, relevant arguments in establishing efficiency. :roll: :lol:
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: August 14, 2004 09:56 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



QUOTE

Why was the Luftwaffe the most efficient WWII airforce? Simple: it's because their pilots exhibited chivalry and would not shoot at parachuting pilots with the same frequency the allies did.

would you please bother to quote who exactly claimed that?

Jeff said something about the Luftwaffe not displaying chivalry to which i pointed out an obviously frequent USAAF custom of shooting at bailed out pilots. the conclusion that, because the luftwaffe command did not encourage such a beaviour, the luftwaffe is the most efficient air force is entirely yours.

QUOTE

Even though the USAAF had the best fighter of the war (P-51)

i'd say it's the Me262.
there is another category: night fighter
but when discussing the best fighters (more than just from a technological point of view) the quality of the pilot is even more relevant. and since german pilots flew on average more missions they gained more experience than most allied pilots. hence the high(er) numbers of aerial victories.
PMYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: August 15, 2004 06:35 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Mabadesc, there is no need to flame things, so calm down.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
i16stealth
Posted: August 15, 2004 09:08 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 170
Joined: December 20, 2003



QUOTE
Why was the Luftwaffe the most efficient WWII airforce?  Simple:  it's because their pilots exhibited chivalry and would not shoot at parachuting pilots with the same frequency the allies did.   :D


The Soviets didn't shoot also.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: August 15, 2004 10:01 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Not exactly. See the case of lt. Mihail Oncioiu here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=757
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: August 15, 2004 10:18 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4333
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
but when discussing the best fighters (more than just from a technological point of view) the quality of the pilot is even more relevant. and since german pilots flew on average more missions they gained more experience than most allied pilots. hence the high(er) numbers of aerial victories.


The average pilot quality, especially towards the end of the war, was higher on the USAAF side, than on the Luftwaffe side. I believe it was Pierre Closterman who said that the Luftwaffe had 20% superb pilots and 80% future victims, or something like that. The American system relied more on large numbers of good pilots (hence the over 1250 aces) than on fewer superb Experten.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
C-2
Posted: August 15, 2004 11:51 am
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



All nations participating pilots ,some were shooting at parachutes :cry: :cry:
PMUsers Website
Top
cipiamon
Posted: August 15, 2004 01:32 pm
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 471
Member No.: 115
Joined: October 06, 2003



QUOTE
the Germans had some of the most successful pilots, given their number of victories, but we must take into account the fact that they stayed in combat for the longest time and had the biggest number of sorties.


I heard that before and i don't agree whit it, it's logic for me that they also have the most high ratio of surviving, so they were better pilots

From all non-propagandistic material i read it was not the quality of the pilots who matter in the end but he quantity, you can't win a battle when is 17:1.
PM
Top
Huck
Posted: August 20, 2004 01:27 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 41
Joined: July 11, 2003



Among the major airforces, LW was definitely the most efficient. The very best pilots using the very best material. Lethal to the last day (in the west), in spite of TR dissarray.

A better use of resources might have led to a different outcome, but the chances were slim. What was expected to happen, happened. LW was better than any of its enemies, but not good enough to defeat them all.
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted: August 20, 2004 05:18 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



QUOTE
Among the major airforces, LW was definitely the most efficient.


The Luftwaffe was definitely a formidable tactical force (though not nearly as much in '44 and '45).

However, what were its strategic capabilities?
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0483 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]