What was the greatest air battle of all time and why was

>>644405
Midway

>>644991
This desu.

The Pacific Front was as much an air war as a naval war.

>>644991
I don't know loads about the Pacific front, but the battle of Britain was a fucking nail biting thing, the Germans at one point had the RAF on its knees. Then the RAF fucking jump back up and beat the shit out of the Luftwaffe, but idk, was it like that in the east? From what I know the Americans had superior numbers and tech in terms of aircraft, not saying it was not hard fought, but it seems inevitable that the Americans would win.

>>646363
Japanese Zeros were actually pretty formidable planes and better than our early fighters.

>>646363
>the Germans at one point had the RAF on its knees
not really - it is what both sides thought, but only because they over/underestimated the opposition
basically at no point of the BoB were the british in danger of losing - their strength kept growing (as in, replacing losses AND getting more planes and pilots) consistently throughout, whereas the luftwaffe was unable to replace losses, let alone strengthen

am i wrong in thinking that iran v iraq war was the only time of helicopter v helicopter aerial combat?

>>646379
but muh polish ace pilots singlehandedly winning it

>>646378
>formidable planes
>would crash from a thrown rock

>>646363

>but the battle of Britain was a fucking nail biting thing, the Germans at one point had the RAF on its knees

No they didn't. They had the RAF considering moving their airbases further north. The RAF wasn't on its knees at any point.

>>646379
>>647240
I'm fairly certain that the rate at which the RAF and Lufwaffe were losing planes during the summer of 1940 ensured that while the British would indeed lose, it would have been a pyrrhic victory for the Luftwaffe. Both sides would have come out of it without an airforce

>>648012
>defender loses airforce
>attacker loses airforce
>this means the attacker wins somehow

???

>>648017
Excuse me, I should have said viable airforce.

>greatest air battle
>not Bekaa Valley engagement
>Not the absolute clusterfuck that took place over Krymskaya in April 1943
>not MiG Alley

You're a faggot.

The only reason the Battle of Britain is considered so significant is because, like everything the British encountered and defeated in WW2, they had to hype it up to near-legendary status to salvage their egos.

>>648012
The British really were never anywhere close to losing. Losses were high among those fighter wings stationed right in the line of fire, but the RAF had plenty of planes further north that the Luftwaffe couldn't touch.

Attrition of Luftwaffe aircraft and crews was far higher than anything the RAF was experiencing, partly because the Brits could bail out over friendly territory and partly because of the numerous defensive advantages the RAF held.

Plus it wasn't like bomber command was sitting with their thumbs up their asses the whole time. Light bombers were making treetop-level attacks on fighter air bases in Normandy pretty much the entire duration of the campaign.

>>648102
>Not the absolute clusterfuck that took place over Krymskaya in April 1943
I've heard a lot about this, but I've never really gone in depth to it.

What exactly went on there?

File: 1401123563671.gif (3MB, 260x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 260x150px

>>646363
>the Germans at one point had the RAF on its knees. Then the RAF fucking jump back up and beat the shit out of the Luftwaffe
You're retarded.

From what I know the Americans had superior numbers and tech in terms of aircraft, not saying it was not hard fought, but it seems inevitable that the Americans would win.
As stupid as you sound, you're mostly right. The initial Japanese superiority came because of a combination of vast numerical advantages and terrible fighters in the garrisons being overrun.

That's not to say the IJN didn't have a good fighter - the Zero was the longest-ranged single-engine fighter of the war and was arguably the best fighter Japan had in service in 1941, but it had tons of glaring flaws. Meanwhile, the USN started the war with the F4F Wildcat, which was more agile than it gets credit for, but required a style of flying to defeat the Zero that wasn't exactly intuitive. So it was a fairly even match at the outbreak of the war, at least on the naval side.

For the IJA, the only reason their air forces were so successful despite the vast majority of their fighters being hopelessly obsolete Ki-27s and the occasional hilariously underperforming (compared to contemporaries) Ki-43s was the fact that the enemy's planes were even worse. The Brewster Buffalo and Hawker Hurricane made up the majority of Allied aircraft in Malaya, and they were already underperforming aircraft hampered by the tropical air and completely outnumbered.

File: 2014-08-31 20.47.27.jpg (1MB, 1812x1551px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1812x1551px

>>648162
Part of the campaign to dislodge the German pocket in the Kuban after Stalingrad.

Pretty much
>Axis fortify front in Kuban
>Soviets land at Myshkako (southwest of Novorossiyisk), creating a bridgehead
>Main offensive on Novorossiyisk fails
>hoping to put pressure elsewhere, Soviets launch offensive at strategic town of Krymskaya
>VVS and Luftwaffe pour all their resources into the ensuing battle, resulting in a running furball of at least a hundred aircraft over a small section of front for several days

That was where we saw the first use of the cannon-equipped Hs 129, Ju 87G and Ju 88P. You also had the most experienced Luftwaffe fighter unit - III./JG 52 - flying with Gunther Rall as their leader, as well as some of the first Fw 190s to hit the Eastern Front. On the Soviet side, they were trying out all their new Lend-Lease planes, as well as some newly arrived types, so you had P-39s, Yak-1Bs, La-5s, A-20s, P-40s, Hurricanes, Spitfires, Pe-2s, and Il-2s all swarming over the battlefield.

If you're interested in it, I'd recommend checking out Red Phoenix Rising by Von Hardesty. His section on the Kuban campaign is pretty impressive.

File: Ki-84 'Frank' 2.png (319KB, 497x661px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 497x661px

>>648168
At the outbreak of the war, the Allies really didn't have anything to compete with Japan, but as the war went on, allied aircraft development increased tenfold, and while I'm not saying Japan didn't have some fine late-war aircraft (Ki-84 Hayate, J2M Raiden), the allies had far better aircraft in the end.

In the beginning, the US had no idea how to counter the comparatively maneuverable Zeroes, and suffered some high losses until they developed proper strategy to fight them.

The Ki-84 in particular is one of my favorite WWII planes, but it was too little, too late.

File: IL-2M.jpg (83KB, 791x518px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 791x518px

While we're on the topic of WWII air combat, does anyone have any book recommendations ?

>>648197
>If you're interested in it, I'd recommend checking out Red Phoenix Rising by Von Hardesty.
Thanks, the Soviet air force in WWII was pretty weird.

Considering the fact that there have been barely any air battles in history, each one of them have a pretty good change of being the greatest

>>648231

Only an essay, not a book, but it's quite good.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/comparat.pdf

Bloody April, 1917.

File: Screenshot_2016-02-04-17-14-11.png (251KB, 768x1280px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 768x1280px

>>644405
Actually the greatest air battle of all time was the Siege of Tsingtao

>>648168
>required a style of flying to defeat the Zero that wasn't exactly intuitive

Such as?

>>646363
>the Germans at one point had the RAF on its knees
At no point this was the case.

The whole thing was set up for failure since day one because Germany didn't have real escort aircraft and bombers.

A German pilot in a Bf109 had enough fuel to fight for roughly 10 - 15 minutes over Britain if he didn't want to swim home.

A German pilot who was shot down was taken prisoner or drowned while a British pilot could return for duty.

It's an absolute miracle that the Luftwaffe wasn't blown out even harder, simply because Germany didn't have the means to invade. To be fair though: nobody at that stage did. The British aircraft wouldn't have been suited for that sort of operation either, had the situation been reversed.

File: High-yo-yo.gif (386KB, 390x314px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 390x314px

>>648168
>Meanwhile, the USN started the war with the F4F Wildcat, which was more agile than it gets credit for, but required a style of flying to defeat the Zero that wasn't exactly intuitive. So it was a fairly even match at the outbreak of the war, at least on the naval side.
Indeed. At the initial stage of the war, people had yet to figure out the right tactics in regards to how to fly with the more powerful engines that were available in WW2. People went into the war with a WW1 mindset, thinking in order to be a good fighter an aircraft needs to have a tight turn. The most naive and straightforward thing people do when trying to shoot someone down is circle horizontally in order to get behind the enemy.

However, the problem with tight turns is that they require a steep angle of attack which creates a lot of drag roughly proportional to the velocity squared. This means that the faster your aircraft is, the more expensive a turn is going to be in terms of the energy spent, since turning is going to slow you down significantly.

Soon people figured out that it would be a good idea to perform vertical operations in order to preserve energy. First they would climb in order to transform their velocity into height, slowing down their aircraft in the process. Then they would perform a tight turn at altitude, losing less speed in the process, and then dive back to their original height, transforming their height back into velocity.

That meant that heavier, faster, aircraft, with powerful engines that allowed for good climb rates could defeat lighter, tighter turning aircraft by performing hit and run attacks from altitude. They would simply not engage in turning dogfights, but dive down, fire all their heavy arms and climb out of reach. If things didn't work out they would simply run away, since they were in the faster aircraft, and due to generally being more heavily armoured they would survive attacks better. Wingman tactics would provide further defence.

>>648465
One of the reasons why Germany performed worse in the later stage of the Battle of Britain was that Goering, disappointed by the losses among bombers and attackers, instructed the fighters to fly in tight formations, thinking it would help and thus completely giving up on the strengths that the Bf109 had over the British aircraft.

>>648012
>I'm fairly certain that the rate at which the RAF and Lufwaffe were losing planes during the summer of 1940 ensured that while the British would indeed lose
nope, the loss rates were in favor of the RAF throughout the conflict

>>648373
The Zero had better horizontal maneuverability (aside from a worse roll rate), so you had to rely on vertical maneuverability or group tactics like the Thatch Weave.

>>648231
Not WW2, but From Fledgling to Eagle by Dick Lord is a pretty interesting look at the South African Air Force in the Border War.

>>644405
Daily reminder that Poland saved England in WW2

>>644405
That Polish maneuver looks pretty improbable

>>647240
>They had the RAF considering moving their airbases further north.
They didn't.
>/his/tory
Oh I mean, sure RAF was at one point located entirely on the north pole.

>>652293
It looks impressive though, which is what's important
POLAND NUMERO UNO

>>648168
Hawker Hurricane would've been a match for the Zero, but they did not arrive in Malaya until it was too late, and they were supplied in small numbers.

File: Nakajima-Ki-27-19.jpg (79KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x773px

>>652308
Nope. Hurricanes were outclassed by the Oscars and Nates they encountered. The tropical air fucked with their engines, and the agility they got from their thicker wing section still wasn't enough to compete with the more agile IJA fighters.

Also, the Zero wasn't in Malaya. The IJA handled that operation, so they were mostly dealing with Ki-27s, Ki-43s, Ki-21s, and a bunch of nearly identical single-engined bombers. The Hurricanes sure as hell were better than the Buffaloes they had, but they weren't going to be decisive at all.

>>644405

The Battle of Kursk had 2110 German planes vs 3500 soviet planes.

/his/, is it true that Germany only lost the battle of britain because when the british raided Berlin, Hitler or Goring wanted to have revenge and bombarded London, that gave the RAF time to recover, is that true?

>>653205
Quality over quantity.

>>653242
Hitler can't invade London because RAF stronk. Sends in Luftwaffe to take out RAF and bomb Britain into surrendering. German planes had to fly across the channel, could dogfight for 10 minutes before having to return to base. RAF had no such restriction. Luftwaffe pilots were lost in London while RAF pilots that 'chuted safely out could get in a new plane and be back up within the hour.

It was a rather shitty battle for Germany

>>653242
Nah. That ones a myth.

>>653242

No, it isn't. As mentioned already in this thread, the RAF was hardly in danger of being wiped out. At the very best from the German perspective, they bomb enough RAF bases that FG 11 rebases out of Me-109 range.

Then what? Germany doesn't have the means at sea to carry out an invasion. The RAF is outbuilding the Luftwaffe in fighters and in pilot training. In the window of vulnerability, what are you going to do? Use your stukas and light 2 engined bombers to blow up a few bridges and bomb some crops? Sooner or later you're going to have to either support the nonexistant land operation, or engage in wholesale strategic bombing to try to get Britain to surrender.

Since the former isn't happening, the latter must, so even if the British never do anything to change Hitler's mind, he's going to have to start terror bombing. Of course, that's not likely to work, sooner or later late autumn is going to hit and then the weather's going to get bad, it'll curtail your raiding frequency even if there's no resistance at all. And that'll give the British time to recover, and come spring of 1941, you're back where you started.

>>653205
pretty much this, everything in the Ostfront dwarfed any other WWII theater other than the Pacific theater, Battle of Britain wasn't as huge an operation as Britcucks would want you to believe

>>653284

When it comes to air war, the strat bombing campaign in 1943 onwards was actually bigger than the air battles over Ostfront.

>>653289
even if that is true compare it to any typical U.S. bombing raid in the same war

>>644405

The BoB was too one-sided, frankly.

>>653398
Given how the whole situation was a strategic disaster for the German side from the very beginning it should have been a lot more one-sided though. In terms of fighters being shot down, Germany actually had the upper hand. However, Germany's losses were permanent, since pilots either died or were taken prisoner while British pilots who bailed out could get back in the cockpit.

>>653242
yes it is
the Nigels here are out full force

luftwaffe was ordered to switch targets to cities instead of airfields and actively engaging the RAF at a cruicial point

>>653542
Nonsense, urban legend masquerading as history

>>653542
>the Nigels
*Eternal Anglos

File: aidf25.jpg (224KB, 498x709px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 498x709px

>>653626

>>648465
So basically they went in with a 2-D mindset and adapted by realizing the z-axis existed?

File: 56452.jpg (27KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 620x349px

>>653734

>>653542
>memes
now tell me the one about how the merchants stabbed you in the back otherwise you would have won ww1 :^)

>>653759
its not a meme
the british empire is though along with grorious bottle of britbongs

>>653750
That's more submarine than airplane.
Ever notice the best Star Trek episode (1x08 "Balance of Terror") and the the best Star Trek movie (Wrath of Khan) are both submarine stories?

>>653734
Before that the Z-Axis couldn't be used comparably well because the aircraft didn't have powerful enough engines yet and they weren't fast enough for drag to have that significant of an effect. Certainly, vertical manoeuvring existed, e.g. the Tri-Planes were excellent when it came to vertical manoeuvring, while biplanes were generally better at horizontal manoeuvres, but it wasn't as potent.

>>648168
Jesus man, chill, like I said I don't know much about the Pacific front.

>>646379
>>647240
>>648126
>>648168
Yeah, reading up on the Battle of Britain I don't know why I though the RAF was on its knees, sorry :l

File: Spitfire Mk IX nightfighter camo.jpg (231KB, 2104x1048px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 2104x1048px

Bump