Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated?

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by freebird

The German FW & Me109 could out-turn all of the Allied fighters in '43 correct?

The US fighters were heavier, more firepower & could take more punishment?

Gennerally true in the case of the US fighters (though at low level some P-40's and P-39's could probably have been able to out-turn contemporary Fw-190's)

For the many British and Russian planes though, a different story.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Was this the P-47 "D"?

In July 1943 only the P-47C and no operational paddle blades until the kits arrived in January 1944.

The German FW & Me109 could out-turn all of the Allied fighters in '43 correct?

Despite the vigorous debate, IMO no. The Spit V and Yak 9 could out turn both for eqivalent fuel loads, the Hurricane and P-40 were 'competitive' but inferior.

The US fighters were heavier, more firepower & could take more punishment?

Me 109 yes, Fw 190 with 4 2cm cannon - no as far as firepower. US aircraft heavier than everybody else's primarily because of fuel and engine selection for the Big 3 USAAF and F6F and F4U.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Also, with some of the aces form the eastern front fighting over the channel, France etc. with the Luftwaffe pilots having TWO years of war experience over the US pilots, shouldn't that also count for something?
This would give them a better chance to school new fighter pilots, right?
With more well trained pilots up in the air, this must be a pain in the neck...

Exactly right Lucky, the heavy LW fighter losses in the summer of '43 forced them to push pilots into combat with incomplete training, this was the beginning of the end, it can only get worse after that.

Originally Posted by drgondog

Me 109 yes, Fw 190 with 4 2cm cannon - no as far as firepower. US aircraft heavier than everybody else's primarily because of fuel and engine selection for the Big 3 USAAF and F6F and F4U.

Ok, so the main US {& Allied} long-range arcraft aircraft in the summer of 1943 are the P-47C, and the P-38G. The P-38H's first went into service May/June 1943, and the "J" varient did not go into service until August. The P-51B does not go into operation in Europe until Dec 1943.

I looked up more data on the P-38:

The P-38 Lightning

Originally Posted by WWIIAircraftPerformance

The records show that the P-38 did not do well as a long range, high altitude bomber escort with the Eighth Air Force. The major problem would appear to be the unusually large number of engine failures that occurred. There was also the restriction requiring a low dive speed above 20,000 feet, which was the standard altitude for escort fighters. The engine problems were under control by mid 1944 and the other problems were eventually eliminated or improved.

If the Lightning did not do that well with the Eighth Air Force (for whatever reason) it more than made up for it in the Pacific...

Unfortunately the Lightning’s unusual shape induced a high-speed airflow over the wing root resulting in a low critical Mach number, and caused it to enter compressibility induced control problems at a relatively low speed. This turned out to be a major problem for any dive started above 25,000 feet. In Europe, German pilots used this to their advantage against P-38s engaged in the high-altitude bomber escort role.

High carburetor air temperature (CAT for short) can cause all kinds of engine problems including detonation, which can lead to catastrophic engine failure. Allison recommended a CAT of no more than 45 degrees C. As it turned out high CAT was one of the major problems limiting P-38 performance through the P-38H. The root cause was, of course, the limited cooling ability of the wing leading edge intercoolers found in all early P-38s.

In summary the Lightning problems in 1943 are:

1.) High speed, high altitude compressibility until the dive flaps were added on the later "J" series
2.) CAT problems in the "A" through "H"
3.) Engine failures in the "J" series
4.) Difficult high speed handling until power flaps introduced on the "L" series.


So it would appear that the German aircraft could hold there own quality-wise against the US aircraft, it was simply a matter of the Allies having more aircraft, pilots & fuel supplies to wear down the Germans....

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Once the P-51D came along, there would be less casualties to the bombers, even if the Germans had scores of 262 jets at their disposal. Eventually the Allies would have put their own jets to use, like the British Gloster Meteor, not a bad aircraft, and without the engine problems of the 262.

It might have lasted until 1946 or maybe even longer, but remember that D-Day was coming soon so the Germans would have still have had advancing Allied armies coming to Germany. The P-47 would still have hampered German troop movement by daylight, even if there were more FW 190's to stop them.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Once the P-51D came along, there would be less casualties to the bombers, even if the Germans had scores of 262 jets at their disposal. Eventually the Allies would have put their own jets to use, like the British Gloster Meteor, not a bad aircraft, and without the engine problems of the 262.

It might have lasted until 1946 or maybe even longer, but remember that D-Day was coming soon so the Germans would have still have had advancing Allied armies coming to Germany .

I think without the heavy German troop losses in the East, and without Allied Air superiority in the West, D-Day would not be launched in 1944, if at all.

The P-51 B's only come in December, and the 51 "D" in '44, so the question would still be in doubt. Even with the German Army badly weakened and with the Allies in control of the air, "Omaha" was almost a costly defeat.

[kool kitty89]

Why the P-51D?

The B/C models were quite capable (moreso performance wise -particularly in climb and turn ability). The increased(and, more importantly) more reliable armament was a plus, as was the increased visibility, but the 4x .40's were generally adequate fr Fvs.F combat and the visibility with the malcolm hood was decent. If you're talking range wise, there were variants of the B/C with the fuselage tank as well.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Why the P-51D?

The B/C models were quite capable (moreso performance wise -particularly in climb and turn ability). The increased(and, more importantly) more reliable armament was a plus, as was the increased visibility, but the 4x .40's were generally adequate fr Fvs.F combat and the visibility with the malcolm hood was decent. If you're talking range wise, there were variants of the B/C with the fuselage tank as well.

All early P-51B-3 and B-5's were retrofitted and, IIRC, the -7 forward had the 85 gallon tank installed as production variant. The -7 was the first 51 to have the 1650-7 installed also for better low and medium altitude perfromance

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Gennerally true in the case of the US fighters (though at low level some P-40's and P-39's could probably have been able to out-turn contemporary Fw-190's)

For the many British and Russian planes though, a different story.

Getting into a turning fight against a "Curtiss" type fighter was not a good idea for 109 drivers.

If considering just the original question which revolved around Russia's defeat in 43, with other factors not being substantially changed, I would think Hitler would have sent the bulk of the available airpower to Tunisia vs. the Reich given his track record.

[Soren]

If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.

First of all with no fuel shortages there'd be more LW a/c in the air and better trained pilots in them = Huge and unacceptable Allied a/c losses. Secondly with all the fuel needed the German Panzers could then roll along when needed, which means the Allies would've been completely incapable of pulling off any invasion of France.

Had the USSR fallen then Germany would be in complete control on the ground, it was then only in the air that the Allies were a problem.

If Germany wanted complete air superiority right away and not have to struggle for it for a great deal of time, despite no lack fuel or trained pilots, then they'd have to press the Me-262 into service when it was ready. The Me-262 was the only a/c which, if properly fueled and piloted, could negate the Allied superiority in numbers.

Anyway the way I see it is that if the USSR had fallen then the war would've progessed with the Allies bombing Germany and Germany bombing the Allies (Britain) until finally the A-bomb would settle the matter in some way. Any attempt at a landased invasion of france would've resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and so the war would've went on in the air over Europe until the A-bomb came along.

The important thing for the LW was the fuel & trained pilots, this is what it lacked.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Nikademus

Getting into a turning fight against a "Curtiss" type fighter was not a good idea for 109 drivers.

The Bf-109 was a better turn fighter than the P-40 & P-39, so no.

[Soren]

Bill,

I'm sure you'll agree that the Hurricane was definitely a better turn fighter than both the Bf-109, Spitfire, P-40, Fw-190, P-51 etc etc.. The only a/c I think of which beats the Hurricane in turn performance is the A6M Zero.

As for the Yak-9, it didn't turn quite as well as the Bf-109G. According to German 109 pilots the Yak-9 was no match in tight turning fights against a clean Bf-109G (Clean refers to no gunpods as many had these equipped). Are you sure you didn't mean the Yak-3 ?

[pbfoot]

I still say that the skies in NW Europe would be ruled by the 9AF and 2TAF with a large superiority in air power ,the Strategic component would have to be scaled back as I think lossed over the Reich proper would have been prohibitive . The U boats would have been neutralized in the same manner with the advent of proper ASW aircraft and naval tactics which were lacking pre 42 . Seeing how IMHO a invasion of France would have been too costly so maybe an Invasion of Norway in which the Allied control of the sea would have made it impossible for the Germans to resupply

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soren

If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.

First of all with no fuel shortages there'd be more LW a/c in the air and better trained pilots in them = Huge and unacceptable Allied a/c losses. Secondly with all the fuel needed the German Panzers could then roll along when needed, which means the Allies would've been completely incapable of pulling off any invasion of France.

Without air superiority I don't think an invasion would be successful

Originally Posted by Soren

Had the USSR fallen then Germany would be in complete control on the ground, it was then only in the air that the Allies were a problem.

If Germany wanted complete air superiority right away and not have to struggle for it for a great deal of time, despite no lack fuel or trained pilots, then they'd have to press the Me-262 into service when it was ready. The Me-262 was the only a/c which, if properly fueled and piloted, could negate the Allied superiority in numbers.

If you count only the long range Allied aircraft available in mid 1943 {P-47 C & P -38 H} how do they compare with the German Me109G & FW 190? {Is it still mostly the FW 190 "A" in the summer of 1943?

Originally Posted by Soren

Anyway the way I see it is that if the USSR had fallen then the war would've progessed with the Allies bombing Germany and Germany bombing the Allies (Britain) until finally the A-bomb would settle the matter in some way. Any attempt at a landased invasion of france would've resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and so the war would've went on in the air over Europe until the A-bomb came along.

Unless they both get it at about the same time...


Soren do you have an approximate idea of the size of the LW in western Europe vs. the Allies? Was it 2/1 for the Allies?


Suppose {as some have said} that the USSR has not fallen, but is much weakened {due to lack of lend-lease etc}. The Germans cannot withdraw ALL of the LW rom the East, but enough to increase the fighters in the West to 150% of historical in summer 1943. Fuel supply from the captured Russia is not total, but say double historical. Is that enough to contest the Air superiority?

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by Soren

If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.

Would this then maybe change the point for the invasion to, I don't know, Norway and work from there? Don't know much of the strength and importance of Luftwaffe in Norway, when it comes to get fresh pilots and aircraft. Also, would this scenario have prolonged the war much further and maybe in one way or another dragged Sweden into it?

[Kruska]

Hello Lucky13,

“IF’ Russia had fallen, or let’s rather say armistice in early-middle 1943. Allied troops already had their grips on North Africa and were on route towards Italy and would have expanded their offence into the Balkans, taking Tito’s support into account and the close proximity to Austria/Germany.

Having to face the freed up divisions from the Wehrmacht coming from Russia, the Balkan operation would have ended in disaster for the Allies, leaving them with the Italian front fighting for their lives. Therefore I do not think that any additional troops or ships would have been available to forward an occupation of Norway and at the same time to keep a lifeline to Italy.

Regards
Kruska