Which plane(s) would have been most missed?

[gjs238]

For each country, which planes would have been most missed?
That is, which plane's absence would have created the most effect for that country?

The planes that would have been most missed, or would have changed the course of the war for a particular country, may not necessarily be the planes some folks consider "best."

 

[mikewint]

Opinion, Germany, the Bf 109; US, the P-51; England, the Spitfire

 

[hawkeye2an]

C-47 for U.S..

 

[pbfoot]

Canada the Harvard and DHC82c Tiger Moth and the Anson

 

[Messy1]

B-17 or B-24 for the US, Hurricane for England, ME109 for Germany, Zero for Japan, Yaks for Russia.

 

[davebender]

I disagree. We managed without P-51s during 1942 and 1943. We could have managed without P-51s during the final 18 months of the war also.

The U.S. cannot do without the F4F and SBD. Without them Japan is likely to occupy all of the Pacific except for Australia. Including Hawaii and the coast of Alaska.

 

[johnbr]

Japan Ki 84
USA C47
Uk spitfire
Germany Fw190
Ussr Pe-3

 

[GrauGeist]

Good point about the F4F and SBD...without them, the U.S. would not have been able to show the Japanese they meant business. The Battle of Midway would have been lost and the precarious toe-hold at Guadalcanal wouldn't have happened.

As Far as Japanese aircraft, I'd have to say that the G4M was the real star of the Pacific theater for the Japanese, even though it had shortcomings in being able to defend itself, it was a real workhorse and was used not only to drop bombs and torpedoes, but as a cargo and personnel transport...even used for long range scouting.

The Bf109 for Germany goes without saying...

For Great Britian, it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire and especially in the Battle of Britain, one or the other could not have done the job alone...they complimented each other in that battle. Aside from that, the Spitfire proved it's worth on every continent it was deplayed on and would have left a huge void in Britain's air power.

The USSR would either be the YaK series, or the IL-2...both of which were able to bring the hurt to the Germans and the absense of either would have made a real impact.

 

[davebender]

Without the F4F and SBD I doubt there would have been a Battle of Midway.

USN F2A (Buffalo) fighter aircraft and SB2U (Vindicator) dive bombers would have gotten clobbered at Coral Sea. After that the remaining USN CVs would cower in San Diego while waiting for the F6F fighter and SB2C dive bomber to be rushed into service. Admiral Yamamoto would run wild for all of 1942.

 

[davparlr]

I disagree. We managed without P-51s during 1942 and 1943.

I doubt the dead aircrews of the Schwinfurt-Regensburg mission would have agreed that we were managing. With 60 bombers lost out of 376 engaged, or 16% losses, daylight bombing was unsustainable and would probably have ceased without the P-51.

We could have managed without P-51s during the final 18 months of the war also.

From late 1943 to the fall of 1944, the P-51 dominated the skies over Germany with its superior speed from ceiling to SL and comparable climb to the frontline German fighters. It must have been psychologically devastating to the German during this critical period to have a enemy fighter strafing a home fighter base 400 miles from its base and performing equal to or better when flew up to challenge it.

Both the P-38 and the F4U-1 could have some similar capability, but neither had the significant performance advantage to the P-51. The F4U-1D, if it had the internal wing tanks of the -1, which it didn't, could have had pretty close to the P-51 capability, but it still would have fallen short at all altitudes and at bomber altitudes would have not had clear superiority over the Germans. The intimidation factor would not have been the same.

The U.S. cannot do without the F4F and SBD. Without them Japan is likely to occupy all of the Pacific except for Australia. Including Hawaii and the coast of Alaska.

I disagree with the F4F being irreplaceable. The maligned F3A-3 had similar performance, if not better than the F4F-3 (if it had the same engine) and probably would have performed the same as the F4F-4 (which it outperformed in speed in climb), if it had the same armor and armament as the F4F, and, it also had an impressive battle history with the Finns. Add to that very capable and experienced Navy and Marine pilots and I think it could have held off the Japanese until the F4U came along. I don't know if the F3A was a rugged as the F4F, however.

The SBD is a good selection because of the rationale you stated. There was the Brewster SBN-1 but who knows.

USA C47

As great as the C-47 was, I think the C-46 could have ably performed the same missions. Also, the C-54 was coming on line.

My opinion

US – P-51
Britain – Spitfire
German – Bf-109
Japan - Zero

 

[Thorlifter]

I think it depends on when we are talking about. Surviving the beginning of the war or the war in general? Surviving the beginning is obviously important but planes used in 1939-1941 were obsolete by 1944-1945. I would have two sets of answers.

Beginning:
U.S. - F4F
GB - Hurricane
Ger - Bf-109
Japan - Ki-27
USSR - Pe-2

War in general:
U.S. - C-47
GB - Spitfire
Ger - Fw-190
Japan - Zero
USSR - Yak series

 

[davebender]

There won't be a Schwinfurt-Regensburg mission if Japan runs wild in the Pacific through the end of 1942. 8th Air Force will be concentrated in the Pacific in an effort to contain the Japanese Navy.

 

[mikewint]

US policy as I recall was to concentrate on the European front, finish off Germany and deal with Japan secondarily. That's why I thought of the P-51 first. But I do agree with the two Daves those SBDs and F4F were extremely important in the Pacific

 

[tyrodtom]

Suppose America clearly lost some of the early battles in the Pacific .
Would the Europe first policy have endured ?

If the Japanese had not been turned back at the Battle of the Coral Sea, that would enabled them to better support their troops at Guadacanal, also it might have made a big difference at Midway.

Although the Finns did very well with their Buffalos, the B-239 delivered to them was quite a bit lighter than the F2A flown by the Navy and Marines. The Finns had different tactics and faced different opponents than the Allies in the Pacific.

The absence of the better aircraft we had in the early Pacific war might have had far ranging consequences.

 

[Maximowitz]

Opinion, Germany, the Bf 109; US, the P-51; England, the Spitfire

I'm with you on this one Mike.

Agreed.

 

[mikewint]

With Germany defeated and Japan standing alone the outcome in the pacific would have been the same. Longer and bloodier most definitely but Japan could never have supported an invasion of the US

 

[tyrodtom]

I just don't believe we would have kept the Europe first policy if the early Pacific war would have went bad.
I doubt America's military would keep sending most of their resources to Europe while Japan had free range of the Pacific, nor would the American public have let them. Sure Japan had no chanch of nor plans to invade the mainland USA, but that wasn't commonally known at the time.

We would have put much more resources to the Pacific theater, Japan still loses, probably even earlier.

But that shift in resources would have effected the European war timetable, maybe the atomic bomb would have had to be used on Germany.

The overall outcome of the war might not be affected by differences in the early stages, but the lenght and costs ( material and human ) would surely be.

 

[drgondog]

The F4F was not a 'difference maker'. The USN would have lost more a/c and pilots at Coral Sea and Midway but to speculate that the fighter was THE difference in the early Pacific War is silly. The image of the USN 'cowering' in the States is silly. They would have sucked it up, taken more losses at sea while defending Hawaii but the Japanese did not have the forces to take Hawaii when they couldn't even take Guadalcanal and hold it.

The SBD was a fine a/c and WAS the difference maker at Midway but not because of the F4F and not because of any intrinsic performance that made it unique... and was obsolete relative to the less reliable but far more powerful SB2C.

In a similar way the Ju 87 was important but never a Difference maker.

The C-47 was perhaps the best a/c in WWII but it was marginally a difference maker because of reliability and it was cheap and therefore able to fulfill many logistics support as well as airborne tasks - but it was less capable than the C-46.

The F4F was far less important strategically than the F4U and F6F (and P-38 and P-47) and you could argue that the huge numbers of the P-40 and P-39 in the hands of the Allies were a much larger force Multiplier because it put the RAAF, the RAF, the SAAF, etc into the game with an effective fighter that the UK could not produce for them - and upgraded Soviet air to air and anti tank capability in an even more important time strategically.

The B-7 would have been OK if the B-24 had not been there, the B-24 ditto if B-17 wasn't there. To me the P-51B and the F6F vis a vis their deployment and the mission they supported to defeat Germany and Japan respectively are the two US fighters you have to debate - and Germany was the more lethal adversary so I go with the Mustang B/D because they were THE difference maker for US Strategic bombing campaign against Oil and they were THE difference maker in ensuring that the core of the Luftwaffe fighter arm was killed prior to D-Day.

The P-47 lack of range until the Battle of Germany was over reduced its importance and the P-38, while more expensive and more vulnerable could do everything the Jug could do - even after the introduction of the M in very late 1944.

The P-38, with a much earlier solution to dive compressibility and intercooler issues could have performed the role of the Mustang and saved daylight bombing - but it didn't... having said that it was THE USAAF fighter in the Pacific and on par with the Mustang in the MTO because of lower altitude bombing doctrines... and it was there pretty much from the begining of our involvement.

So, early the replacement for the P-40 was the P-38 and the replacement for the P-38 was the P-51B. The P-47 was the most 'replacable' of the USAAF inventory of the big 3 despite its excellent capability - simply due to lack of range to extend escorted bomber footprint.

I go with the Spit for the Commonwealth with Mosquito as a close second.

With Germany I am undecided about the Ju 88 and the Fw 190

Soviets - If down to one a/c I would go with the IL-2. It was the difference maker in neutralizing Wermacht mobility and armor advantages. As far as 'Yak" series if you take them away you could replace with Spits, P-63 and even P-40 Lend Lease and not lose any particular mission.

Japan - Zero with no close second, although Val and Kate were very important.

 

[Glider]

Japan Zero
Without the Zero its probable that Japan wouldn't have even gone to war

USA Hellcat
Without the Hellcat the war in the Pacific would have been in serious trouble.

Uk spitfire
Need I say anything?

Germany Me109
Without the Me109 would Germany have invaded France?

USSR Yak 1
The USSR would have had to rely on the early Mig and Lagg aircraft which would have put the war in Russia in even more trouble than it was.

 

[tyrodtom]

I concentrate more on the early stages of the war, different outcomes in the early battles may not change the ultimate outcome, but it might delay it.

Which had more impact on the battle of Britain, Hurricane, or Spitfire ? The Spitfire got most of the glory, but the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than all other methods combined ( Spitfires, AA, and other aircraft). Of course 2/3 of Fighter Commands squadrons were Hurricanes. The Hurricane was easier to produce, easier to repair, and easier to fly. That last one was pretty important when you have a expanding air force made up of mostly low time pilots.
I know the Spitfire was a better aircraft for fighter vs fighter, but could they have produced enough Spitfires to take up the slack if there had been no Hurricanes ?
Could they have kept that greater number of Spitfires in good enough repair to keep enough on flight status ?
Could they have kept enough low time pilots alive to carry on the fight later ?

If they couldn't produce enough Spitfires, what would have made up the needed numbers, and in time to be in Britain for use in the BoB.