A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Guys:

In all honesty, once the USAAF got the political will to 'carry on the fight' after second Schweinfurt, could the LW actually have inflicted sufficient losses to eventually stop the 8th AF? As I understood it, by late 43/early 44 they could put a thousand bombers & at least that many fighters over a target AND there were several times that many planes & aircrew in reserve or 'in the pipeline';
It would seem that even IF the LW had an insanely favorable exchange rate (150 bombers & 50 fighters vs say, 50 LW fighters), they STILL eventually just get ground down by sheer weight of numbers; was there actually a 'turning point' that could have been reached or was it a 'pipe dream'?

NickM

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I have even thought that the 8th would have eventually worn out the Luftwaffe (albeit at a barely sustainable rate of attrition) WITHOUT Long Range Escort.

Rob Romero

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Nick:

One point I believe worth considering is that the 8AF's ability to put up very large numbers of bombers in 1944 was due to the very success of the escort force in gaining air superiority and hence reducing bomber losses.

In other words, the success of the USAAF fighters was responsible, to an extent, for the increase in 8AF bomber numbers. It might be interesting to compare the rate at which fresh bombers were supplied from the US with best guesses of bomber losses in the absence of escort fighters and see what size bomber force results i.e. an 'aircraft balance'.

The absence of an escort fighter force may also have allowed an increase in the size of the defending fighter force and unhindered use of the twin-engine fighters using rockets in stand-off attacks.

That said, an absolutely fascinating issue to consider.

Cheers

Boomerang

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

IMHO,

having been a child growing up in the USA during WWII and listening to how my parents, relatives and neighbors felt about the war , if different tactics by either side had delayed V-E day by more than a few weeks, Germany might well have been the recipients of the first nuclear bombs.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

An interesting question. Morale in 8th AF bomber crews was pretty low after October 14, 1943... On the other hand the will of the American people to prevail was far stronger than today - so there probably would not have been enough Congressional pressure to influence the Strategic plan.

I think a couple of questions would have to be posed.

Belief: Absent the Mustang, the P-38 would have been extremely important and perhaps even effective once the dive brake modifications were available and the P-38J became numerous enough. The ratio of kills to losses would probably have been lower (than P-51) against the Luftwaffe but probably sufficient to stop un restricted forming of large gaggles of German fighters to make 50 bomber loss days a common occurance.

Question: Would the P-38 be effective 'enough' to extract the toll on the Luftwaffe between December and June to prevent a much stronger Luftwaffe reaction at Normandy?

Question: Would the combination of the P-38 and P-47's have been sufficient to enable the campaign against key oil targets?

I believe the answers are 'yes' but it would have been bloodier at Normandy and in the air during deep penetrations - both to 8th AF Fighter and Bomber Command, and the Luftwaffe would have been marginally stronger in the March-June timeframe to react stronger to bombing critical oil targets..

On the other hand, opinions are just that - opinions.

Bill

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

, Germany might well have been the recipients of the first nuclear bombs.


Who will drop the 3 rd one Iran, Korea,..or Israel, USA start a very sad list



remi

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I would also support the oppinion, that introduction of P-51 wasn't that decisive, since many german planes were shot down by P-47. This includes great bundle of Experten like Rall.

But i don't think that 8th AF had a chance only with bombers. Losses in Schweinfurt where much higherthan 60 due damages. If Luftwaffe had used 1944 equipment and tactics like Mk-108 and Sturmgruppen with long-range fighter escort, the losses of four-engined bomber would be much to high.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

After five years of thought, I can only say, that while the US started a very sad list, 'the bomb' ended a very bad war....

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

That war probably not began in 1939, nd probably finished in 1945 starting new era , finishing now ! what next ??

R

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Iran will probably air-burst a 25-megaton radio active sodium bomb at an altitude of 600 meters over central Paris. Peaceniks should be thankful that the U.S.A. is willing to spend its national wealth and the blood of its youth to keep the passive and complacent infidels of the world safe.

L.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I would disagree. Within a very short time from first combat ops in December 1943, through May 1944 the limited strength of P-51s destroyed more German aircraft in the air than all the P-47 credits for all the 8th and 9th AF Thundebolts for all the combat sorties of P-47s in the ETO.

As to P-47s shooting down experten like Rall - true. Rall ventured into the range of P-47s on May 12 and was shot down after he cornered Hub Zemke and nearly shot him down - around Frankfurt - just inside P-47 range. Note all the experten (and experienced fighter pilots) shot down from Frankfurt to Posnan and Brux and Schweinfurt by Mustangs as well as eliminating the Me 110 and Me 410 from truly effective sorties against bombers. The initial value of the Mustang is that it killed a LOT of LW experienced fighter pilots based in LF Reich which were pulled in from Ost and Sud fronts as reinforcement against 8th AF campaing against strategic targets.

Note also that most of the air to air Jug kills in the west during 1943 were primarily Luftflotte 3 with JG2 and JG26 as well as western Germany based units of Mitte and then Reich. They weren't touching German pilots based in Central, Eastern and Southern Germany and particularly after the LW adopted the tactics of waiting to hit the bombers after they were out of P-47 escort range.

In fact, the P-51B IMO completely neutralized the LW ability to a.) effectively resist 8th AF incursions anywhere in Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and b.) contest air superiority over Normandy, and c.) regroup/re-train and re-deply more experienced fighter pilots.

The numbers for ETO/USAAF ONLY 1942-May, 1945 - 8th and 9th AF
Spitfire 15.0
P38 452.0
P-47 2,658.4
P-51 4,179.2
P-61 128.0

The 'crossover' point for the transisition from P-47 to P-51 as dominant ETO fighter occurred from Big Week to Big B, February 20, 1944 through March 8, 1944.

Between Feb 20 and Feb 29 the Jug (all 8th and 9th AF P-47s combined) outscored the Mustang 140 to 64.5. From March 1 through March 8 the Mustangs (4 FG's, one with two days experience (355th), two with one and three weeks experience (357/4th) and one with three months (354FG) - outscored all 11 P-47 Groups (56, 78, 352, 353, 355(six days), 356, 358, 359, 361, 362, 365) - 108 to 86.
By the end of March the tally for P-51s during March was 254 to 176 for the Jugs. April was 322 to 85 - Mustang over P-47.

This does not include aircraft destroyed on the Ground by the P-51 in that period. From January through May the P-51 destroyed. count was 529 to 164.5 for the Jug.

All in - 8th and 9th AF combined Jan 1 through May 31 leading up to control of the air over Normandy beaches
P-47 Destroyed 764.5 air and 164.5 ground. The P-51 destroyed 1142.3 air and 529 ground.

As to the thread - I do believe Daylight Strategic bombing was on a very short leash until the decision was made that the number one objective for the 8th and 9th AF was to eliminate LW resistance over the Normandy campaign - and even then the initiation of re-targeting deep strategic targets didn't occur until two P-38 and one P-51 Group was operational in January 1944.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Iran will probably air-burst a 25-megaton radio active sodium bomb at an altitude of 600 meters over central Paris. Peaceniks should be thankful that the U.S.A. is willing to spend its national wealth and the blood of its youth to keep the passive and complacent infidels of the world safe.


US probably to busy to find a blind chinese, in a dark cave, a moonless night at the moment , would be quite better for us to open some umbrella

R.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

R - I suspect being a long time friend and ally of the US is not a great place for any nation to be these days.. this sordid affair in China illustrates how 'flexible' our priciples are these days.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Off topic with a bleedin' vengeance, wouldn't you say, Larry?

Let alone that you're assuming (a) Iran will one day have such a weapon; (b) a method of getting it to a point above Paris; and (c) any reason/desire to do so. And surely you can't be suggesting that France's nukes are no deterrent to conjectural Iranian nuclear aggression? If they aren't then why should you imagine that America's are?

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Really, Nick.

You should go back and read the entire thread focusing in particular on RT's two remarks, especially the first one he made on 19 February 2007 at 11:05, and concurrently consider some of RT's past postings here on 12 O'Clock High with their - and I am being very considerate here - less than favorable American flavor. For someone who bristles rather easily when unjustified mud is slung at the Brits, I would think you might afford the same consideration to others.

Larry

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Did the Luftwaffe every use there bombers to try to strike the 8th AF on the airfields in England to eliminate them? It seems even night raids would have taken out some of the bombers on the ground. They had to know the locations of the bases for the bombers and fighters. Killing civilians was a terrible waste of effort.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

That was out of Luftwaffe's ability, range limit of their bombers, lack of any large numbers of heavy bombers even close to the quality and number of the British night heavy bombers, navigation problem, the excellent British night air defense system, that simply would not do

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

The whole problem, is at which point nd which time we consider the things , 200 years ago no way to be US-frendly or just because brit-foe ??, 150 years it would be better to give some hand to the people South like the brits were ready to ??,100 years ago no way to be ... so much debts, 50 years ago one not really different history, today US probably find more way to be 'friend ' with China as with Europe China is considered at equal level Europe some good dog ,

R

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Fair point, there's a history of nonsense scattered hereabouts but in this thread I was just hoping (a) to suggest that logic goes out the window where nuclear "strategy" is concerned and (b) to get the thread back on its more interesting original track. I'm sorry if I come across as patriotically oversensitive. For the record, you can say what you like about the British as far as I'm concerned, I'm English — there's a difference!

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

You are taking far too much of the blame, Nick. I am admittedly hyper-sensitive when it comes to my country. Nationalism and patriotism, along with most other "-isms", are generally thought to be very bad and the very concept behind the EU was to do away with them. So I am an old dinosaur, pardon the redundancy, but I can't help it and I see unwarranted slights and perceived anti-Americanisms more readily than others.

But I agree: all of these is WAY off topic and I apologize for taking part in it. I would reply to RT's remark above, but I can't understand what he's saying.

L.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Curiously no. II./KG51 plus a squadron of Me 410s snuck into trail for a B-24 BG arriving at home base after dark and shot down or badly damaged 14 B-24s. It caused the USAAF to allocate a flight of fighters at each fighter base to be a 'ready alert' flight and energised base defense anti aircraft drills.

AFAIK the LW in their infinite wisdom didn't see the value in attcking UK airbases after dark when there was no realistic defense against low level Ju 88 oe Me 410 attacks.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

The reason "there was no realistic defense against low level Ju 88 oe Me 410 attacks." was that no such scale of night attack occurred before, Luftwaffe could not expect to be so lucky next time.
Luftwaffe could not go after US airbase in UK in the daylight, that would be almost equal to commit suicide. In the night, the limitation of the navigation technology alone would prevent them from finding their target, besides, many US airbases for heavy bombers units located beyond the range of the German medium bombers anyway. And even they found the airport, what the chance their bombs could hit the target? From the experience from RAF, we all know the accuracy of the night time bombing was notoriously low. At last, let us do not forget the fact that RAF night air defense system was among the best in the WWII airforces

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I agree low level navigation difficult re: pinpointing US airbases - but a 0500 attack would catch a Lot of heavy bomb groups getting final maintenance and firing up engines for many raids.

As to 'effective night defense for low level attack? The NVA had the most capable AAA capability in a small area during VietNam and had no defense against F-111. So, the question is whether or not to risk the 0300-0500 strike from French/Dutch bases against the odds of finding the target?

Note - I indicated Ju 88 and Me 410s which easily had the range to attack east Anglia targets through D-Day and for those based in southern, eastern and northern France - for some time afterwards - as long as unmolested by strafing fighters in daylight.

Further re: night defenses - imagine Mossies and P-61s a.) trying to look down to capture a signal against the clutter and b.) make attacks on a/c flying 100-200 feet AGL?

As to finding the airfield but not hitting the targets? ALL 8th AF fighters and bombers fueld the evening before the next mission. Hit One a/c with cannon fire and visibility will be "wonderful".

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Are you suggesting large numbers of Me-410s and Ju-88s flew all the way from France and low countries to US airbases in UK at low level in the middle of the night then accuratley locate and hit the target ?or am I misunderstood what you said? Because I do not believe any of the WWII era airforces had the that kind of techonlogy.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

You might want to look at the precedent of Luftflotte 2's bombers over the Corsican airfields on 12/13 May 1944. In early 1944 a significant bomber force had been assembled against Britain and could have included East Anglian bases amongst its targets. An airfield strike amongst the Steinbock city attacks might have succeeded as a one-off at least.

My question though is whether there was any technological barrier to the earlier introduction of the R4M air-to-air rocket? It was a stand-off, fire-and-forget weapon that any fighter could carry with relatively small aerodynamic penalty. A mass release of rockets may have had the potential to disrupt the American combat boxes (irrespective of any hits) prior to engaging with guns.

Did nobody think of it in 1943, did it take too longer than expected to develop or was it that everyone went looking for big clumsy solutions?

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Nick, because of the limitation of the technology in WWII, any night time attack could not be coordinated, in order to commit any kind of large scale and sustained attack on US airbases, Luftwaffe had to first solve the night time navigation problem, which was no way could be done by flying low level all the way from their airports in continent to UK, then come the another problem, how to overcome RAF night air defense system, we all know that Luftwaffe suffered very high losses in the Operation Steinbock, I simply do not see Luftwaffe had any chance, may be some small scale tactic success, no more than that.
By the way, was the WWII era air-to-air rockets were notorious for its inaccuracy?

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I didn't suggest they could sustain attacks on airfields, I gave an example of a highly successful single attack in Corsica. A similar attack might have succeeded during Steinbock by wrongfooting the defenders.

The R4M wouldn't have to be that accurate against USAAF combat boxes, if a large number could be released at once they might well have disrupted the formation enough to leave individual bombers more vulnerable to gun attack.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I am a little confused, what USAAF combat boxes ? I think we were talking about Luftwaffe low level attack US airbases in the night, all of USAAF heavy bombers would be on the ground that time.
And as far as I know, in WWII it was not possible to maintain large formation in night time flying, any large scale of German night time attack would have to go in small group, two or three at best, at first they would suffer losses, possible very high losses, in the hand of British AAA and night figters, if the survivors were lucky enough to find the USAAF airport which I highly doubt, they had to go into attack one or two aircraft a time, there would be no coordination among each other, and would not cause any nearly serious damage.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

I know that the British radar was very good but the Germans could have caused a lot of trouble in other ways. Bombers mixing in with returning RAF bombers could have slipped into England for strikes. Even a captured B-17 or B-24 returning from a strike with a bomb load to an 8th AF base could have caused a very bad situation (a Trojan horse). The loss of one captured bomber for a massive strike on a base full of bombers would have been worth the trade off.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

(1) the thread has been discussing various ways the heavy bomber threat might have been countered. This has included air-to-air tactics and pre-emptive raids on allied bases

(2) The raid on the Corsican bases actually happened and the results are well documented. None of the factors you mention prevented that isolated success. I do not think a similar result was impossible to achieve over England in early 1944 if the defenders were expecting another raid on London, for example.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

For what it's worth, Roger Foreman commented that he was surprised that the luftwaffe didn't try to attack the 8th on their home bases via intruder missions--he noted that given the congested skies over East Anglia, it should have been more 'do-able'.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

By frequently changing the identification signal, British could easily detect the German aircraft mixing in with returning RAF bombers? and how could a large amount of German aircraft managed to "mix" in the returned RAF night bombers without being detected anyway?
About Trojan horse, I do not know, believe me, I read a lot of WWII air combat history, I never know a single case that indicate, one or two heavy bombers, even without opposition, had the ability to inflict any serious damage. In WWII, the only way to inflict damage to the level of "making a difference" was repeat and sustained attack, which I do not think Luftwaffe had that ability

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Nick, all of my posts are replied to Mr drgondog's post relates to the possibility of Luftwaffe night attack USAAF air bases in UK, second I never deny the possibility that Luftwaffe could achieve isolate success, my point is that there is NO WAY that Luftwaffe could accomplish anything that could really effect USAAF's ability to execute their bombing campaign

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Flying low over the water in max 2 ship flights, each tasked to strafe heavily populated airfields with fueled bombers and fighters in unprotected hardstands? I think great success.

Don't confuse WWII vinage land based or air mounted radars with sophisticated capability to see nap of the earth inbound aircraft, or confuse that rudimentary capability with integrated air defense command interception capability or think that AAA had much of a chance at knocking out any aircraft at night near the deck - to effectively score against such attackers would be accidental. Even a few attempts would drastically change mission preparation processes and dramatically collapse the window available to pre-flight check, fuel, load bombs, co-ordinate take off and assemby for 40+ bomb groups.

Light radar guided systems like Soviet ZU -23 were lethal because they could slew rapidly and automatically fuse the shells - which did not exist in any dimension for WWII - and neither the Brits or US could stop them from attacking.

FINDING the airfields is another story but hitting just one fully loaded up will be visible for many miles.

Regards,

Bill

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Sir, please consider the FACT that there is no way to find your target if you choose to fly at low level from, say France, to UK and find your target at night based on WWII navigation technology, you have to come in, locate your targe, then dive and close your target from lower leverl, this would let British air defense caught you long before you even have a chance to going low, but if you want to wander around, drop you bombs randonly on the field, then be my guest

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Another example of a Luftwaffe air strike on an airfield with B-17's was Poltava, Russia on the night of the 21Jun44. Out of 73 B-17's there was destroyed 47 and the rest suffered damage. There were captured B-17's that entered American bomber formations that could have returned to England with them. USAAF bomber crews mentioned suspicious bombers in there formations on occasion. If checked out I am sure that indication by them would be "radio problems" on visual. Even the Jabo raids if used properly to strike the fuel depot at an English airfield in the evening would have a signal fire effect for follow up bombers. War time is taking risk for success.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

Nokose, I know the Poltava raid well, Russian's air defense at that area was no way to be comparable to the British air defense system over UK. And commando style raid may be impressive, but I can not recall a single case of commando style raid had any significant impact to the war in the military history, I will welcome anyone to prove me wrong.
By the way, "Even the Jabo raids if used properly to strike the fuel depot at an English airfield in the evening would have a signal fire effect for follow up bombers", this is much easier say than actaully done, you could look into the combat history of both RAF bomb command and Luftwaffe bomber forces, how much time and effort they spend in this kind of pathfinding tactics, and huge difficulty they are encounted when they tried to hit a city, not an airbase

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

German night Jabo, Intruder and bomber missions over Britain in 1943-1944 were often costly and often ineffective.

In spring 1944 several German raids of 100+ bombers failed to hit their target at all, and these were cities as big as London, Hull and Bristol. Targetting an airfield seems harder to me.

And the main German Intruder mission in late war, operation Gisela, was a success in terms of shot down bombers, but the Intruders suffered between 10% and 20% of losses, and their kill ratio was far less than above Germany.

The key here is that the Allied could replace any losses suffered during a German success (the raid on Corsica only stopped the raids by B-25s for some days, the Gisela operation did not stop it at all), while German could not replace all crews and aircraft.

Re: A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF
 

In the ''Blitzkrieg" way that is working to kill planes on earth level, that's give you an immediate advantage on later stage of the war, where force ratio was to 10/1 or 15/1, that means german hv to kill 10 folds more allied planes than their own losses, you hv prob. better things to do.

Steinbock was a complete failure, to add that bombing by night was maybe not the right idea, probably the whole brit. night-offensive gave not material results matching the investment .
Gisela was also partly a failure as the gains, some few shot-down bombers ,were far to compensate the loss a highly trained crews, 1 month of gisela action would hv annihilated the complete german night-fighter force.

Rémi