How The USAAF 8th Air Force Turned Defeat Into Victory - 1942-1944
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2023
- After suffering catastrophic defeats in the skies over Germany in 1942 and 1943 the USAAF 8th Air Force had to change. In this video we look at the strategic, tactical, and equipment changes that were integral for the USAAF to turn defeat into the aerial victory of Big Week in early 1944.
Source List
Bowman, Martin W. The Mighty Eighth at War: USAAF Eighth Air Force Bombers vs. the Luftwaffe 1943-1945. Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK: Pen & Sword Aviation, 2014.
Caidin, Martin. Black thursday: Story of the Schweinfurt raid. United States, 2018.
Eaker, Ira. The Ira C. Eaker Papers. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Manuscript Division, 2003.
Higham, Robin, and James S. Corum. Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2016.
Holland, James. Big Week: The Biggest Air Battle of World War II. London, UK: Corgi Books, 2019.
Marshall, Bill, Lowell F. Ford, and Robert W. Gruenhagen. P-51B Mustang: North American’s Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2020.
Miller, Donald L. Masters of the Air: America’s Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2007.
O’Brien, Phillips Payson. How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied victory in World War II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
It’s just staggering how many US airmen were killed just in bombing campaigns in WW2
Yes, and it's disturbing to know it didn't have to be that way. Or, at least, the numbers could've been reduced if leadership was more competent.
@@Plissken72Actually the problem is the B-17 was way too slow. For the BF-109 it was a turkey shoot. Furthermore, flying in tight formations with so many machine guns shooting in every direction, friendly fire was rather common. It took balls the size of planets to fly in one of those things.
Little known is the fact that roughly half the German fighters lost were shot down by bomber gunners. The slaughter went both ways.
The B17 was not up to the task and the RAF had stopped daylight raids due to heavy losses for little gain. It appears the USAF were trying to prove a theory that just didn't work. Only when escort fighters could keep up did losses start to fall off
@@Plissken72 yep. Doolittle should’ve been in charge from the beginning. Eaker was not a great tactician.
Leigh-Mallory was the Luftwaffe's best asset.
Correct. The irony is that faction ultimately took over the RAF after sacking the man that saved GB.
While I don't like the S.O.B. that's a bit harsh
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographerPerhaps, but only a _bit_
There was an element of safety for wounded bombers in the box formation. My uncle's B-24 lost two engines to flak over Munster and couldn't stay with the return formation. 109s would go down to shoot it up, the P47s would drive them off but had to go back up. The 109s returned. The plane was a burning hulk when it hit the water off Walcheren Island.
My uncle was a Luftwaffe pilot flying Focke Wolf fighters. He told me during entertaining discussions prior to his death that the German pilots knew they had lost the air war as soon as they had to go up against the newly arrived P51 Mustang.
@user-rk7no4fk: Luftwaffe chief Herman Goering apparently said when he saw Mustangs flying over Berlin he knew the jig was up.
"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But to curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes. And when you yourself have reached this state of mind, it becomes that much more difficult to have to drive every pilot of the Geschwader, right down to the youngest and lowliest NCO, to do the same."
Hans Philipp in a letter to Hannes Trautloft, 4 October 1943
Died 8 October 1943
Post War Goering was asked when he knew the War was lost. He said it was when he saw P-51’s dogfighting above Berlin.
It was lost long before then. German arrogance served the Allies well.
Yup, just about 1 second after the attack on Pearl Harbor. @@patrickmiano7901
This is a very well ballanced telling of what happened back then. Lee-Mallory was a pain in the ass from the very start of the war, I never understood why he didn´t get replaced with someone capable..
Friends in high places. The biggest failing of all militaries.
Had too much rank and pull
@@freshheck9066 I think Tedder was a much better officer than that and would have got rid of him. The trouble was that Portal was his commanding officer and didn’t do what was needed. He didn’t sack Harris when it became obvious that he would not cooperate with SHAEF.
I agree. The Mallory ‘big wing’ being held largely in reserve in north and midlands when the BoB was predominantly fought in the south east of England always baffled me. I think it would have been better to rotate fighter groups into the front line rather than bleeding them out.
@@tc2851
*_"I think it would have been better to rotate fighter groups into the front line rather than bleeding them out."_*
You're right. They did rotate them.
Well done TIR for identifying Trafford Leigh-Mallory as incompetent. As far back as the Battle of Britain he caused Dowding no end of headache when Dowding's tactics were exactly what Britain needed at the time.
What? You don't believe in the big wing?
From wiki:
Leigh-Mallory grew up in a large house with many servants including a butler, a valet and a footman as well as numerous maids and gardeners.
Speaks volumes, right there
On top of that he slandered Keith Park and hampered his career despite Park being pivotal in winning the Battle of Britain.
Leigh Mallory was far from the only problem. There were _three_ senior officers in the RAF at that time who earned themselves a reputation for low levels of competence: Leigh Mallory, Harris and Portal. The first two are pretty obvious but Portal was their commanding officer and should have sacked them both, Leigh Mallory early in the piece and Harris later on.
Lord Hard Thrasher, (bless him) says that in WW2 you can trace any difficulties had by the RAF in WW2 back to where he was and decisions made by Leigh (Tosspot) Mallory.
I have a personal anecdote about the image of the cut-in-half B-24 that is used on the title image for this video. My father witnessed that plane's destruction. He never got over it. Decades later it still brought tears to his eyes to recall it, and dread. He had seen many planes go down, but nothing like what happened that day. It occurred on a mission in March 1945, one of the first times that jet-powered ME262s attacked a bomber formation en masse. He said the speed of the jets as they passed through the formation was astonishing, as was the firepower they could deliver. The cut-in-half plane was from my dad's squadron, the 715th, and was flying in close proximity to his plane. There was a tremendous explosion as the jet's cannons cut through the waist gunner midsection and blew something apart -- maybe oxygen tanks? My dad had been in combat for almost a year, and apart from a brief encounter with a ME-163, he had never seen anything move so fast. He watched to see how many parachutes came out. There were none. It's hard to imagine how terrifying it was to fly in the heavy bombers, day after day. God bless these brave men.
The USAAFs in Europe had a higher casualty rate than the Marines did in the Pacific.
If I remember correctly, the only group that had a higher casualty rate during WW2 was the men of the U.S. Merchant Marines.
W/O the MMs, no supplies would hv reached our forces around the world.
In case anyone is unaware, the movie 12 O'Clock High, with Gregory Peck is free on RUclips.
The 1960s TV series 12 O'Clock High is also on RUclips.
Believe it’s H&I network has 12 0 clock late Saturday night
The Merchant Marine is indeed hardly recognised for what civilian seamen accomplished and endured. As regards casualty rates in WW2: I believe the German U-Boats had the highest rate followed by RAF Bomber Command. However, I guess your comment is more aimed at the US contribution though and probably correct.
Are you talking only about the Allied services?
Cuz I believe the German U-boats suffered the highest casualty rates of the war as a whole, like someone else said
@@MrNicoJac I think there is data to support that. Submarines were death traps. Surprisingly to me their worst enemies were airplanes, especially the PBYs.
@@MrNicoJac RAF Bomber Command lost 55,000 aircrew, a 44.4% casualty rate.
The unavailability of long rang fighter protection in 1943 was a Doctrine issue not a hardware issue. With drop-tanks, the existing fleet of P47's could have done the job. The doctrine of the bomber proponents, the "Bomber Mafia", felt the bombers could go it alone and would not approve the issuance of drop-tanks for the P47's. Making fighters longer range was not part of their doctrine. When they finally relent and issued drop-tanks for the P-47, the units had to procure them from the British as the US did not have them in the logistics train. The CYA narrative after the fact by Air Corp leadership was that it was not until the P-51's arrival that they could finally escort bombers into the heart of Germany. The P-51 definitely aided in the offensive, but, the P-47 was capable when properly equipped. The big thing about the P-51 was that it cost half of the P-47 and thus could be delivered in greater numbers.
The P-38 (my personal favorite warbird) was also capable of long-range escort and interception missions, as it proved time and again in the course of the Pacific Theater. No knock on Intel Report/Operations Room (whose content is always of top quality), but the whole narrative of "There was no fighter that could escort the bombers until the P-51 suddenly showed up and was perfect and awesome at literally everything" annoys me every time I hear it.
I came looking exactly for this comment.
Greg made an excelent video about it.
The p-47 was capable of doing the escort missions, and was present in numbers at the time it was needed.
But as you said, there was no drop tanks alocated to them.
It's unbelievable how often this myth is spread around. Escort range is dependent on internal fuel capabilities. It doesn't matter how many drop tanks you hang off a fighter, it's going to have to fly back from a fight on only its internal fuel. The fact is that the P-51 sipped fuel compared to the P-47, and it was the only American fighter capable of reliably escorting the bombers deep into Germany and back. Combine this with the fact that the P-47's speed and maneuverability could not match the German fighters' at high altitude (vs the P-51's which exceeded it), and it becomes clear that the might of the 8th Air Force's Fighter Command was not fully up to the task of defeating the Luftwaffe until the introduction of the P-51. It's just unbelievable that people (like Greg) think that this so-called "Bomber Mafia" would willingly send people to their deaths when it was not needed based only on a stubborn desire to be proven right. No, the P-47 was not held back by doctrine, it was held back by its capabilities.
@@andremsmv If you have a good case to make, go ahead and refute Greg: ruclips.net/video/aCLa078v69k/видео.html point by point. The main point being that the P47 was already in theater.
@@andremsmv P-47 could not match German fighters at high altitude? What are you smoking?
If you want to learn something about inter-department rivalry, read up on the Navy's debacle with the early Mark 14 torpedo.
Yeah. There may be worse debacles but I can't think of them ....
Mark 14
ruclips.net/video/eQ5Ru7Zu_1I/видео.html
.
If I'd been Admiral King, I would have ordered the court martial of everyone in the torpedo section of BuOrd. The USN didn't get reliably working sub torpedoes until late 1943 and aerial torpedoes for the Avenger took almost half a year longer.
Do you have any resources in particular that you'd recommend reading?
The Japanese Navy & Army actually assassinated each other!
@@marckyle5895 While the design was bad, the USN had a history of such. The problem was that they wouldn't listen to the reports from the front line and work on a replacement - that is a leadership problem.
Instead I would have sent the one in charge - the one who wouldn't even begin to think of testing torpedoes to see if reports were right - to Murmansk to help co-ordinate convoys. Depending on mood, I could forget to recall him.
Correction or Notification. the Allison engine was more then capable. Its flaw was the US war department ban on using the new TURBO-COMBINE set up . These resources were dedicated to the Bombers. This additional component was a turbocharger combined with a supercharger. Source THE PIMAA museum Tuscon AZ.
Terrific bit of detail!
The Allison in the P-38 was near useless in Europe and I say this as one who recognises that it was, in some ways, better than the Merlin.
We need a Band Of Brothers style miniseries about the 8th Air Force
There is called Masters of the Air I believe. It's in production
Was the Mighty 8th ever made?
If it is ever actually released, we should enjoy that very thing next spring.
Masters of the Air is airing right now. Your wish comes true.
The designers of the B17 and flying fortresses thought that they could fly in box maneuvers. With all fifty caliber machine guns covering each other. Also didn't need fighter escorts. Well they learned the hard way they did.
Agreed. Technology had moved on, when the B17 was conceived, most fighters still had small numbers of low calibre MG's, with the odd 20mm cannon. A B17 needed about 20nr 20mm hits to bring it down, so originally, they thought it would work (& against Japanese Zero fighters, it still did). By the time the B17 reached Europe, the Luftwaffe had FW190's with 4 x 20mm cannon (as well as original ME110's earlier with same), & 30mm cannons (one hit needed on a B17) coming into service with other planes.
All lessons are learned the hard way in war.
@@eze8970 Yes, I generally agree, but wasn't the reason the FW190 was armed with 20mm cannon was because they were trying to shoot down bombers?
They fire at a slower rate, I've read that a fighter could (and have) fly between the shells. With a .50Cal that isn't an issue, so it made sense for American fighters to have 6x.50cal. Americans were fighting off BF109's and FW190s.
But for a bomber's gunners, one .50cal wasn't going to cut it. I never really understood why 20mm weren't installed, they had the space and weight capacity to put them in.
@@recoil53 FW190 came into service in Summer of 1941, when British bombers weren't seen as much of a threat. The 20mm just had more punch, & 4 x 20mm likely to bring down a plane, whatever the type. RAF flyer Douglas Bader had the MG V Cannon debate in the Battle of Britain, initially he favoured MGs, but then converted to cannons as being better. The cannons would be far better against the more armoured planes coming into service.
0.50 cal is still 12mm, & enough to saw a fighter in half. Perhaps the problem for the bomber crews was weight, & you would need power operated assistance, which might not work as well in the unheated fuselages, especially the technology level when the B17 was introduced?
The other thing may be ammo, maybe easier to carry more 0.50 cal than 20mm if you're spraying it about the sky? Lots more tracer makes it look far more of a deterrent.
Originally power operated turrets couldn't handle cannons - a poor RAF gunner who pulled the trigger for a prototype 20mm turret ended up with them buried in his chest due to recoil issues that hadn't been solved then. Obviously technology got better & cannons were introduced in bombers.
One 0.50 cal/12mm in the engine is still going to bring down the fighter/make it call off the attack.
@@recoil53 The US developed a 20mm cannon during WW2. Is was unreliable and jammed a lot because the chamber headspace was 1/10" too long. This was a known fault that the head of the US Army Ordnance Department refused to fix.
Rate and rate of fire determine how much damage a round will do. A 20mm round causes about the same amount of damage as three .50 caliber machine guns. The M2 and M3 Machine guns were available, reliable and relatively inexpensive to build. One caliber of weapon makes training and logistics much easier. And putting 45-60 rounds per second into a target with six .50's is more effective than 7 or 8 20mms.
A handheld M2 weighs about 83 pounds and can be mounted with a rather simple mount to absorb recoil. A 20mm cannon weighs 400 t0 500 pounds depending on model. The recoil and weight are significantly more. Would you rather have a single 20mm or five .50s?
The goal was to kill the enemy pilot and a hit with a .50 cal will do that with boring regularity.
It wasn’t quite that simple, but it was rather sudden. If you read _’Masters of the Air’,_ you pretty soon learn how the formations were originally intended to protect themselves (and it was kind of laughable). The second thing, which is not really obvious until you’ve done a fair bit of reading, is that until Schweinfurt, with a few exceptions, casualties had not been unacceptable. As the video points out, Schweinfurt was a priority target and had to be bombed and the 8th Air Force was really the only means the Allies had of doing it. And who knew? They might have got away with it. The fact that they didn’t doesn’t suddenly make everything that went before them wrong.
A few points here, and I refer those interested to the videos on the site Greg's Planes and Automobiles.
1) The P-47 Thunderbolt could (and later did) provide escort beyond Berlin... once suitable external drop tanks were provided.
The RAF suggested as much and carried out trials with their own drop tanks... but they did not possess many P-47s themselves.
The P-47 was a bulky, thirsty beast and the smallish drop tanks designed primarily for the Spitfire were inadequate.
A factory in the US was set up and ready to go to produce large capacity drop tanks, but for a time received only small orders.
This incredible oversight is hard to explain away.
Perhaps the Bomber Barons were simply too wedded to the idea of self defending bombers?
Once the import of the disastrous Schweinfurt raids had sunk in, the race was on.
Hap Arnold personally intervened and ordered full production of the large capacity drop tanks.
He also ordered them sent by transport plane to Thunderbolt bases in Britain as a matter of high priority.
2) The Merlin-engined Mustang became available in large numbers by the end of 1943.
Just in time, right?
The P-51B made perfect sense on other grounds.
Packard was already making Merlin engines in large numbers.
North American was tooled up.
Performance with the Merlin engine was exceptional.
Mustangs, importantly, were also a lot cheaper than Thunderbolts, P-47s being approx 50% more expensive.
The Mustang needed fewer maintenance man-hours and consumed less fuel, important points in its favor.
3) The problem with the Allison was not in the engine itself, but the lack of an adequate supercharger.
Development of one was inexplicably neglected.
The Merlin was provided with a highly effective supercharger, and sustained development continued to improve it.
4) Once the P-47 received the improved paddle-blade propeller, it regained its status as the supreme high altitude fighter (not by much).
It was also superior to the Mustang in the ground attack role.
It was more heavily armed, could carry a far heavier load of ordnance, and was less vulnerable to ground fire (due to its radial engine).
Taking all in all however, The Mustang was almost certainly the better choice for the dedicated fighter role.
5) There are grounds for believing that the role of the Mustang as solution to the escort problem was deliberately played up by the Army Air Force, at least partly to finesse the earlier failure to provide suitable drop tanks for the Thunderbolt.
6) For the Mustangs to reach Berlin and return, they also required drop tanks.
(Repeat comment due to the sheer number.)
Greg is completely incorrect about his assertion, and doesn't even read the flight manual correctly. Please check for yourself, he bases his assertion on the flight manual page for the 200 gallon ferry tank; look in the top right it's for the tank empty. The tank itself couldn't hold fuel effectively above 20k, and was a draggy mess. 4FG tested it July 28, '43; didn't work. Moreover, the P-47 lacked the correct pressurized plumbing system to feed fuel at altitude from drop tanks out of the factory until the D-15RE. All previous Bolts had to be retrofitted at depot through a process of cutting the plane apart before they could take external fuel from a combat tank above 18k. Even then, it wasn't enough as the -47s before the D-25 only had 305 internal gallons, which was enough to get to the Ruhr and no further. This was largely Republic's fault, as the P-47 process had to be designed by VIIIFC ATS and Lt. Col. Cass Hough; Lockheed and Curtis had one earlier in 1942 when the USAAF had asked. NAA also got it done quickly. The D-25 with 370 gallons internal fuel didn't arrive in squadron numbers till after D-Day, when the Mustang had already arrived and provided the critical service.
You would know all this, but he deletes the comments of historians correcting him.
If you have questions, would like the context of why internal fuel was critical, why fuel flow above 18k was critical, the actual USAAF priority placed on escort fighters and drop tanks beginning six weeks after war start, etc. please let me know.
@@ME-xh7zpHe deleted my comments when I challenged him. He left them up just long enough for me to read his reply.
@@ME-xh7zp And as you know, drop tanks were not the solution. A rough rule of thumb says that it takes half the contents of an external tank to get the other half there. Even with _three_ tanks, it’s unlikely that the P-47 could have got to Berlin, even though it could almost get to Magdeburg on two. It’s simply the law of diminishing returns. It would have been the ‘draggy mess’ you described.
Greg’s problem is two-fold. First of all, he builds just enough information to support his case. Secondly, all his information is technical. History of equipment is not the same as history, especially operational history. While I applaud his determination to research new information, Greg simply hasn’t read enough of this history stuff.
@@thethirdman225
That checks. I don't know if you noticed but he claimed to be open to a debate on the topic - but has thus far been unable to find the emails from a Historian who immediately threw his hat in the ring....
@@ME-xh7zp The sheer number of people who fell for his hypothesis is simply staggering. Unfortunately, most people today think they can get away with watching a few RUclips videos. It gives them a grab bag of old sayings and self-evident truths to repeat on cue. The fact is that I have been absorbing this stuff like a sponge for half a century and I get told every time that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I bet I have one credential none of those other guys has…
I met Adolph Galland.
Watch someone diss me for that!
Ah, Leigh-Mallory, one of the men who almost won the war... for Germany. The fact Monty loved him explains so much. His death in November 1944 was a tragedy in that if it happened sooner he might have actually did something useful for a change.
Advance fighter escorts still exist to this day, filling the critical role of line-breaker. Effective use on a defender’s side can also defeat or delay an enemy’s ability to gain air superiority. The fighter has become so essential that it is now the de facto first strike platform in conventional warfare and performs both roles at once.
I have visited the American Battlefield Monument cemetery in Florence Italy. It is mostly aircrews lost to enemy fire, roughly 10,000 of our brave young men, one aircraft, 10 airmen at a time. The sacrifice of our greatest generation.
Another large cemetery at Madingley, just outside Cambridge (UK).
The US could have improved the Allison engine for higher altitudes, but why would the US bother, it could build the Packard Merlin under license, it was perfect marriage between the Mustang airframe and the Merlin, it became a legend.
The Alison had an equivalent feed set up to the merlin in some cases, in which case it was fairly close to comparable but rather than a two speed two stage super charger it used a turbo followed by a supercharger, the P38 used this set up but the turbos bulky enough to need the plane building round it. Look at Greg's aviation for details.
@@thomasbaker6563 ~ Saw Greg's videos, he's great!
The F4F - had a usable super charger. So it could be used at higher altitudes.
The P-39 - originally had a super charger - but - it's scoop caused drag so they took it off.
The Lt. running the program - was busy running other programs - and regretted what happened but it was to late. So it wasn't any good above about 14,000 ft.
I forget the deal on the P-40 but it didn't have that much of an altitude.
The P-47 and P-38 both had turbo super chargers but - the space these things required - made for a larger aircraft.
With the P-51 - they were able to use the super charger the Spitfires used (I believe).
.
@@thomasbaker6563 Greg’s videos should be taken with a pinch of salt.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw Pretty much. The Merlin was an excellent, if simple, basic design. There were lots of potentially better engineering solutions but there were, equally, many pitfalls. The Americans made a couple of changes to the Merlin which were taken up by the British, most notably the bolt up crankcase, which solved a lot of the problems experienced with the monoblock in the 45 series engines. They also used some indigenous accessory drives and messed around with water injection. For this reason, the Packard Merlins were slightly different from the British engines and had differing power outputs and operational parameters.
It is crazy that the 8th Air Force crippled the Luftwaffe in less than 6 months. It allowed the Soviets to finally gain air superiority and it make Operation Bagration far easier and more successful.
It’s also very debatable. This seems to come from Greg’s now notorious videos on the P-47 but has slipped into the mainstream narrative.
The luftwaffe was already a shadow of its former self after the losses of experienced veterans in the Battle of Britain and the Russian campaign.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The Luftwaffe was losing pilots literally everywhere. Yes, many fell to P-47 pilots. But Greg’s claim that the P-47 basically decimated the Luftwaffe fighter force by itself is just ridiculous.
@@thethirdman225 Yeah by 1943 the Luftwaffe was past the point of no return, from 1944 onwards it was on it's last legs. The cream of the Luftwaffe was lost to both the RAF and the Soviet Air force in 1940-1942.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-I doubt the soviet airforce did anything to the luftwaffe. Most of german aces got their confirmed kills on the eastern front, most notably Erich Hartmann whos got 350 kills. They were getting farmed
We will remember them.
Just to say. Another brilliant video. I look forward to these. Thank you.
I genuinely appreciate your content!
Very good report. Thank you.
A good overview, and emphasizes the importance of having key personnel who understood the need to adapt to the actual conditions of war if a force is to be successful. You can have the best weapons and the best trained and most motivated men, but if their leaders don't know what they are doing it will all go for naught.
A few additional comments: The Allison engine made very good power at low altitude (up to about 15,000 feet) in the original Mustang, as it was outfitted with its single stage supercharger. In the P-38, with its twin engines paired with turbochargers, it could also perform at altitude. The USAAC did start their efforts at long-range fighter escort with the P-38, but it had horrific teething problems at the cold, high altitudes our bombers flew, and the pilots were not sufficiently trained to operate it in this theater. This resulted in significant losses for the fighters and the bombers, although it did start to cut into bomber losses as the Luftwaffe could and would often just dive away when a P-38 attacked. The P-51 came into the fray with the bugs worked out of its Merlins, it was simpler to fly, and it cost about half as much, so it was an easy pick to accompany the B-17's and B-24's in to the last years of the war.
It is my understanding that Speer had to reallocate resources as a result so fighter production may have been preserved, but at a cost to other priorities. There was also a cost associated with dispersing manufacturing to caves.
Fairly innacurate statements regarding Eaker; he had P-38 escorts in '42 and continued asking for escorts until he was reassigned. Those fighters went to the Med, and the 8th was simply not a priority theater until fall of '43. Eaker and his staff made many mistakes, some inexcusable, but they were constantly attempting to adjust tactics to save lives and increase effectiveness.
Then IKE gets part of the blame. 8th Air Force was being forced to split the baby with Operation Torch.
Always learn something, thank you.
Great work TIR.
I was confident that I knew this story, I am glad I watched. I learned something.
In-air refueling had been around since the 1920's. Was always surprised that there was not more effort to expand or even use the concept during WW2.
That might have worked in the Pacific Theater. I'm not sure the Germans would have allowed giant flying gas stations to circle overhead while fighters came and went.
@@texaswunderkind No doubt both the Germans and the Japanese would have made them priority targets! I guess the other issue would be allied aircraft linking up with those flying gas stations. Given the state of navigation, radio and radar during WW2.
There were two mission Scweinfurt (ball bearings ) and Magdenberg ( Messhersmit ) they were to have been concurrent. Weather delayed one of the missions. This allowed the Luftwaffe to cocentrate against each formation.
The mustang was built with a single stage supercharger instead of the available two stage. The same engine the British wanted from the P40
More importantly, the weather prevented the bombers from linking up with the escorts. That is why they were so badly mauled over Holland and northern Germany.
B-17 has been my favorite aircraft since I was about 12 years old and first saw Memphos Belle in theaters. Love em.
Also, love the accent. Keep up the good work!
The Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress " gunship" wasn't the resounding success some thought it would be ( only 25 were built )
Fantastic video!
“I’ll fucking do it again”
Atritting, excellent use of the gerund of atritt. I'm impressed. Now back to the story.
Extremely informative
5:33 rare film of b-17s and b-24s in formation together. In early 1943, they did do this, due to only having a couple b-24 bomber groups in the UK. It quickly became apparent that this was not going to work, though, because the b-24 had a higher cruising speed, while the b-17 had a higher service ceiling. In order to fly together, the b-17 would have to fly lower, and the b-24 would have to fly slower, negating each aircraft’s advantage over the other, and making all of them more vulnerable.
Thank you Aviation engineers and manufacturers you gave the allies a great AAF & RAF FIGHTERS & BOMBERS.
Pointing to the increase in production by Germany despite the bombing campaign is misleading.
If there had been no bombing campaign striking factories then resources spent replacing these factories would have gone directly to adding to the total number of factories.
It would be the same as saying sinking Uboats was pointless because they just made more.
Very good and well balanced. Thanks
Amazing video
Thank you for this coverage. P-51D was my first fighter model at age 9. Loved the aircraft since. The Intel Report.
Another key change in strategy was the adoption of bomber streams to overload axis defenses at key points.
British night bomber tactics. USAAC flew in streams anyway.
the p-47 could also do the job but due to misconceptions about its drop tanks it seems it was overlooked initially from what I've read.
Where's your source for that by chance?
@@ME-xh7zp I’m guessing he got it from Greg…🙄
The fortress in theory COULD have acted as a gunship but the weapons werent good enough for such a role. You'd have to mount flak guns to even have a chance.
I think 20mm cannon, with reinforced mounts and a recoil compensation system for the gunners could have done it. I think the normal bombers had the weight capacity to have done so too.
In theory perhaps, but in reality they didn’t. The YB-40 (a B-17 with extra machine guns and more ammunition in place of the bombing equipment) struggled to keep up with the normal bombers and did not enter widespread service. Adding heavier weapons like 20mm cannons would have only worsened its performance.
The gunship B17’s did not benefit from increased speed after bomb release, and could not keep up with returning formations, or would have slowed down the entire operation. They were not produced in enough numbers to be able to send them up as a fake attack to draw German fighters into attacking their greater defense.
It was in the Trident Conference stated objectives where it was specified that the destruction of the Luftwaffe was a top priority for the USAAF in Europe. The elimination of German air superiority over western Europe was needed before an invasion of France could be attempted. Furthermore, it was stated that the Luftwaffe should be attacked both in the air and on the ground. The generals at first got the tactics wrong and that led to some very high bomber attrition in 1943, but through trial and error they eventually developed an offensive strategy that defeated the German daylight fighter over western Europe, thus enabling the D-Day invasion to proceed relatively unmolested by the Luftwaffe.
'... replenished the losses...' materially yes, but the hard-won experience of the crews who had been killed was lost forever.
But according to the narrative, American players came in better trained than earlier men. Unlike the new German pilots and, in the far east, the Japanese, A lack of oil was, of course, a determining factor here.
@@johnschuh8616Training is not the same as /experience/ and that's my point.
@@julianmhall But the Germans and Japs did not get even that. About as much as my cousin who was rushed into battle during the Bulge. The Japanese turned to suicide bombing.
For everyone who had a father or uncle or even a neighbor who served & you could talk to about their service, I hope you realize what a spectacular gift you were given. My father & uncle, both of whom served in the ETO, also both came home with raging cases of what is now known as PTSD. They both had MEGA-SHORT tempers & drowned their horrible memories in booze. God bless all who served. RIP heros. 🫡 🇺🇸
the thunderbolt escort pilots were desperate to get hold of the new mustangs. Don Blakeslee quote: "We can learn to fly them on the way to the target". What a hero!
Nico, tks 4 ur reply. I tried 2 reply, but either U or RUclips has blocked me FM using the reply.
Yes, I am only talking abt U.S. forces. The Merchant Marines' losses were so high, even more than any branch of the armed forces, that it was kept secret.
They deserve a lot more credit 4 America's victories in wars. IMO.
So, hv a great day, and god bless U and ur family, and all of America's vets, and active duty members 4 all time.❤😊
Edgar Schmued and the North American are related to Fokker aircraft co. and had plenty experience at building aircraft already.
Is that from Greg by chance?
@@ME-xh7zpYes, more Greg nonsense.
Fascinating
Please ignore everything here about the P-51 and P-47 till you have viewed "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" research on the topic. (He's that good)
Agreed👍🏻
There's a lot of these so apologies repeat comment.
Greg is completely incorrect about his assertion, and doesn't even read the flight manual correctly. Please check for yourself, he bases his assertion on the flight manual page for the 200 gallon ferry tank; look in the top right it's for the tank empty. The tank itself couldn't hold fuel effectively above 20k, and was a draggy mess. 4FG tested it July 28, '43; didn't work. Moreover, the P-47 lacked the correct pressurized plumbing system to feed fuel from drop tanks out of the factory until the D-15RE. All previous Bolts had to be retrofitted at depot through a process of cutting the plane apart before they could take external fuel from a combat tank above 18k. Even then, it wasn't enough as the -47s before the D-25 only had 305 internal gallons, which was enough to get to the Ruhr and no further. This was largely Republic's fault, as the P-47 process had to be designed by VIIIFC ATS and Lt. Col. Cass Hough; Lockheed and Curtis had one earlier in 1942 when the USAAF had asked. NAA also got it done quickly. The D-25 with 370 gallons internal fuel didn't arrive in squadron numbers till after D-Day, when the Mustang had already arrived and provided the critical service.
You would know all this, but he deletes the comments of historians correcting him.
If you have questions, would like the context of why internal fuel was critical, why fuel flow above 18k was critical, please let me know.
Greg’s videos on the P-47 should be taken with a pinch of salt. Anyone who has read anything about the actual missions knows he’s talking through his hat on a lot of this. First of all, he massages his figures to give the best possible result for the P-47, without applying the same rose-tinted optimism to other types. For example, his claim that the crew chiefs hotted up the R-2800 to a bazillion horsepower by increasing the manifold pressure ‘because there’s no reason it couldn’t’ is just guessing, especially when he doesn’t apply it uniformly to other types, like the F-6F or F4U. I took this up with him. It’s just fantasy. Yes it’s possible. Can he prove it. No f****** way.
And that puts ALL his performance claims in doubt, regardless of what the pilot notes and spec sheets say.
Secondly, he claims that German fighter pilots suffered catastrophic losses in August, 1943 - which is true - but he attributes all of this to the P-47! I was gobsmacked. That’s the kind of leap of faith that says the only reason aircraft can fly is because God allows it. Is he blind to the work done by the RAF? Is he blind to the losses is other theatres, where German pilots were being shot down in droves by all kinds of nationalities, including…shock, horror…Soviet pilots? The fact is, if you read Williamson Murray’s book, the Luftwaffe was grossly overstretched and had no chance of even maintaining numbers, much less increasing them. The idea that the Luftwaffe was wiped out by the P-47 isn’t even reflected in the number of aces springing up in that period.
But the most incredulous claim is that the P-47 was the ‘victim’ of a conspiracy by a cabal of USAAF senior commanders, trying to prove a doctrine. In a world now totally addicted to conspiracy theories, this was always going to gain traction. But anyone who has read anything about the USAAF senior commanders would find it utterly ridiculous that they would waste literally thousands of lives to prove a point. What a bloody stupid thing to say.
Unfortunately, Greg’s poison has now become mainstream and it’s almost impossible to quell such a tide of disinformation.
now i can't wait for the Masters of the Air
This is a very good overview, more so now that the Apple TV Series Masters of the Air is out!
The other factor to diminished luftwaffe training was oil supply and it was further complicated by the autumn 1944 attacks by the USAAF on oil suppliers in the east.
On the one hand, the flyboys were delusional on what they could accomplish by themselves. On the other hand, those aircraft, AA guns and Luftwaffe men could have been hugely impactful on the eastern front.
The 20’s concept of the bomber always get through was probably based on aircraft climb rates, and visual detection. By 42, with radar and current climb rates, the fighter gets there.
Most bomber mounted guns were not hugely effective, but there was one tail gunner who was. Perhaps with more radar gun fire control, defense would have been more effective
Sometimes I wonder "What if" Allied leaders did this or that differently in this war. Just how different would things be if they did it differently.
It should be noted that when Douhet first proposed strategic bombing, it was more or less true that the bomber would always get through. Early warning was nonexistent, fighter aircraft were so slow and short ranged as to make interception difficult, and given the idea was in its infancy, tactics and equipment to improve on that were nonexistent. Even as late as 1937-1940, when the B17 was built, fighter aircraft were not much fast and had a lower device ceiling than the B17, and were generally fitted with 4 .30 caliber machine guns. Only after the idea had been out into practice was it realized that cannon-armed and supercharged fighter aircraft could make hash of bomber formations. Even then, the United States was winning the war of attrition, as Germany’s pilot training problems indicate. But wars of attrition suck, as they found out over Schweinfurt.
Lancasters by night, Fortresses by day. That’s how you negotiate with the Hun.
Even without the Mustang, the Luftwaffe fighter force would have collapsed in the face of the USAF tactical changes. Specifically, sending the P-38s to attack the Luftwaffe airfields instead of directly escorting the bombers was critical. In addition, allowing the P-47s to detached from the formation to follow German fighters all the way to the ground (as illustrated in plentiful gun camera footage) meant the German pilots were no longer able to strafe a formation and escape to fight later in the day (on the bombers' return). These two tactics alone caused unsustainable losses amongst the German aces and experts, and broke the back of the fighter force before any Mustangs were over Berlin. From there, it was just a question of the Mustang saving bombadier blood.
There was no USAF (US Air Force) in World War II. It was the USAAF (US Army Air Forces).
Those German aircrew did not have the extensive R&R time that Allied personnel enjoyed. Statistical attrition risks were compounded by fatigue factors.
Indeed, but their lack of rest is a product of their fighter force being over-stretched, not the cause.@@EllieMaes-Grandad
Exactly that. @@maryambintghassani2341
TY 🙏🙏
I didn't know it until Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles did a video recently about the reason Notth American Aviation was able to come out of "nowhere" to build the B-25 Mitchell and P-51 Mustang as yheir first two in-house designs. And the answer is...
Notth American was all that was left of Fokker North America. So Fokker, who made some of the preeminent fighters of WW I...
Built one of the preeminent fighters of WW II, the Mustang.
You probably want to take what Greg says with a pinch of salt.
@@thethirdman225 For a civilian doing what he does as a hobby, he researches things to a fault AND tells us when he can't find primary sources. Dude's legit at what he does. He's the airplane equivalent to Drachinifel, whom I've also had people question. And yet Drach has some of the world's most noted naval historians come on his channel as guests to talk about whatever the subject du jour is. I don't know of any aviation historians who are available from do that with Greg, but his video about the origins of North American Aviation is a solid piece.
I take people dissing either of them with a grain of salt.
@@johngregory4801 I’ve had the debate with him and he backed off.
@@johngregory4801 I’ll give you a few examples of where Greg is not ‘legit’, no matter what he says.
First of all, he claims the crew chiefs were hotting up the R-2800 engine by increasing manifold pressure to take XX inches of mercury (probably the dumbest way to measure pressure but that’s what the book says…). His evidence? ‘Because there’s no reason it couldn’t.’ Is it possible? Yes. Can he prove it? No f****** way. Does he apply this even handedly? No. He uses it only for the P-47. That puts ALL of his performance claims into question.
Secondly, his claim that the P-47 basically decimated the Luftwaffe fighter force single handedly in 1943 is ridiculous. For more information on this, read _’Strategy For Defeat’,_ by Williamson Murray. Dry as dust but good information. He’s basically ignoring everything except what he wants to see.
The best one though is that the P-47 was the victim of some kind of conspiracy by a cabal of USAAF generals. Anyone who has actually read anything beyond spec sheets and pilot handling notes, can see how ridiculous this is. But in a world that is totally addicted to conspiracy theories, his claims get far more traction than they deserve. The idea that senior commanders were throwing away lives in a futile attempt to prove a doctrine is simply not believable. I don’t really care what his sources say, those guys would be right to be seriously pissed off hearing that. It’s probably the most ridiculous claim of all.
Greg is dead wrong. The P-47 was not limited by politics. It was limited by design and performance.
@@johngregory4801
He's really not comparable to Drach. His P-47 series is atrocious, and that NAA = Fokker video is also really misleading.
More critically, he will remove correcting comments from actual historians. That's a fault if you ask me.
If you want to have a more open take on NAA let me know.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." RAF Bomber Command, Sir Arthur Harris
LMAO ruclips.net/video/tMhvddd4-Ho/видео.html&ab_channel=insurgentdude ruclips.net/video/1FYhop7BGoM/видео.html&ab_channel=Sp00n.exe
Sir Arthur "Airmobile Auchwitz" Harris
Enjoyed the video, as my Dad was a B-17 pilot shot down over Berlin in 1944.
One question though. I was under the impression that in spite of all the bloody lessons learned, we’re not the first P-51s available initially assigned to 9th Air Force to fly close air support after D-Day? Only after objections were they re-assigned to 8th Air Force for bomber escort.
Don Blakeslee has written about his (and others') efforts to obtain the P51s from Italy for more productive usage from UK bases.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad One more question to add to others bout the utility of trying to defeat the Germans in Italy.
The air bases at Foggia were useful but the long slog north less so. @@johnschuh8616
Brilliant as always
At 7:10 this is a misunderstanding of the issue with the p-51a. The Allison engine was not less powerful than the Rolls Royce Merlin. In fact, the p-51a was among the fastest aircraft at low altitude, even faster the Merlin powered variants. The issue was the supercharger. The Allison engine only had a single stage, single speed supercharger. At high altitudes, it could not maintain the same power, and so performance dropped off after about 12000 ft. For several Allison engined aircraft, the army Air Force had requested that they be turbocharged, and so Allison had focused on that for high altitude performance. Turbo technology was in its infancy, however, and all the ductwork necessary for turbos required tons of space that wasn’t available on the p-40 or p-51. The British, however, put their energy into developing multi-stage, multi-speed superchargers. Later on, the p-63 had a two stage supercharger for its Allison engine, though it was not as good as the contemporary Merlin, due to Rolls Royce putting significantly more time and energy into developing it. This would come up in the F-82, when they switched from the Merlin to the Allison. Had Allison been directed to work on multi-stage superchargers from the beginning, however, the p-51a could’ve been perfectly adequate to the job.
0:02 this raid has the "Bloody Hundredth" involved whom are portrayed in series "Masters of the Air"
Those early days in 42 or 43 must have been terrifying for a bomber crew. Nearly all of Europe was held by Germany and they had strong aa defenses. Getting shot down would result in death or capture. Getting captured would've been horrendous. Germans hated bomber crews and pilots above all else since they did so much damage.
Talk about bravery. Getting into one of those death traps and flying into Germany. Even so, most of them would scoff if you called them a hero. I was just doing my job. Another man would do the same thing. That's why they are the greatest generation. Not only for what they achieved but their attitude as well. People today have to post a video of them doing a good deed while these men risked everything and requested nothing in return.
Lord knows, how many servicemen lost their lives because of these inter-service rivalries and failed tactics.
I'm glad they were eventually able to match a superb plane with a superb engine and take advantage of this fact.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it would seem to me that a German fighter plane, flying head-on, into a large formation of B17s, had a large chance of hitting one or more of them, before most of the guns aboard the B17s could be brought to bear.
The tactic of sending the P51 fighters out ahead of the bombers, to intercept the German fighters, before they got in range of the B17s would seem to me the obvious solution.
I can't help but think of the ages of these young service men, on both sides, who lost their lives, or were maimed because of Hitler's mad dreams of conquest.
The best and bravest of our respective Nations culled in a stupid war of attrition.
I hope there is a special place in Hell reserved for Hitler, Stalin and Putin to burn in. They deserve nothing less.
History teaches us that history teaches us nothing. Ditto Ukraine v Russia - young men, husbands, brothers, fathers killed and maimed for the pride and incompetence of politicians.
The close escort fallacy remains to this day. You watch Hollywood movies like Red Tails, and invariably the bomber crews complain that the fighters are not staying with them and go hunting for Germans. Except of course our heroes the Red Tails. In fact, bombers only wanted a screen and wanted any fighters to stay away because they would shoot anything that loooked like a fighter. They welcomed the new tactics.
James H. Kindleberger (“Old Dutch”) is the man behind the successful engine design and implementation of the P-51 Mustang.
By mid 1944, both the RAF and USAAF were relying on P-51s as their backbone fighter aircraft while all other types of aircraft were (mostly) phased out from the battle zones.
The USAAF was interested in the Mustang, but, not having entered the war, didn't have enough budget in their fighter program to order a new plane. They did have money in their budget for attack aircraft, so they ordered a modified version called the A-36 Apache. Eventually, the P-51A Mustang entered service as more or less the original version, with the P-51B being the first model fitted with the Merlin engine.
The P-38 had a very long range and was considered for escort duties, but was falling out of favor in Europe, with the brass wanting more single engine fighters. The P-47 with its double wasp engine had to full the roll before the mustangs went into full service, but didn't have the range to go all the way deep into Germany. They were eventually fitted with drop tanks, but still couldn't always go as far as the bombers needed.
First, i love this channel
1. P-51
2. Formation bombing
3. Radar bombing through clouds
4. Target Selection (Oil)
5. Fighter pilot training
I was like, who was that leading the 8th Air Force. I then knew why I didn't know them when it got to the part when they were replaced by Spaatz.
If it's ironic that the American designer of the P-51 was of German ancestry,
isn't it also ironic that both Eisenhower (Eisenhauer) and Spaatz (Spatz) were of German ancestry too?
British fighter ace Douglas Bader was of German ancestry, Mountbatten (Battenberg) was of German ancestry. The entire British royal family is of German ancestry.
The “Royal” family changed their German ancestry last name shortly before the war, to sound more Anglo/British too.
Big difference between German born and German ancestry.
No, it isn't ironic.
One American in five was of German ancestry. What would have been astounding instead would have been if only indigenous people of the Americas contributed to the war.
@@texaswunderkind You think that's bad. I'm of German and French ancestry so I don't know whether to attack unprovoked over an international border or to surrender immediately to a passing cloud front.
Anyone else read the title as though the USAAF narrowly beat the Luftwaffe 44-42?
We had them in the first half! 😬😅
Lord hardthrasher has made a great vid on the battle of britain if ppl want to see more of simmmilar
'... shackling them to the bombers...' The Luftwaffe learned the error of /that/ idea in 1940/41.
Mistaken to say the Schwienfert raids caused little damage. In his memoir Albert Speer said that if Americans had been able to repeat the raid German war production would have been all but stopped.
I think you are referring to Speer's statement in the aftermath of the destructive bombing raids on Cologne and Hamburg. I could be wrong though.
Ball-bearings were important as they were in everything that moved, but Germany could and did source them from Sweden too.
Between the initial refusal to use ship convoys, the delayed introduction of bomber escorts, the inability to field a functional torpedo, etc. I'm beginning to think that it was the individual soldier's bravery and the citizen's industrial capacity, not the skill of leaders or tacticians, that led America to victory. 🤦♂️ Add in all the bickering and jockeying for personal glory amongst the Anglo-American generals, and it's a wonder the war went as well as it did.
I can only imagine the bickering between the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army if the bickering between the Brits and the Americans were this bad.
My personal experience is that the field grade officers are what truly matters. The generals bickering are Soo far above the actual men and women getting shit done that Soo long as your field and company grade leaders are legit, it's fine.
The Allied bickerings seemed quite tame affairs compared to the infighting between the German and Italian officers 😂
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Germans and Italians not trusting each other...... Hitler dismissing and recalling Generals.....fierce rivalry between the Japanese Army and Navy.......at least the Allies eventually did learn from their mistakes.
@@JM-wf2tomen mostly as we're Talking about the western allied
sir charles portal wait portal is that portal reference
Pointblank Directive "Redrafted by the Air Ministry, the directive tasked the 8th US Army Air Force with attacking the aviation industry; RAF Bomber Command would work towards 'the general disorganisation of German industry', as before."
'By March 1944, it became clear that the area offensive had fallen short of its goals and that Bomber Command was facing destruction by night fighters just as earlier it had faced destruction by day fighters.' - Noble Frankland, historian and Bomber Command veteran
BBC Berlin Air Offensive 18 November 1943 to 24 March 1944 page
Love the channel. Can you make more modern day conflicts including some hijackings or maybe North Hollywood shootout?
bruh
Lord Harthrasher has a couple of videos on this
Berlin Air Offensive
'By March 1944, it became clear that the area offensive had fallen short of its goals and that Bomber Command was facing destruction by night fighters just as earlier it had faced destruction by day fighters.' - Noble Frankland, historian and Bomber Command veteran
"Redrafted by the Air Ministry, the directive tasked the 8th US Army Air Force with attacking the aviation industry; RAF Bomber Command would work towards 'the general disorganisation of German industry', as before."
"Losses were running at the unsustainable rate of 6-7 per cent per raid, with no prospect of a German surrender. With Germany reasserting command of the air and the Normandy landings in prospect, Arthur Harris's dream of defeating Germany through bombing was slipping away."
BBC Berlin Air Offensive page
7:54
You okay man? Did the Intel Report forget what it was about to say?
you can not change the result of a war already lost
No war is really won or lost. When all of that death and destruction was over, what was really different in Europe?
@@texaswunderkind no wars are often lost way before the killing and destruction stops, it a simple fact that humnas don´t like to surrender before there are no one left
The Brass cares not for how many kids they kill, just so they win…..the Brass stays where it is safe…..this is why I like Patton, he led his troops into combat……
Think of how many lives that could have been saved if Leigh Mallory hadn't been an ass, heck if he let the spitfire help it would have assisted with the war effort or probably helped end the war early.
@xxcommentator: l read recently that 2 Spitfire Mark 9s were sent to Wright Field in the U.S . to have their internal fuel capacity increased, which they were able to do. They then flew them back to England ( probably by the same hump route over Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland that they used for ferrying the bombers to the U.K.) Sadly, l believe the results were not followed up on, which is such a shame because the Spitfire, especially the Mark 14, would have been very useful against the Luftwaffe.
Apparently , some smart person/people had the idea of also turning the B 24 Liberator into a " gunship" /escort fighter - Consolidated XB-41 Liberator (only one built ).
IMHO , Leigh -Mallory's stubbornness/ short -sightedness to help the U.S 8th Air Force cost many U.S airmen their lives , while short term " solutions " were sought to a problem that should never have existed in the first place
I am skeptical of the notion that the Spitfire Mk. IX with drop tanks could have escorted massed bomber formations deep into Germany. While it might have had the range for reconnaissance and such, the loiter time required for getting into formation meant that it probably was outside their capability. Small raids maybe, but not 1,000 plane missions.
Also, deploying significant assets to Malta certainly carried risks and it is understandable how in the first part of the war, it would have looked very risky at the time. In 1940, the bulk of British fighter strength was needed for defense of the Home Islands and there would still have been that concern well into 1941. Devoting massive resources to the defense of a small island is a very risky proposition. Sending masses of units tends to also draw the attention of the enemy and they in turn might send a mass of units at you, with you in a potentially disadvantageous position and now being forced to reinforce failure. Was it a bad call? Perhaps, but it's certainly a very understandable one.
Defending Malta was about keeping an offensive location fighting effectively against Axis sea traffic across the Med.
My uncle in law, SSG Thomas Glynn, flew as tail gunner on a B-17 and came home after 25+ missions....he had a BIG grin, too. Died in his late 50s b/c of all the speed they gave him.
...my Father did too....heart valve failure from all the "pep-pills" they gave them. Pappy said he NEVER left the bridge of AH-12 under way during Korea, except to take a #2...he was the Navigator....{"I'd just ride the bridge for 2-3 days straight...we had 700+ wounded, non-ambulatory....I couldn't sleep.")
It wasn't the U.S. Air Force, that was founded in 1947
The objective evidence is that strategic bombing of Germany during WW2 did not significantly affect the outcome of the war.
Just as the "Blitz" accomplished nothing but strengthening the will of the English, German citizens increased their efforts in the face of strategic bombing and war production increased even during most of 1944. This was specifically stated both by the US Strategic Bombing Survey conducted by the US War Department immediately after the war and, the person who probably knew best, Albert Speer, the Nazi Minister of Production in his memoirs.
Germany lost the war on June 22, 1941, the day Russia was invaded. Without Russian strategic materials, especially oil, Germany simply did not have the capacity to wage a long term military conflict. Speer was eventually fired by Hitler because he began predicting the end of the war by monitoring the presence of Russian soldiers on needed resources.
The primary accomplishment of American entry into the European conflict was keeping Russia out of Austria, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Norway after the defeat of Nazi Germany. It was worth the effort but the bombing was a waste of money and precious lives.
The book _Masters of the Air_ , which is used as the key source of the upcoming _Band of Brothers/Pacific_ sequel, delves deeply into this very topic. Weapons manufacturing in Germany was successfully distributed to smaller shops, or moved underground. Rail lines and switchyards were easily repaired by slave labor. Wearing down Germany's fighter screen was significant to the war effort. But the most important, and often overlooked aspect of the bombing campaign, was the eventual decrease in synthetic fuel production through relentless and costly bombing attacks. Germany had no source of oil, so even a 25% reduction in synthetic fuel could mean catastrophic shortages on the battlefield. Thus, German artillery and supplies moved by horse throughout the war.
As far as America's entry not significantly contributing to the victory, I think you give the mongoloid Russians too much credit. Their bitter winters and lack of roads did more damage to the Germans than their poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers. Using 20,000,000 peasant boys as cannon fodder may have eventually taken back territory, but I doubt most military experts would laud their tactics as military genius. In contrast, by the end of the war, America's fully-mechanized military was a juggernaut that captured huge swaths of western Europe in the five months after the Battle of the Bulge. We didn't have to have political officers standing in the rear, pointing guns at our own boys, to get it done, either.
I have long thought that the Allied offensive from D-day on was as much to keep the Russians out of western Europe as defeat Germany. Had there been no advance on Berlin from the west, Soviet forces would have kept on rolling. Your comment is the first time I've ever seen this explicit assertion made (and I've read a lot of books over a very long time). Thank you.
It has always been odd to me that the Flying Fortress design...just kinda didn't work. As someone with zero technical knowledge, looking from the outside, you'd think that multiple twin-50cal mg turrets would do the job of a fighter escort...but somehow it just didn't.
Nice fiction. The P47 was built from day 1 to use drop tanks. Fighters were not allowed to use drop tanks . If used they could have escorted the bombers to Schweinfurt. Then the argument was it would take 6 months to get drop tanks. The British supplied them in 2 weeks.
Is this from Greg's video perchance?
Incorrect, actually.
There were drop-tanks and drop-tanks. Dumping aluminium alloy ones all over Europe was not to be encouraged, but then papier-maché ones became available in quantity . . .
The 8th Air Force never suffered catastrophic defeats in 1942 and 1943. They continued to attack Western Germany through the winter. Increased numbers of bombers and also escorts created a winning combination.
Seriously?
By October 1943, bomber losses were not sustainable. Unescorted bombing was an exercise in futility, and near suicidal for bomber crews.
Had the first fighter groups not been pressed into service (operational in less than 30 days in one case), the bombing campaign would have had to cease.
👍🙂