# 10 Allied planes that sealed Nazi Germany's fate



## Jerry W. Loper (Apr 2, 2013)

Suppose that high ranking German military officers are asked shortly after the war, what 10 Russian and Western Allied planes contributed most to the Third Reich's downfall, and suppose the first 3 planes mentioned are the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik, the B-17 Flying Fortress, and the Avro Lancaster. What are the other 7 planes? P.S. You don't have to accept the first 3 planes make the list; knock 'em off if you think they don't belong.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2013)

Only combat planes should be in the list, or the trainers and transports count in too?


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Apr 2, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Only combat planes should be in the list, or the trainers and transports count in too?



Let's leave transports and trainers out of this one, though I realize in real life they were indispensable.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2013)

In no particular order (the 'other' 7 planes):
Short Sunderland
P-51
Hurricane
Spitfire
Yak-1
P-40
Mosquito


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2013)

B-24 Liberator - closed the Atlantic gap.
P-40 - widely, widely supplied to every Commonwealth country, + China at a time when there wasn't enough of anything British built to go around
B-29 - purpose built to haul the A-bomb
Lancaster - carried more total tonnage to Germany than any other Allied bomber and yet executed some very precise missions
PBY Catalina - great range and thus provided several key "sightings"
Fairey Swordfish - first successful torpedo attack at Toranto took the Italian fleet out of the Med and disabled the Bismarck
C-47 - YOU CANNOT remove this AC - dropping paratroops is a combat role 
Harvard trainer - YOU CANNOT remove this AC = training fighter pilots is a combat role 

MM


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

In no particular order, I’d pick the Yak-3, La-5, Il-2, Spitfire, P-51, P-47, B-24, Halifax, B-17, and Lancaster. 

The Hurricane could easily be in there, but its importance diminished as the war went on. The P-38 could also easily be in there, but at the expense of which one? Once its teething issues were fixed, it was transferred to the PTO to eliminate another logistics chain in Europe for a fighter. It makes the list for the Japanese.

Though important, I did not select the C-47 or the AT-6 because they aeren't first-line combat aircraft. They are in a support role and are indispensible, but I seriously doubt the Germans would identify them as a cause of defeast. WE might, but not German military officers.


----------



## herman1rg (Apr 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Hurricane could easily be in there, but its importance diminished as the war went on.



But surely with the Hurricane shooting down more enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain than all others combined (including anti-aircraft guns) This would make it very important to the tactical victory at that time that delayed and eventually led to the cancellation of the invasion The United Kingdom.

So I think it should be included in the list.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

The main British and Soviet combat planes from 1939 to 1941 decided the war. But to be frank, I think that the Soviets by themselfs could already defeat Germany.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2013)

".... But to be frank, I think that the Soviets by themselfs could already defeat Germany."

Yes, maybe, sometime around 1948 after the Great German defeat in the Urals .... but that's "what-if" _science fiction _your clinging to, my friend Jenisch 

"... I did not select the C-47 or the AT-6 because they aeren't first-line combat aircraft. They are in a support role and are indispensible, but I seriously doubt teh Germans would identify them as a cause of defeast."

I don't know ... I'm betting that more than one German General wished he had a few hundred C-47s at Stalingrad .... And Tante Ju, their own workhorse, bailed Germany out of several "kettles" when the army was encircled and had to break out.

But hey, its your call GregP 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2013)

herman1rg said:


> But surely with the Hurricane shooting down more enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain than all others combined (including anti-aircraft guns) This would make it very important to the tactical victory at that time that delayed and eventually led to the cancellation of the invasion The United Kingdom.
> 
> So I think it should be included in the list.



Agreed.
Hurricane, as a part of the integrated air defense of the UK, could be easily the most important fighter plane ever.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 2, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> B-29 - purpose built to haul the A-bomb



Well, that's just incorrect! They had to be modified to carry the A-bombs.


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2013)

Yak and IL2 should probably be at top of the list. Built in huge numbers and operated in the decisive war theater.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 2, 2013)

"... They had to be modified to carry the A-bombs."

OK - B-29 - the bomber that delivered the A bomb.

Can you buy _that _...?

MM


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2013)

So were He-177 and Ju-290. None of these A bomb modifications had any impact on WWII in Europe.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 2, 2013)

The question was: what planes would the GERMANS nominate, so the B 29 was a non-player anyway
To make the list I would suggest an aircraft would have to have had a profound effect either in a decisive battle, or lacking that, over a prolonged period. The Hurricane would appear to be a no-brainier, although it has been argued that the Brits could not have won the BoB without the less numerous but more potent Spitfire either. If that's so, then Spit might usurp the Hurricane on the basis of it's continued utility for the entirety of the war.
Liberator for sure - if the U boats had not been shut down D-day would never had happened.
Il-2 for the long term damage it did to the Wermacht
P-51 for air superiority over occupied Europe.
All the Yaks for providing the USSR with a fighter from day one that at least had the potential to develop into something to match the LW. I don't see any cause to divide this line of fighters into separate models.
Finally, how about the Typhoon? The profound effect of fighter bombers on German ground forces post D-day was only fully recognised after the war. Of course the P-47 was a standout here too, but I believe the Tiiffie edged it on workload.


----------



## norab (Apr 2, 2013)

The P-47 Thunderbolt, besides it's exploits versus the Luftwaffe in the air


> They destroyed over 8,000 aircraft on the ground, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 tanks armored vehicles, 68,000 vehicles, and 86,000 rolling stock. They only comparable number I could find for either the P-51 or P-38 is the P-51 destroyed over 4,000 aircraft on the ground during the war


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2013)

I like Cobbers thinking.
From the German point of view in no particular order

1 P51 )
2 B17 ) these two had to go together
3 Spitfire 
4 Lancaster
5 B24 mainly for the Atlantic patrols
6 Catalina again for Atlantic Patrols
7 Mosquito for PR/Nightfighter and anti shipping strikes
8 Typhoon )
9 P47 ) these three for their GA work
10 IL 2 )


----------



## pinsog (Apr 2, 2013)

P39 helped hold the line in Russian service. Which was more important to the Russians: the P39 or one of their own fighters?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 2, 2013)

Well, Goring voted for the P-51. I suspect many Germans would agree. Seeing the P-51, the first fighter to appear over Germany, at low altitude and strafing anything that moved, must have been ominous and frightening to many Germans. I cannot conceive any German of admitting the Russians had anything that led to their defeat, most likely blaming the Western front from applying the forces necessary to win in the East, rightly or wrongly.

I would throw my vote with Gilder.


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

How many combat sorties did the Typhoon fly in the ETO? I've never seen that number. I have the number for the P-47.

I doubt the German high command regarded the Hurricane very highly. They were likely under the impression, from their fighter pilots in the BOB, that it was "meat on the table" for a Bf 109. I didn't think it was supposed to be what WE thought, I thought it was supposed to be what we think the German officers would say. Most of the ones alive and functioning at the end of the war weren't even officers in the BOB or were very junior. The Germans replaced a LOT of officers during the course of the war.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 2, 2013)

Don't forget that there never was a Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down by Hurricanes...they were always, only ever, shot down solely by Spitfires.  

Agree to the point about German high command perspective so they'd plump for the Spitfire and try to forget about the poor old hunch-backed Hurricane.


----------



## Bernhart (Apr 2, 2013)

hurricanes were still in service at the end of the too


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 2, 2013)

Once the P-51’s came on board as a bomber escort the Germans knew they would be under attack 24 hours a day. The British would hammer at night and the Americans now had a scenario that would allow a tolerable amount of losses of bomber crews and planes in the daytime. Germany was forced into deciding if they were going to build more nimble interceptors to deal with the Mustangs or faster climbing heavier armed fighters that could effectively attack the bombers. In effect, they knew they really had no choice. They couldn’t let the Allies destroy their factories and cities so they went with the heavier arms to try and kill bombers.

Even though the Germans produced some incredible planes thereafter, they never really solved this problem. There were just too many P-51’s,B-17’s, B-24’s and Lancaster’s over their cities and industry. What’s more, after the invasion, the ever improving Spitfires (plus other British aircraft) and American fighters were taking it to the Germans as the Allies advanced across from the coast. This also in turn allowed the Allies to take some excellent airplanes such as the P-47s and P-38s and Misquitos and Beaufighters (etc..) and adapt them to any number of ground attack and maritime roles.

None of this happened all at once, but over time it allowed the Allies to maximize the potential of their aircraft in any number of ways while the Germans were forced more and more to build a certain type of aircraft to somehow stem the incessant day and night bombing campaign. Once the Allies found the right formula they went with it. If that happens TO you in a war, it usually means you lose if you can’t force some sort of change.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 3, 2013)

1.C-47
2.Mustang
3.B-24/17
4.Lancaster
5.P-40
6.Hurricane
7.Spitfire
8.IL-2
9.Petlyakov Pe-2
10.Yak


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 3, 2013)

1. Hurricane
2. Spitfire

Without these two aircraft, Germany may have won the Battle of Britain, possibly forcing a peace with the UK. Played mainstay roles in almost every theatre of operations of the war.

3. B-24

Without the Liberator, the Atlantic gap would have remained open. A lesser bomber but a better weapon of war (higher bombloads, longer range, lower loss rates [eventaully]) than the Flying Fortress.

4. Bristol Beaufighter

Gave the UK its first effective night-fighter, eventually denying the night sky to Germany. Also provided the most effective naval strike aircraft of the war for the RAF/Costal Command

5. Avro Lancaster

Carried more than 65% of Bomber Command's total bomb tonnage during the war.

6. P-51B/C/D

Provided the combination of speed, maneouverability, range and pilot-friendliness that all long-range escorts before had lacked.

7. de Haviland Mosquito

The best multi-role aircraft on the allied side. Worked as a night-fighter, fighter bomber, recon, target marker, naval strike and dedicated bomber aircraft.

8. Il-2 

Possibly caused more damage to German motorised transport and organic support than any other aerial weapon system.

9. Yak-7/3/9

Provided a fighter family capable of bridging the qualitative gap to German S/E types on the Eastern front.

10. Pe-2

The workhorse of Soviet frontal aviation strength during WW2. Immensly tough, survivable and capable in a multitude of roles.


----------



## timmy (Apr 3, 2013)

pinsog said:


> P39 helped hold the line in Russian service. Which was more important to the Russians: the P39 or one of their own fighters?



Yes it has to be considered

I don't know why this plane was so successful as a Fighter on the Eastern front. But as mentioned I think 3 of the top 5 aces from Russia came from P39's

Maybe the Russians knew how to use it, because we sure didn't.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 3, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't forget that there never was a Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down by Hurricanes...they were always, only ever, shot down solely by Spitfires.
> 
> Agree to the point about German high command perspective so they'd plump for the Spitfire and try to forget about the poor old hunch-backed Hurricane.


 
For sure the LW pilots had blinkers on regarding the Hurricane, but the facts speak for themselves. I don't know if the BoB could have been won without Spitfires, but it certainly couldn't have been won without Hurricanes.
Greg, I seem to recall that the Typhoon flew more GA missions than the P 47, but recollection is all. Maybe some else has the figures. I wouldn't like to pick one over the other in regards to effectiveness.


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2013)

Hi Stug,

I see you're not a P-51 fan. The B-24 / B-17 might have had a tough time without them. I think maybe daylight bombing would have ceased without the P-51. They might have been as effective at night ... and might not have been. Another what if ....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Stug,
> 
> I see you're not a P-51 fan. The B-24 / B-17 might have had a tough time without them. I think maybe daylight bombing would have ceased without the P-51. They might have been as effective at night ... and might not have been. Another what if ....



He ranked the P-51 at No. 2. Right after the c-47.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> I think maybe daylight bombing would have ceased without the P-51.



No P-51: P-38 and P-47.


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

You can not seperate the Hurricane and Spitfire in terms of the Battle of Britain. Without either one Fighter Command is done for,it's as simple as that.

On 1st July 1940 Fighter Command had 640 serviceable aircraft of all types,Spitfires,Hurricanes,Blenheims and Defiants. There were 348 Hurricanes and 200 Spitfires,we can safely discount the 100 or so Blenheims and Defiants as their impact on the forthcoming battle would be,politely,minimal. These numbers are 218 Hurricanes and 92 Spitfires for 11 Group,which was about to bear the brunt of the battle.

So my list has both of them on with the P-51 filling the next eight spaces 

I've said it elsewhere recently but the figures are easy to read. In 1944 Luftwaffe losses were 9,768 in the west,2,406 in the east. That's conservative figures. Groehler's are nearly three times as many,but the ratio is almost identical. The Luftwaffe was destroyed in the skies,and on the fields,of western Europe. It was destroyed largely by the P-51.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 3, 2013)

The P-51 was instrumental in winning a vital phase of the war, but it would never had been in a position to do so if other aircraft had not previously been equally instrumental in winning other equally vital phases. And it's worth remembering that the Mustangs period of ascendancy was barely longer than that of the Hurricane.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

If the B-17 should be (and I think it should, along with B-24) rated as one of the top 10 basic instruments for the defeat of Germany, the Mustang has to be ranked as a 'co-equal'. The Luftwaffe had basically fought the 8th and 9th AF BC to a standstill pre P-51B, then was essentially defeated over Germany by the Mustang prior to D-Day.

The C-47. The Lancaster, the Hurricane and Spit and Il-2. I struggle picking only two of a Lancaster, B-17 and B-24 so I dropped Mosquito.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

norab said:


> The P-47 Thunderbolt, besides it's exploits versus the Luftwaffe in the air



"They destroyed over 8,000 aircraft on the ground, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 tanks armored vehicles, 68,000 vehicles, and 86,000 rolling stock. They only comparable number I could find for either the P-51 or P-38 is the P-51 destroyed over 4,000 aircraft on the ground during the war"

This statement is amazing in that every claim ranges from false to bovine fecal matter. Where in the world did you find this feckless prose?


----------



## Readie (Apr 3, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> The question was: what plane would the GERMANS nominate....



Goering did that succinctly CK..the Spitfire.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> From GregP "I think maybe daylight bombing would have ceased without the P-51."
> 
> From Jenisch; No P-51: P-38 and P-47.



The 8th AF started preparations to begin night bombing transition in November 1944. The first P-38 group - 55th FG had began ops and the second (20th) began late November. The first Mustang operations began in December 1943.The P-47 prevented heavy losses over Holland and France. The Germans owned the sky over Germany. 

Illustrated Point
The P-38's destroyed 10 LW fighters during Big Week with two operational FG. The Mustang destroyed 64.5 with two operational FG. The P-47 destroyed 78 with 11 Operational FG's. 

From January 1 through June 30, the P-51B destroyed 1061, P-38 destroyed 178 with the same amount of P-38's. All air victory credits. The Mustang destroyed far more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 and P-38 combined (plus Spit, Hurricane and Typhoon lumped in).

The tactical issues for USSAF were a.) the P-47 escort ensured protection only as far as Dummer Lake to Frankfort... which was not very interesting relative to critical strategic targets such as aircraft engine, ball bearings, synthetic fuels, etc.. b.) the LW was able to withdraw major attacks to the point where the P-47s had to turn back and then punish the 8th AF to the point where US planners recognized that politically the US could not absorb such losses on a continuing basis - as incurred between August 1943 and October 1943, and c.) The LW could conserve strength prior to D-Day. 

The P-47 was very important in 1943, demonstrating that escort fighters worked, but range limited the historical impact of the Jug

The P-38 had just a little more range with external tanks as the Mustang had with all internal fuel so even it was limited to Berlin for radius, or Southern Austria for 15th AF during Big Week, and from that point forward the Mustan extended its footprint with the addition of the 85 gallon fuselage tank. Posnan, Stettin, Brux, Regensburg and Munich range targets all became available with Mustangs.

Had the Mustang not existed it is possible that by stripping ALL P-38 production from PTO, MTO and diverted to England, the 8th could have continued daylight ops, probably with much higher losses - but acceptable. Having said that, the P-38 over Germany was not nearly as effective in destruction of LW - air and ground - as the Mustang on a pro-rata basis.

Even in the MTO where P-38s were primary 12th and 15th AF escort fighter from November 1942 through May 1944, it was much less effective than the P-51 when all the 15th AF P--47s were replaced by Mustangs.

P-38 speculative, Mustang reality in the context of the defeat of Germany.


----------



## Hop (Apr 3, 2013)

By the end of summer 1943 the Germans were on the retreat in the East, had been kicked out of Africa and the allies had landed in Italy. Italy had switched sides.

The Mustang became one of the finest fighters of the war, but it did so after the outcome was already decided.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 3, 2013)

Readie said:


> Goering did that succinctly CK..the Spitfire.


Actually, Goering said once he saw *Mustangs* over Berlin, he knew it was over. And this is one of his more sensible quotes.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Stug,
> 
> I see you're not a P-51 fan. The B-24 / B-17 might have had a tough time without them. I think maybe daylight bombing would have ceased without the P-51. They might have been as effective at night ... and might not have been. Another what if ....



I used the Mustang designation because it was used by the RAF and the USAAF (I know RAF didnt use P-40 designation, but I was lazy). Quantities produced use by various allied AF's were a big factor in my picks.


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

Hop said:


> By the end of summer 1943 the Germans were on the retreat in the East, had been kicked out of Africa and the allies had landed in Italy. Italy had switched sides..



At the end of the summer of 1943 the battle of Stalingrad is about to start. The outcome in the East is far from certain. 

The allies were about to or had (depending what you call the end of summer) landed in Italy but again the outcome was not certain. Churchill's "soft underbelly" proved anything but and there was plenty of hard fighting ahead there. It was just going to be against the Germans without much Italian "help".

The only one of your three where a decision had been made was North Africa. That was a greater victory for the British and their interests in the Middle East than it was a defeat for Germany. Italy is another thing,the invasion of Sicily was probably the event which finally prompted the series of events that led to the armistice. A decisive defeat for them both it was nonetheless,I agree with you here.

The Luftwaffe was on the road to defeat in 1943 but it most certainly was not defeated. You could easily argue (as Williamson Murray does quite convincingly) that it had been on that road since 1938/9.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Hop (Apr 3, 2013)

> At the end of the summer of 1943 the battle of Stalingrad is about to start. The outcome in the East is far from certain.



The battle of Stalingrad started in summer *1942*. The German forces were encircled in November 1942 and surrendered in February 1943.

As to Italy, the best the Germans could hope for was a delaying action. 

A year earlier the Germans had been trying to take Egypt. By the end of summer 1943 they were merely trying to hold the line in Italy.

By the summer of 1943 the Germans had abandoned the offensive. At best they were trying to hold the line, in other areas they were just trying to slow the pace of retreat.

If you look at the aims of German operations each year their position becomes clear:

1939 - Defeat Poland
1940 - Defeat France, Britain, Belgium and Netherlands
1941 - Defeat the Soviet Union
1942 - Capture the Caucasus and Egypt
1943 - Shorten the lines at Kursk and hold the line in Italy



> The Luftwaffe was on the road to defeat in 1943 but it most certainly was not defeated. You could easily argue (as Williamson Murray does quite convincingly) that it had been on that road since 1938/9.



From Irving's biography of Milch:



> When the ministers and gauleiters assembled on Hitler’s instructions in
> Berlin on  August for Dr Goebbels to ‘inject some cement into them’, Milch
> repeatedly interrupted a discussion on the war in the air with the almost treasonable
> outcry, ‘We have lost the war! Finally lost the war!’ Goebbels had to appeal
> ...



The situation of the Luftwaffe was the same as for Germany: at best they sought to hold the line in some areas, others they practically abandoned.


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

The Battle of Stalingrad is generally accepted to have started around 23rd August 1943,which I would say is late summer. At least in the UK September is considered the first month of autumn. The first snow fall in the Caucasus was reported by German troops on 12th September.

I agree with you about North Africa. The Germans fought an impressive defensive campaign through Italy and made the Allies pay heavily for every success. The political reasons why the Germans fought on are not really anything to do with this thread. Let's just say that many officers envisaged an outcome,even in late 1944,which did not involve a complete and utter unconditional surrender on both fronts.

Officials and officers expressing defeatist views,and Milch was by no means alone in 1943,is not the same as actually being defeated.

So the Luftwaffe was trying to do exactly the same in 1943/44 as the RAF in 1940. Neither the RAF nor Britain was ultimately defeated.

What areas did the Luftwaffe "practically abandon"? It was certainly became overstretched and unable to meet all its comittments but not in 1943.

Incidentally you could use quotes from Milch (and Speer,Galland et alter) to argue that post Hamburg the Lancaster was the decisive aircraft of WWII. You'll have a job convincing many. It had an important role to play but debates about the effectiveness of the allied strategic bombing campaign usually generate more heat than light 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2013)

Steve, you might want to check out here:

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Battle of Stalingrad was a major and decisive battle of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the southwestern Soviet Union. *The battle took place between August 23, 1942 and February 2, 1943*



By August 1943, the Germans were pushed back towards Dnieper river, Red Army will start the Kiev offensive by November 1943.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Hop said:


> By the end of summer 1943 the Germans were on the retreat in the East, had been kicked out of Africa and the allies had landed in Italy. Italy had switched sides.
> 
> The Mustang became one of the finest fighters of the war, but it did so after the outcome was already decided.



The BoB represented the first time the LW was stopped from achieving its mission. The Hurricane deserves great credit for this achievement. Ditto Spitfire. 

The Battle of Germany in the air in fall of 1943 represented the last time the LW continued denying air superiority to the Allies. It effectively stopped the USAAF from achieving its Objectives and remained effective against RAF night bombing till the end of the war.

The Mustang changed the fortunes of US Airpower in Europe and destroyed more German aircraft, over Germany, than all the aircraft the VVS destroyed in 1944-1945.

The fact that the war was going badly for Germany when the Mustang arrived over Germany is irrelevant to the Thread question.


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Steve, you might want to check out here:



OOOps! Wrong year...........sorry about that 

Sadly not a typo,just dodgy recall ):

The Wermacht was indeed on the back foot by mid 1943.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Having said that, the P-38 over Germany was not nearly as effective in destruction of LW - air and ground - as the Mustang on a pro-rata basis.



Yes, but it did "work", specially after the dive brakes were installed. Give it a complement of the P-47N, and the things are more or less ok.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

stona said:


> The Luftwaffe was on the road to defeat in 1943 but it most certainly was not defeated.


 
By this statement what exactly you want to mean? That the LW would be able to change the reality in the Eastern Front if not for the American long-range fighters? I don't think so.



> You could easily argue (as Williamson Murray does quite convincingly) that it had been on that road since 1938/9.



Murray's book is good, but is "outdated". He mentions that the Germans didn't prepared adequadetely for the war - they did it. The German strategy went to ruin when the Russians didn't collapsed like they expected.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Yes, but it did "work", specially after the dive brakes were installed. Give it a complement of the P-47N, and the things are more or less ok.



'OK" but too late for Invasion and pre-invasion destruction of LW. The Dive flaps were introduced in the P-38J-25 which started arriving in late May 1944 and the P-47N started arriving in February 1945. 

The above comment is as useful as speculating about introducing the Mustang with the Merlin in 1941 instead of mid 1943..


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> 'OK" but too late for Invasion and pre-invasion destruction of LW.



The question is: there was an absolute necessity of an invasion of France in 1944? The answer is: no. The main concern for the Anglo-Americans would be if Russia would overrun Germany and perhaps other countries in Western Europe before Anglo-American presence was in continent. Perhaps for this, as well as fear that Russia might signed peace with Germany, the Anglo-Americans might have tried to invade in less than ideal conditions. If the LW was strong to a point of bring some serious treat to the Allied forces in Western Europe, then your argument is valid IF there was no alternative to the P-51 (which I'm skeptical about).

About my "speculation", it's absolutely logical that the P-47 range could be increased. It was not done earlier because the P-51 was avaliable.


----------



## dobbie (Apr 3, 2013)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> Suppose that high ranking German military officers are asked shortly after the war, what 10 Russian and Western Allied planes contributed most to the Third Reich's downfall, and suppose the first 3 planes mentioned are the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik, the B-17 Flying Fortress, and the Avro Lancaster. What are the other 7 planes? P.S. You don't have to accept the first 3 planes make the list; knock 'em off if you think they don't belong.



If I was in the German high command, the other 7 I would not to see would be the P47, Typhoon, Mosquito, Mustang, Liberator, Spitfire, P38. With the exception of the Spitfire, most of these aircraft were successful in a multitude of roles. There are others on the list which are great aircraft, such as the B29, Corsair and Hellcat, but I don't recall them flying over Germany so I limited my selections.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 3, 2013)

The question of the invasion of France being necessary is interesting (perhaps another thread). There was an implied colonial world order that came out of WWI (or at least reaffirmed) and there was no way the Allies were going to allow that to fall by the wayside. The decades following WWII would confirm this, especially for America.

The question above and this thread’s question also again highlights Hitler’s error in declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. The German’s assumption of Japan invading the Soviet Union fell through too.

These very choices put into play the need for a strategic fighter such as the P-51. The point fighter has never vanished but somewhere in the distant sound of the F-22’s super cruise capabilities one can still here the echo of those Merlin’s.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The question is: there was an absolute necessity of an invasion of France in 1944? The answer is: no. The main concern for the Anglo-Americans would be if Russia would overrun Germany and perhaps other countries in Western Europe before Anglo-American presence was in continent.
> 
> *The answer is Yes, for political and military reasons. Roosevelt agreed with Stalin and over ruled Churchill's preference for the "soft underbelly" approach. The primary reason for Stalin was for the West to bleed resources from the East so that he could advance faster. The primary reason for Point Blank was for the western Allies to destroy the LW and achieve air superiority over Allied ground and naval forces.*
> 
> ...



The P-47N, had the specification been produced in 1941, could have feasibly been accelerated - but a.) would have been a drain on Republic assets and diverting deliveries of the late D models (which is why Curtiss got contract to build F and G models) and, b.) have to wait for Pratt and Whitney deliveries of the R-2800-57 and 77 engines ~ August 1944 for XP-47M and October for XP-47N (2nd XP-47M prototype with new wet wing) with R-280 -77.

Simply stated - No to earlier than delivered P-47D-25 and/or P-47M and N... No to crippling USAAF 5th AF long range operations in the Pacific and USAAF escort capability in MTO, for less than premium performance in the ETO..


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

FlakDancer said:


> The question above and this thread’s question also again highlights Hitler’s error in declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor.



The US was far from the "neutral" popularily understood it was. For Germany, not only the US was pumping tremendous resources the Axis enemies (i.e. Lend-Lease), but the treat of a US intervention was very real.



> The German’s assumption of Japan invading the Soviet Union fell through too.



Germany wanted that Japan striked the Pacific, to keep the US and Britain busy while the victory in the USSR was consolidated and Germany was preparing the terrain for an attrition war with the Anglo-Americans. Also: a Japanese attack in Siberia would not be what would defeat the USSR, there was nothing vital for the Soviet state that was in Japan's reach.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2013)

Warren Bodie mentions two trained fighter groups of P-38, 'lingering' in the continental USA, available form mid 1943 on. Off hand I cannot remember their names, they were mentioned in either his book about P-38 or P-47. He criticizes the USAF for not sending those FGs in ETO in whole 1943. 
Unfortunately, the P-38 jockeys would be still hampered by compressibility issues, poor heater, single generator, while the internal fuel was still 300 gals (500 miles combat radius?).

The "US hundred thousands" gives for late P-47D (370 + 300 gals) 600 miles of combat radius, on paper that would be enough for Berlin Munich with 50 miles to spare. However, if we remember that escorts were forced to weave, in order to keep the speed up, but not to overtake bombers, they would be still not ideal for the task. The same book gives 700 miles for P-51 (296 + 150 gals).


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-47N, had the specification been produced in 1941, could have feasibly been accelerated - but a.) would have been a drain on Republic assets and diverting deliveries of the late D models (which is why Curtiss got contract to build F and G models) and, b.) have to wait for Pratt and Whitney deliveries of the R-2800-57 and 77 engines ~ August 1944 for XP-47M and October for XP-47N (2nd XP-47M prototype with new wet wing) with R-280 -77.
> 
> Simply stated - No to earlier than delivered P-47D-25 and/or P-47M and N... No to crippling USAAF 5th AF long range operations in the Pacific and USAAF escort capability in MTO, for less than premium performance in the ETO..



Look: the RAF bombing was already inflicting heavy damage in the German industry. The USAAF Mustang escorted missions only started in 1944. Let's suppose that there was no Mustang and the P-47N would have to wait until early 1945 to arrive. The B-17s and B=24s might not went to targets beyond the escort range, or perhaps the USAAF could empoy part of it's bomber fleet to night operations to hit such targets. There would be a D-Day? If the Allies considerated that such operation could not be conducted until air supremacy was estabilished over Europe, then it would not happen. Would the Germans defeat the VVS in the East due to less attrition with the Anglo-Americans? No. The VVS from 1944 onwards is underestimated in the West. The Russians were not only with modern machines like the La-5FN, the La-7 and the Yak-3, but they also had adequated trained pilots. If they needed to shoot down more LW planes, they do it, even because, for example, extra 500 fighters for the Germans in the vast Eastern Front are not of much relevance. The Germans jets, however, might give some trouble, but the Anglo-Americans already had answers to them. This was not so much the case of the Russians, but if they started to "cry" to the Anglo-Americans, they might receive some jets by Lend-Lease as well.


----------



## Readie (Apr 3, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Actually, Goering said once he saw *Mustangs* over Berlin, he knew it was over. And this is one of his more sensible quotes.




During the Battle of Britain, in a front line General Officer briefing on Luftwaffe tactics, Göring asked what his pilots needed to win the battle. 
Werner Mölders replied that he would like the Bf 109 to be fitted with more powerful engines. Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left Göring speechless with rage. Galland still preferred the Bf 109 for offensive sweeps, but he perceived the Spitfire to be a better defensive fighter, owing to its manoeuvrability.

This is what I meant Riacrato. Thanks for the correction.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Apr 3, 2013)

I have read through this thread and am left wondering whether you simply cannot choose a few aircraft.
The main contenders have been listed so I'll not repeat them.
Do you think that even the flawed designs like, the Defiant, contributed as well?
Why?
Without them better designs may not have come along (as quickly)
Just a thought.
Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> By this statement what exactly you want to mean? That the LW would be able to change the reality in the Eastern Front if not for the American long-range fighters? I don't think so.
> Murray's book is good, but is "outdated". He mentions that the Germans didn't prepared adequadetely for the war - they did it. The German strategy went to ruin when the Russians didn't collapsed like they expected.



The Luftwaffe was defeated in the west,not the east look at the numbers. The Luftwaffe could have had a serious influence in the east if not comitted in the west.The balance of air power would have altered. What effect this might have had along the eastern front would be conjecture.
The Luftwaffe's rate of loss in the west was more than four times that in the east. I've already posted the figures showing that,by sortie,in 1944,a Luftwaffe aircraft was more than seven times as likely to be destroyed in the west than it was in the east.

Murray is outdated by what exactly. 
I've never seen the data on which he bases his arguments fundamentally contradicted which is hardly surprising given the sources. If you have some new data about German aircraft production from 1936-45,the level of Luftwaffe losses and rate of attrition I'd love you to tell me where I can find them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Look: the RAF bombing was already inflicting heavy damage in the German industry.
> 
> *Not according to Speer.*
> 
> ...



Jenisch - with all due respect. A.) if Luftwaffe achieved parity on Eastern Front, held Italy as they did, and had no fear of an invasion on Kanalfront- the war in the east would go at least another year, maybe to a Cease Fire. B.) both the Yak-3 and La-7weren't even in full combat ops until June 1944 and October 1944 respectively.

You really think we would have given Soviets any advanced US technology after they refused to return our B-29, then subsequently broke it down and re-engineered it? Remember their jet engine technology sucked until Rolls Royce sold them the engine that basically powered the MiG 15 in 1949.

At any rate - if you take daylight bombing and Normandy invasion off the table, the war in the east is very much different with respect to increased Soviet losses and progress toward defeating Germany. AAA artilliary, the troops that manned them, the damage to oil and petrochemical industry, the increased production diverted to training pilots and fueling mechanized infantry, the diversion of the delta resources used to build fighters to replace the horrible losses over Germany - toward trucks and light armor would have been significant had they been available from January 1944. But I digress and have slipped into an equally 'speculative' historical perspective of 'what if'.

What did happen is that Mustangs crushed the LW over Germany, 8th AF achieved significant strategic results, the Allies successfully invaded France and took Germany to the Elbe - and the Mustang was 'one of the 10' per this thread.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenish, I didn’t mean to imply the U.S. was standing on the sidelines before Hitler’s declaration of war. There was a very real effort by Roosevelt to help the British as much as possible, but his hands were tied by Congress, upcoming elections, and a lingering economic hangover from the Depression. When Pearl Harbor happened the American’s focused like never before and even though it was a Japanese attack the policy from Washington quickly went to a “Europe first” mindset. If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S. it politically would have been impossible for this “Europe first” plan (which was agreed upon by both the U.S. and the U. K.).

Don’t want to hijack this interesting thread, but here is a link to a long article on this pre-war subject. The Transatlantic Duel: Hitler Vs. Roosevelt | American History Lives at American Heritage

Plus several interesting books have been written about the diplomatic and political duels Hitler and Roosevelt fought before Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

stona said:


> The Luftwaffe could have had a serious influence in the east if not comitted in the west.



Historically the LW was betean in the Kuban and Krusk air battles, when it was still in the majority in the East. After that, the Soviets only grew stronger and the Germans started to move fighters to the West. 

Check this link for detailed understanding of what I wrote above: Christos military and intelligence corner: Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45

I don't like to went in those claims of "who defeated the enemy", because people in forums tend to mixture patriotism with history, and I don't want to loose my time with this.



> The Luftwaffe's rate of loss in the west was more than four times that in the east. I've already posted the figures showing that,by sortie,in 1944,a Luftwaffe aircraft was more than seven times as likely to be destroyed in the west than it was in the east.



If you check contemporany works like Bagration to Berlin: The Final Air Battles in the East 1944-1945, by Christer Bergstrom, you will see that from 1944 onwards the VVS was more than capable of destroy a much stronger LW.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> JA.)if Luftwaffe achieved parity on Eastern Front



The million dollar question is: would the LW do this? I'm not certain...



> held Italy as they did, and had no fear of an invasion on Kanalfront



I wouldn't say this. The invasion would come. Perhaps the Germans just would have a better air contingent to use against Russia. 

It also should be noted that the LW started to transfer the daylight fighters to Germany after Krusk and before the Mustang. 



> the war in the east would go at least another year, maybe to a Cease Fire.



Again I think you are underestimating the strenght of the LW single-seat fighter force in the West. It was not something the Russians could not defeat. And it wasn't something that the Allies would let only for the Russians do. By 1944, without the Mustang, the escort range might have not allowed targets deep into Germany. Even so, the LW could be engaged by the avaliable escorts until a good point. And don't forget about the Bomber Command and it's night raids. As for the Russians reach a ceasse fire, I'm not certain they would do this. I know you didn't said this, but Stalin was not fighting the Nazis because they were "the bad guys killing innocent people" (what everyone did), but because Germany proved to be a treat to the Soviets that could not be tolerated anymore.



> both the Yak-3 and La-7weren't even in full combat ops until June 1944 and October 1944 respectively.



Those planes were better than the others in the VVS, but the LW was not handled by them during the 1941-43 period. The Yak-9s and the La-5s, together with the LL machines, could deal with the LW and actually did this. The greatest problem of the VVS was in it's tactical organization. Reforms made in 1944 really changed the things. For example, fighter sweeps were now being done, and the results: satisfactory.



> You really think we would have given Soviets any advanced US technology



Depends. If the Germans jets arrived in a point where the Soviet continuation in the war could be treatned, perhaps yes. But the Russians were not totally without answer to the Germans jets. They had projects of mixed powered planes, together with less advanced but indigenous jets as well. Other possibility would be the American and British engineers help the Russians to perfect their engines to a satisfactory level. Anyway, the German jets would not arrive in numbers until late 1944, and until then the war would be very conventional.



> the war in the east is very much different with respect to increased Soviet losses and progress toward defeating Germany.



It seems you are talking like if the Russians would be fighting alone. They would not be. And don't loose the focus: there was the P-38, there was the extended range P-47D's, and there would be the P-47N. And there were cuts in the PTO that the Americans could do without any major problem (there were more than 2000 B-29s in the USAAF by 1945!). The Anglo-Americans could even sent air units to operate in Russia (this was proposed historically, but Stalin rejected for political reasons).


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Warren Bodie mentions two trained fighter groups of P-38, 'lingering' in the continental USA, available form mid 1943 on. Off hand I cannot remember their names, they were mentioned in either his book about P-38 or P-47. He criticizes the USAF for not sending those FGs in ETO in whole 1943.
> Unfortunately, the P-38 jockeys would be still hampered by compressibility issues, poor heater, single generator, while the internal fuel was still 300 gals (500 miles combat radius?).
> 
> *Bodie was wrong about quie a bit of the 'facts' he posed. It has been a long time since I delved into his P-38 book but when I looked at several of the sources he cited, and carefully reviewed what the sources claimed, the two accounts were often in conflict.*
> ...



I think you meant to write '269" for internal. Also, as of May 1944, the Mustang could carry 2x108 gallons of external fuel instead of 2x75 gallons.

On March 4, the P-38s reached Berlin on a straight run, without an intermediate R/V point and by necessity consuming fuel while "Essing".

I'm still digging but having a hard time finding a reference of P-38s over Munich in 1944. Closest victory credit was Augsburg to Straubing to Ingolstadt to Leipzig to Magdeburg... at the same time the P-51 was going to Posnan, Brux, Erding, Munich and Stettin (and fighting - both air to air and strafing east of Berlin and Munich).


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I wouldn't say this. The invasion would come. Perhaps the Germans just would have a better air contingent to use against Russia.
> 
> *I pretty much concur, but absent the campaign against the LW, Churchill would have been a hard sell for June - and after June the Invasion at Normandy would have been problematic. While Dragoon had some success, Nomandy had to succeed.*
> 
> ...



The net of this minor disagrrement between you and me in this discussion - is whether the P-51 deserves the credit it has for being a game changer for USSAF during WWII. It was. The P-47 didn't have the range and the P-38 was simply less effective by any measurement against the LW than the P-51B-1, 5, 7 and -10's that arrived in ETO before June 6, 1944. I have yet to find a P-51D kill before D-Day but if it exists it was with 4th, 354th or 357th FG as they were the only ETO/MTO FG's to receive them before D-Day.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog, I guess we don't have much doubt that Germany would be defeated with or without the P-51. I'm just saying that it could be done in the latter case, while you are saying that it could have altered the course of the events with significance, but would arrive at the same result anyway.


----------



## dobbie (Apr 3, 2013)

As to what-ifs, what if Jimmy Doolittle had been in charge of the 8th AF in 1943? After all, it was his change in tactics which made a pretty big difference. Get at least some of the fighters after the enemy fighters instead of all of them waiting around for the bomber formations to be attacked? Range ahead and break up enemy aircraft before they could make a formation? Beat up on the airfields when the opportunity presented itself


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> remained effective against RAF night bombing till the end of the war.


 
That's the received wisdom, however as I've posted here before, there wasn't much to choose between loss rates towards the end of the war.


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2013)

Jenisch, in post # 47 you said the german prepared adequately for war. I would take exception to that.

The surface Navy was nowhere NEAR ready for war with Great Britain, nevermind the rest of the world. Did the pocket battleships last? No. Did the battleships do the job? No. One was sunk almost immediately and the other never did anything except be a target. Was the U-Boat arm ready? No. They had less than 1/3 of what Karl Donitz said was the minimum to win a war when the war started. Did they ever finish their only carrier? No. It sat out the war waiting to be completed and was scuttled after the war. Was the Luftwaffe ready? The Battle of britain answered that one ... no. Was air transport ready? No ... at least they couldn't supply the troops in Russia when they were needed. What would make anyone think they were ready earlier?

Was the Army ready? Possibly. It was the best of the Armed services and was probably ready for a war in Eruope ... without the rest of the world involved.

In taking on the world, I'd say it is pretty clear they weren't ready for it. A game effort, but it might have even worked if they had continued preparation for another 10 years. By then, Germany may have regained its prosperity and might not have even wanted to go to war. Who knows? I think Hitler wopuld start it anyway .... but I DO know they weren't ready for a world war when they started one.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 4, 2013)

Greg, I expressed myself incorrectly. The Germans prepared themselfs adequately as far as their conditions allowed (that thing of the industry not move fully toward war effort until 1943 is a myth). If Germany prepared itself better, it's enemies would be more prepared, what was not desiderable given their manpower and industrial superiority over Germany.


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2013)

OK, I'll buy that. They prepared as they best could do so, and I grant that one. If they had contained the war in Europe, they probably would have won. I think the plan went awry when Hitler decided to open the war up on more than one front.

If not for that, the outcome was in serous doubt and well might have gone the other way.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> OI think the plan went awry when Hitler decided to open the war up on more than one front.



The problem for the Nazis was lack of resources. They could trade with the USSR, but they would become dependent of it - what they didn't wanted. This situation was made even worse when the LW failed to defeat Britain, and the United States was moving towards war with Germany. The Germans were aware that they could not win an attrition aerial war with the US and Britain, so they decided to crush Russia, obtain the needed resources there, and perhaps also eliminate a future treat (as well as improve Japan's position in the Far East with the Soviet collapse).


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2013)

It almost makes sense when you write it that way, but a 3-front war with Britain, North Africa / Med and the Soviet Union makes little real sense because nobody who ever started a war on 3 fronts ever won it as far as I know. You can call it 4 fronts becasue they were also fighting in Scandinavia ... though technically it might have been just a longer Russian front.

In any case, by NOT following through and invading Great Britain, they doomed themselves. That one was an all-or-nothing fight and they backed off, Britain KNEW it was an all-or-nothing fight and Hitler didn't, apparently. It bit him in the hind quarters quite fatally. 

It apparently makes very good sense to have a good estimate of the numbers and quality of your opposition before starting a fight ... and the Allies in WWI should never have implemented the War Reparations Clause in the Treaty of Versailles. Otherwise Hitler may have been an eccentric artist with strange political views and nothing more, instead of the greatest villian of the 20th century (he ran a close race with Stalin).


----------



## Readie (Apr 4, 2013)

Haven't we been here before?


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> In any case, by NOT following through and invading Great Britain, they doomed themselves



The Germans certainly had reasons for not do this (if they could do it at all).


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 4, 2013)

It must be remembered to rebuild their military the Germans had to maneuver their way through the Allies from WWI and what was in the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler had to get the German military back on its feet and get them past the point of being vulnerable. As Hitler negotiated many of these particular treaties he used the Allies against each other. A good example is that in rebuilding their navy the Germans gave in to certain British demands which set the British and French at odds with each other. The thing is, when the Germans made those concessions the Germans actually stuck to the re-negotiated treaties. This eventually hurt them considerably when the shooting started. Given Hitler’s designs, it seems fairly odd he would keep a treaty, but a lot of it was just to get the war machine restarted. This is why the Germans were unprepared in many instances.


----------



## stona (Apr 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> If you check contemporany works like Bagration to Berlin: The Final Air Battles in the East 1944-1945, by Christer Bergstrom, you will see that from 1944 onwards the VVS was more than capable of destroy a much stronger LW.



What the VVS could or could not have done isn't the point. The Luftwaffe couldn't be described as strong in 1944,aircraft numbers are not a useful guide to the combat effectiveness of its units.
The Luftwaffe was being minced in the West and all the loss returns confirm this. The exact numbers vary widely from source to source but in late 1943 and throughout 1944,the period you cite,the ratio West to East is usully a fairly consistent 4:1 whichever source you choose. This is despite the fact that in 1944 the Luftwaffe flew more than 50% more sorties in the East than it did in the East. You don't have to be a mathematician to work out which air forces were the most efficient "killers".
The Luftwaffe was being very largely destroyed by the P-51 and I believe someone has already posted figures supporting that contention. This is why (if we can get back to the original topic) it is top of my list along with the fighters that won the BoB.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 4, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> That's the received wisdom, however as I've posted here before, there wasn't much to choose between loss rates towards the end of the war.



Nice charts - why the difference between Murray and Davis on Loss rates? 

My comment about BC was largely due to the continuation of 70-90 loss nights in late 1944 and 1945 whereas the 8th never lost more than 40 after June 20, 1944 (including rescued crews after ditching).. the four times more than 35 were lost include July 7, Sept 11, Oct 7, Nov 2.

The comment wasn't intended to denigrate the RAF - more to highlight that escorting night missions much tougher than daylight - and LW night fighter force lethal to the end of the war.


----------



## Readie (Apr 4, 2013)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN6oPJ8JUKQ_

On you tube.
Cheers
John


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 4, 2013)

stona said:


> What the VVS could or could not have done isn't the point.



Another problem is the LW casualities suffered in the '39-40 period. There were heavy casualities there, in the same way that Japan suffered casualities from China before the Pacific war.


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Historically the LW was betean in the Kuban and Krusk air battles, when it was still in the majority in the East. After that, the Soviets only grew stronger and the Germans started to move fighters to the West...



Was LW beaten in the Kuban air battles? I have impression that it was more like a draw.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2013)

Spitfire, Mosquito, Beaufighter, B-17, P-51, P-47, B-26, Yak-9, La-5FN, Il-2.

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 5, 2013)

Nothing else to add to those already listed, although to reinforce the role of the Hurricane, far from being influential only during the Battle of Britain, it was used in every theatre the RAF fought in during the war and also by the FAA at sea. A considerable contribution if there ever was one.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 6, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Nice charts - why the difference between Murray and Davis on Loss rates?
> 
> My comment about BC was largely due to the continuation of 70-90 loss nights in late 1944 and 1945 whereas the 8th never lost more than 40 after June 20, 1944 (including rescued crews after ditching).. the four times more than 35 were lost include July 7, Sept 11, Oct 7, Nov 2.
> 
> The comment wasn't intended to denigrate the RAF - more to highlight that escorting night missions much tougher than daylight - and LW night fighter force lethal to the end of the war.


 
Hi drgnDog,

Thanks for the kind words about the charts, they're really just basic Excel-Fu applied to the spreadsheets which Davis made available with his book online. I haven't seen them recently, however at one point they were there for the downloading.

I believe most of the difference in loss rates between Murray and Davis is down to myself, not to either of the authors involved. Murray uses month-by-month loss rates published by the USAF in one of their statistical surveys. Davis' spreadsheets had raid-by-raid totals, with number attacking and number lost, which I have used to calculate loss rates. No doubt there is a difference in the way the then USAAF calculated loss rates against sorties - bombers with a credit sortie which didn't attack, for whatever reason, won't appear in the numbers Davis gives, and for lack of anything better I've simply compared Davis' Lost number to his Attacked number.

No doubt my over-simplified calculation method also accounts for the difference between Martiin Middlebrook's loss rate data for Bomber Command and the rate derived from Davis.

I'd agree with you that the Nachtjagd was never comprehensively defeated, despite the best efforts of the Mossies, however the numbers in Davis don't suggest there were nights with Bomber Command unit losses at the level you describe for late in the war. I've whipped up a couple more graphs out of Davis to illustrate my point.

Bomber Command lost a total of 64 on 28 July 1944 in twin raids on Hamburg and Stuttgart, with 48 on 12 August and 39 on 28 August, but no 70- or 90-bomber loss nights.

For both 8th AF and Bomber Command, those lost will be to both flak and fighters: I've no systematic way of separating the two. You should also note that the Bomber Command loss numbers will combine those lost at night with those lost on day raids, which became more common as the war progressed.

I thought about combining 8th AF and 15th AF numbers, however I know so very little about the 15th that I was concerned that doing so would be bogus. I suppose the Luftwaffe was defending the daylight skies over the Reich againt the 15th in the same way that it was defending against the 8th, however as I say that's a supposition on my part and I'd be talking out of my ass.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 6, 2013)

For the hell of it, and with the caveat that, as stated above, I've no idea whether such an analysis is me talking out of my ass (arse?) or not, here's the combined 8th and 15th AF losses by date from Davis.






I'll take advice from folks here whether there was a unified Tagjagd effort against the USAAF in the same way there was a unified Nachtjagd effort against the RAF. Picture gets even cloudier when one bears the daylight RAF raids in mind.

Also for the hell of it, I'll make a rough cross-check for late war loss levels against the RAF Bomber Command War Diary which was (is still?) available online. One thing which seems to be coming through is the higher number of days on which Mossies operated versus the heavies.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2013)

Just Lancaster lost tho, 
Raids involving Lancasters 1944

Does anyone have Bomber Command War Diaries?

Campaign Diary July
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Campaign Diary Sept
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Campaign Diary Oct
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Campaign Diary Nov
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2013)

Some years ago a member of this forum did a number of stats on the loss ratios of the B24 and the Lancaster. The results were interesting and you may find them of some interest.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-bomber-wwii-4-a-2997-3.html


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Does anyone have Bomber Command War Diaries?[/url]



Yep

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> For the hell of it, and with the caveat that, as stated above, I've no idea whether such an analysis is me talking out of my ass (arse?) or not, here's the combined 8th and 15th AF losses by date from Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 15th and 8th were collaborating during Big Week, Feb 20-25, 1944. At that time and until May the 15th had no Mustangs and like the 8th, the P-47 was inadequate for target escort and the P-38 could only fly basically a straight line to and from Vienna, Munich area.

To the extent that planners from both Commands collaborated on a daily basis? I don't know how much Eaker and Doolittle staffs performed joint target selection as the German target selection opportunity was reduced for the 15th until late 1944 to primarily extreme east-southeast and south Germany

As to "a unified Tagjagd effort against the USAAF in the same way there was a unified Nachtjagd effort against the RAF", I suppose the answer is a qualified Yes - for attacks on Germany/Czechoslovakia. LuftFlotte Reich controlled the assets and chose the defense strategy when attacks were occuring simultaneously, particularly in the Leipzig to Halberstadt to Munich to Brux zone. Such attacks, when executed as planned, tended to split the LW forces to react both south and west/N.

I have to scratch my head to search for any reason why the co-ordination and planning between Day and Night defenses - as far as radar and centralized communications assets are concerned - would be different? Tactical deployment and management would seem to differ as 'finding' 8th and 9th AF should be far easier for Day Fighters than Night in search of RAF.. 

The USAAF statistical survey does include all losses, including 'retirement and salvage' for War Weary a/c, accidents, mechanical failure, structural failure, mid air collision, Friendly Fire, etc in "All Other". So its impossible to extract a combat loss that occurred for causes 'other than Fighters and Flak' such as a mid air collision on a combat mission while forming up over East Anglia or an aircraft breaking up in a thunderstorm over Hannover. For Mid Air over England there is a another complexity when looking at Failed To Return statistics. It didn't fail to return in the minds of the 8th AF - because it 'never went' when it crashed on take off or had a mid air over Bassingbourn, but it is counted as a Combat Loss if it was on a mission or an Accident if not..

Although there are errors in Mighty Eighth War Diary, I find Roger Freeman's scholarship a better source than the Army Air Force Statistical Digest when trying to differentiate data quickly. Unfortunately there were no "Freeman's" as devoted to 9th, 15th, 5th, CBI/MTO, etc.

As to 'RAF' losses in 1945 I was seduced by Woods LW Victory Credits tables and should realize that they are as overstated for RAF credits as USAAF..


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 6, 2013)

As far as the discussion of the P-38 Vs the P-51. I am a huge fan of the Lightning. And I do agree that IF the Mustang was not available the Lightning could have, in enough numbers, successfully escorted the bombers. But the "kill" numbers tell the most important story. 

The fighter strength of the Luftwaffe would not have been impacted any where near the amount that was shot down by the Mustang.

Perhaps the bombing missions would have been successful, and perhaps the bomber losses would have been acceptable. But the P-38 would not have destroyed the same amount of Luftwaffe fighters. The stats posted show this. Without the destruction of the Luftwaffe fighters, the war last longer. Period.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2013)

I long ago formed an opinion that the air to air totals and ratios of the P-38 were far less than the Mustang in the ETO primarily because the P-38 was much more visible because of size, and distinguishable due to the twin boom configuration.

Consequently the German pilot often had much more time to decide to flee or fight, or seek a tactically superior position because of the gap time it took for the P-38 driver to see a 109 or 190.

It is clear that a skilled P-38 pilot could take any other conventional fighter on with high probability of winning a fight if he managed to the P-38 strengths.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't have doubt that Germany would go down with or without the P-51. The Allies would still be able to fight the LW for most part of the way with the P-38 (actually using the relay system and less engagement time, for all the way), while the P-47D had extended range by 1944, and the N model would arrive in 1945. And the most deep targets in Germany would be in range of RAF's Bomber Command. Also, the VVS was becoming a gorila in the East, and could have take much more LW strenght if necessary (it also could have Western air units based in the Eastern Front if needed). There was also the fact that the US could make cuts in the PTO and bring thousands of extra planes and pilots without problem (the same being possible with Soviet forces in the Far East and Turkey). And ultimately there was the atomic bomb.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I don't have doubt that Germany would go down with or without the P-51.
> 
> *Of course. The question is whether GB and US still invade in June 1944 if the LW was largely intact while inflicting heavy casualties on both bomber commands over Germany. *
> 
> ...



The P-38s were not going to be re-deployed from any theatre into ETO. The P-51s were planned and executed to deploy to the ETO - but because of the crisis with battling the LW and the Ordered destruction of the LW in time for invasion, the 8th traded P-47s and P-38s for Mustangs.. but even so, all the 8th AF P-38 groups (5) remained with 8th until they converted to Mustangs post D-Day.

Jenisch - it is entirely Ok if you disagree that the P-51 was among the 10 aircraft most responsible for the demise of Germany. These are opinions only.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2013)

> There was also the fact that the US could make cuts in the PTO and bring thousands of extra planes and pilots without problem (the same being possible with Soviet forces in the Far East and Turkey). And ultimately there was the atomic bomb.



This has to be taken with a huge dose of hindsight, as, why would the Americans move resources from the PTO? The Japanese were a tough opponent who showed no mercy, so the US are going to throw everything they could at them - and they did. As for the Atomic bomb, the decision to use this weapon against Japan wasn't made until very late in the procedings, long after the deployment of P-51s to the ETO. It sounds like you're assuming that the Americans thought, "Well, we got the bomb, she'll be right in Europe, no need for those long range Mustangs..."

I don't understand how the P-51 could not be considered as one of the top ten aircraft against Germany. Even though it wasn't around as early as the P-47 or P-38, it was faster and had a greater range than both of them. Its contribution to the war effort was enormous because of its performance - it was, after all a first class fighter, not saying the P-38 or P-47 weren't, but the Mustang set the bar pretty high. I bet if you were to ask any German fighter pilot in home defence duties which type he thought was the best American fighter he had encountered in combat, he'd say the Mustang. Technically, it set a new standard in aerodynamic efficiency; with the same engine power output as the smaller and lighter Spitfire IX, the heavier and physically larger P-51D was faster by more than 10 mph (I don't have exact figures to hand) - nothing to be scoffed at back then.

Ultimately the war was a numbers game and all three of those fighters were needed, but the P-51 stood head and shoulders above its contemporaries because of what it offered. Claiming that the US could have done without it by shifting assets is rather silly, the nature of the war and all that. It had better performance as a long range escort than its stablemates, why wouldn't they use it? Its war record speaks for itself; it didn't gain the reputation it has by just being there.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 6, 2013)

To my mind anyone who holds that the Mustang does not deserve a place in the top ten is drawing a very, very long bow. To argue that had the Mustang had not existed another design would have emerged to do the job is spurious; the same could be said of any design that had its impact at a time other than circumstances like the BoB or BoA, when the Allies were facing imminent defeat.
If the Mustang had not come along it seems entirely likely that the allies would have needed another six to twelve months to develop and deploy the P-47 and P-38 to the point where they could do the same job, by which time they would have been facing six months more of German jets, apart from anything else. I know that earlier in the thread it was stated that the Allies had that threat covered with their own jet designs but that is patent nonsense - a Meteor or Vampire on the Tarmac in England isn't much use in an air battle over Germany.
Total,air superiority over Europe was a prerequisite for Overlord. If the fighter that delivered it doesn't make the top ten something is wrong.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-38s were not going to be re-deployed from any theatre into ETO



They didn't need to be totally re-deployed. It was question of put other manufactures to produce the existing planes, give more planes to the Russians (perhaps also operate Western air units in Russia), etc. There's always flexibility.



> Jenisch - it is entirely Ok if you disagree that the P-51 was among the 10 aircraft most responsible for the demise of Germany. These are opinions only.



It's not question of opinion, it's a fact. The Mustang was indeed among the most important Allied planes. But was it absolutely crucial for the German total defeat? This is my point...


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> This has to be taken with a huge dose of hindsight, as, why would the Americans move resources from the PTO? The Japanese were a tough opponent who showed no mercy, so the US are going to throw everything they could at them - and they did.



The Japanese were well contained when 1943 started. There was no absolute need to went to the offensive as the Americans went with them from '43 onwards. And much less need to bomb them like the Americans started in late 1944 early 1945.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The Japanese were well contained when 1943 started. There was no absolute need to went to the offensive as the Americans went with them from '43 onwards. And much less need to bomb them like the Americans started in late 1944 early 1945.



Uh-oh, here we go...


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2013)

> The Japanese were well contained when 1943 started. There was no absolute need to went to the offensive as the Americans went with them from '43 onwards. And much less need to bomb them like the Americans started in late 1944 early 1945.



Jenisch, I don't think you understand the concept of total war. To assume the Japanese were well contained in 1943 is just plain ignorant of the situation at that time and what it was that both Japan and the USA were at war for. Neither side was prepared to give up until one emerged victorious. It took the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Japanese to believe that the war was lost for them and even then it took two of them and still there was reluctance to give up among the military hierarchy. Using nuclear weapons in anger is a pretty desperate act and although here is probably not the best place to argue whether it was necessary or the moral implications, their use alone should convince you that the situation was desperate and far from being resolved any earlier than it was.

I read a book that said that privately, Truman lost a lot of sleep over the decision to drop the bombs, but ultimately he felt it was necessary to bring an end to the bloodshed.



> But was it absolutely crucial?



You could argue that it was, because it fulfilled a role that no other type could because of its performance margins over its contemporaries. The thing with aircraft like the Mustang, Spitfire and Mosquito (for example) was that what they achieved was crucial in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germany, so in answer to your question, yes, it was.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Uh-oh, here we go...



I will talk just about the end of the war. When the B-29s started to fly over Japan in 1945, what was the treat that Japan representated? The major ships were sunk, the Japanese were cut from their resources and the American submarines were doing what the U-boats didn't managed.

From: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/Sta ... 3.html#t87

Airplanes on Hand in the AAF, August, 1945.

Very Heavy Bombers

1st Line B-29: 2,132

2nd Line misc.: 733

There was other planes that could be taken away from the Pacific. I'm not saying that the Pacific and even offensives in it should be abandoned. It was possible to ration even more the theater, this is my point.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

> It took the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Japanese to believe that the war was lost for them and even then it took two of them



Maybe they would surrender if they took several nukes (given the US invasion preparations, there was no much faith in nukes alone), but as it was: two nukes plus a special type of "nuke" in Manchuria.



> and although here is probably not the best place to argue whether it was necessary or the moral implications, their use alone should convince you that the situation was desperate and far from being resolved any earlier than it was.



When you firebomb Japanese civilians, strafe them with fighters and conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, a nuke is just an add thing. Not that the Japanese were not capable of do those things, of course.



> The thing with aircraft like the Mustang, Spitfire and Mosquito (for example) was that what they achieved was crucial in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germany, so in answer to your question, yes, it was.



They achived determined results, but say that a specific type could not have a substitute is the point. A fighter plane is an aiframe, engine, systems and guns. The P-38 and the P-47 could substitute the Mustang. In time for D-Day in 1944? Don't know. But for 1945, certainly. Then there were the Russians who had "just" 6000 single-seat fighters in January of 1944 (Mustang missions started in December '43, isn't?). Then there was the RAF and it's Bomber Command doing a lot of devastation in Germany since 1943. The Allies had flexibility to overcome problems such as a lack of the P-51, which was definately a very important plane for the Allied cause, but was not one which in it's absence would change the outcome of the war in the sense that the country which Gröfaz ruled would be occupied.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2013)

> When you firebomb Japanese civilians, strafe them with fighters and conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, a nuke is just an add thing.



No, it isn't. Again, you don't really understand the implications of using nuclear weapons (someone never let this guy run the military). Unrestricted submarine warfare, bombing of civilians (regardless of the morals of these things - don't go there - not the right place for it) was considered a part of the strategy to defeat the enemy by all sides, Germany, Britain, Russia, Japan. Again, Total War. Resorting to a silver bullet type weapon like atomic bombs is a last resort and was considered as such by the Americans. As for a special type of nuke in Manchuria? We are seriously straying off topic here! (I reckon you're just throwing things in for the sake of controversy, now)



> But say that a specific type could not have a substitute that is the point.



Which other aircraft could have done the escort job _as well as the Mustang did_? No other single seat fighter available to the Allies had the unrefuelled range, combined with good altitude performance and ability as a fighter that the P-51 had.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> There was other planes that could be taken away from the Pacific. I'm not saying that the Pacific and even offensives in it should be abandoned. It was possible to ration even more the theater, this is my point.



None of that was necessary because the war was already over for Germany, one of the main reasons why being the disruption of its war production supply systems by daylight bombing, which was only possible (in terms of acceptable losses to the Americans) after the introduction of the P-51B.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 6, 2013)

"... plus a special type of "nuke" in Manchuria."

Say _what_, Jenisch ....!!

Can you be a wee bit _more specific _there ... please. 

AND 

"... what was the threat that Japan representated? "

Oh, no biggie, Jenisch, just a few odd thousand Canadian, British, Commonwealth, American POW's who were being _worked/starved to death _in the mines ... for starters.

Sometimes, I wonder where you get your history from, my friend.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> No other single seat fighter available to the Allies had the unrefuelled range, combined with good altitude performance and ability as a fighter that the P-51 had.



The P-47N had.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... plus a special type of "nuke" in Manchuria."
> 
> Say _what_, Jenisch ....!!
> 
> ...



Soviet invasion of Manchuria.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

stug3 said:


> None of that was necessary because the war was already over for Germany, one of the main reasons why being the disruption of its war production supply systems by daylight bombing, which was only possible (in terms of acceptable losses to the Americans) after the introduction of the P-51B.



That's my point, just in opposite. But still the P-38s could fight for a good part of the way, while the P-47D in 1944 also could. Then perhaps earlier than historically, the P-47N would show up. And again I will say: the LW is less active in the West, it would partially go back to the East, where the Russians would be waiting for it with thousands of fighters. But repeating that it would be just partially: the P-38s and P-47s would already consume a great part of the German fighter strenght (if not the same as historically), and anyway the LW was already in the majority in the West by late 1943, when the range of the escorts was short.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

Deleted.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 6, 2013)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

August Storm .... brilliant attack.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
> 
> August Storm .... brilliant attack.
> 
> MM



Not only this, there are historians who argue that it could have been even more important to the Japanese surrender than the bombs. The Japanese didn't wanted an occupation, but much less a Communist one. There's a study by David Glantz, which I don't remember the name now, but it covers the Soviet intention to invade Hokkaido. And according to Glantz, it had a realistic chance of sucess. So for the Japanese in 1945, face only the US and the British Empire plus the US nukes, was already a tremendous problem. Add the Soviet Union to the equation, and the chance of a sucessfull defense and hence the country maintein the independance is next to zero. It made more sense to survive not independent, but not with Russian dependance (the Japanese were aware of what was happening in Eastern Europe and Germany).


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2013)

> The P-47N had.



Indeed it did, but it was not available to the Allies in the ETO before or at the time the P-51B, C and D came online, so doesn't count.



> Then perhaps earlier than historically, the P-47N would show up.



You are just making it up as you go along, unfortunately, which negates your whole argument. Traditionally, its the Germans who are best at the theoretical 'what if' scenarios. Had German jet fighters come into service with their air-to-air missiles, then they would have been more than a match for the P-47N and that would have won the war for Germany.

As for August Storm, the Allies pushed the Soviets to invade Japanese territory sooner than they did; the lateness of the Russian counter offensive against the Japanese was due to Stalin politicking and could have been of more value to the Allies had it begun sooner. The Russians certainly had the resources to do so.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Traditionally, its the Germans who are best at the theoretical 'what if' scenarios.



This only for those who belive that Germany had a tecnological advantage over the Allies - a popular myth.



> Had German jet fighters come into service with their air-to-air missiles, then they would have been more than a match for the P-47N and that would have won the war for Germany.



There would not be only the P-47N. The P-38 had range to go into Germany and the P-47D in 1944 could go along a good part of the way. With the proper usage of the relay system, those fighters can still pressure the LW very well. And of course, the performance of the P-38 was inferior to the P-51, but it was not something critical. The P-47N would come as a complement. As for the German jets, what miracle do you think they would cause? Missiles? What missiles? The unguied rockets? BTW, the Allies also had jet fighters. 



> As for August Storm, the Allies pushed the Soviets to invade Japanese territory sooner than they did; the lateness of the Russian counter offensive against the Japanese was due to Stalin politicking and could have been of more value to the Allies had it begun sooner. The Russians certainly had the resources to do so.



This is a moralist speech. There's nothing to do with how the things occured in WWII and I should say that occur in wars. You talk of Stalin, but the US and the "democracies" also done things you critizen that Stalin done. The US supported coups here in Latin American during the Cold War are an example. Politics are like that, there's no good or evil, there's just who is smarter than the other.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2013)

> This is a moralist speech. There's nothing to do with how the things occured in WWII and I should say that occur in wars. You talk of Stalin, but the US and the "democracies" also done things you critizen that Stalin done him. The US supported coups here in Latin American during the Cold War are an example. Politics are like that, there's no good or evil, there's just who is smarter than the other.



What?! Jenisch, I don't know how you came to this little spiel from my description of what actually happened. The Allies DID push for the Russians to launch an offensive against Japan sooner than they did. Stalin DID drag his heals about it and only did so after he was certain the Allies could secure victory - that's a fact - it has nothing at all to do with any moral crusade you think I might be indulging in or whether the US version of democracy is just, blah de blah...

What tempers the Russian victory over the Japanese in Manchuria is that Stalin only attacked Japan for a seat at the Victor's Table; only for the spoils. He could well have done so earlier, but did not. That's no anti-communist talk or anything like that - it's a fact.



> As for the German jets, what miracle do you think they would cause? Missiles? What missiles? The unguied rockets?



I don't think you grasped what I meant by that comment  My insinuation was that if you can hypothesise that the P-47N was in service early enough to overshadow the P-51, then I can hy... oh, never mind...

Oh, yeah, the Germans were buileding an air-to-air missile - the Ruhrstahl Kramer X-4.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 6, 2013)

While I understand conjecture and speculation are a part of forums like this it often seems easy to get lost in the geo political aspects, but in many cases those post war scenarios were not as clear to the then political and military leaders. Plus, nothing is a foregone conclusion in a real war while that war is actually taking place.

One of the overriding real world factors for the military and political leaders near the end of the war with Japan was the shear ferocity of the Japanese resistance. While no war is pretty or easy some of the smaller invasions had been pure hell on both the Allies and the Japanese militaries. Okinawa had proven to be as ferocious and vicious as any battle of the war. The thought of invading Japan was daunting even given all the military advantages the Allies had at their disposal. However, even given that, it was not the Allies responsibility to let up when the Japanese were still keeping and moving POW’s away from the Allies, still had active military operations on lands they had invaded, and refused to surrender.

If one wants some context to what may have happened check out the plans for Operation Causeway – an planned invasion of Taiwan (then Formosa) that never happened. Here is a link to web page with a fair amount of details. Given what had happened on Okinawa (which the Japanese considered a part of Japan) and what the Allies expected on Taiwan and the size of the invasion force needed there – the mere thought of invading Japan had to be fearsome to the Allied Commanders. http://https://sites.google.com/site/operationcauseway/

Plus, I may not have even been here if it had happened, lol. My father was on Okinawa with the America 536th Amphibious Tractor Division which had carried the American 7th Division into Leyete and Okinawa. They were preparing to invade Japan and already taken their shots for the invasion.

As for the answer to the P-51 question the answer is simple. 20,000 feet (those who use the metric system please forgive me for not knowing that system very well). It took a ton of courage by the Britisth to attack at night, but if one was going to fly those bomber missions over Germany during the day, they had to go up, up, up. The P-51 was the answer to that particular question, hands down. That, of course, evolved as time went on, but when it counted, the P-51 was first in line (no pun intended.)


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 6, 2013)

For some reason the link I just posted does not seem to work here. Let me try again. If it fails please Google Operation Causeway. http://https://sites.google.com/site/operationcauseway/

Got it work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

1. How can anyone say the P-51 was not crucial to the defeat if Germany. How can anyone not put it in the top 10 aircraft crucial to Germany's defeat?

Seriously? Look at is capability and what it was able to accomplish. Take the fight and escort the bombers to the enemy. If other fighters could do it better, why didn't they?

Absured to not include it...

I think the P-51 is overrated in the fact that so many other aircraft that are overlooked because of the P-51. However, one can not argue its role and its contribution to winning the war against Germany. That is fact and not opinion.

2. What the hell does the bombing of Japan (as well as the politics snd moral aspects of it) and the B-29 have to do with the war against Germany.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 7, 2013)

BTW, the Allies also had jet fighters. 

There's that jet thing again. How could the jets available to the allies in 1945 have represented any counter to German jets over occupied Europe? It was years before a jet fighter with the range of a P 51 was built.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 7, 2013)

As once was said, amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics....


Jenisch said:


> The main British and Soviet combat planes from 1939 to 1941 decided the war. But to be frank, I think that the Soviets by themselfs could already defeat Germany.



I'm not so sure. To win a war you can't have soldiers with an empty belly........ and a large part of the calories that pushed the Red Army were produced in Iowa.
To say nothing about the trucks that are needed to transport those calories, of course...... but unfortunately a Ford truck is certainly not so glamorous as a P-51 or a Il-2: as once was said, amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> With the proper usage of the relay system, those fighters can still pressure the LW very well.



Nothing like the P-51. Some of the fighters turning up at the end of the relay could spend less than 15 minutes with the bombers. Their range and endurance wasn't magically increased,they just got there as economically as they could.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The main British and Soviet combat planes from 1939 to 1941 decided the war. But to be frank, I think that the Soviets by themselfs could already defeat Germany.



The next myth that is created by modern idiot historians.

Without lend lease there would be no chance for the Red Army and VVS to defeat germany.
Without foot, trucks, radios, the enormous technology transfer to the VVS you should present your arguments.

Also at new times the next myth came up that the Red Army would be able to defeat a defending Wehrmacht (Borderline 1941) 1942, if the Wehrmacht would have gone south instead of east and whole europe would be RED at 1943.

The new myths of the "mighty" Red Army and VVS without lend lease and learning effects are to my opinion ridiculous.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> BTW, the Allies also had jet fighters.
> 
> There's that jet thing again. How could the jets available to the allies in 1945 have represented any counter to German jets over occupied Europe? It was years before a jet fighter with the range of a P 51 was built.



Too Right Cobber - and Only with mid air refueling with the consideration that the tankers have to remain out of harm's way.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. How can anyone say the P-51 was not crucial to the defeat if Germany. How can anyone not put it in the top 10 aircraft crucial to Germany's defeat?


I think the question is not about capabillities. It all depends on if you consider the strategic bombing campaign a success. The P51 was crucial for the succes of this bombing campaign, so if the campaign is crucial for the defeat of germany, then the P51 was as well. But mind that the effectiveness of the strategic bombing (apart of the oilfields in Romania) is still under heavy discussion by quite a number of experts. 

Not taking sides here, just putting some oil on the fire.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2013)

Marcel - the USSBS highlighted a lot of key factors influencing less than desirable results but while debate continues relative to weighting daylight bombing as major cause of Germany's defeat, there was no question by the German industrial leaders after the war that is Was a major factor. Ditto for LW leaders.

Curious - why limit discussion regarding Strategic success to just Ploesti? The entire campaign against petro-chemical industry killed German fuel reserves, crippled explosive and fertilizer production, destroyed the major part of the Luftwaffe in 1944 leading to air superiority over Invasion front, destroyed major percentage of locomotives and rolling stock (both in marshalling yards, locomotive production plants) as well as via Mustang all around Germany after escort missions. US Fighters, primarily P-51s and P-38s, probably destroyed more locomotives than bombers prior to D-Day. I don't have the data but would guess that those two fighters alone contributed the majority of the destruction simply because they had the tactical footprint to do so - all the way to Czechoslovakia and Poland (P-51).

Secondary benefits (unquestioned) were the re-allocation of AAA from German army to LW plus forcing Germany to allocate very high percentage of industrial resources (plant, labor, critical metals) toward fighter production to attempt to stop daylight bombing.

Had Daylight bombing and associated escort fighters not been considered threatening to German war machine they would have ignored it to the extent that they would a.) keep their resources mostly in the East, and b.) maintained aircraft production levels per 1942/early 1943.


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

The USSBS and its lesser known British counterpart were written under the aegis of civilians as the heads of each department,not soldiers,though obviously many military personnel were involved. Franklin D’Olier(President of the Prudential Insurance Company) was in charge and he employed some very smart men,many would go on to be household names,Paul H. Nitze, John Kenneth Galbraith, Henry C. Alexander, and George W. Ball would be augmented by possibly lesser known men like Robert P. Russell of the Standard Oil Company and Frank A. McNamee Jr. 

They make it perfectly clear what the economic effect of the bombing was on Germany and how that hindered her ability to continue waging the war. Drgondog has noted some salient points above.

The USSBS is a very large series of documents but it is essential reading for anyone trying to form an educated opinion about the success or otherwise of the bombing campaigns. An often overlooked fact about the bombing is that 85.9% of bombs dropped by the USAAF on Germany fell _after D-Day_. The results were catastrophic for Germany. For example between April and September 1944 production of aviation fuel fell by 97%.

The P-51 has to be in anyone's top five simply for its vital influence on this campaign.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

It's impressive how some P-51 fanboys can get so angry and ignore everything that is not convenient to put the plane in the pedestal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I didn't said this.



Yeah you did, these are your words.

_"It's not question of opinion, it's a fact. The Mustang was indeed among the most important Allied planes. But was it absolutely crucial for the German total defeat? This is my point..."_

Yes it was crucial. History proves that.



Jenisch said:


> It's impressive how some P-51 fanboys can get so angry and ignore everything that is not convenient to put the plane in the pedestal.



Way to edit your post... (us Mods can still see the originals)

Oh and by the way, I don't happen to be a fanboy of the P-51, nor am I angry. Far from it actually. If anything I am s 109 fanboy. Keep making assumptions.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah you did, these are your words.
> 
> _"It's not question of opinion, it's a fact. The Mustang was indeed among the most important Allied planes. But was it absolutely crucial for the German total defeat? This is my point..."_
> 
> Yes it was crucial. History proves that.



There's a difference between what you considerate "crucial" and what was crucial in the way the things happened. What you are saying is that "crucial" means = no substitution, no way to have flexbility if not avaliable. It's not what I'm saying. There are people here ignoring that the P-47D-20 had a range of 1800 miles, and that with 108 gallon drop tanks the P-38 could reach Berlin in escort mission. Of course that more P-47s and P-38s could be produced. They would be less effective than the P-51, particularily the P-38? Yes. But this would be critical? No. There was not critical performance disadvantage for the P-38, specially after the dive brakes were fitted. There are people here ignoring this and already going to fantasy saying that the Germans would have thousands of jets, or that because the air war in Western Europe would be less effective, in 6 months the Eastern Front (i.e. Bagaration) would not be a problem for Germany.


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

The germans had already produced more then 1300 Jets. With a P38 and or P47-20 all had needed more time, especially D-Day. The defeat would had need significant longer time and much more blood.

Also where are your arguments that the Russians could defeat germany on their own without lendlease, that claim is ridiculous.

Also about the nuke I have seriously my doubts that GB had allowed to throw it on germany, because germany wasn't defenseless with their A4, that couldn't be intercepted from anything. Imagine what happened if someone escalate the war with a nuke and germany answers with hundreds of A4's with Tabun warheads to GB. Germany fired about 3000 A4's.
I think the allied intelligence was highly aware that this could happened instead of Japan which was realy defenseless and had no target that could be reached.
And the stokpile of nukes 1945/46 wasn't that much.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> The germans had already produced more then 1300 Jets. With a P38 and or P47-20 all had needed more time, especially D-Day. The defeat would had need significant longer time and much more blood.



It would depends of how the rush or development of such versions would start. By mid-1943, Republic would be told "we need long range versions of the P-47 with absolute urgence!". It would depends of how long it would take. But as for invade France, the Allies would have air power to smash the French railway system and LW bases in France and the low countries. The presence of a stronger LW would have dictated a more slower advance in Western Europe (with bases in the continent this would be improved). But I don't think it would be necessarily critical. And again saying: Bagration would happen, the Russians would kick the Germans out of the USSR and of acess to it's resources, and Romania also would go down (no oil). After that, Germany is under a very effective siege.



> Also where are your arguments that the Russians could defeat germany on their own without lendlease, that claim is ridiculous.



It's not ridiculous. There's no consensus about this. People also have a problem in those forums in that they confound COULD with WOULD. You also have to considerate that no LL to Russia = more equipment to the Anglo-Americans.


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

The original premise is 10 aircraft that sealed nazi Germany's fate.
I find it incredible that anyone would not have the P-51 in that list.

Here's two questions for Jenisch. 

Do you believe that the European war would have ended in April 1945 had the USAAF not had the P-51?
Do you believe that Overlord would have gone ahead in June 1944 had the USAAF not had the P-51?

If the _honest answer _to either is no then the P-51 is on your list too 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

Your questions, Stona: I don't know. I'm just being "less dramatic" than some people here. There are members talking like if there was no P-51, the Allied bombing offensive (and even the war has a whole) could not be won. There's no doubt that there's at least a half-term in that, and this is what I'm defending.


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

Of course the war would have been won without the P-51. It might not have ended when it did and that means that the P-51 (incidentally not my favourite aircraft by a long way) was a decisive weapon. In the context of this thread it has to be one of the ten most important aircraft in the defeat of nazi Germany. I understand why a lot of people,looking at the end game in 1944/5 put it as number one,though I might beg to differ 

The massive upping of the bombing campaign,particularly that of the USAAF from the second quarter of 1944 until the end would not have been possible without it. It was planned around the capability to escort the bombers "there and back".

The P-51 did as much,arguably more,than any other allied fighter in that time frame to ensure the defeat of the Luftwaffe and ensure total allied air supremacy in the West. Importantly this was done in time to cover the invasion beaches and later the bridgeheads in June 1944. An invasion fleet without adequate air cover is dreadfully vulnerable,as any Welsh Guard waiting to disembark from RFA Sir Galahad off Fitzroy in 1982 will confirm,assuming he survived. 

We can all argue about which aircraft was more influential than that aircraft to entertain ourselves,but the P-51 _was_ influential 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

stona said:


> Of course the war would have been won without the P-51. It might not have ended when it did and that means that the P-51 (incidentally not my favourite aircraft by a long way) was a decisive weapon.



Ok.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> There's a difference between what you considerate "crucial" and what was crucial in the way the things happened. What you are saying is that "crucial" means = no substitution, no way to have flexbility if not avaliable. It's not what I'm saying. There are people here ignoring that the P-47D-20 had a range of 1800 miles, and that with 108 gallon drop tanks the P-38 could reach Berlin in escort mission. Of course that more P-47s and P-38s could be produced. They would be less effective than the P-51, particularily the P-38? Yes. But this would be critical? No. There was not critical performance disadvantage for the P-38, specially after the dive brakes were fitted. There are people here ignoring this and already going to fantasy saying that the Germans would have thousands of jets, or that because the air war in Western Europe would be less effective, in 6 months the Eastern Front (i.e. Bagaration) would not be a problem for Germany.



Woah, woah, now you are going to tell me what I mean??? 

In the context of what actually took place in WW2, not a fantasy what if world, the P-51 was crucial to the defeat of ghe enemy. If the P-38 could have done it better, it would have. If yhe P-47 could have done it better it would have. Other options does not mean better. The USAAF chose the P-51 because it was the best option for its intended role. That makes it crucial.

So how about you stop ignoring what sctually happened, and stop telling people what they are saying or meaning.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Your questions, Stona: I don't know. I'm just being "less dramatic" than some people here. There are members talking like if there was no P-51, the Allied bombing offensive (and even the war has a whole) could not be won. There's no doubt that there's at least a half-term in that, and this is what I'm defending.



Actually you are the one implying that people are saying that. You seem to be butt hurt about it.

The war was won by a joint effort by many countries and many different types of equipment. The P-51 could notwin tge war alone, neither could the P-47, P-38, Spitfire or B-17. They all played a crucial role, but yhe P-51 is certainly in the top 10 of crucial role players because of its capability in the role played.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Damn fat fingering my Iphone again...


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If the P-38 could have done it better, it would have. If yhe P-47 could have done it better it would have. Other options does not mean better. The USAAF chose the P-51 because it was the best option for its intended role. That makes it crucial.



I'm not saying that the USAAF should not have choose the P-51 (the proposed is that it was not developed). As for the P-51 being "crucial", crucial is one thing, while absolutely crucial is other.


----------



## beitou (Apr 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> The germans had already produced more then 1300 Jets. With a P38 and or P47-20 all had needed more time, especially D-Day. The defeat would had need significant longer time and much more blood.
> 
> Also where are your arguments that the Russians could defeat germany on their own without lendlease, that claim is ridiculous.
> 
> ...



It is one thing producing an A4 with a 1 tonne warhead that basically makes a big hole in the ground, that is quite simple fusing. It is another thing alltogether to make an effective nerve gas warhead on a hypersonic missile that will do much more than make a hole in the ground with nerve gas at the bottom and spread round the edges. 3000 A4s with nerve gas I dont believe would have much more material effect than the HE A4s. At first the fear of them might have an effect on moral and maybe production but as time went on I cant see them having anything like the effect as the A bombs.


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

The whole scenario is about fear or how was functioning the cold war?

I agree that 1000 A4's with a Tabun warhead had not the same effect as a A-Bomb, but it's also not that difficult to built a fuze which will explode 50m over the ground, many constructed shells had simiular fuzes.

Anyway that is not my point. Fear and determent is my point to not escalate a war irrepressible.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 7, 2013)

A number of factors played a role. First, the P-51 was cheaper to build and easier to maintain. Secondly, the P-47 was something that _could be_, but at the most important time the P-51 was there ready to be used. The P-47N was a great airplane that at +30,000 was much better than a P-51 (any model), but by the time that was realized there were countless P-51’s and the war was seemingly headed toward an end. At that time it did not matter what the P-47N could do higher than 30,000 feet, all the commanders knew the fighter world was evolving toward jets. At the end of the war it did not matter at all how much better any P-47 was as a ground attack aircraft because the military budgets were being cut to pieces. P-51’s were still coming off the line and could be easily sold all around the world (and were).

If there were such a thing as Allies 46’ (like the Luft 46) things would have been different for the P-51 in that environment. Yet it was not that the P-51 was ever massively better than any other plane of its era but how quickly and effectively the Allies could match ratios of 10-1 or more Mustangs against the Germans on a consistent and ongoing basis.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DonL, if Germany was to be nuked, it would not be with one bomb per time like Japan, it would probably be by several simultaneously. Germany could answer with nerve gas? Perhaps. But the Allies also could trow nerve gas in the German cities trough bombing. Anyway, indeed the cost benefit of nuke Germany would have to be analyzed. It also would not be certain that nukes alone would defeat Germany. Despite having nuked Japan, the Americans didn't laid down their invasion preparations until Japan surrendered (and arguably the Soviet of Manchuria was a very important factor in the Japanese decision to surrender).


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

Ähm how many A-Bombs were available 1945?
To my sources 3-5 till the end of the year. (inclusive the two for Japan)



> Germany could answer with nerve gas? Perhaps.


No not perhaps the germans had 12000 tons of war workable tabun



> But the Allies also could trow nerve gas in the German cities trough bombing.



Yes indeed and this is an irrepressible war with millions of civil casualty on both sides


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

How could the allies have thrown nerve agents at German cities through bombing? They didn't have them until after the war.

The British and Americans split about 30,000 tons between them in 1945. The Soviets captured an entire factory and its stocks.

Aren't we getting a bit off topic 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

Stona I have not the knowledge about allied B weapons but to my sources they had a large stockpile of C-weapons inclusive bombs.

Ok it is realy off topic but the A-Bomb on Germany is something what comes up pretty regular.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I'm not saying that the USAAF should not have choose the P-51 (the proposed is that it was not developed). As for the P-51 being "crucial", crucial is one thing, while absolutely crucial is other.


 
This is not a what if thread. The P-51 was developed. 

So how was the P-51 not one of the 10 most crucial aircraft to thr defeat of Germany? In the context of what actually took place in the war, how was the P-51 not? What made the P-38 or P-47 more crucial? How was the Spitfire, Hurricane or Yak more crucial?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> DonL, if Germany was to be nuked, it would not be with one bomb per time like Japan, it would probably be by several simultaneously.



How do you figure?


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> Stona I have not the knowledge about allied B weapons but to my sources they had a large stockpile of C-weapons inclusive bombs.
> 
> Ok it is realy off topic but the A-Bomb on Germany is something what comes up pretty regular.



Germany had substantial stocks of nerve agents and the means to deploy them. None of the allies had either. 

That's why I was surprised by the suggestion that the allies could have delivered such agents to German cities !

I don't believe a nuclear weapon would have been used against Germany in any realistic scenario. No plans existed for such an eventuality. By the time the bombs became available the war in Europe was over Stimson didn't even brief Trumann about the bomb until a meeting at the White House on 25th April 1945,just five days before Hitler would shoot himself. Trumann established the so called "Interim Committee" to advise him on a possible use of the weapon and this reported on Ist June 1945. The decision,in principle,to use the bomb was taken on 18th June 1945. Trumann seems to have taken the decision to use the bomb against Japan,as opposed to some kind of demonstration,on 2nd July 1945. The consent of the British was sought and this was given on 4th July 1945.
None of this has anything to do with the war against Germany which was already over.

There is a tendency in many threads for people to use hindsight and to get their timelines a bit confused 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you figure?



Logic.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 7, 2013)

All this fighting, all this fighting ... you see ... that's why the P-51 is _NOT_ my favorite WW2 fighter .... people always get into _fights_ about how _good _it is! Give me Mr. Fat Reliable from Republic with air con and a cigar lighter in the dash. Built for comfort ....

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 7, 2013)

"Logic..."

Of course ... we all know it takes _more _to impress a German than a Japanese combattant ...


----------



## Readie (Apr 7, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> All this fighting, all this fighting ... you see ... that's why the P-51 is _NOT_ my favorite WW2 fighter .... people always get into _fights_ about how _good _it is! Give me Mr. Fat Reliable from Republic with air con and a cigar lighter in the dash. Built for comfort ....
> 
> MM



Having seen the footage of what a P47 could take and dish out...I'm inclined to agree with you Michael.
If only it had a Merlin....


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is not a what if thread. The P-51 was developed.
> 
> So how was the P-51 not one of the 10 most crucial aircraft to thr defeat of Germany? In the context of what actually took place in the war, how was the P-51 not? What made the P-38 or P-47 more crucial? How was the Spitfire, Hurricane or Yak more crucial?


I have to agree the P51 was one of the most critical aircraft. The P38 at the time didn't have the range, it had problems at altitude in Europe and I have never heard of the Germans being overawed by its combat performance.
The P47 was better but it's my understanding that it lacked range when the range was needed. I could be wrong here as my knowledge of the P47 is limited.
That said like it or not the P51 is the aircraft that was used and it was the P51 that ensured the USA bombing was a success. For this alone the P51 deserves its place in the top 10


----------



## Readie (Apr 7, 2013)

Glider said:


> I
> That said like it or not the P51 is the aircraft that was used and it was the P51 that ensured the USA bombing was a success. For this alone the P51 deserves its place in the top 10



You could also add destroying the LW in the process.
The rhubarb raids by P47's, Spitfires, Typhoon's etc played a vital role too.
I don't think any one plane can be singled out as 'the most important'...they all did their job.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Logic.



Were they going to make nukes magically appear? You can only drop the number you have.

What logic is there to say the Germans would have multiple bombs dropped simultaneously on them. I don't see logic, I see more what if speculation.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Apr 7, 2013)

Here is mine.
In no particular order,
Spitfire,
P-51,
Il-2,
Lancaster,
B-17,
C-47,
B-24,
Yak-7,
Typhoon,
Mosquito.


----------



## bob44 (Apr 7, 2013)

No I do not think the Allies would have used the A bomb in Germany if available. What would you target? Unlike Japan, where it was expected the civian population would combat the Allies if Japan was invaded, I think most people in Germany just wanted the war to be over. 
The P51 was certainly one of the important aircrafts in the war. As were many others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> All this fighting, all this fighting ... you see ... that's why the P-51 is _NOT_ my favorite WW2 fighter .... people always get into _fights_ about how _good _it is! Give me Mr. Fat Reliable from Republic with air con and a cigar lighter in the dash. Built for comfort ....
> 
> MM



The P-51 is not my favorite, nor would I say it was the best at everything. For the reasons you just state, I agree the Mustang is overrated. However the P-51 as it was used makes it one of top fighters in the defeat of Germany. That is fact, like it or not.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Were they going to make nukes magically appear? You can only drop the number you have.
> 
> What logic is there to say the Germans would have multiple bombs dropped simultaneously on them. I don't see logic, I see more what if speculation.



If Germany was to be nuked in order to make it surrender, there would have to be no mercy. The US would have to wait until gather a good number of nukes. I wrote earlier that the cost benefit of such attacks would have to be considerated, however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> If Germany was to be nuked in order to make it surrender, there would have to be no mercy. The US would have to wait until gather a good number of nukes. I wrote earlier that the cost benefit of such attacks would have to be considerated, however.



Pure speculation, save that for what if threads. 

Sorry there is no logic as you say in that. The Germans are not fanatical suicidal people that would need the whole country nuked to make them surrender.

The theoretical nuking of Germany has anything to do with the 10 planes that were most crucial to the defeat of Germany.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 7, 2013)

"... P-51 as it was used makes it one of top fighters in the defeat of Germany"

No question. Goering said it best in "Springtime in Berlin" - the musical.

MM


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2013)

FlakDancer said:


> The P-47N was a great airplane that at +30,000 was much better than a P-51 (any model), but by the time that was realized there were countless P-51’s and the war was seemingly headed toward an end.
> 
> *The N had Slightly better performance than the P-51B-15 @75" WEP with racks and full internal load at 30,000 feet and slightly inferior performance (climb, speed, turn) to the P-51H with racks, full internal load @90" WI WEP at 30,000 feet but the 51H outclimbed it out ran it and out turned it from SL all the way up to 29,000 feet. *
> 
> ...



It has been said more than a couple of times that a.) there were never any simultanous examples where all the ETO P-51s were in the same airspace as all of LuftFlotte Reich's single engine fighters...If such was possible, to cram 14 Mustang FG's with an operational deployment per mission of 48 per group until Fall 1944 when often 60+ would fly an A and B mission. LF Reich had between 450 to 525 operational S/E fighters in Germany with another 150 to 200 in France and Belgium between Jan 1, 1944 and August, 1944.

To Look at Jan 1, 1944 - 354FG ~ avg 35-40 per mission, LFR ~ 400 S/E and 130 T/E day fighters
February 20 (Big Week) - 354 and 357FG ~ avg 40 per mission, LFR ~ 450 S/E and 120 T/E day fighters
April 30 ~ 354 and 363 (9AF), 4, 352, 355, 357 FG ~ 40-45 per mission per Group, LFR ~ 450-500 S/E day fighters, 80 T/E.
May 30 ~ 354, 4, 339, 352, 355, 357, 359, 361 FG ~ 45 sorties per Group, LFR ~ 500 S/E and 60 T/E (deployed east of Berlin and Leipzig)

What this means is that by D-Day the average number of P-51B's, to escort Three 8th AF Bomb Divisions, comprised of an average of 10 BG's per Division - each BG flying an average of 40 B-17/B-24s per Group - was 2-3 FG's of 45 Mustangs each to escort 400 B-17's (or B-24's) along a thirty mile string to the break point (defined as the point where some bomb wings set a new course different from the others to attack a different target - therebye further diluting the escorts.

Net - to 'get 10:1 Mustang to LW ratio', the LW has to attack that airspace basically covered by a single P-51 Group. The math says that the standard LW attack was a flight of four attacking a 5 mile region covered by 45 Mustangs.

Even so, the Mustang escorts would deploy perhaps one flight to chase them - reducing the ratio to 1:1.

Conversely, given scenarios like March 29, June 20, July 7, November 26 - the LW would direct 6 to 8 Gruppe's to attack that same size volume when they detected light escort or a Bomb Wing far off course. Then the ratio reverses to as much as 4:1 in favor of LW day fighter to Mustang. 



When the crucial battles were fought and won by the Mustang, only the P-51B


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Curious - why limit discussion regarding Strategic success to just Ploesti? The entire campaign against petro-chemical industry killed German fuel reserves...


really stupid reason for me actually. I'm abroad and only have an ipad with me an I hate typing on those things, thus I skipped most of my answer But you're absolutely right of course. 



> Secondary benefits (unquestioned) were the re-allocation of AAA from German army to LW plus forcing Germany to allocate very high percentage of industrial resources (plant, labor, critical metals) toward fighter production to attempt to stop daylight bombing.
> 
> Had Daylight bombing and associated escort fighters not been considered threatening to German war machine they would have ignored it to the extent that they would a.) keep their resources mostly in the East, and b.) maintained aircraft production levels per 1942/early 1943.


Well, not necessarily as they were threatening the population weren't they? The German army could not ignore that despite their government's barbarism. Not sure how great an impact the relocation of AAA had on winning the war. But I'm playing the devil's advocate here as I don't really have an opinion on this discussion. 

Having said that, let me state that the P51 was a great plane, filling it's intended role admirably during the were being it crucial or not. Hopefully our fighting parties can now stop their booring fight about how crucial the P51 was, as it is a subjective matter, based on intepretation. And you can keep on fighting over this until some-one gets banned. 

On Topic: My statement on the question at hand is that I believe the ME262 was a great contributor to the Allied vicory by being way too late to have any impact. also the BF109 was great for not being able to fight too long over England during the BOB, the FW190 for not being there during the BOB. The Heinkel 111 for not being a heavy 4 engined bomber. The BF110 for only flying defensive circles during the BOB. On all these points, these aircraft were crucial for the Allied victory


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry there is no logic as you say in that. The Germans are not fanatical suicidal people that would need the whole country nuked to make them surrender.



If Germany continued to resist, the logic of nuke the whole country was to desmoralize the people and the government to a point where they would see that there was no country left to try sustain, and hence surrender. I just wrote about the bomb, because someone mentioned that without the Mustang, D-Day might not have occured in '44 and Germany and the USSR could have signed peace. 

Anyway, this thread is way off-topic, and I will start to "desmobilize".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

And one nuke over Hamburg would no do that ? Seriously...


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2013)

The Germans had the means to deliver Tabun - not 100% but certainly enough to cause major casualties. The V-1, very low flying Me 410s at night, etc, etc. We had the means - just didn't have the weapon.


----------



## Hop (Apr 7, 2013)

> There's that jet thing again. How could the jets available to the allies in 1945 have represented any counter to German jets over occupied Europe? It was years before a jet fighter with the range of a P 51 was built.



Europe started less than 25 miles from the English coast. You don't need the range of the P-51 to engage the Luftwaffe over Europe.



> Do you believe that the European war would have ended in April 1945 had the USAAF not had the P-51?



I don't think the date would have changed significantly.



> Do you believe that Overlord would have gone ahead in June 1944 had the USAAF not had the P-51?



Undoubtedly. Don't forget, planning for the invasion began long before the P-51B showed up. (surely no one is suggesting the Allison engined P-51s were "crucial"?)

Look at the invasion of Sicily as an example. The allies didn't need air superiority over Northern Italy, they simply attacked Luftwaffe forces in Sicily, bombed their airfields and shot down their aircraft. They achieved air superiority and the Luftwaffe had very little success combating the invasion.

The allies achieved air superiority over France in 1943. Without the P-51 the allies would still have had an all but impregnable air umbrella over the invasion fleet in June 1944.



> I agree that 1000 A4's with a Tabun warhead had not the same effect as a A-Bomb, but it's also not that difficult to built a fuze which will explode 50m over the ground, many constructed shells had simiular fuzes.



Shells had time fuses. The V-2 flight path was not accurate enough to use a time fuse. It needed a radar fuse that Germany did not have. 

RV Jones, who was head of the British scientific team assessing German weapons during the war said he wasn't particularly concerned about "unknown" German weapons. Any programme small enough to have escaped his notice was too small to have a decisive effect.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And one nuke over Hamburg would no do that ? Seriously...



I don't think so. The Nazi state wanted to survive. Even when the Nazis were fighting for Berlin, there was a little hope that the Soviets and Anglo-Americans would have a serious disagreement, and the Nazis would find find some exit. If the Soviets signed peace with Germany because D-Day not occured in 1944, the Nazis would try at the maximum to survive. This why I think that Germany would have to enter in chaos in order to surrender. And I agree with you that the German people was more easy to revolt against the government than Japan was, hence other good reason for the nuclear bombing.

drgondog that suggested that the USSR and Germany might have signed peace, but I don't think so. Stalin and his gang didn't give a f*** that Western people were dying (and vice versa). If sign peace with Germany was a good idea to Stalin, he would do it historically.


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

> Shells had time fuses. The V-2 flight path was not accurate enough to use a time fuse. It needed a radar fuse that Germany did not have.



You information is quiet incorrect the german had radar operated fuses.

An overview of the German proximity fuse (not completely) and how they work:

BATH, acoustically designed by Graf Zeppelin Institute

ELKU (electro-acoustic), developed in connection with PABLITZ

FUCHS radar operated, developed by AEG in Berlin, scheduled for Hs-117, Hs-298 and other missiles

Isegrimm, electromagnetic, developed by Orlich Institute, Gdansk.

COCKATOO, activ radar operated and developed by Danubian GmbH, Vienna. about 3,000 were for the Hs-293 produced. Uses the Doppler effect.

CRANE, acoustically brackish career of Ruhrstahl AG. Was partly intended for mass production.

BALL LIGHTNING, radar operated actively Patentverwertungs society, Salzburg.
Designed for surface to air missiles (Rheintochter). Uses Doppler effect. Small series.

Cowbell, passive electro static (Glimmröhrenzündung) of Rhine metal-Borsig. Provided for rockets. only prototypes

KUHGLÖCKCHEN, smaller version of the cowbell for FLAK 88-128mm, mass production scheduled to start in March 1945, not because of the war conducted.

LOTTE infrared canceled for an unknown steering rate development.

MARABU, radar operated actively under development by Siemens-Halske behalf of Rheinmetall AG.
Designed for Hs-117, Hs-298, Rhinemaiden and waterfall surface to air missiles. Small series production for demonstration purposes.

MARTEN radar operated from Orlich Institute, Gdansk. Parallel development to Isegrimm.

MEISE, acoustic Neumann Borm, Berlin.

PABLITZ, infrared electric-acoustic Institute, Namslau, later keel.
A.K.A. "ELKU". Designed for Hs-117 and waterfall surface to air missiles. Small series for testing.

Pinscher, radar operated active by Orlich Institute, Gdansk. 5 prototypes.

PISTOL, photo-electric, developed in conjunction with AEG WATER MOUSE.

ROULETTE infrared, of Brick Man, Gera.

TUNING FORK, acoustic from the Graf Zeppelin Institute. Developed for parachute delayed bombs dropped on bomber streams. Tested, aborted development.

FUNNEL radio controlled, from Blaupunkt. Series production, from feb. 1945 in the field testing.

WATER MOUSE, photo-electric, designed to C2W10 waterfall ground-air guided missile.

Wiesel, activ radar operated from Orlich Institute, Gdansk.

IGNITOR-19, developed for SC 250kg bombs from Rheinmetall-Borsig. Begun in 1937, canceled the 1943rd Production continued until 1944.

CODE UNKNOWN, a passive proximity fuse for the R4M unguided air-to-air missiles (Me-262, Fw-190, Me-410).


----------



## DonL (Apr 7, 2013)

> And I agree with you that the German people was more easy to revolt against the government than Japan was, hence other good reason for the nuclear bombing.



Your sentence isn't beatable from cynical and inhumanity because you are writing the word for hundred of thousands civil casualty with a terror weapon, which has not a single meaning to military operations, it is simply to terror the civil people and murder them to thousands.


----------



## GregP (Apr 7, 2013)

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but what have the last several pages got to do with "Top 10 Planes That Sealed Nazi Germany's Fate?" Maybe they deserve their own thread (anybody want to start it?), but they are sort of irrelevant to this one. 

No jet produced in WWII had more than a tiny impact on the fight. Me 262's are creditied with 562 bombers against 100 losses. Those total losses amount to about five percent of a single 1,000 bomber raid. We flew a LOT of those. Over the course of the 5 1/2 year war, that is relatively nothing compared with the earlier piston generation's contributions. Sure, the Me 262 had an impact post-war on fighter and bomber design, but very little impact in WWII itself. Anyone who thinks the P-51 didn't affect the outcome in Germany has not studied the war very much ... change references to one that is based in fact. 

There are a few immortals in WWII aviation. The Spitfire is in there along with the Lancaster, the B-17, the P-47, the Bf 109, the Fw 190, the He 111, and, yes, the P-51. Others populate the list, too, but the P-51 deserves it's place no less than any of the others. Just to stave off the inevitable, yeah, the Hurricane should be in there, too, along with the Halifax, the A6M Zero, the P-38, and some others. 

Everyone's favorite can't be an "Immortal," but many already are.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2013)

My thoughts exactly Greg


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

GregP said:


> Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but what have the last several pages got to do with "Top 10 Planes That Sealed Nazi Germany's Fate?" Maybe they deserve their own thread (anybody want to start it?), but they are sort of irrelevant to this one.



That is what I have been saying for several pages.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2013)

My thoughts on the top 10 "combat aircraft....not havig read the discussion to this point I might add

1. Illushin Il-2 IL-10 Sturmovik 
2. Hawker Typhoon
3. Blackburn Swordfish
4 SBD
5. Consolidated PBY
6. PB4Y Privateer
7. B-24
8 P-51B onwards
9 Supermarine Spitfire
10 De Havilland Mosquito


Each are different, and easch, in their own way contributed significantly to the Allied victory


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 7, 2013)

Okay, in a selfless attempt to get things back on track, I will now question the credentials of another frequent nominee, the Mosquito (thereby inevitably releasing another storm of vitriol)
Succesfiul as it was in such a range of roles, was anything the Mossie did really vital to the Allies? it was the Allies best night fighter/intruder for most of its existence, but were these roles vital? Other, admitedly lesser alternatives existed such as the Havoc and Beaufighter. The Mossie was a superlative high speed pinpoint bomber, but did it cause critical damage to the Germans? 
The Mossie was certainly one of the best aircraft of the war, but was in the top 10 most important?
NBC - I'm being devil's advocate here - please don't firebomb my house


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

I dont believe the SBD and Privateer were used against the Germans.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Okay, in a selfless attempt to get things back on track, I will now question the credentials of another frequent nominee, the Mosquito (thereby inevitably releasing another storm of vitriol)
> Succesfiul as it was in such a range of roles, was anything the Mossie did really vital to the Allies? it was the Allies best night fighter/intruder for most of its existence, but were these roles vital? Other, admitedly lesser alternatives existed such as the Havoc and Beaufighter. The Mossie was a superlative high speed pinpoint bomber, but did it cause critical damage to the Germans?
> The Mossie was certainly one of the best aircraft of the war, but was in the top 10 most important?
> NBC - I'm being devil's advocate here - please don't firebomb my house


the mosquito was used in Pathfinder squadrons, arriving before the big guys to "mark" the target and thus making the whole bombing much more accurate.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 7, 2013)

Just because a certain type doesnt make the top 10, doesnt mean it wasnt important.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe the SBD and Privateer were used against the Germans.



Oops, thats what happens when I dont read the forum topic correctly 

To avoid further embarrassment I would modify my list as follows 

1. Illushin Il-2 IL-10 Sturmovik 
2. Hawker Typhoon
3. Blackburn Swordfish
4. Consolidated PBY
5. Short Sunderland 
6. B-24
7 P-51B onwards
8 Supermarine Spitfire
9 De Havilland Mosquito
10 Lancaster


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 7, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Okay, in a selfless attempt to get things back on track, I will now question the credentials of another frequent nominee, the Mosquito (thereby inevitably releasing another storm of vitriol)
> Succesfiul as it was in such a range of roles, was anything the Mossie did really vital to the Allies? it was the Allies best night fighter/intruder for most of its existence, but were these roles vital? Other, admitedly lesser alternatives existed such as the Havoc and Beaufighter. The Mossie was a superlative high speed pinpoint bomber, but did it cause critical damage to the Germans?
> The Mossie was certainly one of the best aircraft of the war, but was in the top 10 most important?
> NBC - I'm being devil's advocate here - please don't firebomb my house



The Mosquito:
1) Became the best scoring Allied night fighter of the war, in three different theatres
2) Took more PR photos than any RAF type (Spitfire few more sorties, bit didn't have as many cameras)
3) Dropped more bomb tonnage in RAF service than the Whitley, Hampden, Boston, Blenheim and Manchester, combined. Only the Stirling, Wellington, Halifax and Lancaster dropped more tonnage.
4) Served in every RAF theatre of war
5) Intercepted nearly 500 V1 flying bombs at night and was as up to five times more efficient in bombing V1 sights than other bomber types
6) Played a vital role in pathfinding, spoofing, jamming and laying false raid tracks to protect the bomber stream
7) Generally hit targets with at range iwth speed and precision unavailable to any other type.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 7, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> The Mosquito:
> 1) Became the best scoring Allied night fighter of the war, in three different theatres
> 2) Took more PR photos than any RAF type (Spitfire few more sorties, bit didn't have as many cameras)
> 3) Dropped more bomb tonnage in RAF service than the Whitley, Hampden, Boston, Blenheim and Manchester, combined. Only the Stirling, Wellington, Halifax and Lancaster dropped more tonnage.
> ...



What he said, with the caveat that it was about 630 V-1s.

For me the primus inter pares was the Mossie's carriage of Oboe, which in early- to mid-43 allowed serious blows to be landed against the Ruhr and the industries therein.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe the SBD and Privateer were used against the Germans.



The SBD was not used by the task forces in Africa and south France?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The SBD was not used by the task forces in Africa and south France?



Yeah I forgot about The Med and Operation Torch. I think they were used in Norway as well.

Still the SBD was not as decisive of a factor in the war against Germany as it was in the Pacific.


----------



## stona (Apr 8, 2013)

Marcel said:


> the mosquito was used in Pathfinder squadrons, arriving before the big guys to "mark" the target and thus making the whole bombing much more accurate.



Yes,but far more Lancasters were used in that role.

I hate to say it,but much as I love the Mosquito it would struggle to get on my list of the _ten that sealed the fate of nazi Germany_

It was still an important aeroplane and filled several roles better than its contemporaries. 

So Kobber I won't be coming around to fire bomb your house 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2013)

No, Steve, but I might come round and fire bomb yours 

Don't agree. Mossie definitely _has_ to be in the list. Serving as a bomber, fighter bomber, pathfinder, photo recon, fast transport, anti-shipping strike aircraft, how could it not? Highly influential on German planning, they even built their own homage to it. Look at the raids Mossies carried out. Big impact.


----------



## stona (Apr 8, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Highly influential on German planning, they even built their own homage to it. Look at the raids Mossies carried out. Big impact.



It certainly caused much consternation for the Luftwaffe. Anything you can't defend against was bound to!

Those raids,big impact,yes. Strategically of war winning importance? I have my doubts.

I cheated in my top ten by having the P-51 in places 3-10,despite finding it an ugly s.o.b. 
I'm prepared to compromise and squeeze the good old wooden wonder in at 10 but I don't think it was a war winning machine. Many of the roles you mentioned could be,and were, carried out by other types,just not always as well!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

Hi Steve, I agree. Though I like the Mosquito a lot, it wasn't a war winner. It was very good at sneaking around and hitting a few isolated targets, but would not do as well against an enemy who knew it was coming in large numbers, knew the course, height, and speed ... and was waiting for it, like they waited for the streams of heavy bombers.

Its speed was good if the enemy was cruising at or below its height at, say, 200 mph, and was unaware. But if the enemy was above the Mosquito and was up to combat speed and wating for it, then the Mosquito wasn't fast enough to remain "invulnerable" and was not renowned for taking a lot of battle damage. It found its niche and performed well there, but wasn't a major factor anywhere in damaging the war making capability of the Reich. It was a hit-and-run or fast interdiction specialist that was one of the best at those missions.

The Mosquito flew 39,487 sorties and had 229 losses (0.6%). That is very good, but the Mosquito was also not a main bomber type and the mission slection undoubtedly affected the loss rate. By way of jusification for that statement, in RAF Bomber Command service, the B-17 Flying Fortress flew 1,517 missions with 7 losses (0.5%). The B-24 Liberator flew 615 sorties with 3 losses (0.5%). Both were not used as main bombing types but were flying search and rescue, maritime recon, and a variety of lesser-risk missions. Surely the mission selection helped the low loss rate. Does anyone out there think the B-17 or B-24 loss rates would remain that low if it began bombing Berlin? 

In real life, they didn't stay that low when going into harm's way. Most of the British bombers had a loss rate of 2.0% to 3.7%. The immortal Lancaster's rate was 2.2%, and that is pretty good for a primary heavy bomber. If the Mosquito had been reassigned to be a primary bomber, its loss rate would have jumped, too.

It doesn't make my top ten list. That doesn't mean it wasn't good and is not an insult to Mossie fans. It just means my I take into account the contribution of the aircrfaft in making the war shorter. Rescuing prisoners is wonderful and necessary, but doesn't win the war ... it resuces prisoners. Pathfinfers were necessary, but many other planes also performed that mission. The Mossie didn't need to use speed for pathfinding, so it was able to do the job, but not necessary to the job. It DID the job, but so did many other aircraft, too.

Its necessary roles, where its characteristics made it the only logical choice, were reconaissance and interdiction missions, and the Mosquito was excellent at these roles. Almost all other roles, while successful, could have been done by other planes just as easily. Was it versatile? You bet, probably the Mosquito and Ju 88 were the most versatile aircraft of WWII. If versatility is the main required quality, then the Mosquito would be right up there near the top. If cumulative damage to the other side is the main required quality, many other types win out.

They only made 4,850 armed Mosquitos. The other 2,927 were unarmed and were thus bombers or recon planes.


----------



## Juha (Apr 8, 2013)

Mossie besides the effects it was famous was a first class LR PR plane, making it possible to have good coverage beyond the range of PR Spits.
NF Mossies had also indirect impact on D-Day by weakening LW bomber force during the Steinbock campaign in early 44 besides the direct effect by hinderind the LW bombing.
CC Mossies hindered German maritime trade.
LNSF Mossies many times stroke more difficult targets than the Main Force to lure LW night fighters away from the Main Force, e.g. Berlin was a good target for those diversional attacks.

Juha


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 8, 2013)

I am very lucky. If all goes as they say it will, next month I will get to see the rebuilt Mossie from New Zealand fly. If my work allows me to be there I'll take some photos. Don't know where it fits in the top ten, but I can't wait to see that!


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2013)

Just an observation, no one aircraft was a war winner. You can have all the P51, B17, Spit, Mossie whatever you want but without those often overlooked coastal command aircraft they wouldn't get to the UK. 
What is needed is a combination of aircraft there is no one winner


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

Very good point, Glider, no one aircraft could do it all. It WAS a cooperative effort.

I love the planes, all of them, and hate to take anything like a stance on "better." They're all magic carpets to me, even after years of being a pilot. If I had a chance, I'd go see the Mosquito fly, too, even if it was inconvenient.

I only wish we had one locally that I could see fly once in awhile.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Mosquito flew 39,487 sorties and had 229 losses (0.6%).



Under Bomber Command only. This doesn't count activities with Fighter Command, Coastal Command or service in the Mediterranean or Pacific.



> That is very good, but the Mosquito was also not a main bomber type and the mission slection undoubtedly affected the loss rate.



You're right, but also inverse. Mosquitos were generally given missions and mission profiles that were MORE likely to see opposition. 



> By way of jusification for that statement, in RAF Bomber Command service, the B-17 Flying Fortress flew 1,517 missions with 7 losses (0.5%). The B-24 Liberator flew 615 sorties with 3 losses (0.5%). Both were not used as main bombing types but were flying search and rescue, maritime recon, and a variety of lesser-risk missions. Surely the mission selection helped the low loss rate. Does anyone out there think the B-17 or B-24 loss rates would remain that low if it began bombing Berlin?



Not sure where you're getting your figures, by the RAF history lists 18 losses in 1340 missions in the ETO for the B-17 in Bomber Command service - a 1.3% loss rate - and the B-24 had much more than three losses with the RAF. 178 squadron alone lost at least 17 B-24s operating out of Italy, incluing nine in the space of two weeks.



> If the Mosquito had been reassigned to be a primary bomber, its loss rate would have jumped, too.



Which never would have happened, because it wasn't designed as a 'primary' bomber. It was a light/fast bomber and was operated as such.



> They only made 4,850 armed Mosquitos. The other 2,927 were unarmed and were thus bombers or recon planes.


 
Bombload doesn't equal armed?


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 8, 2013)

What navel-gazing, one eyed prick questioned the divinity of the mighty Mossie? Bastard!

Wait a minute - that was me...


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

Got my figures from a bomber command site. If you have figures from fighter command, maybe you could post the link or book by title and author. Mosquitos were given mostly sneak interdiction mission where opposition was unlikely. That's what they were GOOD at, so why not use the assets properly?

Bombload is bombload, you can't defend yourself with bomb load. You can only drop it on someone or something.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2013)

Nope, sorry, guys; not convinced. Mosquito is definitely in my top ten.

Here's some quotes from the intro of Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer; its not just a list of things the Mossie could do; it'd be far greater, but what impact its activities had on the Germans.

"Mosquitoes were chosen to carry Oboe the most important pathfinding equipment, and marked for Bomber Command's heaviest and most important attacks, by day and night. They led the tremendous assault on enemy rail communications prior to D-Day, made possible precision attacks on V-weapons sites and depots and, in the hands of some of the RAF's most skilled crews, marked the smallest of targets almost from ground level to six miles up."

"As a nightfighter it took over the defence of Britain in 1943 and, fitted with remarkable British-invented radar, virtually prevented night intrusion over Britain. Mosquitoes had claimed 659 enemy aircraft by the end of November 1944, and brought down over five hundred flying-bombs in the first and worst sixty-one nights of this fresh scourge."

"They laid maines in enemy waters and blocked the Keil Canal."

"It photographed and surveyed the whole of Europe, almost to the borders of Russia."

"Mosquitoes discovered the existence of the V-weapons, their launching sites and associated depots."

"A Mosquito found the Tirpitz in a Norweigian fjord..."

"The weather was reported ahead of every major RAF and USAAF attack and when the Americans formed their own meteorological unit they chose Mosquitoes..."

This from British Aircraft of World War Two by David Mondey; not especially crucial to the war effort, but at that time (late 1942 - early 1943) the Allies did not have an aircraft that could do these things.

"...these two squadrons [105 and 139] were to cause a great deal of heartache for the Germans as they ranged far and wide. Even before that date, 105 Sqn had hit headlines with a daring low-level attack on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo."

"They were also to cause considerable annoyance to two of Germany's VIPs, when, on 31 January 1943, 105 Sqn became the first Mosquito unit to attack Berlin, successfully accomplishing the task of scattering a parade that was to be addressed by Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe."

"When on the same day, no 139 Sqn gave precisely the same treatment to a parade to be brain washed by Dr Goebbels, it was probably true to say that No.2 Group's activities were becoming extremely embarrasing."



> Don't know where it fits in the top ten, but I can't wait to see that!



Already have and its definitely in mine (he says, feeling pretty smug about now - look, the whole country got some mileage out of it, so I'm gonna too. Forget Middle Earth, New Zealand is now Home of the de Havilland Mosquito Restoration; Number Two is definitely on its way)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2013)

People who say they are not impressed with the Mossie have obviously not been up close an personal with them. Ive only ever seen one fly, but that was enough for me.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

I AM impressed with it, but not as a major warplane. As an interdiction or PR platform, yes. Even as a night fighter, yes. None of the preceeding wins wars ... it is a thorn in the side of the target, but not a crippling blow.

I don't have any issue with including it on anyone else's list and won't argue it much if at all, enjoy. It doesn't make mine, but I'm a big fan of the type nevertheless. Yes, we operated a few Mosquitos. Britain operated a few P-38's, too. Neither country adopted the other's plane as primary anything. They operated a few becasue we were trading assets among ourselves. If these assets had not been avilable, we'd have done it with our own planes, as would have the Brits. Nothing implied or intended there. If you don't have one option you want, you develop other options.

Personally, I'd love to work on one and fly in it.


----------



## David Scott (Apr 8, 2013)

First "real" post so be gentle...

- DeHavilland Mosquito. Probably one of the single most important aircraft in the European Theatre. Could carry almost the same bomb load as the B17 further, faster and without need of escort or even defensive weapons. Low level, high level bomber. Anti-shipping, night fighter. The only thing that it didn't excel in was dog fighting. Not to mention it could do this while evading radar.

- Spitfire/Hurricane. Without the BoB "twins" (and radar) who knows how long the war would have lasted. It might have been over. As a side note, the Spitfire (next to the Jaguar E-Type) is the most beautiful thing created by man. 

- B17/Lancaster. These two heavies gave the Allies the one two punch that brought the Nazi industrial complex down. 

- Mustang. Being able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin and then strafe airfields on the way back. Enough said.

- Dakota. As important as the jeep and Liberty ships.

- Catalina/Sunderland. Invaluable for keeping the supply routes open during the battle of the Atlantic.

- Typhoon/Thunderbolt. Two different ways to skin a cat. Both devastatingly effective.

Honourable mentions: Beaufighter, Lightning, Liberator and Harvard.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 8, 2013)

David, you are never going to cut the mustard in this forum with courtesy and considered opinions. Eat some concrete and harden up!
Re the mighty Mossie, for me it hovers on the edge of my top ten most crucial. If the question had been best ten without qualification it would be in my top three. But bear in mind all, leaving it out of the top ten MOST CRUCIAL does not need to be denial of the the Mossies undoubted excellence relative to pretty much any other WWII aircraft you could name


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

I agree with everything except the "one of the single most important" part. Love the Mosquito, but it wasn't one of the single most important in the many books I have read. If the war had been a Hollywood movie, the Mosquito was a shoo-in for "best supporting actor," but would never be the headliner. Important, yes. Best? ... no.

The slugging went to other types and Mosquito did what it did best, sneak in and bomb a target at low level and high speed. Keeps 'em jumping and wondering what is next. But it doesn't win the war. Helps out a lot? Yes.

Oh yeah, courtesy helps out a lot ... prevents flaming wars, which get the attention of moderators. When they send you a "like," it's fine. When they tell you to be nice, it means you're on a short leash and close to being banned. If you're nice to start with, they don't need to send you nasty messages ... which is, in itself, a nice thing.

We can disagree without getting ugly. It's the way constructive discourse happens all the time. I may not agree with you, but you have the right to your opinion regardless. Me too.

The war is 70+ years past, so how much difference can it make if one of us is right or wrong? Might as well be friendly about it and not get locked out of the discussion for having a 10-year old temper.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2013)

Hi Greg, cool as. Yep, the Mossie is one beautiful aeroplane and, like you, I would love to get the chance to work on it or fly in it, but I guess I'm gonna have to settle with watching it do its stuff! Which is still pretty awesome.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

Hey Nuuumannn, get some video and post it, OK? Altogether a great bird and worth the watch.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> We can disagree without getting ugly. It's the way constructive discourse happens all the time. I may not agree with you, but you have the right to your opinion regardless. Me too.
> 
> The war is 70+ years past, so how much difference can it make if one of us is right or wrong? Might as well be friendly about it and not get locked out of the discussion for having a 10-year old temper.


 
David, meet Greg. He's kind of the wandering Shoalin monk of the forum, dispensing peace and love wherever he goes.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2013)

ah grasshopper.....you move in mysterious ways.....


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 9, 2013)

Hi Greg,

First, I've been having trouble with my internet / hotmail. Did the emails get through?

One or two elements of your posts above merit a response. The sortie numbers you have quoted are for all of Bomber Command and Bomber Command only. There's around 27,000 - 28,000 night bomber sorties, about 10,000 night-fighting and intruding sorties, about 1,300 weather recce sorties, 540-odd RCM sorties and 726 daylight sorties with 2 Group in '42-'43 (they did other daylight sorties with 8 Group in '44 and '45, which are included in the 27-28k).

The hit-and-run sorties you refer to are the very small minority of daylight ops. The 27 or 28,000-odd night sorties were to the same targets as the heavies, into the teeth of defences which knew the Mossies were coming in the same way they knew the heavies were coming. 

So the harm's way into which the Mosquitos were flying was just as deadly as that faced by the heavies. In fact the Mossies seem to have been active on more nights than the four-engined force, though I've not done a numerical analysis. In addition, one of the Mosquito's functions was to spoof the defenders' attention onto themselves, and away from the more vulnerable four-engine jobs.

You mention Berlin. I believe that post-March 1944, the only Bomber Command aircraft going to Berlin were Mosquitos. During 1945, the months for which I have the most straightforward data, the Mosquito force dispatched 3,900 sorties to Berlin, into the strongest flak and night-fighter defences the Reich could muster, at a cost of fourteen Mossies which failed to return.

All of which is a long way of saying that if the Mosquito loss rates were low, it wasn't due to their mission selection.

You should also be aware that the heavy force's loss rates are flattered by the final year of the war. As I discussed with dragondog here recently, the Bomber Command loss rate dropped in a similar way to that of the USAAF as sorties over Germany jumped. The nocturnal Mosquito force loss rates were always lower than the heavies, even when the Luftwaffe was at the height of its powers. All a long way of saying, please don't think the Lanc had a 2.2% loss rate across the war.














Total sortie and loss numbers from Middlebrook via Hastings, Mossie sorties from Sharp Bowyer, losses from Air Britain, Bomber Command Losses, inter alia, cumulative loss rates my calculations.

I'm not sure where the comment about durability comes from. For what it's worth, 2nd TAF Fighter-Bomber Mosquitos undertook about 18,000 sorties by day and by night. During daylight sorties in 1944, they were returning damaged slightly more than 8.4% of the time, against loss rates of 1.8%. Given what they were doing at the time, this will have been damage from flak guns.

I also don't agree that other aircraft could have undertaken the Mossie's pathfinding duties. As I've posted here before, one of the Mossie's finest hours was as an Oboe platform. Other aircraft had neither the altitude performance to get useful range from the system, nor the speed to get the crews back safely. Oboe was tried on an experimantal basis on Lancs late in 1944, with tragic results. Pathfinding was dangerous work - 8 Group took higher percentage losses on all of the Wellington, Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster than all the other groups, with the sole exception of 5 Group having a few tenths of a % higher losses on Lancs. The Mosquito did the most important work of the Bomber Force in a demonstrably better way than other aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2013)

Hi Greg, I'm loving Mhuxt's last post, Sorry! I've got a couple of low pass clips taken with my crappy camera, so once I figure out how to upload video, which might take some time given we have the slowest broadband in the world, I'll put them on. Only short clips, mind.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 9, 2013)

You didn't get the *cough* unedited version, did you?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> Mosquitos were given mostly sneak interdiction mission where opposition was unlikely.



Opposition unlikely? Really? Let's see...following targets flown by 105 Sqn:

Kiel
Nantes
Calais
Jena
Berlin
Eindhoven
Essen
Osnabruck
Cologne
Munster

And the above was gleaned from just a cursory glance at names that leapt out from photos or chapter titles (from the book "Mosquito Thunder") for one Mosquito squadron. I think you'll find pretty much all those targets were also attacked by USAAF B-17s and B-24s at various stages of the war...so your statement about "opposition was unlikely" seems a little suspect to me.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

When you are coming in at 100 feet at 350 mph in WWII, you are a bit unexpected ... unless they KNOW you are coming, when, and from where.

Don't know about you, but go to any big arishow and wait for the jet acro team if it comes in from another ariport and not the one you're on. You are always surprised about where they come from ... and they're flying slow because it's an airshow. If they were flying at the speed of anger, they'd surprise even an alert gunner.

No, I don't have the fighter stats and want them ...

Mhuxt, I'll check email ... and thanks! I'll respond.

Cobber, my real name is Quai Chang and my nickname is grasshopper ... but it's named after a drink, not an insect. Some Shaolin wisdom, "It is truly said that a man has twice as many ears and noses. The road to wisdom is long and difficult, which is why I asked you to bring sandwiches and change of clothing."

Don't worry, be happy. Put a lime in the coconut and drink 'em both up ... and bring spanners for the Merlin, and a LOT of bolts and rags.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2013)

So they used smart tactics to hit the target. Who said war was about giving the opposition a chance to hit you? I thought it was about schwacking the other guy first. 

My primary gripe was with your statement about opposition being unlikely but even the "sneak attack" assertion is suspect since, although many Mossie attacks were done at low level, several were done at medium/high altitude including attacks on Essen, Osnabruck, Berlin, Cologne and Munster (again, this just for 105 Sqn...results for other squadrons may vary). The Mossie made its name in low-level daylight attacks during 1942 but it operated at multiple levels and went into some well-defended targets well above "sneak attack" altitudes.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

Isn't "schwacking" a dirty word? What does it mean? Nevermind ... all of us have probably schwacked on occasion.

I didn't say the Mosquito never faced any opposition, I said it was a a PR and interdiction aircraft par excellence. Sure it flew some hairy missions. A B-17 or Lancaster flew one every combat sortie without the protection of speed or altitude. My point is simple, if the Mossie flies missions with the same risk as the primary hitters, it assumes the same risk ... and it mostly didn't. It flew at night and low and fast and at targets that were not expected to be attacked due to remoteness (definition of interdiction?). If they WERE expected to be attacked, they didn't seem to know the Mosquitos were coming most of the time. So it had low loss rates.

Put the plane in a high-threat environement and the results will be different. Nothing wrong with what they DID at all. Great performance.

Doesn't make my top ten and won't unless I learn of more war-changing accomplishments rather than a few spectatular raids that were pulled off quite nicely ... but were not a real impact to the enemy. Breaking up a German parade is not exactly a war winning strategy, and I didn't even bring that one up myself.

Bombing a city into submission is a war winning action. Raiding Gestapo HQ isn't, but IS spectacular and makes headlines. Mostly it causes the Gestapo to move their HQ to another location, hopefully farther away from you. Large-scale destruction is what matters in war, not pinpoint raids unless rescue is needed. Then pinpoint raids are timely and necessary, but do NOT beat the enemy. They only embarass him and free a few people. Nice but not a way to win wars.

Take down a city block where HQ is located and the story changes. Take down an Army Division and it gets better. Disrupt rail traffic and you help out down the line.

Don't get me wrong ... I LIKE the odd raids, but they don't win wars, they make good headlines and help morale. Want to win the war, send Lancasters, B-17's, Halifax's,and B-24's, escorted by long range fighters of most any sort that can make the trip. 

Want headlines? Send in the Mosquitos. 

Spectacular, but not really a player in the big picture.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2013)

shwacking....is that a technical term?


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2013)

Are we confusing Pathfinders and elements of the Light Night Striking Force and other specialist Mosquito equipped units? Most Pathfinder squadrons were Lancaster equipped.

8 (Pathfinder Force) Group flew the following sorties.

Wellington 305 5.6% lost
Halifaxes 2,106 3.7% lost
Stirlings 826 4.5% lost

Lancaster 19,601 2.3% lost
Mosquito 28,215 0.4% lost
Total Heavy 22,838 2.5% lost

It seems to me that important though the Mosquito was it was not _vital_. I'd want it and I'd want to fly it,but "sealing the fate of nazi Germany"?

I think the bombing campaign would have carried on with much the same schedule with or without it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> Cobber, my real name is Quai Chang and my nickname is grasshopper ... but it's named after a drink, not an insect. Some Shaolin wisdom, "It is truly said that a man has twice as many ears and noses. The road to wisdom is long and difficult, which is why I asked you to bring sandwiches and change of clothing."



Would you believe that show was the absolute first time I ever heard of something called martial arts? Saw it about the same time as I picked up a book called The Big Show, and they both made a big impression. Never did get close to being a fighter pilot, and years of trying to be Kwai Chang just earned me a few free trips to Japan where the locals kicked the snot out of me. These days I watch Seventies reruns and teach. Ah, Grasshopper, time wounds all heels...


----------



## Aozora (Apr 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> shwacking....is that a technical term?


 
Urban dictionary meaning intoxicated or stoned out of one's tiny brain Urban Dictionary: schwacked ; so I guess "schwacking' the other guy" means dropping large amounts of liquor or weed in the hope that the adversary will become deeply happy and care-free...   THAT'S why Spitfires were carrying beer barrels! - it was a top secret campaign to get the German troops in Normandy totally sozzled by encouraging them to hold early Oktoberfests!!!

Some reasons why the Mosquito was vital - apart from the bombing:

1) Once NF Mosquitos began escorting Bomber Command raids they paralysed a hitherto effective Luftwaffe night fighter force, in much the same way that the P-51 affected the day fighters. 

2) How much time, energy and scarce resources did the Germans waste on anti-Mosquito measures? The Mosquito affected the development of the Bf 109, He 219 and Me 262 - Jgr 50, for example was formed specifically to counter the Mosquito, and failed; the He 219, as good as it was, couldn't hope to counter the Mosquito, even with the stripped out "hotrod" A-6 version. The only aircraft that could consistently catch Mosquitos was the Me 262. How many flak shells and other such were wasted trying to counter Mosquito raids?

3) The psychological effects of Mosquito raids were as important as the physical effects: Mosquitos could attack targets in conditions when the heavy bombers couldn't, and by the end of the 1944 Mosquitos were regularly carrying out two sorties in one night. The sheer fact that Mosquito raids could happen at any time meant lots of jittery, nervous people, because a 4,000 lb bomb could do a substantial amount of damage, regardless of whether it was dropped in a mere "nuisance" attack or not.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2013)

I agree with your points 2 and 3. I don't agree that the Mosquitos ever paralysed the Luftwaffe nightfighter force. 

A quick look at the number of claims through 1944 would tend to dispel that idea.Night fighters shot down nearly 6,000 bombers throughout the war (according to Theo Boiten,I've not added up the figures!). 

The total number of victories are similar in 1943 and 1944, 1,820 and 2,335 in the west. Those are Boiten's figures,he spent seven years researching them. I compiled some from various sources which are a bit higher,but we'll go with his. In any case,that doesn't look like paralysed to me. 

The final RAF victim,a Lancaster,fell to Herbert Koch of NJG 3 on the night of 25/26 April 1945.

The effectiveness of the "Nachjagd" waxed and waned throughout the war,hardly surprising in what was largely a battle of technologies. It was finally done for in late 1944 but this had nothing to do with the RAF's Mosquitoes. There was a well documented fuel shortage and an inability to train new crews. A night fighter crew requires a lot of training and with the USAAF dominating the day time skies it was simply impossible to achieve,even had the fuel been available.

It wasn't until very late in the war that the allies finally won the electronic war. As Major Werner Hoffmann,Gruppenkommandeur of I./NJG 5 recorded on the night of _the_ Dresden raid.

"By this time,early 1945,the British completely jammed our radio,radar etc. We were practically dependent on our eyes,for all practicle purposes we were blind again."

This equipment wasn't carried by Mosquitoes either.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Apr 9, 2013)

> 2) How much time, energy and scarce resources did the Germans waste on anti-Mosquito measures? The Mosquito affected the development of the Bf 109, He 219 and Me 262 - Jgr 50, for example was formed specifically to counter the Mosquito, and failed; the He 219, as good as it was, couldn't hope to counter the Mosquito, even with the stripped out "hotrod" A-6 version. The only aircraft that could consistently catch Mosquitos was the Me 262. How many flak shells and other such were wasted trying to counter Mosquito raids?
> 
> 3) The psychological effects of Mosquito raids were as important as the physical effects: Mosquitos could attack targets in conditions when the heavy bombers couldn't, and by the end of the 1944 Mosquitos were regularly carrying out two sorties in one night. The sheer fact that Mosquito raids could happen at any time meant lots of jittery, nervous people, because a 4,000 lb bomb could do a substantial amount of damage, regardless of whether it was dropped in a mere "nuisance" attack or not.



I want to add that point 2 and 3 were homemade german problems and *not* on the first side influenced by the Mossie.
The Mossie Killer was developed as production ready fighter since 1938 (FW 187), but the leading commanders of the LW were to stupid to produce this a/c. This issue is very controversy even on this board, but with all facts we know today, the LW could have the right answer to the Moussie since it's introduction. so all efforts later (Bf 109, He 219, Me 262) were needless and *only* homemade LW problems.

Anyway the Moussie is to me one of this 10 aircrafts of this thread, also to me she was not that mythical as much other person see her.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2013)

Point number two was indeed a "homemade" problem but it was still a problem and a valid point.

Point number three I believe to be valid,but it was hardly war winning. Had the Mosquitoes not carried out that role It would have made no difference to the bombing campaign or the war generally.

The thread wasn't about good or effective aircraft,both of which the Mosquito was. It was about aircraft that sealed nazi Germany's fate.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Apr 9, 2013)

By my personal point of view, the planes that “sealed” the Axis fate were:

1st and most important, Spitfire. It clearly shown that Nazis could be beaten.
2nd – B24. It closed the N.A. Gap and made the Nazi submarine force useless.
3rd – Swordfish. The Taranto raid practically stopped the activity of the Italian Navy, on which Hitler was counting a lot, and its use against the Bismarck sealed as well the surface activity of Kriegsmarine.
4th – Lancaster. Not only for the damage inflicted, but because the thousands of 88 flak used against them could have been used very efficiently against the Red Army tanks.
5th – B17. Ditto.
6th – P 51. Many German General understood, seeing a single engine fighter over Berlin, that the war was lost.
7th – P47. To hole the engine of a train that carried ammo or fuel was probably more important than trying, unsuccesfully, to destroy the factories.
8th – Typhoon. Ditto.
9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible the air defence.
10th – C47 – Without logistic, no Army can fight.

All the others Allied planes, say Tempests, P38s (that I love...) etc. were “extremely useful”, but they did not seal the Axis fate.....


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

Hi Elmas,

A nice, well thought out list, concisely presented. That's what the thread is all about. Thanks.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2013)

Yep,that's a good list. Mine might not be exactly the same,but if it was there'd be no fun 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2013)

stona said:


> Are we confusing Pathfinders and elements of the Light Night Striking Force and other specialist Mosquito equipped units? Most Pathfinder squadrons were Lancaster equipped.
> 
> 8 (Pathfinder Force) Group flew the following sorties.
> 
> ...



Hi Steve

Could you clarify this please, by my schoolyard arithmatic, the Mosquito flew more pathfinder sorties than everyone else combined? Is there a mis-transcription here? What is the source for your claim so i can verify for myself?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2013)

Mosquitoes had a tangible effect on German nightfighters, as demonstrated by the extremely high attrition rates they suffered to non-combat relatedf causes after the introduction of Mosquito "escorts" and intruder operations. Ive read many times about the extreme stresses places on the nightfighter crews by the fear of Mosquito presence. It forced them to adopt dangerous expedients, like flying low, that at time opushed their attrition rates (to alol causes) to above sustainable levels. 

Arguing that Mosquitoes did not have an effect on German defences in the Night Bombig camapign is a nonsense


----------



## DonL (Apr 9, 2013)

Crew training, fuel stocks and partly radar shortcomings are *much more *valid then the NF Moussie.
Also the Ju 88 G-1 and G-6 are absolutely equal to the performance of the NF Moussie.

Every late war NF Beaufighter had the same effect then the NF Moussie.
Nonsense is to overestimate the effect of the NF Moussie.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 9, 2013)

DonL said:


> Crew training, fuel stocks and partly radar shortcomings are *much more *valid then the NF Moussie.
> Also the Ju 88 G-1 and G-6 are absolutely equal to the performance of the NF Moussie.
> 
> Every late war NF Beaufighter had the same effect then the NF Moussie.
> Nonsense is to overestimate the effect of the NF Moussie.


 
The only late-war Beaufighters I'm aware of were in Coastal Command, the Med and Asia. 100 Group stopped using them over the Reich in December '43.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2013)

> The Mossie Killer was developed as production ready fighter since 1938 (FW 187)



I don't understand how the Germans could build a Mossie killer before the Mossie had even been built! Nevertheless, valid points, DonL. I also don't believe anyone is over emphasising the abilities of the Mosquito; it's hard not to sit up and take notice when its performance and versatility was as good as it was _at that time_. This is the key to things; the Mosquito was considered to be far more of a revelation when it was built than how we view it today because of what it offered. These days, a twin engined unarmed bomber with high performance is not such a big thing, but then, that was food for thought and intolerable for many in the RAF Air Staff. 

Excitement about its versatility came from the sheer number of roles and how well it could do those jobs compared to other types, and yes, the LW had the Ju 88, but the Mossie could out perform the Ju 88 in almost every respect (Ju 88G-7b max speed 389 mph, ceiling 32,810 ft, climb 500 ft/min, Mossie NF.XV max speed 412 mph, ceiling 43,000 ft, climb 3,500 ft/min - this is not to denigrate the Ju 88, terrific aeroplane), and although later Ju 88 NF performance was equal and sometimes better than the early NF Mossies, the Mossies were doing that performance long before the Ju 88 was. 

This is the point; when it entered service, no twin engined fighter or bomber had the outright performance of the type (service aircraft, not prototypes), nor could any other type do the wide range of tasks the Mossie could in the same airframe.

I guess you have to forgive us for expressing how good the Mossie was - and it was no myth that it was that good; its performance and capabilities had no equal in any other aircraft of its size/weight class. Its war record speaks for itself also. I don't think anyone expresses any exaggeration about the Mosquito's performance and abilities because there is no need to, unlike some German types that are regularly discussed here.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 9, 2013)

The FW 187 was a very interesting design that never seemed fully realized. One of the complaints the LW had against it was that it lacked defensive armor. The adding of this weight surely would have impacted its performance (echoes of the P-39 here). The world at that time was moving toward the single engine fighter and unless it was very sturdy airframe capable of a number of roles such as a Mossie or Bf-110 it probably would have been a waste of time. After all, Tank needed to busy himself with the FW-190 and so forth.


----------



## DonL (Apr 9, 2013)

I have written enough facts and presented enough primary sources in this forum about the FW 187.
Fact is, that the FW 187 would be able to intercept the Moussie in every role and it was not a prototype it was developed till a production series with a preproduction series that was built.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2013)

Careful, FlakDancer, there are some who frequent this forum who'd view your comments about the Fw187 as sacrilege, blasphemous and potentially treasonable worthy of the death sentence. 

Cue long rambling discussion about how the Fw187 was the Luftwaffe's missed opportunity to dominate the skies over Britain, the Soviet Union, America, anywhere....


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 9, 2013)

Thank you buffnutt543. Not here to step on landmines. It would have been a fantastic plane, but since I was not born yet, I had no say in the matter.


----------



## DonL (Apr 9, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Careful, FlakDancer, there are some who frequent this forum who'd view your comments about the Fw187 as sacrilege, blasphemous and potentially treasonable worthy of the death sentence.
> 
> Cue long rambling discussion about how the Fw187 was the Luftwaffe's missed opportunity to dominate the skies over Britain, the Soviet Union, America, anywhere....



Interesting reply, but please show me where I have written such things.
There is a search function in this forum and we have had a lot of threads about the FW 187 and there are many presented facts and primary sources.
It is boring to repeat them in every thread.
Anyway I have my personal opinion about the FW 187 compare to the Moussie and I have delivered substained facts for this opinion.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2013)

I wasn't referring to you specifically DonL. There are several Fw187 apologists/proponents on this forum. I think you posted your message just before mine so I didn't see yours before mine hit the server (note the posting times, only a minute apart which is, essentially, simultaneous given the timing accuracy of the posting info) - my response was intended for FlakDancer, hence it was addressed to him.


----------



## DonL (Apr 9, 2013)

Oh sorry, I haven't seen the time.
My apology.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2013)

No worries - the smilies were a bit of a giveaway that I wasn't being particularly serious.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

Hi DonL, They only built 25 Fw 187's and the A-0 version went 329 mph (at altitude) against the early Mosquito prototype's 392 mph. How's it going to catch the Mossie? How's it going to outperform the Mossie? It had 700 HP engines for crying out loud. The airframe never got DB 600 series engines. And you think it was better than the Mosquito?

Please ... stick to real-world, live aircraft. An Fw 187 that outperformed the Mosquito is pure fantasy. If the DB 600 were fitted to the Fw 187 and if the CG issue could have been corrected, maybe the British would fit another fantasy engine to the Mosquito, too. Who can say. We should conccern ourselves with REAL airplanes, not fantasies.

In the event, the Fw 187 was a disappointment to the designer, the Luftwaffe, and the Reich. The Mosquito was exactly the opposite, and roamed freeely over the European skies for YEARS without an effective counter. On the last day of the war in Europe, any Mosquito on a solo mission was almost uninterceptable by anything other than a jet. And they didn't have too good a record at doing it when it counted.

There was no Ju 88 that could catch a typical Mosquito, either. As a night fighter the Ju 88 was good or even excellent, but not against Mosquitos, particularly against the NF Mosquitos who could see them as well as be seen.


----------



## DonL (Apr 10, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi DonL, They only built 9 Fw 187's and the A-0 version went 329 mph (at altitude) against the early Mosquito prototype's 392 mph. How's it going to catch the Mossie? How's it going to outperform the Mossie? It had 700 HP engines for crying out loud. The airframe never got DB 600 series engines. And you think it was better than the Mosquito?
> 
> Please ... stick to real-world, live aircraft. An Fw 187 that outperformed the Mosquito is pure fantasy. If the DB 600 were fitted to the Fw 187 and if the CG issue could have been corrected, maybe the British would fit another fantasy engine to the Mosquito, too. Who can say. We should conccern ourselves with REAL airplanes, not fantasies.
> 
> ...



Mr. GregP you are very incorrect!
The airframe of the FW 187 was designed from the beginning for the 35Liter 1000PS engines (here DB engines) out of it's advertisement.
There were no CG issue that must have been corrected and it wasn't by far any disappointment to the designer, quiet the opposite. 
The airframe FW 187 V5 got the DB engines (DB 601 A1 1000PS each), first flight September 1939 and clocked 635km/h (with full armour and armament) at SL (1000m) and flew till 1942.

So please read some facts and primary sources and don't make unsubstained claims, which are obviously wrong and not reality.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

The fact is there were about 25 fw 187's and none ever caught or damaged a Mosquito. It would be better if you can live with the facts. Fanstasy is nice but not relevant to the real world of actual combat. The Fw 187 was a blind alley as far as a combat aircraft is concerned.

Nice but absolutely irrelevant.

None of them did anything in the war ... it had no kills and no operational success at all.

How can you claim anything else? The facts are evident.

Big Zero!


----------



## Elmas (Apr 10, 2013)

There have been a lot of planes that on the blueprints and as prototipes have been outstanding, but nothing than a failure when they got in the Operative Squadrons.
See the Breda Ba 88, about wich in another 3d or Westland Whirlwind.
And that for many reasons, not only for a lack in general design, say not fully developed engines, difficult serviceability etc.
So, to overemphasize a plane that never went in numbers into an Operative Squadron it is not completely correct, by my personal point of view.


----------



## DonL (Apr 10, 2013)

> The Fw 187 was a blind alley as far as a combat aircraft is concerned.
> 
> Nice but absolutely irrelevant.
> 
> ...




Stick to your opinion without any backup sources and to your unsubstained claims.

I stick to my sources and facts about the FW 187, which killed a Spitfire for example at Norway

I have said my opinion in Post 215, if you can't live with this opinion it is your problem, but you have not a single right to tell me what is my opinion and what can I post here in this forum with backup sources!


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Hi Steve
> 
> Could you clarify this please, by my schoolyard arithmatic, the Mosquito flew more pathfinder sorties than everyone else combined? Is there a mis-transcription here? What is the source for your claim so i can verify for myself?



It did,but nearly as many were flown by heavies,particularly Lancasters. The idea that the Mosquito was indispensible to pathfinding operations doesn't hold up. With no Mosquitos there would still have been Pathfinders and markers,and backers up,and master bombers and ABC aircraft and Broadcast Winds and all the other functions which were historically carried out by Lancasters.

The figures are from Middlebrook and Everitt's Bomber Command War Diaries.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Mosquitoes had a tangible effect on German nightfighters, as demonstrated by the extremely high attrition rates they suffered to non-combat relatedf causes after the introduction of Mosquito "escorts" and intruder operations. Ive read many times about the extreme stresses places on the nightfighter crews by the fear of Mosquito presence. It forced them to adopt dangerous expedients, like flying low, that at time opushed their attrition rates (to alol causes) to above sustainable levels.
> 
> Arguing that Mosquitoes did not have an effect on German defences in the Night Bombig camapign is a nonsense



The Nachtjagd had a high attrition rate due to non operational causes long before the Mosquitoes were operating. It has a lot to do with flying in the dark. Attrition rates did rise as the war progressed but then it correlates well with the increasing number of less well trained crews. There are many reasons and Mosquitoes may be a contributing factor. It would need a serious analysis of statistics (the data for which probably doesn't exist) to establish just how much of an influence the presence of British night fighters was.

The original premise was that the Mosquito had the same effect "escorting" RAF night bombers as the P-51 had for the USAAF by day. That is simply not so. I never said that the Mosquitoes had no effect on the RAF's bombing campaign. I said that the campaign would have continued,more are less as it did historically,without them.

Anyone got a figure for how many Luftwaffe night fighters Mosquitoes actually shot down? I read a lot about how effective they were but don't seem to see any figures.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2013)

All I can say that IIRC in all of those several memoirs of German night fighter pilots I have read they mentioned the "fear of Mosquito" which forced to use risky landing procedures time to time.

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

The Nachjagd through 1943 until the third quarter of 1944 consistently shot down,by month,roughly 3%-5% 0f the attacking force. Obviously there were good nights and bad nights,from its point of view.
Lack of fuel,lack of crew training and ultimately loss of the technological war led to its demise,not the Mosquito.

A hammer blow fell when,in the early hours of 13th July 1944,a Ju 88 G-1 took of from Volkel in the Netherlands to fly a North Sea Patrol. It was a state of the art night fighter equipped with the then unjammable SN-2 AI radar,Naxos and Flensburg devices. The relatively inexperienced pilot,Ogfr. Mackle, made a perfect landing at about 04.30 hours. Unfortunately he had landed at Woodbridge in Suffolk and handed all the latest German technology to the British.

Within a month the British had developed countermeasures. They were also jamming the Germany's long range radars,employing specially equipped Stirlings,flying over the North Sea to this end. 100 Group flew "Radar Countermeasures" (RCM) operations jamming German ground control radar and radio,making a running commentary impossible.

In June 1944 the Luftwaffe's Nachjagd shot down 2.9% of the RAF's raiders. In December 1944 this fell to just 0.7%.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2013)

Hello Steve
one more important development was the Battle of France in 1944, LW lost the southern part of its early warning system and much space which means less room and time to react attacks through the airspace of France.

Juha


----------



## Aozora (Apr 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Anyone got a figure for how many Luftwaffe night fighters Mosquitoes actually shot down? I read a lot about how effective they were but don't seem to see any figures.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



I have 271 o.n.o German night fighters shot down by Mosquitos in just under a year (6 June '44 to May '45) cf 50 Mosquitos of all types and roles shot down by German night fighters between April 1943 and May '45 - Kurt Welter claimed he alone shot down 35 Mosquitos, but that is subject to a great deal of debate. (Tables in Sharpe and Bowyer, _Mosquito_, pages 460-467: Aders, _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_, page 245


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 10, 2013)

Yeah, I think there's one by Wilhelm Johnen (sp?) in Duel Under the Stars (?)

I've a database of about 1,350 Mosquito air-to-air claims, but without a lot more work it's all but impossible to tell how many NJ craft are in that total. Maybe in 15 or 20 years...


----------



## DonL (Apr 10, 2013)

Are this confirmed or claimed shot downs.
Had anyone checked german sources for losses at this timeline?

If this are only claims then there are perhaps 30-50 kills, that are the normal overestimation.


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2013)

DonL said:


> Are this confirmed or claimed shot downs.
> Had anyone checked german sources for losses at this timeline?
> 
> If this are only claims then there are perhaps 30-50 kills, that are the normal overestimation.



Hello Don
I really like to know on what you base your claim?
Because night claims tended to be more reliable than daytime claims, Mostly because they were usually 1 to 1 combats, short range and nightfigters usually had good firepower.

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

Let's ignore Welter,many of his claims are proveably untrue. You can't shoot down a Mosquito when none are within 300 miles of you!

The Nachtjagd,including zerstorer and on all operations,including day time,had 4,800 destroyed or damaged (less than 60%) in action. 

That figure for non-operational causes is 6,200 for a total lost and damaged of 10,000.

The total destroyed,all causes,was 6,700.

Those totals are from Boiten,I don't think anyone has come up with any better.

That should put the Mosquito claims/victories into perspective.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 10, 2013)

Steve, what's the source that breaks out the losses to flak and fighters? I had it in my head that there was one, but quite what, I don't know.

DpnL - Going through the German sources is what's going to take the 15-20 years I mentioned above. I have Scherzer's book, not Balss', Scherzer's db is by unit by name, my db is by date... Rough count says there's already around 170 entries that already have NJG references.


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Steve, what's the source that breaks out the losses to flak and fighters? I had it in my head that there was one, but quite what, I don't know.



I'm scratching my head too. I remember something but have no note of it (I'm an inveterate note taker!)or it's lost in my Byzantine file system. 
I've got lists by date of all night fighter victories. if I had a spare day I suppose that could be toted up and subtracted from total operational Bomber Command losses by date,which I also have somewhere,to give a rough idea.
I'll have a look this evening,hopefully someone has already done that. After that I'm away from my library for a while unfortunately.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 10, 2013)

I suppose there would have been something coming out of the Operational Research Section, though perhaps only for the big raids, I don't know. I've seen maps with the routes in out, little markers for bombers seen to crash, combats reported, etc.

Does your NF victory list run into 1945? (Not from Foreman, is it...?) Looking for a couple on 7/8 February '45, 14/15 April '45, though the latter is probably flak or misadventure.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Let's ignore Welter,many of his claims are proveably untrue. You can't shoot down a Mosquito when none are within 300 miles of you!
> 
> The Nachtjagd,including zerstorer and on all operations,including day time,had 4,800 destroyed or damaged (less than 60%) in action.
> 
> ...



Yep, sure night fighters were able to shoot down unescorted, relatively underarmed bombers in large numbers - but they could do so with impunity, knowing that there were no escort fighters around to counter attack. It would be interesting, but impossible (obviously) to know how many more bombers would have been shot down without any Mosquitos escorting them and mounting intruder raids on German night fighter fields.

I'm not saying the Mosquito night fighters were the only factor in the Luftwaffe's diminishing effectiveness: however, they were still important, not just in shooting down German night fighters but in making it impossible for German night fighter crews to operate efficiently from their own airfields. Wilhelm Johnan, for example, was just one NF pilot who wrote about being intercepted by a Mosquito while coming in to land on his home base and having his 110 shot up. Like the civilian population the German nightfighters crews had to contend with the sheer unpredictability of Mosquito raids. The facts and figures can be argued ad-nauseum, so I won't continue because we both have valid arguments...

Except When all Mosquito operations are considered from photo-recon to night and day bombing, pinpoint raids, anti-shipping operations etc, the Mosquito was one of those 10 decisive aircraft.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 10, 2013)

DonL said:


> Anyway I have my personal opinion about the FW 187 compare to the Moussie and I have delivered substained facts for this opinion.



What is this Moussie a little mouse?


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

As for the Fw 187.......total production all types ,0,unless you include all the prototypes and pre-production aircraft. Then you can just about stagger into double figures (V1-V7 and the 6 A-0s actually completed).
The Mosquito........total production all types,7,619.
Talk about a redundant argument 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Let's ignore Welter,many of his claims are proveably untrue. You can't shoot down a Mosquito when none are within 300 miles of you!
> 
> The Nachtjagd,including zerstorer and on all operations,including day time,had 4,800 destroyed or damaged (less than 60%) in action.
> 
> ...



Steve - unless separate and detailed loss lists exist it would be difficult to extract losses to 8th/9th AF during deployment of NJG units against daylight attacks, or more difficult - those shot up on the ground?


----------



## stona (Apr 10, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Does your NF victory list run into 1945? (Not from Foreman, is it...?) Looking for a couple on 7/8 February '45, 14/15 April '45, though the latter is probably flak or misadventure.



Well,Foreman and others.

There are several claims in the Foreman/Matthews/Parry book from 2004,but they are impossible to tally with Bomber Command's losses for that night. 10 aircraft were lost,4 Lancasters,4 Mosquitoes and 2 Halifaxes.

Of note is Hptm.Gerhard Raht's _six_ claims. Always possible but suspicious when they comprise numbers 46-51. This sort of cluster around landmark numbers always makes my antennae twitch. He got his "Oak Leaves" on 15th April.

On 14/15th April (Potsdam) I assume you are looking for the one Lancaster shot down by a night fighter,according to the RAF. There's no surviving claim to match that,just one of Welter's Mosquito claims. Almost certainly one of the thirtyish that don't match any RAF loss rather than the three that do!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

OK DonL, point taken. In your post #215 I see you used some really unimpeachable sources, too, didn't you, or do you just want sources from me?

The highly touted Ta-152 consumed a LOT of resources and shot down from 7 to 10 Allied planes at the cost of 4 Ta-152 losses. Did the Fw 187 do better? Tell you what, why don't you tell us the war and production record of the Fw 187 so we can all see it together, of course with sources. By now I'm sure everyone is wondering just how wrong I am, so c'mon ... post the kill and loss list. Which is longer?

The USA lost about 31,000 planes on operations, the British lost about 29,000 and the Russian lost about 30,000. That's 120,000 planes on operations exclusive of domestic training and the like. 

What did the Fw 187 do to contribute? Kill one? Now there's a keeper ... at least it was a Spitfire ... respectable if nothing else.

The Fw 187 first flew in 1937 (designed about the time of the Westland Whirlwind and XP-38 Lightning) and the de Havilland Mosquito first flew in 1940. Did the Germans have some magic that allowed them to design a Mosquito killer before it ever flew? That was asked above but ignored. Perhaps the occult? No, it was just in development first and wasn't close to being as good as the real Mosquito (actually it was named the Falke ... Falcon). 

It was a failure as a design and was scrapped. The glue issue could have been corrected ... I don't see why not. Everyone else had good glue and the plane had potential. But the people in command didn't elect to spend any more time or resources on it, so they cancelled it. It became another "might have been," like so many other promising airframes. We certainly had our share of them. All countries did as far as I can tell. No sense crying over an obscure failed prototype. The He 100 was probably a better failure as a fighter.

You know, when I look this thing up to check my numbers, I still get 9 aircraft produced from at least 5 difference sources. Maybe someone out there could suggest a source that shows more?


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Cue long rambling discussion about how the Fw187 was the Luftwaffe's missed opportunity to dominate the skies over Britain, the Soviet Union, America, anywhere....



See? I was right!!!


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Well,Foreman and others.
> 
> There are several claims in the Foreman/Matthews/Parry book from 2004,but they are impossible to tally with Bomber Command's losses for that night. 10 aircraft were lost,4 Lancasters,4 Mosquitoes and 2 Halifaxes.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that. I was mainly after two 100 Group aircraft on 7/8 Feb. Chorley says one of them was shot down by a night fighter, the other one cause unknown, but I've not been able to find a corresponding claim. Might be the dreaded friendly fire, but I can't find a matching Mossie claim either.

14/15 April is a couple of 2nd TAF aircraft which were lost in Northern Germany, heading for Wismar.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 10, 2013)

GregP said:


> What did the Fw 187 do to contribute? Kill one? Now there's a keeper ... at least it was a Spitfire ... respectable if nothing else.
> 
> The Fw 187 first flew in 1937 (designed about the time of the Westland Whirlwind and XP-38 Lightning) and the de Havilland Mosquito first flew in 1940. Did the Germans have some magic that allowed them to design a Mosquito killer before it ever flew? That was asked above but ignored. Perhaps the occult? No, it was just in development first and wasn't close to being as good as the real Mosquito (actually it was named the Falke ... Falcon).
> 
> It was a failure as a design and was scrapped. The glue issue could have been corrected ... I don't see why not. Everyone else had good glue and the plane had potential. But the people in command didn't elect to spend any more time or resources on it, so they cancelled it. It became another "might have been," like so many other promising airframes. We certainly had our share of them. All countries did as far as I can tell. No sense crying over an obscure failed prototype. The He 100 was probably a better failure as a fighter.



The Fw187 was of all metal construction.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

Just becasue it was basically metal doesn't mean it as ALL metal. There are a lot of cases of mixed construction. I know the Ta 154 was pretty much all wood, but I THOUGHT I read the Fw 187 had some issues with it, too. Maybe I am mistaken there, Milosh ... it happens. I'll see if I can dig that up again. If not, then I stand corrected about the glue issue.

In any case, it didn't have much of a service record with so few made. I believe three of them ended up as cover for the Focke Wulf factory at some point after being returned from Norway service, and were withdrawn from even that duty rather quickly. One was sent to an aerial gunnery school in 1942. That's from memory, too ... so you never know.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 10, 2013)

It is/was a very interesting project that always seemed so close to being realized and would have been a major player if all had gone well with its development. However, once in involved in a shooting war what may be ironed out eventually may just not be workable in a combat sitution Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Focke Wulf Fw 187


----------



## Aozora (Apr 10, 2013)

GregP said:


> What did the Fw 187 do to contribute? Kill one? Now there's a keeper ... at least it was a Spitfire ... respectable if nothing else.



Even more respectable; on 29 April 1944 a Bf 110G-4 nightfighter of Stab./NJG1, flown by Major Jabs shot down two Spitfires of 132 Sqn after they attacked him while he was landing. Sqn Ldr Geoffrey Page, who has been mentioned elsewhere in the forum, in turn managed to knock Jabs down at the expense of some bacon Jabs was transporting in his 110. (Thomas and Shores, _2nd Tactical Air Force Volume 1: Spartan to Normandy June 1943 to June 1944_, page 99.) So even a bacon carrying Bf 110G, when flown by a capable pilot, could be deadly to Spitfire IXs.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

Pretty good to be carrying bacon into combat. LMAO! Reminds me of the GI's in the South Pacific taking beer kegs up to 30,000 feet to cool them off. In the Air Force, we used to use Freon to do the same on occasion.

I believe any plane that gets ambushed is a victim of the unseen attacker. I wonder if they knew they were under attack before they took disabling hits? Maybe they thought that since he was landing, he'd run. It would interesting to find out.


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2013)

GregP said:


> ...I believe any plane that gets ambushed is a victim of the unseen attacker. I wonder if they knew they were under attack before they took disabling hits? Maybe they thought that since he was landing, he'd run. It would interesting to find out.



IIRC Jabs saw they coming and turned towards them, so Spit pilots surprise bounce turned out a head on attack and Jabs was better shooter and shot 2 Spits down right away. Cannot remmeber was Jab's 110 also hit but anyway Jabs though that dogfight with the rest of Spits would have only one end so he didn't wait to be shot down but crash-landed his 110 before other Spits could attack him.

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2013)

> So even a bacon carrying Bf 110G, when flown by a capable pilot, could be deadly to Spitfire IXs.



Mmmmm, Bacon...

While we are on the subject of hypothesising, granted, the Fw 187 would have been brilliant if it went into service and if its performance was as good as claimed then there's no doubt the British would hve come up with some sort of countermeasure, as I've said before, to it, so Mossie losses might not have been as great as Fw 187 protagonists claim. An aircraft that resembles the Fw 187 in concept, but was far more prolific and with better performance was the de Havilland Hornet. Although a much later proposition, there's nothing saying that the British would not have produced Hornets earlier to counter the Fw 187 on long range bomber ops, as that was what it was intended to be used for in reality, as a long range bomber escort for use against Japan.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2013)

Great story. Here is Oberst Jabs' own version of events.

"My most memorable combat occurred in daylight on 29 April 1944 when I was flying my Bf 110 from St Trond to my own base at Arnhem [Deelen], in Holland. In addition to my crew, I also had a side of bacon on board which I had bought in Belgium.Flying in 10/10ths cloud cover, I headed lower just before Arnhem, where the coulds began to break. Soon, I could make out single-engined fighters over the airfield which I mistakenly took for our own. In fact they were Spitfire Mk.IX, which were almost twice as fast as my Bf 110. It was too late to try to flee into the clouds since I had been seen, so Im prepared to defend myself. Turning to face them as the first Spitfire made its pass, I scored some hits and, as the second machine turned for another attack, I hastily landed on the airfield, a fresh new attack now bringing cannon fire down on my aircraft. Thankfully, [my crew] escaped before the aircraft was totally destroyed, and with it, my side of bacon."

According to the book this came from, German Night Fighter Aces of WW2 by Jerry Scutts, the pilot who destroyed Jabs' Bf 110 was indeed Geoffrey Page and years later, Page and Jabs met and Jabs told him the story about the bacon and the following Christmas a side of pork turned up at Jabs' house with a note from Page saying he was 'frightfully sorry'!


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

That's pretty damned good!

Seems like bacon has been tied to a lot of interesting things. My dad had an interesting experience in Germany during the 1950's and told me some stories about a side of bacon that was "kidnapped" from the senior officers and dsitributed among the men. The senior officers tried very hard to find it, but all they had to do was to lift the side of the tent and stuff it into the snow! The officers never found the bacon, but they could smell it all over the camp!

Over the years at the Planes of Fame Museum, we have heard some other stories about bacon being right in the middle of combat, and somehow it usually got saved first even before the beer or whiskey. Seems like eating comes first, even in combat. Never heard of anyone going to extraordinary measures to save a C or K ration, though. Bacon? That's a different story.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 11, 2013)

Were 132 squadron New Zealanders? I read a similar story at the RNZAF museum. There can't have been too many instances where a single Bf110 shot down two of a group of attacking Spitfires. Then again, it's hard to imagine a Kiwi being 'frightfully sorry' about anything - more like "****, sorry mate!"
When Armstrong stepped on the moon he delivered his rehearsed speech about "one small step for man" (and got it wrong). When Hillary climbed off Everest he delivered the immortal line: "Knocked the bastard off!" 
Proud to be Antipodean.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 11, 2013)

GregP said:


> OK
> 
> The USA lost about 31,000 planes on operations, the British lost about 29,000 and the Russian lost about 30,000. That's 120,000 planes on operations exclusive of domestic training and the like.
> 
> ...



What was the question?


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

Yah it was 90,000.


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2013)

One of the men shot down that day was New Zealander John Caulton.
Here's his rather sorry looking Spitfire.







And here is Caulton talking with Jabs. He has a gash on his head and also received a blow to his right knee.






Both men had made crash landings. Jabs was uninjured. The two became good friends after the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Readie (Apr 11, 2013)

So did these old adversaries.






Not sure who the sunglasses boys are mind you.

Cheers
John


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

In addition to Galland and Rall, the guy on the right in the pic looks like Robin Olds. The one in the middle looks like Connie Edwards. Can't tell enough about the third guy to attempt an ID, but the profile reminds me of Bob Love.

Interesting, with an He 111 (CASA) behind them. Any idea when and where it was taken? Maybe during filming "The Battle of Britain?" The black hats look like Confererate Air Force, which was involved in the film.


----------



## Readie (Apr 11, 2013)

Rall ?

Look again Greg 










Cheers
John


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

Still looks like Rall in the first pic to me ... but I don't exactly have a lot of pictures of him at that time in his life.

When I met most of the WWII pilots I met, it was in the 1980's ... and memory isn't exactly a portrait. Then I suppose the guy in the first pic on the left is Bader? Tough to tell from the pic. Don't you wish people could write so you could read it?

Is that a movie poster for "Skywarriors?" Didn't get a hit on "movie Skywarriors" on Google.

Wonder if that is Bf 109 or an Hispano Buchon (or Tripala) in the background? I t appears to have the horizontal tail support struts, making me think it is a real Messerschmitt, probably an E model. They were deleted on the F and later models and the Hispanos were basically G-model airframes.

Know when all this was done? Late 1960's? Early 1970's?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 11, 2013)

GregP said:


> In addition to Galland and Rall, the guy on the right in the pic looks like Robin Olds. The one in the middle looks like Connie Edwards. Can't tell enough about the third guy to attempt an ID, but the profile reminds me of Bob Love.
> 
> *That is not Robin. In addition to having too square face to be him, Robin was also about 5-6" taller than Galland. The Black hats are CAF but I don't know who they are either. *
> 
> Interesting, with an He 111 (CASA) behind them. Any idea when and where it was taken? Maybe during filming "The Battle of Britain?" The black hats look like Confererate Air Force, which was involved in the film.



Must confess that the taller gentleman looks more like Stanford Tuck to me..definitely not Rall


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

It sure looks like Stanford Tuck in the little pic (2nd post), and certainly could be in the first pic, too. Since the appear to be taken with much the same people, it probably is.

Maybe the guy on the right in the sunglasses is a younger Lefty Gardner. I didn't meet him until the mid-1980's, and that has been awhile! At that time he didn't have a mustache, but the features are very similar.


----------



## Readie (Apr 12, 2013)

Greg, lucky chap. Did you meet any British aces? 
RST it is btw
Cheers
John


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 12, 2013)

Greg,

This appears to be a project in the making. Here is what I found Four Stars International |  In Development


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 12, 2013)

Yeah, that's Bob Stanford Tuck and Galland (and friends) during the making of Battle of Britain. These are publicity shots that were taken and released in different books and magazines to publicise the movie's release. Tuck and Galland were mates since the war. I've got a booklet on the making of the movie with these pics in it somewhere.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, that's Bob Stanford Tuck and Galland (and friends) during the making of Battle of Britain. These are publicity shots that were taken and released in different books and magazines to publicise the movie's release. Tuck and Galland were mates since the war. I've got a booklet on the making of the movie with these pics in it somewhere.



Somewhere I have an older documentary on the development of the Spitfire which has Bader, Galland and Tuck...ah! here it is


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDzZnCkbxgs_

and a wartime "documentary" on Stanford Tuck 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxMJ2mX9UWo_


----------



## Juha (Apr 12, 2013)

Thanks a lot, Aozora!
Wonderful link!

Juha


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

We didn't get too many British aces on the airshow circuit in the USA for some reason. I saw Johnny Johnson at one airshow but didn't get to meet him. He gave a short talk during one the breaks in the aerial action. We did get a few Janapese and German aces at the shows and they were without exception seemingly nice people. Met Pappy Boyington in the early 1980's, right when Baa Baa Black Sheep was running. He apologized for not looking like Robert Conrad ...

I have seen a LOT of mostly-US pilots at the Planes of Fame (once a month or more), but they are there for the paying customers, not to visit with the volunteers. So, although I see and listen to them, we don't usually get to meet them unless they stroll over to our aircraft under restoration. That happens occasionally. Got to meet Bud Mahurin, Bob Cardenas, Scott Crossfield, and a few other notables ... but they were mostly just looking over the YP-59A and talking with old friends. 

One of our volunteer team members on the project flew B-47's and was in pilot school with some of the more famous test pilots, and they chat away and wander off talking of old times and great (or sometimes lousy) old planes, the guys who augered in, and the few friends still around.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 12, 2013)

Here's one I've posted before from the brochure I have on the movie:







Scott Crossfield would have been interesting to listen to, Greg. Was introduced to Gerald 'Stapme' Stapleton once, his hands were yellow with nicotine, but with a cheeky smile we talked about things; he was interested in the fact I was a Kiwi. I also met Bill Reid VC, another swell guy. John Young visited where I worked once and I asked him about the sandwich on Gemini 3! Met Sandy Johnstone, Spitfire pilot; we had an open day and he visited, also met Flt Lt Dave Castle, who was crew aboard the Vulcan that diverted to Rio de Janeiro during the Falklands war - interesting wee story!


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Great pic!

I got to talk for about an hour with Pete Law, and he was VERY interesting. A truly knowledgeable guy around warbirds of any sort.

One guy I forgot to mention is Bob Guilliland. He is friends with one of our team members (as I said above) and visits every so often. He was the test pilot on the SR-71 and has some really interesting stories about it. He says it is VERY true that you've never been lost until you are lost at Mach 3 ... Said they had a complete systems failure and had to decide where they were by looking down at the USA and deciding to try for a point that looked promising from 80,000 feet and turned out to be an Air Force base. They never thought they'd have to navigate by remembering the terrain as seen from WAY up there. 

They got a green light from the tower, but would have ignored it and landed anyway ... they figured it was patently impossible for some foreign SR-71 to land and invade the USA, so they didn't think they'd be shot if they landed unannounced at the air base. They were right ... they even got offered a meal on the way in to the tower.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2013)

Here is a good reference to Rall's height..

First pic Rall, Goehrke, and Krupinski - US FA reunion 86.

Second Pic Goehrke, Rall, (don't remember), Galland and Krupinski. I am taller than every German ace in the pic except the center (unk) who was as tall as me at 5-10... with Krupinski and Goerhke about 5-9.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2013)

It's real strange you can remember the guy's height, but not his name.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> It's real strange you can remember the guy's height, but not his name.



It's a problem of CRS. There were nine LW aces at the Reunion and I lost some pics that had each one identified on the back - but this gentleman eludes me. As to strange regading height - nah. the strange thing is when you find a WWII fighter pilot taller than 5-9.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2013)

I was just kidding, I thought that was you, but for some reason didn't want us to know.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

Thanks fopr posting the pic, Drgondog. Very nice.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 15, 2013)

I bet Rall was successful with the ladies in his days  Kinda reminds me of Robert Redford.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

Rall had a great sense of humor, and seemed to have never met a stranger in the few times I was with him..I took these pics in 1986. Far more charismatic than Redford could aspire to be.


----------



## R Pope (Apr 15, 2013)

Without the Spitfire and Hurricane to fight the Luftwaffe to a draw, there would have been no British air bases to hold the American bombers. Even B-29's couldn't have beaten Hitler from mainland American bases. That makes the Spit-Hurri combo WWII's most important and influential aircraft, period! Both first, and no second place.......


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 15, 2013)

riacrato said:


> I bet Rall was successful with the ladies in his days  Kinda reminds me of Robert Redford.



Rall married a Doctor he met during his recovery from his serious crash in 1941, Herta , they married in 1943, had two daughters . She died in 1985.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

R Pope said:


> Without the Spitfire and Hurricane to fight the Luftwaffe to a draw, there would have been no British air bases to hold the American bombers. Even B-29's couldn't have beaten Hitler from mainland American bases. That makes the Spit-Hurri combo WWII's most important and influential aircraft, period! Both first, and no second place.......



Certainly true for 1940


----------



## Njaco (Apr 15, 2013)

Bill, I think thats Grislawski.


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2013)

Njaco said:


> Bill, I think thats Grislawski.



I had that thought too. There is a resemblance to the "young" Griswalski,but not so much to pictures taken towards the end of his life. I'm not sure.






Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

Njaco - think that is a close miss.. his name will come to me but it isn't Grislawski (Often wrong but Never uncertain)


----------



## Njaco (Apr 16, 2013)

I know guys. Another one with the name on the tip of my tongue.....


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

Spit it out ....


----------



## stug3 (Jul 28, 2013)

Boeing B-17Es under construction. This is the first released wartime production photograph of Flying Fortress heavy bombers at one of the Boeing plants, at Seattle, Wash. Boeing exceeded its accelerated delivery schedules by 70 percent for the month of December 1942. (U.S. Air Force photo) 







Operation Gomorrah, the RAF and USAAF attack on the port of Hamburg in July 1943 produced the one of the most destructive raids of the war. The combination of 2,326 tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs tore open the tenement buildings and set them alight. Once the fire started, it fuelled itself. The burning flames sucked in oxygen, creating huge winds that spread the fire further. Soon it was a firestorm, completely out of control.






German civilians look on as smoke billows above the Deutsche Werke submarine construction works following the devastating British and American air raid on Hamburg.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 28, 2013)

1. B-17
2. B-24
3. Lancaster
4. P-47
5. Spit/Hurricane (BoB)
6. P-51
7. Il-2
8. LA-5/7
9. Mosquito 
10. B-26 Marauder


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 28, 2013)

1. Spitfire
2. Hurricane
3. Lancaster
4. B-17
5. B-24
6. P-51
7. P-47
8. IL-2
9 Mosquito
10. Pe-2

These actually aren't in a particular order. If transport planes are included, I'd include the C-47 and drop off the Pe-2. I have a hard time evaluating Soviet fighters, though even if I had better information about them, I think I'd have a hard time leaving off any of the other aircraft on the list.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 29, 2013)

1, Spitfire/Hurricane(mention is despatches to radar and the observer corps)
inseparable as they decided the outcome of the war for the Western allies, If the Luftwaffe had neutralised the RAF in the BoB, Britain would have either had to negotiate peace terms, if Hitler was prepared to, or surrender or risk invasion!

either way, with Britain and the commonwealth out of the war in Europe there would have been no big week, no bomber offensive, no defeat of the Luftwaffe, no P38/47/51 in Europe or the Med, in fact would the US even have entered the war?

politically we could easily have seen WW2 diverge into separate European and Pacific conflicts, and ultimately Europe could well have been a communist empire as I believe the Russians would have defeated Germany in the long term, unless of course the Germans produced a viable nuclear weapon first?

So first I would have to say the Spit and Hurricane, simply because by keeping Britain in the war they set the stage for everything that happened next, without them the world could well be a very different place to what we know today!


----------



## pattle (Jul 29, 2013)

This is a very hard question to answer, I can only say that the Hurricane and Spitfire started the ball rolling against the Germans during the Battle of Britain and that a lot of newer planes all chipped in to finish what was started.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 31, 2013)

I agree with the first 3. My remaining 7, in order:

*North American P-51* as long range escort of USAAF bombers (in fact, I'd be tempted to go with the Mustang as more important than the B-17 and B-24, since it was the arrival of P-51s that really made the difference in the USAAF daylight offensive)
*DeHavilland Mosquito* - Those Germans hated them. They really hated them
*Supermarine Spitfire* - The Spit would certainly be named by the Germans for its role in the BoB if nothing else
*Hawker Typhoon* - The scourge of German tanks and staff cars throughout France
*Republic P-47* - It was versatile, hard to shoot down, and as good or better than what the Germans had 
*Handley Page Halifax* - Bomber Harris would have done OK with these even without Lancs, and the Germans
knew it
*Consolidated B-24* - Ditto the Halifax, pretty much. Plus the Americans churned them out by the thousands

Honestly, I don't see the Germans listing any of the Soviet fighters or any US/British medium or light bombers other than the 'Squito


----------



## stug3 (Aug 4, 2013)

Operation Gomorrah






Oblique aerial view of ruined residential and commercial buildings south of the Stadtpark (seen at upper right) in the Eilbek district of Hamburg, Germany. These were among the 16,000 multi-storied apartment buildings destroyed by the firestorm which developed during the raid by Bomber Command on the night of 27/28 July 1943 (Operation GOMORRAH). The road running diagonally from upper left to lower right is Eilbeker Weg.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2013)

Ten is probably too small a number, but I'd say:

Hurricane (which did most of the heavy lifting during the Battle of Britain), Spitfire, Lancaster, Halifax, B-17, P-51, B-24, Swordfish, Il-2, Yak-1


----------



## Procrastintor (Aug 8, 2013)

1: P-40( large numbers early in the war, and good aircraft for many purposes)
2: Spirfire ( The BoB would have been a catastrophic battle to lose.)
3: Hurricane (same as spit)
4: P-51 (B-17s would have taken many more casualties if it wasnt for the Mustang here)
5: Me 163 ( killed lots of experienced LW pilots) hehehehe jk, 5. Mosqito.
6 IL-2 (stopped German tanks in their 'tracks')+ built in immense numbers
7 B-17
8 B-24 ( B-24 and B-17 both caused massive damage to factories and many other targets)
9 Lancaster ( The raids at the Ruhr dams couldnt have been done without it)
10 P-38/P-47/Tempest tied for 10th ( all were great, many purpose aircraft.)

Obviously this excludes all aircraft for support roles and the primarily PTO aircraft


----------



## dutchman (Aug 10, 2013)

The B-17 and the B-24 for the US the Lancaster, for the UK. I'd have to mention the Wellington as deserving of consideration because in the early days they were the workhorse of the bomber wings. But it was over shadowed in the later years. The Mosquito, the Typhoon, The Spitfire and Hurricane, the P-51 the P-47. The Il-2 was a winner. There are many other planes that were good and made a difference, but I looked at it as if to say if the plane on this list wasn't there how much effect would it of had on the war. Without the Spits ot the Hurricanes the Battle of Britian would have been fought with Gloster Gladiators. Don't even want to think about that!!!!Or our bombers without the 47's and the 51's escortng them!!! Just my thoughts.


----------

