10 Allied planes that sealed Nazi Germany's fate

[Jenisch]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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

Agreed - started in june-July, cntinued in October-November and peaked in April-May 1944 (transfers from Sud and Ost)


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.

Agreed - but in any case the attrition on the Luftwaffe by US Daylight forces would have been far less - and that attrition in reality was more than the VVS was inflicting in the East. Agreed on Stalin's motives but there may always be reflection on Stalin's future had the Soviet advance stalled appreciably. in mid to late 1944.

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.

" Handled' is relative, and the degree of attrition inflicted by VVS was higher as the Ost and Sud LW transferred more than 30 staffeln intact - complete with command and experienced flight staff - to the west... effectively gutting disproportionately the Ost front squadrons as new replacements arrived from Germany


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.

Agreed - if and only if an extreme change of fortunes occurred for the Soviets, and only if the introduction of our own top secret technology was the difference maker... but in any case the P-80 would have been deployed first in the ETO and the B-29 never...

It seems you are talking like if the Russians would be fighting alone. They would not be.

Agreed - it was not my attempt to convey such scenario. On the other hand, had Normandy invasion not occurred in June due to uncertainty of success - the german military resources would have continued to prioritize the East, assuming the LW contains the few squadrons of P-38s available to escort deep target strikes for 8th AF.

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).

Disagree. The critical period was when Doolittle took over 8th AF in December 1943. His goal was tocombine fighter and bomber operations to a.) cripple key German industry, b.) destroy the LW. We can argue the definition of 'destroy' but we only need to look at the statistical impact to LuftFlotte Reich between Doolittle's arrival and D-Day. If you combine air and ground, the P-51B accounted for nearly 2/3 of all the LW fighters in the West and more than 50% of the pilot attrition.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Haven't we been here before?

 

[Jenisch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN6oPJ8JUKQ

On you tube.
Cheers
John

 

[Jenisch]

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]

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