10 Allied planes that sealed Nazi Germany's fate

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

From Irving's biography of Milch:


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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
Steve, you might want to check out here:

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
stona said:
The Luftwaffe was on the road to defeat in 1943 but it most certainly was not defeated.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

'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..
 
drgondog said:
'OK" but too late for Invasion and pre-invasion destruction of LW.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 

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..
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
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
 

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
 

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Japanese wooden planes
Replies
1
Views
858
GrauGeist
Tanimizu Takeo 10 June 1945
Replies
4
Views
1K
SaparotRob
N
5 Best WW2 Allied Forces Planes (5 German And Japanese Planes That Were Even Better)
Replies
18
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Any Japanese claims on 10 July 1945?
Replies
0
Views
625
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register