FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Or towing gliders...syscom3 said:
Best World War II Aircraft?
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agreed.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
One thing Ive learned from many different threads over the past year, is the "superiority" of an individual aircraft is always fleeting. An aircraft could be superior for a few months, then get superceded by either an axis or allied design.
But one thing where the allies were always superior, and the reason the allies won the war, was LOGISTICS!!
There was a book written a few years ago "Why The Allies Won". An argument was put forth that in the German military, the best and brightest went to command the field armies, which explains why they were such deadly opponants in battle. But when it came to the mundane occupations such as field engineering and logisitics, the allies put many of their best and brightest in those slots.
If you look at the campaigns in a macro sense, the firepower of both sides was about even. For example, the Tiger tank was vastly better than the Sherman, but the allies always managed to find enough Shermans to equalize the fight. Even if we were to say the Fw190 was the best fighter, the allies always managed to have enough P38/P47/P51/Spits in the air to offset it.
What determined the outcome in these campaigns was the allies simply managed to get more supplies to the troops up front. The Germans never seemed to win the battle of logistics.
Think about how different the war would have been if the allies didnt have LST's, DUKW's and 6X6 trucks.
But one thing where the allies were always superior, and the reason the allies won the war, was LOGISTICS!!
There was a book written a few years ago "Why The Allies Won". An argument was put forth that in the German military, the best and brightest went to command the field armies, which explains why they were such deadly opponants in battle. But when it came to the mundane occupations such as field engineering and logisitics, the allies put many of their best and brightest in those slots.
If you look at the campaigns in a macro sense, the firepower of both sides was about even. For example, the Tiger tank was vastly better than the Sherman, but the allies always managed to find enough Shermans to equalize the fight. Even if we were to say the Fw190 was the best fighter, the allies always managed to have enough P38/P47/P51/Spits in the air to offset it.
What determined the outcome in these campaigns was the allies simply managed to get more supplies to the troops up front. The Germans never seemed to win the battle of logistics.
Think about how different the war would have been if the allies didnt have LST's, DUKW's and 6X6 trucks.
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
The C-47 was such a successful design, it was copied by the Russians and the Japanese
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Bullockracing said:
I wasn't copied, the design was accquired and built under licence by both the Russians (as the Li-2 with Shevestiv radials) and the Japanese (as the Showa L2D).
- Thread starter
- #86
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
FLYBOYJ said:
actually they didn't really do as much glider towing as para dropping, i can't really speak much for the american glider campain but in the RAF they prefered to use heavy and medium bombers for glider towing, partly to free up the para aircraft and partly for the extra power(remembering the horsa is considderably larger than the puny american Wacos used, it was actually a design specification of the competition that the horsa won, she had to carry double the numer of troops as a Waco CG-4A Hadrian) either way the glider campaign could've gone ahead without the Dakota, although i agree that D-Day would've been a failure without it............
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
syscom3 said:
I agree totally. The overpowering weapon that won the war was the American industrial machine and allied logistics. The Axis never stood a chance once America was geared up. Even if England and the Soviet Uninon had fallen, making allies out of those who hated you was not a sound practice (like the Soviet Union). I doubt that they could have motivated the Brits, French, Russians, et.al. to generate the applied effort to offset the American war machine and they could not have done it on their own (especially watching behind their backs at their subjugated population).
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
This indeed is a good argument.
However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either.
It was the often underrated economy of the SU (which clearly hadn´t their best minds in the logistics department) and their military potential which broke the backbone of Germanys land air forces. From 1941-1943, the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land air forces (depending on months). It was not possible for the vaunted Whermacht to achieve a strategic victory over the SU (with a notable exception in late 1941, when Stalin asked the rumanian ambassador in Moscow what conditions Hitler would want for an armistice), and I would even go so far and say it was beyond possibilities. However, the composite efforts done by all allieds contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. And as Syscom pointed out, logistic advances contributed more to this than we would expect.
However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either.
It was the often underrated economy of the SU (which clearly hadn´t their best minds in the logistics department) and their military potential which broke the backbone of Germanys land air forces. From 1941-1943, the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land air forces (depending on months). It was not possible for the vaunted Whermacht to achieve a strategic victory over the SU (with a notable exception in late 1941, when Stalin asked the rumanian ambassador in Moscow what conditions Hitler would want for an armistice), and I would even go so far and say it was beyond possibilities. However, the composite efforts done by all allieds contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. And as Syscom pointed out, logistic advances contributed more to this than we would expect.
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
Roger that Jabberwocky, not sitting at home with my library... Thanks for the correct info. What was the codename for the Japanese model?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
delcyros said:
I certainly agree to a certain point. If Germany had defeated Great Britian before engaging Russia, then, with the Africa Corp and many troop from France, Germany may have punched through to Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad and may have forced an armistice on Russia (of course, who knows what that madman Hitler would have done. Something for sure to lose the war) before Russia could mobilize. Once Germany stalled in Russia, their war was lost. However, It would have been much longer and bloodier. With no strategic bombing of factories, oil fields/refineries, logistic links, etc. Germany production would have been significantly larger and more formidiable.
Russian contribution cannot be underestimated. They lost tremendous numbers of people and equipment to defeat Germany.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The russians are loath to admit it, but the lend lease the US and UK provided often was of a critical nature. Without it, the USSR might have had difficulties on going on the offensive and might had to contend with a stalemate.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
if, in the unlikely event Britain surrendered, that does not mean her colonies would also, we would've carried the fight on in Africa for as long as possible...........
Agreed, it was planned for as well. Move the Royal Family, government etc to Canada and continue the war from there. Even if Britain had surrendered its colonies would still have been a force to be reconed with, especially if elements of the RAF, RN and Army went with them...
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Since you are one of those people Udet, can you spell out why?Udet said:
Land forces yes but not the LW.
In July 42, there was 62.6% of the onhand a/c of the LW were in Russian compared to in the West.
By May 43, this was reduced to only 46.8% in Russian compared to what was in the West.
The 'West' includes Italy, Germany/Denmark and France/Holland/Belgium.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The moment the allies had the atomic bomb, the war was over. Period.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The nuke may not have been that decisisive against nazi-Germany (in this event Hitler would have allowed the use of Botulinum and this would have been even more severe than a nuke, according to US plans it was believed (wrongly) that Germany already would be in the same situation when the nuke was avaiable to the US and therefore these weapon could have the same fate as the chemical WoM in storage) but this is speculative and fiction.
I counted the transportation and courier services for eastern front as well. And I included the airforce deployments efforts done by axis partners, such as Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, Finnland, Bulgaria and Italy on the eastern front as well. But most important, I took notice about the numbers of combat sorties flown. All this gives an indication of Luftwafe presence and thus 70%-85% (the latter beeing a peak at Stalingrad campaign only) are reliable numbers.
Had Germany taken Moscow in 1941, Stalin would have moved behind the Ural and continued the war, there were similar plans (as stated with Britain / Canada) to do so, the industry was already in stage of replacing. There is no doubt that the US contributed a lot with food to the survival of the USSR those times.
I counted the transportation and courier services for eastern front as well. And I included the airforce deployments efforts done by axis partners, such as Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, Finnland, Bulgaria and Italy on the eastern front as well. But most important, I took notice about the numbers of combat sorties flown. All this gives an indication of Luftwafe presence and thus 70%-85% (the latter beeing a peak at Stalingrad campaign only) are reliable numbers.
Had Germany taken Moscow in 1941, Stalin would have moved behind the Ural and continued the war, there were similar plans (as stated with Britain / Canada) to do so, the industry was already in stage of replacing. There is no doubt that the US contributed a lot with food to the survival of the USSR those times.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The first use of the atomic bomb on Germany would have caused a revolt in the army, and they would have sued for peace. Hitler could haveunleashed all the bacterial weapons he wanted to, but it wasnt going to end the systematic wiping out of the major cities.
The Rhur and Berlin would have been targets one and two. I wonder what the next one would be? Munich? Nuremberg? Magdeberg?
The Rhur and Berlin would have been targets one and two. I wonder what the next one would be? Munich? Nuremberg? Magdeberg?
Henk
Master Sergeant
I would say the next would be Munich, Nuremburg and Hamburg.
Henk
Henk
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
