Top 3 best decisions per country, in field of military aviation

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

Tomo for me the Soviets need to include the appointment of Novikov as the head of the Red AirForce. gis reforms turned what was a force being destroyed and largely irrelevant to the battle to a force able to massively influence the outcome of the war on the Eastern Front. The reforms he instituted were truly critical to the survival of the VVS.

"A gifted air force commander and one of the leading men of the Soviet armed forces, Novikov was involved in nearly all exploits of the air force during World War II and was at the forefront of developments in command and control and of air combat techniques. After the war, Novikov was arrested and was forced by NKVD chief Beria into a "confession" which implicated Zhukov in a conspiracy. Novikov was then imprisoned until the death of Stalin in 1953, whereupon he became an avionics teacher and writer until his death in 1976.

During the early setbacks of the Russian army at the hand of the Nazis, Novikov and the Leningrad air forces took part in a number of strikes against the advancing German armies, including the first Soviet air operation of the war, from June 25 – 30, 1941, It is claimed these early operations in front of Leningrad cost the Germans 130 aircraft per month. During this time, Novikov was noted for his skill in command and for his innovation, particularly the then unknown use of radio to coordinate bomber flights. In July 1941, Novikov expanded his command from Leningrad to include air forces of the Northern Front, Northwestern Front and the Baltic Fleet, and as the Germans approached Leningrad, Novikov and his forces flew 16,567 sorties.

Novikov briefly held the position of First Deputy to the Air Force Commander from February until April 11, 1942. He then became Commander of the Red Army Air Force – Deputy to the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR for Aviation, a position from which he began to reorganize the Soviet air force. He worked specifically for the creation of separate divisions and air corps, as well as the improvement of front line coordination with the ground forces. it was Novikov that realized that achievement of full air superiority was not only beyond VVS capability, it was also completely irrelevant on the eastern front because of the vast distances of the front and the thinly held LW lines in that TO . During the siege of Stalingrad, Novikov successfully persuaded Zhukov and Stalin that the air force was not ready for a planned counter-offensive, an argument to which both commanders eventually conceded. After a substantial period of development, Novikov was able to provide Zhukov with an aerial blockade of the German forces at Stalingrad that cost the Germans an entire army, and some would say, the entire war, Over 1200 Axis a/c were destroyed at Stalingrad, but it was just the beginning for Novikov. Later operations over Kuban destroyed another 1,100 planes and the rise of many of the VVS aces in that command.

At Kursk , Novikov introduced new innovations such as shaped charge bombs, night fighters and ground-attack aircraft. The Battle of Konigsberg saw 2,500 combat aircraft under Novikov being made available to the besieging armies, with the Soviet air marshal recommending low level heavy night bombers being used. 514 of these dropped 4,440 tons of bombs on the beleaguered city. For his part in the operation Novikov was made Hero of the Soviet Union, and on June 24, 1944 the United States awarded him a Legion Of Merit. Novikov then transferred to the PTO to fight against Japan, where he was made Hero of the Soviet Union a second time for his work in forming large air armies to bomb Japanese forces in China and Korea"

it was the man, not the machine, that defeated the LW on the Eastern Front
 
Last edited:
quess the Churchill part doesn't really fit either
 
The Japanese:

- recognition of the aircraft carrier and aviation as the core element of the next generation of naval warfare, and developing a suitable "ecosystem"

The United States:

- recognition that defense and damage control is as essential to carrying out war as offense: superlative aircraft carrier damage control (in contrast to the other side of the Pacific, which had indifferent damage control)
- recognition that the most valuable resource was the pilot, and not the machine, and a training/deployment system that supported this
- instead of digging heels in, recognizing that the "bomber will always get through" doctrine was incorrect, and developing new strategies that incorporated fighters in response (see below)
- Operation Pointblank: using strategic bombing as bait to draw up the Luftwaffe to be destroyed in the air through attrition ensuring total air dominance on D-Day

The British:

- Recognition of the importance of radar and radar countermeasures (not just ground, but airborne)
- Recognition of the importance of cryptography AND cryptanalysis
- Both of the above, combined with superb organization and support command, control, and communications system

The Soviets:

- recognizing the importance of simplicity and robustness as sound design goals/principles
 
The introduction of fighter control system, helped by radar and observer network was a major thing.
Another - introduction of airborne radar and other electronical means.
The 8-gun fighter powered by current best V-12 engine.

Agreed. Dowding was a visionary in developing Fighter Command as modern weapons system: Radar, a Centralized control system, insisting on 8 machine guns to take down bombers, HF radios in every fighter, underground lines from the radar stations to the central control. Funding two fighters using the Merlin and 8 machine guns. He was a visionary and invented modern CIC allowing fighters to be vectored to the enemy in what we now call real time.

All this was funded by Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, perhaps history is kind to appeasers as time goes by.
 
I find it hard to point to one decision in the US. Funding the development of the Bomb I suppose. No other country could commit Billions of dollars into a project during the war on this scale, and it was a project no one knew would even work, let alone be completed in time to affect the outcome of the war.

Second might be Lend Lease. Pouring tens of thousands of aircraft into Russia and the UK.
 
I find it hard to point to one decision in the US. Funding the development of the Bomb I suppose. No other country could commit Billions of dollars into a project during the war on this scale, and it was a project no one knew would even work, let alone be completed in time to affect the outcome of the war.

True, but the real impact of 'the bomb' was not on WW2 but on the post war world.

The dropping of the bombs did shorten the war by a small margin (just how long is and always has been the subject of some debate) and I believe that lives were saved on all sides, but the overall impact on WW2, seen as a whole, was not huge, that came later.

Cheers

Steve
 
CB I think this was the intended Firefly reference:

Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg
 
True, but the real impact of 'the bomb' was not on WW2 but on the post war world.

The dropping of the bombs did shorten the war by a small margin (just how long is and always has been the subject of some debate) and I believe that lives were saved on all sides, but the overall impact on WW2, seen as a whole, was not huge, that came later.

Cheers

Steve[/QUOT

True but this is hindsight. In late 1941 when the project started, the outcome of the war was far from certain. The Soviet Union was near collapse and Nazi Germany may have had a bomb program. All of this makes Stimson and FDR's decision to fund the project momentous.
 
Last edited:
Again I don't disagree. However, the initial funding for the project was quite modest and just as nobody involved could know for sure that the project would yield results by 1945, they also couldn't know that the costs would spiral in the way they did. They deserve some credit for sticking with it, I wonder if they would today?
The Manhattan Project had only one purpose, to harness the energy of the atom in a chain reaction to produce a bomb that could be carried by aircraft if possible, and to produce it before the Germans could. Again, in October 1939, when the project started there was no way of knowing just how far behind the Germans would fall. That such a bomb, if produced, would be used, no responsible official ever questioned. Stimson wrote
"At no time from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or by another responsible member of the Government, that atomic energy should not be used in that war."
Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer recalled in 1954 that
"we always assumed if they [atomic bombs] were needed, they would be used."
It is clear that once the project started, albeit on a limited budget, the true potential of a nuclear weapon became evident. Certainly many in the scientific community believed it could be achieved, and in a reasonable time. In a way projects like this become self fulfilling, with a momentum of their own, but I agree that the Administration had to keep signing the ever larger cheques, and this it did.
Cheers
Steve
 
All this was funded by Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, perhaps history is kind to appeasers as time goes by.

Reminds me of Carter and Reagan.
The latter took credit for the maturation and implementation of many military projects begun under the former.
 
British
1 development of Radar and developing a Command and Control process to make best use of this new technology
2 the development of aircraft and equipment for Nightfighters
3 Anti submarine radars and weapons

Germany
1 Being pragmatic in the development of their single engine fighters
2 Development of GA aircraft and tactics
3 Tactical reconnaissance (strategic was a total failure)

USA
1 Recognising the importance of range as a tactical asset
2 Mass production of technical equipment of all types
3 Willingness to learn from their mistakes (with a small number of notable exceptions)
 
The decision by the USA and UK to jointly develop a long distance escort fighter for use in 1943/44 showed great foresight.

Wot, you mean it all happened by accident? You must be joking!

Maybe not an accident, but serendipity. Wasn't the NA-73 / Mustang was intended to be an interceptor and fighter bomber by the British? I don't think any of the US fighters were originally spec'd to have long range. The P-38 was intended to be an interceptor, and had requirements for speed, rate of climb, but not long range. The Mustang's laminar flow wing with the Merlin allowed long endurance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back