Try to address issues as they came:lwd:
I know that's your opinion. I just don't see that there is much substantiation of it.
In your case I could bring you Curtis Le May and he told you that and because do not suit your predisposition of thinking that only the US did achieve some level of proficiency in everything you will never be satisfied: but it´s your problem, not one of History. Just look at the record not of one, nor two, nor three, nor twelve nor fifty nor eighty but of hundreds of Germans pilots and tell me there is not a least a hint that they were, at the very least, an extraordinary cadre of pilots.
And the US doesn't?
Show me where Mj. Bong or Boyington are in the list.
The Soviets also had one of the poor records in air to air combat in WWII. The Germans did loose a lot of planes in the East but their fighter losses were heavier in the west.
Of course not in the same degree but the Soviets depended in numerical superiority to overwhelm the enemy. In cases they deployed three or four times the number of Germans planes in an area. Even with mediocre pilots that is an incredible threat that, the US, never had because always operated in a numerical superiority basis.Bgile:
That's not true. The US has never left pilots in combat zones indefinitely. There was a mission limit in Korea, and in lower intensity conflicts there are deployment time limits.
Can you explain how it would be possible for Eric Hartman to get 352 kills flying for the USAAF? Or get shot down a number of times over the Pacific Ocean and survive them all?
I bet if we looked at number of kills in the first 50 missions, US and German numbers would be very close. For one thing, the US numbers wouldn't change much.
I never say the USAAF have pilots in combat zones indefinitely. But the rules changed a lot, in Korea and then in Vietnam. Red Flag and Top Gun trainnees were already veterans. The USAAF changed a lot from WWII (where it depended in numerical superiorirty) to the Cold War scenario where it tended to a more Luftwaffe approach on quality and proficiency. It is a matter of logic: you must recover from such an investement of a pilot who is an officer (education and training) and is not flying a fifty thousand plane but a forty million dollar one.yellowtail3:
thanks for the info. It leaves one wondering, though: just how did the USAAF managed to shoot down all those MEs and FWs over Germany, flown by purported 'experten' (heh heh heh) and establish air superiority over Germany, when they were only... 'decent'?
Better aircraft, perhaps? Better training, perhaps (clobber colleges!) - maybe better tactical doctrine, along with numbers to support their successful campaign against the Luftwaffe's finest over Germany?
The P 38, P 40 and the P51 where amongst the greatest, if not the greatest
, propeller driven fighters of the war. At least the P 51 was THE fighter. I do believe that the FW 190 was a match but I´m not ready to bet on that. Still: the P 51 was the greatest.
The US winning card was doctrine, I have always granted also that. And as Kyler mentions the weaker side only can get weaker and things get more difficult for them. Manufacturing planes, traininig pilots, attrition, fuel shortages, etc. etc. have their tally and finally destroyed the Luftwaffe. When a German plane was shot down it was very difficult to replace it. The US plants made them in excess to supply US needs and those of their allies. Also with the pilots. Pilots trained out of danger, giving enough instruction and deployed with upmost eficiency in great planes. All that cost the air war to the Germans.
Now, there is a misconception around there: as far as I know the Russian sturmovik was quite a good plane.