10 Allied planes that sealed Nazi Germany's fate

[Marcel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Damn fat fingering my Iphone again...

 

[Jenisch]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).