LF Reich actually transfered around 800 fighters to LF 3. Granted allied deception plans meant the transfer didn't begin until 7 June, and the tremendous damage done to airfields in France meant the operation actually took a few days to complete, but the forces were transfered.
Could the later model P47 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LF Reich actually transfered around 800 fighters to LF 3. Granted allied deception plans meant the transfer didn't begin until 7 June, and the tremendous damage done to airfields in France meant the operation actually took a few days to complete, but the forces were transfered.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
If I recall correctly on March 6th, 1944, the first time the 8th hit Berlin on daylight, P-47s still did not have the capability to reach Berlin while escorting heavy bombers. P-38s did have the range and these were present with the bomber units that did not abort that particular mission due to severe weather conditions while other units were recalled.
It's often said that 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence', but this case is an exception. The Manhattan Project required a huge infrastructure of facilities to build an actual bomb. There was no comparable German infrastructure. The reasonable conclusion is that the Germans were not remotely near producing an actual atomic bomb, which is AFAIK the well accepted conclusion by serious historians. Of course people produce TV shows will all kinds of interesting alternative theories for everything, but I don't think that means much.
On the thread's specific question, yes the Allies (including the Soviets) would absolutely eventually have established air superiority over Germany...as their armies closed in on the ground. Fighters with the range of the P-51 were not necessary to have made the (western) Allied invasion of Normandy possible, and obviously not to make a Soviet invasion of Germany possible, both of which would have happened eventually without a one sided German nuclear monopoly or simultaneous US-German nuclear standoff, which as above, it can be reasonably concluded would not have happened.
The real question and what the thread is supposed to be about, I guess, is whether the USAAF could establish the kind of (partial) air control it did over Germany *before* the Allies got fighter bases in eastern France and the Low Countries where P-47 as well as British types could operate over much of Germany if they had to. In actual histiry, that was only a period of a few months actually, late-winter/spring 1944 to fall of 1944 when the Allies had the bases basically on Germany's border. Without the P-51, probably the bomber offensive would have been held back for that period, and perhaps delayed the whole end of the war, though that's less certain.
Joe
GregP
Major
There were 1,583 Allison-engine Mustangs built. There were 13,757 Merlin-powered Mustangs built (two were conversion from Allison-powered airframes).This totals 15,340 Mustangs. Another source quotes 14,068. Most sources agree the total was between 15,340 and 15,466. P-51D and later were bubble canopy and before were turtledeck. The P-51D-10 intriduced the dorsal fin and some earlier models of both bubble and turtledeck had the dorsal fin added.
There were 15,680 P-47 Thunderbolts built. P-47D-20 and earlier were turtledeck models. After the P-47D-20 all were bubble canopy.
So, apparently, we COULD make the same number of Thunderbolts as Mustangs … since we DID.
I submit of the P-51 were enver built, we'd have built as many P-47's as we needed or would have designed ANOTHER fighter and built that one. Bya sking what if the P-51 were never built, it was not implied tat the USA didn;t develop another aircraft. I submit it would have been a good one, but it WOULS have been developed since we obviously HAD the P-47 and still went on to develop the P-51. That imples were were thinking ahead and that wiould not have changed. In fact, we continued to try new things aven after the war was over. The period between 1945 and 1950 was one of great aerodunamic innovation, and the absence of the P-51 would not imply that we simply stopped development.
There were 15,680 P-47 Thunderbolts built. P-47D-20 and earlier were turtledeck models. After the P-47D-20 all were bubble canopy.
So, apparently, we COULD make the same number of Thunderbolts as Mustangs … since we DID.
I submit of the P-51 were enver built, we'd have built as many P-47's as we needed or would have designed ANOTHER fighter and built that one. Bya sking what if the P-51 were never built, it was not implied tat the USA didn;t develop another aircraft. I submit it would have been a good one, but it WOULS have been developed since we obviously HAD the P-47 and still went on to develop the P-51. That imples were were thinking ahead and that wiould not have changed. In fact, we continued to try new things aven after the war was over. The period between 1945 and 1950 was one of great aerodunamic innovation, and the absence of the P-51 would not imply that we simply stopped development.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Just because the US built 15,000 P-47s, doesn't mean that they could have built another 15,000 instead of 15,000 P-51s. Unless Alexander Seversky was creaming $40,000 profit off each P-47, the numbers say that building a P-47 takes nearly twice as much raw material, labour, plant and capital as building a P-51. In a wartime economy working at near capacity, you can't just conjure up the extra resources required to build another 15,000 P-47s.
Instead of building 15,000 P-51s, the US aircraft industry would have been able to build about another 8,000 P-47s, and I don't think that would have been enough.
Instead of building 15,000 P-51s, the US aircraft industry would have been able to build about another 8,000 P-47s, and I don't think that would have been enough.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Alexander P. de Seversky had nothing to do with Republic during WW2. He was removed as CEO at the end of 1939.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Sorry, I was being flippant. But my point still stands.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The US had the money, material and manpower to further produce another 15,000 P-47s if the war lingered on and if it was necessary to do so. Curtiss Wright was being tooled up as a P-47 "second source" to support Republic's Long Island Production line as were other smaller manufacturers to support other fighter types (Vultee was preparing to build P-38s). It wasn't a matter of "extra resources," the US still had plenty to go around....
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
But the start of this discussion was whether control of the air over Europe could have been established without the P-51. OK, so given twice as long, there could have been another 15,000 P-47s. But in the timeframe of a 1944 invasion, which is really the central point of the whole issue, the only way to have built enough P-47s in time would have been to have built a lot fewer of something else. Landing craft? Liberty ships? B-17s? You choose, but you can't have everything.
- Thread starter
- #31
Well actually, with the US in the timeframe of WW2, yes we could have everything, we did have everything, we had an ocean on each side of us to protect us and that is why we won.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Wanna bet? Some factories were not even at capacity and were still "gearing up" by 1944. By 1944 there were plans to stop production of the B-17 and B-24 in favor or the B-32 (1,500 were initially ordered). The P-39 and P-40 production were coming to an end, so again, there were PLENTY of resources and capital available should had history taken a different course. You seem not to grasp the amount of manpower and resources that was available.
Last edited:
North American presented the P-51 to the British, because they were asking North American to built the Curtiss P-40. So, why other aircraft companies would not be able to produce the P-47 under license? I considerated that an aircraft similar to the P-51 could have been developed (there were some if I'm not wrong), but since the thread specifies the P-47, I didn't suggested this.
Also, it wasn't like because 15,000 Mustangs were built, that 15,000 Mustangs were critically needed and consequentely 30,000 P-47s would be needed. It's good to have a big reserve by several reasons like: replace lost planes, maintein high operational % of squadrons by puting new planes in place of those that needed extensive repair and overhaul, replace worn-out planes, and also the fact the Commanders were not aware of how long the war would drag on, and this included the Japanese and perhaps even a Soviet treat.
So, there are many considerations for this situation, but I beat one thing: there would be no salvation for Germany without the P-51, perhaps only a delay in it's defeat.
Also, it wasn't like because 15,000 Mustangs were built, that 15,000 Mustangs were critically needed and consequentely 30,000 P-47s would be needed. It's good to have a big reserve by several reasons like: replace lost planes, maintein high operational % of squadrons by puting new planes in place of those that needed extensive repair and overhaul, replace worn-out planes, and also the fact the Commanders were not aware of how long the war would drag on, and this included the Japanese and perhaps even a Soviet treat.
So, there are many considerations for this situation, but I beat one thing: there would be no salvation for Germany without the P-51, perhaps only a delay in it's defeat.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
when the bomber losses started to exceed acceptable numbers. if the usaaf didnt have anything in the wings and after the disaster in the fall of 43 decided they needed something it would have taken a while. they were lucky that they did already have a plane that could be modified to fill that role. the bombers may always get through but the enemy can punish you enough that you 1) cant replace the bombers as fast as you are losing them and 2) you have a mutiny by air crews who refuse to fly in the face of 30% losses.
if the us didnt manufacture the 51 then as suggested above they would have made another plane....the P-whatever. it would have to have basically the same characteristics or it would have failed. the LW would have ruled the daylight hours over europe....D-day would have been postponed or cancelled,...AA and central based ac wouldnt have been so crucial and could have been transfered to the east ( or west )....the LW would have retained experienced pilots and grown. all that said i do not see the war lasting too far past when it did. the airwar in europe had no effect on the developement of the atomic bomb. and its date of rediness we know. it would remain to be seen if was used on germany...a B 29 flying at night and dropping it on...frankfurt, kassel, or take out the nazi infrastucture by bombing berlin....or dropped in asia. i would think it would have been deployed to europe first and would have been interesting to see how it played out.
Tankworks
Airman
By the time of the P-51 the bombers were being used as bait so the LW could be destroyed in the air. I think without the P-51 the available fighters would have continued to protect the bombers as best they could without the emphasis of chasing down the LW fighters to destruction. As far as D-Day, it was not necessary to have control of Europe's airspace just the skies over Normandy and the channel and the hundreds of fighters available could have done that. Meanwhile the bombing campain would have lumbered on until the gradual defeat of German forces on the ground (but with more allied losses in the air) which is what happened anyway.
Without the P-51 the airwar would have been a longer slugging match to reach the inevitable.
Without the P-51 the airwar would have been a longer slugging match to reach the inevitable.
Although the North American P-51 Mustang replaced the P-47 in the long-range escort role in Europe, the Thunderbolt still ended the war with 3,752 air-to-air kills claimed in over 746,000 sorties of all types, at the cost of 3,499 P-47s to all causes in combat.[13] In Europe during the critical first three months of 1944 when the German aircraft industry and Berlin were heavily attacked, the P-47 shot down more German fighters than did the P-51 (570 out of 873), and shot down approximately 900 of the 1,983 claimed during the first six months of 1944. In Europe, Thunderbolts flew more sorties (423,435) than P-51s, P-38s and P-40s combined. Indeed, it was the P-47 which broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the critical period of January–May 1944.[14]
With increases in fuel capacity as the type was refined, the range of escort missions over Europe steadily increased until the P-47 was able to accompany bombers in raids all the way into Germany.
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A positive point if the P-47 was the main USAAF fighter, would be that casualities by ground fire would have been lower. Perhaps in the air the situation would be different, but the late D models were equall, if not better than the P-51. Ah, and in Korea the casualities would certainly be lower, as the P-47 would be the main piston figther.
With increases in fuel capacity as the type was refined, the range of escort missions over Europe steadily increased until the P-47 was able to accompany bombers in raids all the way into Germany.
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A positive point if the P-47 was the main USAAF fighter, would be that casualities by ground fire would have been lower. Perhaps in the air the situation would be different, but the late D models were equall, if not better than the P-51. Ah, and in Korea the casualities would certainly be lower, as the P-47 would be the main piston figther.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Without the P-51, the outcome would not have changed, however the struggle would have been longer and bloodier. While the later P-47s were quite capable at high altitude, maybe more so than the P-51, it did not have the endurance, IIRC, to perform the chase down and attack enemy airfields and strafe. This was a critical factor in reducing LW resources in Germany . In addition, it did not have the low altitude performance advantage over the typical LW fighters that the P-51 had so losses would have been higher. Also, if the P-51 did not appear, daylight bombing over Germany would probably have to be suspended until the later P-47s were available and improved P-38s. The F4U-1s could have done the missions, but again not as effectively as the P-51B with its better high altitude performance. Modifications to the F4U-1A(w) or F4U-1D (more internal fuel) could make an effective escort, but would not be available until the later model P-47s. I don't have my resources so I am kinda shooting in the dark.
I agree
I disagree. Ultimately the ground forces (Russian, US, British, in this order) won the war. While I think the P-51 was the best fighter in the war, the struggle without it would not have been longer at all.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think that, if you look at the status of the war late 1943, when the P-51B was just being deployed and look at the impact if it was not I think you would find a couple of serious changes that would have affected the course of the war. First, most likely the daylight bombing raids would have been curtailed substanially reducing LW pressure to deploy forces to Germany. Also this would have substantually reduced the loss of war making infrastructure of Germany therefore providing more materiel. Both of these would have aided the war in the East. Second, the great attrition of the LW in the Spring of 1944 most likely would not occur, freeing up experienced pilots to face the Eastern front and then the confront the D-Day, which may have cause significant damage to the invasion and provide significant intel. It certainly would have made another issue the Allies would have to defend against and Eisenhower could never be able to say if there were any aircraft over Normandie, they would be allied. With a signifcant storm arriving after D-Day any delay could have been damaging allowing Germany more time to adequately deploy forces. All of this could have caused a delay of months to the war and its associated thousands of deaths.
