Why were the losses of the allies so high?
Because of the allied method (subduing the enemy at all costs) vs the LW tactics (causing as much attrition to the enemy as possible)
These... "methods"?... "Subduing the enemy at all costs" - were the Allies so blatantly stupid, to choose a method
And that does not really count all the years. In 1940, the tables were a bit different, - LW and RAF were pretty even, with LW doing better from jan to may, then the other way around.
That`s a rather funny statement, considering the RAF was virtually wiped from over Europe in 1940, and was on the edge of destruction by the second half of 1940... the LW maintained air superiority over the continent and the channel well up to the end of 1943, the RAF was never in a position to question that.
Late war the LW pilot quality was vastly lower, and an average LW pilot no longer a match for a RAF/USAAF pilot of average quality.
Correct, however the thing you forget is that it wasn`t the avarage pilot scoring most of the kills. In each airforce, it was the elite, the tip of the iceberg, that made most kills and victories, while the rest was more like assisting in that.
Then on to aircraft quality.
The LW was nicely equipped, no doubt about that. Their main escort fighter (109) however had nothing so much in its favour vs. allied interceptors (typically Spitfire), and their Interceptors (190's) had a hard time vs the Allied escort fihters (typically P51).
Probably you should start understanding the definitions first... Both the 109 and 190s were interceptors, the 109 was never designed to be an "escort fighter".
The Spitfire was not a typical fighter of the RAF as was the the 109 in the LW. The majority of the RAF fighters were Hurris, much inferior in performance to the typical LW fighter, the Bf 109E.
And this legacy was carried on - the RAF could always fielded new types of Spit with apprx. equal quality to the actual 109s, though less successfully in 1941-42. What the RAF could never do, was to match the avarage quality of LW fighters. The 109F, G, later Gs and K become widespread in the LW very quickly, but faced usually older types of Spits - 109F was common, and typicall faced Hurris and SpitVs, the 109G/190A was common, and typically faced Spit Vs, the Mark IX being far from being widespread in 1943.. it become the backbone by 1944, but then again it faced those 109Gs and Ks with much superior performance at altitude, the Mk XIV appearing only in meaningless numbers with a handful of squadrons, and even then, some were STILL flying the MkV, that was hopelessly outclassed for 2 years by then...
It appears that during the war, the RAF could compete with the best designs of the LW in quality, but failed to bring those quality aircraft onto the battlefield in numbers.
Look better into the ground-jobs done by the airforces.
Did the LW have a ground attacker in the quality of the Tempest, P47 etc, i.e. dual quality?
I guess you would have to do a bit of reading before coming here... first of all, neither the Tempest, Typhoon, nor the P-47 was designed to be a "ground-attacker". They were designed to be short ranged fighters initially, and were more or less a failure in that, that`s why they become primarly ground attackers.
They were not very fit for that, neither having the neccesary armament, and practically lacked any kind of armor needed for that role - their capabilities were rather limited, nothing comparable to REAL ground pounders. An ad hoc solutions at best, fighter bombers. Everybody fielded fighter bombers, Angie, that`s merely a fighter with a bombrack attached to it.
Otherwise, the LW, and the VVS had plenty of specialized ground pounders - FW 190 series, that carried the largest payload for a single engined fighter, for that matter... Il-2, Stukas, Hs 129.. these were all well armored, and had the specialized armament type absolutely neccesary for the task.
Grab your seat, Angie, the Allies never did have a real ground pounder/anti tank a/c. The P-47, Typhoon, Tempest was not such thing. The Hurricane w 40mm cannon was probably the best they have come up - hardly widespread.
So the question really is, did the Allies had anything comparable to the Stuka, Hs 129, FW 190F/G ? Did they fielded special anti tank armament in widespread service like the Germans (and Soviets) did?
Did they have any heavy worker that hauled 20.000 lbs of bombs?
Well, they didn`t, neither did the Allies for that matter, except if you count the B-29, which wasn`t widespread by any means, appearing only late in the PTO. Otherswise, the He 177 was, technically speaking, a better aircraft than any of the Allied heavy bombers in ETO. Faster, carrying more payload to equal or greater range (7.2 ton), having strong defense armament (unlike RAF heavies for example). So yes, they were competitive, technically, but it never become as widespread. German medium bombers, on the other hand, were the best of the war with heavier bombload than typical on Allied mediums - the total tonnage they dropped was comparable to the Allies, who had more and heavier bombers.
