Who Really Won Air Superiority?

There is a rather contentious debate taking place in the forum I created - "The Best Fighter of WW2". Currently, it seems to revolve around the relative merits of the P-47 Thunderbolt and late marque Spitfire, principally the XIV. So, perhaps the discussion ought to be broadened - after all, no one would dispute that air superiority was a necessary pre-requisite to the invasion of Europe in June, 1944. The RAF flew its first offensive sortie over France in December, 1940, when Spitfires of No 66 Squadron shot up an alcahol distillery in the region of Le Touquet. This was a continuation of the Trenchard's First world War policy of "leaning into France", and, in its initial stages, was designed simply to keep Fighter Command's pilots sharp and ready to fight the Battle of Britain all over again in 1941. With the unforseen German invasion of Russia in June of that year, it took on new purpose: by pinning down German fighters in France and the low Countries, which were forced to respond to RAF bombing raids, pressure was taken off our new Russian allies in the east.

The RAF, alone, fought long and hard throughout 1941 and into 1942, not achieving air superiority but at least maintaining parity with the Luftwaffe. The first American fighter groups, mounted on Spitfire Vs, entered the fray in the the spring of '42, and with the coming of the American forces generally, everyone knew an invasion of Europe must one day take place. So now the remit of the fighter squadrons, British or American, was to gain and maintain a state of air superiority over the continent of Europe....

By sheer weight of numbers the American fighter forces would within a couple of years come to dominate the skies of Europe; that is the "macro" view. Similarly, American built Sherman tanks, though inferior to German machines, could sweep a European battlefield of the opposition simply by virtue of their ubiquity. Is this a quantity versus quality issue? Which air force really posseseed the better fighters and employed the best tactics? Which air force, ultimately, did most to gain and maintain air superiority? Let's take the "micro" view, but be impartial, factual, and, above all, unbiased.....

 

This is a post that could be renamed who was better: America or British and Commonwealth Forces??

Ok taking this seriously (and I know the direction that this thread is going to head!) I would suggest that both Armies and Air Forces played a huge role in establishinq air superiority over the Luftwaffe. The RAF showed the rest of the world how to give the Luftwaffe a bloody nose in the Battle of britain whilst the American Policy of Daylight Strategic bombing of SPECIFIC targets such as Ploesti caused Immense damage to the German War Effort.

You cant say one did more than the other, to try and do so is inviting a slanging fest and no-one is going to win it.

 

If we take 1944 as the year when air superiority was achieved, at least tactical air superiority in Normandy for instance, you have to consider these factors:

1. The bulk of the Luftwaffe bomber forces were operating against the Red Army, which by that stage had developed a very good tactical airforce of its own.

2. Although some Luftwaffe day fighters were being used against the RAF at night in "Wild Boar" operations, they were mainly being used agaist 8th AAF daytime raids, of which there was no RAF equivalent.

3. Although the RAF operated fighter sweeps over France, the bulk of the RAF fighters up to 1944 were kept in the air defence of the UK role. As such - and with a limited need to provide long range night fighters, such as Mosquitoes, but not day fighers - developing a long range capability was not a priority for the RAF.

4. Mounting USAAF bomber losses were considerable before the introduction of long range figher escorts, which had become a priority and which in their turn became the principal cause of Luftwaffe fighter losses over Germany, such as during "Big Week".

5. Finally, although US figher aircraft were nothing special at the time the USA entered the war, types such as the P51D were more advanced in many respects than either the German or British fighters of the period up to the introduction of jets (in numbers too small to be decisive).

 

Thanks for the response, guys....

Angie, it is not true to say that the bulk of RAF fighters were kept in England on home defence duties: in mid 1943, 2nd TAF (Tactical Air Force) was formed from what was previously Army Co-Operation Command, and Fighter Command re-named Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB - a title it had soldiered under in the 1920s and 30s). 2nd TAF took absorbed a lot of the Spitfire and Typhoon, and later Tempest, units previously assigned to Fighter Command, and instead of being grouped into the traditonal Wings, operated as "Airfields" - ie 125 Airfield operated initially as three Spitfire squadrons from Detling, but when it moved to France after D-day, still retained the title "125 Airfield". Obviously, this was in anticipation of the fluid war envisaged post invasion, when squadrons would be continually on the move in the push toward Germany.

ADGB was a shadow of the former Fighter Command. It had no need to be anything else. Daylight raids by the Luftwaffe of any sort were virtually non-existent compared to earlier in the war, and its main activity - in the form of 122 Tempest Wing based at Newchurch under Roland "Bee" Beamont - was in combatting the V1 onslaught. Once this threat receeded, 122 Wing too was Absorbed by 2nd TAF.

The re-naming of Fighter Command as ADGB was universally unpopular, and it reverted to its former title in November, 1944. However, since June, 1944, the real war was in Europe, and as by then the Luftwaffe was virtually a spent force, its remaining pilots and aircraft engaged almost exclusively in defence of the German homeland, it was the American pilots - in their long range fighters - that saw the bulk of the air combat, whilst the Spitfires and Tempests adopted a predominately ground attack role. This situation remained largely unchanged until British fighters came to be based close to, or within, the borders of the Reich, and it is worth noting here that is was Spitfire XIVS that were credited, in October, 1944, with shooting down the first Messerchmitt Me 262s of WW2 (just as Spitfires had claimed the first Me109s of WW2, back in May, 1940). Indeed, I exchanged letters for a while with one of the pilots involved - W/cdr Rod Smith.

As for creating dissent with this debate, I don't see why that should be so. It all happened a long time ago and the questions are now entirely academic. It's just fun to examine the eternal inponderables...

 

In my opinion what won the air superiority was the combination of day and night raids on Germany supported by fighters during the day, as well as the 2 tactical airforces (9th AF and 2nd TAF). It was the combination of all the good aircraft the allies had working together with relatively well trained pilots that won the air superiority as well as their ability to easily replace men and machines, the ability of which (especially in pilots who where well trained) the Luftwaffe found especially difficult after it was gained.

 

Gnomey, succinct but basically very true - it was a concerted effort by all....

 

Originally posted by adamcotton
Gnomey, succinct but basically very true - it was a concerted effort by all....

Agreed adam without the combined effort it would have taken longer and be more difficult. There may have been problems with the relationship but it worked well enough to get the job done and continue to this day.

Direct and to the point is the best way to be adam. No talking around the subject get straight to the point!

 

Gnomey, a quick personal aside...according to your profile you were born in 1987...are you really only 18? Adam

 

Yes, why?

 

Gnomey, its simply that I'm impressed by your knowledge of the period - its unusual in an 18 yr old these days. Hope that dosen't sound patronizing....

 

Judging from Gnomey's posts to date I dont think he will find it patronizing at all His input is always welcome IMHO!

 

Thanks, I don't find it patronising at all. I take your comments as a great compliment images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif but I still have a lot to learn!

 

(Gnomey @ Oct 14 2005, 12:20 PM) [post=40037]Thanks, I don't find it patronising at all. I take your comments as a great compliment images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif but I still have a lot to learn!
[/b]

Well, I am 40 years older than you and so do I. It never stops.

 

(angie999 @ Oct 14 2005, 05:47 PM) [post=40048](Gnomey @ Oct 14 2005, 12:20 PM) [post=40037]Thanks, I don't find it patronising at all. I take your comments as a great compliment images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif but I still have a lot to learn!
[/b]

Well, I am 40 years older than you and so do I. It never stops.
[/b]No it doesn't which is not a bad thing as there is so much interesting stuff out there images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif

 

Well, since we're sharing these details, I am 42, and I too am still learning....and like Gnomey have been fascinated by this stuff for ever!!!!

 

I think it is a little misleading to say that the bombers were used heavily on the eastern front. The fact is that Operation Sea Lion was deferred and never resumed because it couldn't be. Had it have been resumed, the bombers wouldn't have existed period, once both Allied air forces were on the scene and not tied to defensive roles. It would have been the ETO version of the Marianas Turkey Shoot. The phrase “on the eastern front” is a redundant part of “keeping the bombers on the eastern front”. If they had deployed the tactical bombers on the western front, we might never know what Stuka’s looked like except from gun camera footage of from pieces of debris strewn all over France. Allied tankers would have never have known what they looked or sounded like. If the Russians were pleased with the non-supercharged versions of the P-39 they certainly were not on par with the aircraft used on the western front which is probably what prolonging the life of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front in WWII.

As far as jets are concerned, were sufficient time allowed for numbers to rise, then you must take into account all jets. The dominant combat jet would probably have been the P-80, at least from a speed factor alone, which was developed in 1943 but not deployed until mid 1945 when the bugs were worked out of it unlike the ME-262 which in desperation was deployed before it was ready.

To me the roles of the RAF and USAAF are not comparable head to head. For instance, in 1940 – 41, there was no USAAF flying against the Luftwaffe. Churchill said it best, it was their finest hour. Had they have failed, there would have been no discussion of both air forces in comparison. So on both qualitative and quantitative factors, the RAF had no equal. The role of the RAF in 42 & 43 changed because it could, not necessarily because it had to. With the US targeting strategic bombing deep into Germany and the presence of TAC air performing patrols in support of the invasion as well, the RAF now could be relegated to patrols of the Channel and France and defense of Britain, and reconnaissance which was vital to both air forces. Tactically, the 2nd RAF TAC and the 9th USAAF TAC performed basically the same roles with arguably equal success. The difference is that US front was wider and therefore required more TAC support. If you quantify the comparison, the US would win by sheer numbers. If you qualify the comparison they would be pretty close to equal.


As far as the air forces against experienced Luftwaffe pilots, in the BoB the RAF fought well against the more experienced Luftwaffe. In the sweeps and escort missions of 1943 & early 1944, the USAAF pilots did an excellent job of taking on the more experienced Luftwaffe. After that whatever was left was probably inconsequential as to which air force was attacking, inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots were dead meat either way.

The only way to get a true comparison was if they had been pitted against each other. Mock dogfights were the only way this happened and I have read no stats on those.

 

I must confess to not knowing enough about Luftwaffe casualties on the Eastern Front to know whether it or the Western one was decisive in the air war. My impression is that the size of the bombing campaign kept the bulk of the German figheter force in Germany from 1943 onwards & thus the main credit should go to the Western Allies but I can't produce figures to back up this claim.

I do think that in Western Europe and the Mediterranean in the 1942-45 period the contribution of the air forces, indeed the armed forces of the British Commonwealth & of the USA should be taken together. They co-operated & integrated their command structures as far as was possible for sovereign nations & I believe it to be invidious to say the RAF did this but the USAAF did that much better or vice versa. I mean this in terms of implying that one's contribution was significantly greater than that of the other, not that there may have been differences in approach. The contribution of the substantial numer of Continental Europeans flying with the RAF should also not be forgotten.

 

"With the US targeting strategic bombing deep into Germany and the presence of TAC air performing patrols in support of the invasion as well, the RAF now could be relegated to patrols of the Channel and France and defense of Britain, and reconnaissance which was vital to both air forces"

Jimbotosome, you really walk into these things! So in 1942-44, the British were not flying deep into Germany? What were all those Lancasters and Halifaxes doing then? Just giving the RAF something to fill the empty spaces in their hangars with? But maybe you are just talking about the fighter arm of the RAF, and that operating out of Britain at that? So we can ignore for the moment the part played by the RAF in establishing air superiority in North Africa, or in southern Italy, or Burma, or Sumatra, or a myriad other places, and focus instead purely on the ETO...

Obviously you are unaware, or have chosen to overlook, that Spitfires fitted with 45 gallon slipper tanks routinely flew escorts to US B-17s and B-24s, as well as B-26s, throughout 1942, 43, and even well into 1944 - in fact, right up until the time sufficient P-51 Mustangs became available to take the bombers all the way to their targets and back. Spit Vs often took over from P-47s or P-38s - which had covered the bombers part way home, but were now crying fuel shortage - and took them the rest of the way home. Spit VIIs and IXs would often act as top cover. Indeed, I wrote a lengthy article, published in two parts, on one such Spitfire pilot, Sqn/Ldr Jack Charles (published in Aeroplane earlier this year, who in October, 1943, received the American Silver Star in appreciation of his efforts escorting US bombers.

And of course, we must overlook the fact that 2nd TAF, although essentially a development of the old Army Co-operation Command, absorbed most of the Fighter Squadrons of Fighter Command (which was then re=named Air Defence of Great Britain, or ADGB) and took those units into France after the invasion, and all the way into Germany itself. True, most of the air fighting was going on by this time deep into Germany, out of range of the RAF Fighter squadrons based in France and the low countries, but that was why Spitfires, for instance, assumed a new ground attack role alongside Tempests and Typhoons (and American tactical aircraft). And, once Spitfires and Tempests came to be based closer to the air fighting near Germany itself, they found themselves involved in air-to-air fighting once more as well. Dosen't sound much like a "relegation" to me....

I wont bother to go on about the Mosquito fighter-bomber anti-shipping strikes flown in and around Norway, or the destruction of German Capital ships such as Tirpitz by RAF heavy bombers; the destruction of U-boat pens by 617 squadron; or the huge amount of damage done to locomotives, factories, ammunition dumps and other targets by RAF tactical fighters in 1943/44/45, because as we have just learned from 1942 the Americans were doing all the really important fighting and the RAF fighters were doing nothing but stooging up and down the channel and the pilots picking their noses!!!

 

(adamcotton @ Oct 15 2005, 01:00 PM) [post=40098]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>Jimbotosome, you really walk into these things! So in 1942-44, the British were not flying deep into Germany? What were all those Lancasters and Halifaxes doing then? Just giving the RAF something to fill the empty spaces in their hangars with? But maybe you are just talking about the fighter arm of the RAF, and that operating out of Britain at that? So we can ignore for the moment the part played by the RAF in establishing air superiority in North Africa, or in southern Italy, or Burma, or Sumatra, or a myriad other places, and focus instead purely on the ETO...[/b]
Well I don’t know if it is me walking into things or just that you are supersensitive with an ax to grind and I look like a grinding stone to you. The issue here was air superiority. I am well aware the British performed strategic bombing, but that was at night and this was a discussion about destroying the Luftwaffe which means late 1943 to spring 1944 daylight bombing where fighter escorts were taking on the expert Luftwaffe pilots that had not been killed up to that point. There are no nighttime dogfights so I don’t think the RAF had a significant presence in that phase. Fighter sweeps were not very productive. When the Germans were patrolling so that they were seen by fighter sweeps, they were in search of bombers, the last things they wanted to see was Spitfires, Jugs and Mustangs. If they saw any of these planes on that patrol, there was a good chance that some of them, even the expert pilots would not be returning that evening. But, as every pilot said, the action was flying escort runs and being allowed to make airfield attacks on the return trip. The P-47 was the first plane that could escort deep into Germany and attack airfields on the way back. The deeper you escorted into Germany the more target rich the area for fighters to engage. Schwinefurt, Regensburg, and regions deep in the Ruhr valley took a lot of fuel to fly them and have enough to strafe airfields or spend time attacking fighters. These daylight raids were primarily escorted by Eighth’s own fighters groups, which were for the most part P-47s, until mid 1944. Surely you wouldn’t dispute that. They may have borrowed RAF support early on which is something the bomber pilots could not care less about being no one that I have ever heard of thought the RAF to be substandard in any fashion. The fact that you mentioned the B-26 makes me think you are talking about escorting Ninth Air (TAC) because they are the only ones that had B-26s.

The role of the RAF in the BoB was both more noteworthy and more critical than any mission until the end of the war. PERIOD. What more “props” do you need for the RAF without me getting gratuitous and patronizing to which you would become equally offended? Seems like I just can’t win with you. If you don’t believe that the US lead the way to destroying the Luftwaffe and aircraft industry by sheer numbers “if nothing more”, then you shouldn’t be writing articles for magazines. The fact that the RAF switched to Mustangs meant they were desirous of getting into the mix and get their share of fighters since that fighter gave the most opportunity because of its tremendous range (not because it was better than the Spitfire!, boy good thing I saw that in time). That’s the only reason, I believe, that the RAF would make the switch. They wanted to get into more fights and fight longer. Virtually all pilots USAAF and RAF wanted a fight with the Germans and would seek it out if they had to. But by the time the Mustangs came into play you were picking the bones of the Luftwaffe. The work load of air attacks had to be divided up otherwise the two Air Forces would be climbing all over each other and failing in ways like rendezvous with bombers, jumping other fighter wings and overlapping the management of both air forces to maintain simple coordination that could better by one air force or the other alone. Since the US had the numbers in bombers and fighters then obviously you would assign them to the role where numbers would benefit. It is not any easier to shoot a German plane down over occupied France than over Germany. The only difference was who got the most opportunities. That would by definition be whoever did the daylight bombing deep into Germany. If it had been the Brits, they would have gotten more kills. It’s simple math, NOT skill disparities.

I have two questions for you friend:

-Do you think that Americans think that the RAF was a second class Air Force and were strictly academic in the outcome of the war?
-What happened to that “Chill Pill” we were going to split?

 

Without going into a lot of detail with a long post, overall I agree with Jimbo's position. Of course the RAF contributed to the achievement of air superiority, but the single most important factor was the American fighters flying escort to 8th AAF bombers in late 1943 and early 1944.