Warbird Information Exchange

It would have made no difference whatsoever. There was no type of aircraft that had any impact on the outcome of the war by virtue of the capabilities of the aircraft itself. Period. Numbers, quality control, tactics, crew training, and attrition mattered, but even the exceptional aircraft on each side were not far enough from parity with opposing types to make any difference in the air war.

And the air war itself likely was not decisive in any theatre of the conflict.

August

I have a feeling that the outcome would have been somewhat different if the German forces had Lancs and B-17's at their disposal. The bombing of England during the Battle of Britain would have been far more devastating in my mind. If the Luftwaffe had more time available to them over England they could probably have inflicted a lot more damage.

I probably have to read the history books more, but in my mind the force that changed the tide in World War Two was long range capabilities.

-David

It is still debated whether long-range bombing by the Allies had much impact on the outcome of the war in Europe. There is a school of thought that the resources would have been better directed to increased tactical airpower.

August

August,

Are you suggesting more concentration into operations done by planes like the Mosquito? I've always been facinated by the work those guys did.

So is that the kind of stuff that you mean?

Cheers,

David

Spoken like an Attorney-- I wonder what would have hapened if we hadn't achieved "Air Supremecy" over the Normandy beaches. Didn't we achieve that with Airpower. What about the three million German's manning anti-aircraft batteries, wonder what kind of impact they would have had as infantry. Airpower in this situation was like a flutering left jab that has you occupied while the right hook puts you on your a$$.

_________________
tracers work both ways

Mosquito, Typhoon, B-25, P-47, A-20/Boston, A-26, Il-2. What strategic bombing mostly proved was that civilians have an incredible resiliency, resolve, and stoutness of heart to pick themselves up from the rubble and get the war effort going again literally overnight. The Germans showed it and the English also showed it (and if the Germans had had B-17s and Lancasters in 1940, it wouldn't have made any difference to the will and strength of the English civilians -- talk to anyone who lived through that time in London if you don't believe me). What airpower really did to help win the war was disruption of communications, transportation and supply lines, and choking off materials like oil and rubber at their source. Bombing factories really didn't work. In the face of all the bombing production just kept going up, dropping off only when there were no materials left to produce with. Note that the Soviets, who won approximately 70% of the war against Germany, did so with next to no strategic bombing, it was all tactical air war.

August

I don't understand your point about air supremacy. Air supremacy has nothing to do with long-range bombing. Fighters give you air supremacy. But it is not necessary to have superior fighters, just more of them and better used. Qualitatively, fighters on both sides were at parity throughout the war in Europe.

As for Normandy, there is one and only one reason why we could invade Normandy and that is because the Germans were in full retreat in the East and had shifted most of their forces to the war against the USSR. While we were doing the fluttering and jabbing and hooking, Germany had at least one if not two arms tied behind its back by our ally -- and he did the job with tactical airpower and LOTS of lives on the ground. In fact, by the time we invaded Normandy it was quite obvious that the Soviets could and would finish off Germany by themselves. We invaded Europe mainly to push the postwar Iron Curtain as far east as possible.

August

Our best ally in WWII was Hitler- had he not spent so much time trying to direct everything, and fouling up every project he touched, they may have developed the aircraft he needed, and the Generals may have devised tactics etc. to defeat our ground forces. Hitler did just as much to defeat the German Army as anyone- if not more! Mainly due to his drug induced incompetence...

Oh, and August, I hate to disagree, but had not the "Arsenal of Democracy"(the USA) been supplying great amounts of tanks, trucks and Aircraft to Russia, they would have taken a lot longer to achieve the advances they made. The Germans would routinely switch troops from front to front. We took Normandy because we convinced Hitler we'd attack at Calais, and we kept him believing that until it was too late to push us back. Don't go giving the Soviet Union as much credit as they give themselves- We had a LOT to do with winning the Second World War. With one statement, you have demeaned the efforts of all American, British, French, Canadian, and scores of other countries Veterans of the Northwest European Campaign, by expressing the opinion their deaths, injuries, and service were unnecessary and pointless, except as a tool to keep Russia at bay, and that they fought an easy war. Cyken Cyn, Comrade...


Robbie

I agree with August in that the Allies' choking off the supply lines, especially the fuel supply for the Luftwaffe, was a main determining factor. A swap in aircraft probably wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome - strategy would have. The Germans couldn't keep up the pace of sorties later in the war because of dwindling supplies (one reason).

Tommy

Robbie, I agree with you that the US and other Allies made a great contribution to the war, both directly and by assisting the Soviets. I disagree with you that I have demeaned anybody. If you believe that anybody's sacrifice is diminshed by whether it is unnecessary or pointless (which I didn't say, BTW), then please speak for yourself, not for me. I am not much on heroes, but to the extent that I recognize heroism, it is putting one's life at risk for others, regardless of the cause or necessity. A man who dies on the losing side in an unnecessary war of aggression or conquest (e.g. a German or Japanese in WWII, or American in Vietnam or Iraq) to me is just as much a hero as someone fighting to save democracy. For that matter a woman who risks her life to save one child from a burning building in peacetime is just as much a hero as any soldier who ever lived. I do not have to build walls of ignorance or fantasy about the true causes and consequences of a war in order to respect those who fought and fell. Soldiers do not get to pick their countries, governments or causes. They get to choose how they do their duty, which speaks for itself.

I don't know what an "easy war" means from a combat soldier's perspective. America certainly had an easy war at home, but combat is combat. I guess if you were going to quantify heroism, you could express it in terms of the situational odds of getting killed, so that those who willingly face almost certain death are bigger heroes than those who have a reasonable chance of survival. By that calculus, for example, the Japanese defending Iwo Jima, who knew they weren't going home and were sure to be overrun by overwhelming force, were bigger heroes than the Marines who took the island, most of whom survived. Such calculations are certainly weighed in the awarding of medals, but I don't consider them very legitimate.

August