 jeaton01 wrote: |
Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of the B-17's and B-24's and the huge crews they carried into battle, but as the Japanese say, "Shikata ga nai", there is no other choice. In 1942 there were B-17's and B-24's with enough range and payload, and the P-38 was not yet developed into the fighter bomber it became later in the war. |
|
My father has frequently commented on the same thing. He has said that P-51s could have carried one 500 lb bomb and a fuel tank and for 10 men, 10 aircraft could deliver 5000 lbs of bombs on the target. More tonnage than a B-17 usually carried.
The P-38 had a lot of teething problems with Northern Europe's weather. The cold, damp conditions tended to cause the oil in the turbos to jellify. Lockheed eventually worked out the problem, but not until the J or L.
The strategic bombing campaign in Europe was not as successful as hoped. It did tie down a lot of German fighters that could have been used elsewhere and did have some sucesses here and there, but overall the expectations far exceeded the actual results.
The Allies would have had to train a lot more pilots and build a lot more smaller aircraft to deliver the same kinds of tonnage as the strategic bombers, but the job could probably have been done better with fighter bombers and Mosquitos.
Germany's fighters would have been harder pressed for one thing. They had few night fighters that could catch a Mosquito and daylight bombing with fighter bombers would have been tougher too. Though they probably could have gotten quite a few fighters to eject their bombs short of the target.
My father graduated high school in 1938. Many of his classmates were among the first in the 8th Air Force. He said every one of them that went into the 8th AF was killed. He was fortunate to end up in a special unit of photographers. He saw some combat, but no plane he was in was ever hit.
Bill