I used to play online flight simulators at the turn of the century. It cost five bucks a month and was so much fun I would sometimes log in after work on Friday and finally go to bed at 10:00 Saturday MORNING. It got to be such a time suck that I literally threw away my joystick. But lately I noticed these new games and thought I'd give one a try on my desktop. Sadly, it cost money to really do anything fun, and it seemed to want to nickel and dime me to death. So after an hour or so I left it. Not that it's probably not worth it. Heck, if I were in my 20's or 30's I'd probably consider it a major part of my entertainment. But I'm 70 with 32 acres of my private "park" to maintain here in rural Kentucky, and my bass to practice. So I'm STILL limiting myself to Command and Conquer Generals, zero hour and Red Alert II. Oddly, my 19 year old grandson loves playing that with me online from his home in Chicago. 🤣 Love your videos, BTW! FWIW, when I was in high school (graduated in '72) I had a collection of roughly 60 1/72 scale WWII aircraft models. Even Soviet and Italian planes. I read a lot and was really into their specs. Yet I've learned ten times more in the last year from your (and others) TH-cam videos than I did back then. Simply amazing. Nicely done!
War Thunder is really easy to run. I built a budget PC with an i3 12100f and MSI RTX 3050 8GB and it runs 4k 60+ high preset with HDR and 12-bit over HDMI 2.1.
@@Kyleplier Can you play it much for free? My issue with most of these games is that online purchases of stuff needed to play the game is an ongoing thing. The last time I paid to play a computer game (beyond the initial cost) was back at the turn of the century when I paid five bucks a month to play an online WWII flight simulator. It was a lot of fun, but all I ever had to pay was the five bucks a month.
@@ReasonablySaneyou can access every tech tree vehicle in the game without spending a single penny. I however chose to buy premium aircraft like the MiG-23ML, A-10A Early, F-5C, A-5C, and the Su-39 and am planning to buy another when my SSDI check hits the bank tomorrow.
@@ReasonablySaneit’s just without premium aircraft and a premium account the grind will be long. But it’s complete possible to access every single vehicle from the F-16C, Su-27SM, J-11, etc without purchasing anything with real money.
Little known but infuriating scandal related to the AAF "Bomber Mafia" in 1943. P-47s were perfectly capable of escorting bombers as far as Berlin, had the Army Air Corps ordered large capacity drop tanks that had been designed and were available to be mass produced. Air Corps leadership chose not to, thinking it was unnecessary. Even when it proved to be disastrous, their first response was the B-17 gunships, a ridiculous concept. Meanwhile, P-47s in the Far East were doing very long range escort missions in New Guinea, equivalent to Berlin and back, using a large capacity drop tank developed by the Australians. The post WW2 narrative that fully escorted missions deep into Germany were not possible until the Mustang was false, to cover the bad decisions. Also, the P-47 was the better fighter overall, but the Mustang's fuel burn advantage and much lower unit cost (about 2/3rds) made it a no brainer logistically and is the real reason it dominated later in the war.
If you read about the prosecution of Operation POINTBLANK and Operation ARGUMENT, you will realise that the P-51 was almost solely responsible for the turnaround in the course of the European air war. It was undoubtedly the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe. If one single aircraft changed the course of the war, it was the Mustang. If you want figures, I can provide them.
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." Ernest Hemingway
I know one of the last P-51 pilots from the Korean war. My buddy's dad. He's still getting around a bit. After training he took an "unauthorized flight" in his plane before they shipped out. They wouldn't give him leave. Flew to his girlfriend's house. I don't remember if it was a road or field he landed on. Got a preacher, got married and came back. Spent a few months in the hoosegow. Said it worth every minute. He kept flying his own planes for many years, went twin engine and used it for an air ambulance for Shriner's Hospitals ferrying kid's across the country.
@@atomicwedgie8176not true, the only fighter capable of running the Berlin Marathon was the P-51 with drop tanks! No other fighters could do this!! Later on the P47’s soon became the go to ground pounder.The liquid cooled mustangs were venerable to ground fire, 1 bullet piercing a coolant line, which was located under the aircraft near the coolant radiator intake, will not a good idea to strafe and have small arms fire damaged this weak spot!! Thanks!!
The idea that the Mustang was the most important aircraft in WWII is ridiculous as it only became a real factor in the last year of the war in Europe. By that time Germany's goose was already cooked. Early P-51s with the Allison engine were garbage. The British used them and they suffered the highest loss rate of any aircraft used by the RAF. The Merlin engine variant only entered service in Dec 1943 and was only available in appreciable numbers by the spring of 1944. By that time the Spitfire had been fighting for five years before the P-51 had barely gotten started. In football terms it's like the backup quarterback coming on to play in the 4th quarter with his team way ahead, then afterwards claims credit for the win.
Boy oh boy. You wonder how these "facts" get around. Those "early P-51s" (actually, the Mustang 1 and 1A - it wasn't even called the P-51 yet, since they were built specifically for the British) were the fastest thing on the deck. Faster than Spitfires, Me109s, FW-190s, etc. And the British found them very, very useful. They were used for low-level intruder missions ("rhubarbs"), for reconnaissance and for ground attack. In Britain they were assigned to Army Cooperation Command, not Fighter Command. "Highest loss rate"???? Whereever did you find this "fact"? They could outfight anything at low altitudes. The first two kills were a pair of FW-190s over Dieppe.
@@iskandartaib fast on the deck, but they couldn't turn. That wing was simply to sensitive for high AOA dogfights. So it was fast on the deck, but out of power up high where intecepts were done, AND it couldn't turn.
@@stijnvandamme76 It certainly could turn with the Me109s and FW190s, which had small wings, were relatively heavy and tended to tip-stall into a spin, especially at low altitudes. A Spitfire or Hurricane would be another matter, but it could outrun those.
Ah, the youtube comment section...where everyone acts like they were actually there flying these planes and know more about them than anyone else, but in reality have probably only flown flight simulators.
I lived in the FRG from the early 1970s. My landlord, Herr Lehr, was a veteran of WW2 and had been invalided early. We spoke of the war as often as I was able to prevail upon him to do so. He told me among many other things that from a certain point in the conflict one just didn't go out in daylight, PERIOD. He described the fighters attacking farms, farmers, tractors, livestock, anything that moved or sustained the war effort. I've often tried to imagine any given strike which after the bombs were toggled, 600 fighters were then freed up to ravage the countryside, all the way back to the coast. Not to mention aircraft already at it as part of the tactical air force. Since relating some of his experiences has in the past caused some people heartburn, let me just relate, mine are solely retold observations, with no hidden messages whatsoever. Duane Beeson had been a Eagle Squadron pilot, getting out of his Spitfire and into the Jug with kills already under his belt. Seems to me his airplane was named 'The Boise Bee'. I have seen a P-51B under restoration in Nampa, Idaho and it was marked as Beesons Mustang. I think Beeson lived through the war and was dead a year later from a brain tumor.
I recently finished reading the memoir of a fellow I met last summer, who as a young kid lived in Slovenia during WWII. He writes about the terror they had of wolfpacks of P-38s that pretty much owned the skies the last 12 months or so of the war. Nothing with wheels was safe in daylight.
A Norwegian war hero, Sverre Bergh, a spy operating in Germany for the duration of WW2, bairly survived the Dresden bomb raid in 1945. In his memoars he describes American fighters shooting at refugees escaping the burning city. Bergh himself dodging bullets and seeing "rivers of blood" on the roads packed with women and children. Bergh is the spy who mapped the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant on the ground and the V1 and V2 facilities at Peenemunde. He also smuggled a lot of documentation about Hitlers nuclear program out of Germany. He is a real life James Bond. Just Google Sverre Bergh spy.
@@davidabbott1951 I would think the P-38 was among the MOST terrifying, because of their inherent quietness. One might be Swiss Cheese before ever hearing a threat.
I have to agree with you , and would add that the p-38s wer built with purpose and intent and not meant to be multi usage aircraft. They were meant to be fast , agile long range machines of destruction. I personally believe they were the predecessor of the A-10 wart hog. A gun with plane built around it!! e@@christinebridges5700
@@iskandartaib Mosquitos were equally capable of strafing in daylight or in the dark, being invisible to radar, out running or out climbing most anything else flying, delivering low altitude bombs on target. By the time the AA batteries realized they were coming, it was already all over.
@@surferdude4487 Be serious. They weren't THAT fast, Mustangs were faster and THEY didn't surprise the flak batteries. They would be as vulnerable to Flak as anything else would be, they make a bigger target and they couldn't actually mix it up with single seaters. That's why they weren't used for wholesale strafing missions in the daytime, they used Typhoons, Mustangs and Thunderbolts for that. They were great at night and they were great over the Bay of Biscay where there were no FW190s. And invisible to radar?? 🤣
@@iskandartaib My opinion is that strafing missions were a big mistake and should have been left undone. Who gives a whit how many thousands of billions of fighters does enemy have if their Ploesti and even their synthetic oil facilities have been bombed to nonexistance. Anyway, you have no idea how great Mosquito was in extremely low level attacks. In one instance, a mosquito pilot locked gazes with a young German guard. The guards facial expression was like "how are you Brits there without us getting any forehand warning? Are our air watches drunk or sleeping?"
Unfortunately in Korea the same error was repeated; P51 (F51) got used as ground attackers. Probably because most P47 already have been scrapped at this time.
the P-51 started life as a Fighter Bomber for the RAF as the MkI. In the first 18months of combat with the RAF, only 8 Mustangs were shot down. The P-51 had more armor than a P-47 too. P-51: Firewall, Windscreen, Dash, seat back P-47: windscreen, dash, seat back The A-36A was the single best dive bomber in all of WW2 and was preferred by its pilots over the P-47. And it was teh Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.
@@SoloRenegade All the armor you mention is important for the survial of the pilot, but not for the durability of the P51. One bullet to the intercooler and its game over. The RAF having fewer losses might indicate the did not fly the same sort of missions.
@@TJ3 They HAD the best pick already - The A1 🙄 Problem was, they had far too few As for Solo's The RAF 'didn't fly rhubbarb'? They lost huge numbers of Typhoons on that job. Proportionately more than the US lost P51s
For me it was just nice seeing the P-51 without invasion stripes. They were only on the airplanes for a couple of weeks and in the case of the P-47s they were off at least on the top surfaces within about 10 days. Still... almost every example you see today has the stripes. Go look at historical pictures and see that they are not common.
The sad arithmetic to this was that the USAAF could afford to lose more fighters and pilots than the Luftwaffe. A good book to read on the subject is Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray., which details many of the disastrous decisions that lead to the Luftwaffe's defeat. Like failure to achieve maximum production, lack of a strategic bomber, etc. A particularly bad decision was removing flight instructors and assigning them to fighter squadrons.
In the video I kept seeing P-51As or A-36s!! They had the scoops above the cowling due to the Allison engines. Those were never used for escort duties as far as I know, so that's a bit unrealistic. If anyone can find any evidence of Allison powered Mustangs escorting bombers late in the war, I'd be surprised. At least in Europe. Some P-51As were used as escorts in Burma, China and India. The A-36 was never, ever used for escort because it was a dive bomber/ground attack version with dive brakes.
@@TJ3Is it? Might just be me but at like... 2.0 or something, I think there is an A-36 cuz we always call out to each other with my buddies to be careful cuz that's just an "Attack Mustang". I believe it just didn't catch your attention at the time of making this video, or something.
@hunormagyar1843 no - the limitation is actually in skins, not aircraft. The only skin (other than a custom made user skin which only I can use) available for P51C is the redtails. So instead for the extras, we have to use the A36, as they are the appropriate Olive Drab livery used by these fighter groups.
“Gregg’s automobiles and aircraft”discussed this subject and explained about the bomber mafia and the fact that the “Jug” was more than capable of escorting bombers all the way to the target,given the correct drop tanks,which were available.
@@davelindsey6890 Well, if there was a ‘bomber mafia’, as he claims then they must have been very keen to get Americans killed, including people they knew, in the name of doctrine (sounds like communism). Secondly, if there was an actual conspiracy then it involved tens of thousands of pilots, ground crews and commanders keeping their mouths shut for an awfully long time. And thirdly, if the ‘official story’ was ‘ass covering’, I would have expected more people to come forward and speak out against that story. While humans don’t fully agree on absolutely everything, it’s hard to imagine a conspiracy with so little practical evidence.
@@davelindsey6890 For Greg’s claim of a ‘bomber mafia’ to be credible, you have to believe that tens of thousands of pilots, air crew, ground crew and commanders were in on it and said nothing. Secondly, you’d have to believe that a cabal of senior commanders was hell bent on killing American bomber crews, many of whom they knew, in the interests of ‘doctrine’ (sounds like ‘communism’). Thirdly, to claim that the ‘official story’ is actually ‘ass covering’ to protect incompetent senior commanders, you would also have to reject those memoirs and extensive histories that cover the theatre in far greater detail and with far more verifiable sources from both sides. Finally, you would have to accept Greg’s version of events as actual history, which it isn’t. Greg uses some impressive technical detail to indulge in logical fallacy and conjecture. It might be a useful debating technique but it’s historically useless if what you’re looking for is a deeper understanding of what happened.
Those "heroes" of the USAAF often times shot at any civilian moving on the ground. My father and three of his friends were returning from school on bicycles in 1944 when they were attacked by Mustangs, killing two of the little boys and injuring my father seriously. They also regularly shot at farmers and their horses, actually counting the killed horses as "victories". True "heroes" and "aces" (with a ridiculous 5 victories, a count that wouldn't make you anything special in the Luftwaffe)...
1945 hatte eine P-47 Thunderbolt einen UNBEWAFFNETEN ZIVILEN FLÜCHTLINGSTRECK mit weißen Fahnen in der Nähe von Trier/Deutschland mit 20 mm-Bordwaffen beschossen. Mein Großvater führte als altgedienter Oberfeldwebel des 1. Weltkriegs den Treck an. Er konnte nach der ersten Attacke des VERWIXXTEN US-PILOTEN (GOTT möge ihn bestraft haben!), der zum Glück niemand verletzte (es war zum Glück nur einer von diesen typischen skupellosen jungen Piloten ohne Erfahrung), den Treck rasch in eine offene große Scheune in Sicherheit bringen. Da der Trottel von Pilot 2 Wendemanöver brauchte, schoß er vermutlich nicht mehr, da er niemand auf der Dorfstraße sah. 2 Tage später schoss die FLAK-Einheit (4 x 20 mm Geschütze) meines Onkel (damals Leutnant) im gleichen Tal eine tief fliegende P-51 Mustang ab. Der Pilot hatte sich mit dem Schleudersitz zunächst "gerettet", fiel aber verdientermaßen in die Hände der Dorfbewohner. Kurz vor seinem Tod in 2012 zeigte er mir ein Foto des massakrierten Piloten. Er muss wie ein reudiger Hund um sein Leben gelaufen sein...
Totally unfair to take away their credits. It's not like they were shooting things without difficulties. In fact the difficulties were even more since they were facing flak, 40mm, 20mm..... instead of the guns used in the aircrafts.
@@Cybernaut76 Everyone could have all kinds of caliber at their disposal if they had the manufacturing capabilities to produce the gun I guess, it's more that some became more prevalent, more common or more successful or whatever. Germans also had their 12.7mm as far as I'm aware, or alas I think I heard a Hungarian-tweaked Reggiane Re.2000 we called the Héja I or II had the Italian 12.7 replaced with German guns of that cal., of course differences in cartridge length or the gun or the cartridge propellant or literally anything could've been present, but I think it was still a 12.7mm in diameter. It's not impossible the Germans had 40mm cannons that way either.
Great start to the weekend. Another amazing video TJ. We Always learn something new with each new video. Thank you for not only going above and beyond with your research for each video but for putting you heart into them as well. I always knew you would do well and you never disappoint. Thanks for your hard work and Please Keep 'em Flyin we've got your six.
Being able to change tactics in a changing battlefield is what good leadership is about. Attacking aerodromes was a good idea until they were guarded by ground defenses. It then should of changed to go after what ever you can to draw them out of their protective bubble.
You've got P-51s flying in 3-plane formations, like the RAF used during the Battle of Britain. But by 1941, Allied fighters typically flew in 4-ship "finger four" formations.
@@tjf5148 Zemke was reassigned to a P-51 unit and he encountered strong weather and his wing folded in flight. Both pilots spent the last days as a POW
Air to ground strafing was absolutely necessary for several reasons. 1 the me 262 jet fighter could only be effectively attacked on the ground 2. What is not talked about is the demoralization of the Luftwaffe 3. The documentary states 51 aircraft lost to ground attack without mentioning how many were destroyed I believe it is approximately 4 to 1 in favor of strafing. Most of the fighter losses to flack were suffered by the 8th Air Force. The 9th were used planes configured for ground attack 4. It is true a P51 was designed for air to air combat but it was excellent in air to ground especially if armed with rockets. The problem was the P51s of the 8th were configured for air to air when escorting bombers. I believe that once German flack was identified as the main problem when Ground Attack was assigned to the 9th Air Force and 23rd Fighter Group which were properly configured for the mission of Ground Support
Also it appears that the campaign to degrade the Luftwaffe worked a treat. During the Normandy campaign, the Allies had total control of the air. It wasn't until New Year's Day, 1945 that the German air force reappeared as part of the Germans' Ardennes campaign to attack Allied airfields. Some of the German planes were shot down on the way by their own AA guns because they were so unused to seeing German planes in the air. And this battle proved to be a last hoorah for the German air force.
Actually 262s could be fought in the air. The 262 had pretty bad engines and one suffering from lower out put would have not a fun time against a P47M which according to the people who flew it could attain a little over 500mph. If they were also baited into a dogfight a 262 can’t really do much against any prop
Thanks for watching - I realize this is always a controversial topic! But I tried to cover it with as many reputable sources as possible, in a neutral and unbiased way. Please consider supporting my Patreon so I can continue to make videos HERE: Patreon.com/TJ3History
You don't have to practise your reading on TH-cam. The electrons won't get tired if you rehearse "off the air" until you know what the script says, get your reading evened out, and are ready for prime time.
Man... the P-51, once the D series came out, that's when they really shined. Bubble canopy, 2 more guns with 1 in each wing, the little fin doodad at the vertical stabilizer the Brits coined, im sure there's more differences I'm not remembering, but that's the Mustang I adore.
That radar guided 20 and 40 mm flak cannons were deadly.The majority of people dont know the germans had them.Yes,they had them in different configurations.
If that is true,why would the British plan and execute the mission called Dieppe.That raid,among other things,was to capture semi conductors and gather information on the huge radar disc that was an early warning system for Germany to know when an allied attack was being flown across the channel?
I agree with your assessments: a) strafing the Luftwaffe not as effective as shortage of skilled pilots and fuel; b) this was not clear until after the war; c) therefore, directing 8AF fighter pilots to strafe was probably worth the risks--the right decision based on what was known and knowable at the time. As you also said, in the end, the war was won: even the loss of top performers like Chatterly fade considerably given this more considerable win. Individual bravery, skill, and even survival do not mean so much when your side loses. Final note on this point: I doubt very much that you'll find ANY groundpounders who feel guilty about sending those Mustang pilots into (more of) harm's way: every plane they took out was one less to kill their brothers, who arguably were in just as much if not more danger than their air brethren. Regarding the granting/revoking of ground kills as equal to air kills, I further agree that the 8AF's granting of ground kill credit was not fair given the long and ongoing mission of the 9AF (vastly underreported and underrated!) let alone the USAAF over all theaters. It represents therefore a WW2 version of "award creep." However, it seems that the 8AF could have made a bit of lemonade out of this bitter situation by some sort of dark humor. Like, "Okay, so I had 4 in the air and 2 in the dirt," and paint something like a swastika dipped in...latrine dirt, say. C'mon, guys, even if this was only for internal (to 8AF) bragging rights, give 'em something rather than nothing! "The rest of the USAAF only regards us as having X (air) kills, but internally, we know better and will act accordingly." The granting of the incentive of counts towards ace status shouldn't lose its effect on morale or aggressiveness even if it couldn't align well with the larger force.
Makes sense when you think about it, and was actually pretty common. Most military fighter are gonna be running high octane fuel which is specifically made to prevent pre-ignition i.e. engine knock; so the fuel doesn't prematurely detonate because of the heat of the piston compressing it and all the air, UNTIL the sparkplug tells it to, anything before that will make performance suffer and actually damage the pistons essentially eating at it with the explosions. Same things happen to ship Propellers if they spin too fast and start cavitating, they essentially create bubbles that then implode on themselves and explode against the screw; you can see pictures of drydocked ships that didn't care and ignored this and the props look like they've been sitting in acid for months... Anyways, the fuel is designed to require more Oomph to set off, so using it to double as coolant is not only safe; but improves survivability by only having 1 line that if shot ruins your day instead of 2. So literally your chance of taking that his has been cut in half. Additionally tons of jets, including airliners, use engines that run jet fuel as coolant in their hot ass engines. Even the SR-71 Blackbird famously used its special blend of fuel to double as coolant for the engine. It helps that diesel and Kerosene (Jet fuel, literally all it is, is a lot of Kerosene and some additives for certain effects aka the special sauces); are notoriously resistant to wanting to be on fire, until they are. You can drop a match into a pool of diesel fuel (I DO NOT recommend this!) and the diesel will just put the match out. Another example is during a tragic friendly fire incident in the 1950's or 60's a B-52 was returning from a training mission and flying past an interceptor air wing so they scrambled to intercept the B-52 so they could double the training being done, the B-52 pilot didn't exactly love the idea of being a target drone for a bunch of interceptor but figured what the hell, at least his tail gunner could get some practice "pretend shooting" the planes. They made multiple passes, mock missile launches, and gun runs with everything fine. Now the last fighters locked onto the B-52 for the final training shot, they ARE carrying LIVE AIM-9 sidewinder BUT they've been disconnected and besides getting a lock from the missiles seeker and getting a "Kill", they're unplugged and safe. So pilot get lined up behind the B-52, Sidewinder growls and he gets a tone indicating a lock, he presses the pickle button or whatever his flight stick had for "Fire secondary weapon" and *WHHUUOOOOOOOMP-!*... Blood turns ice cold and immediately radios "Missile Loose, EVADE, EVADE" or something to that effect right as his AIM-9 blows off the left wing and this big ass bomber just immediately rolls over and never stops, keeps spinning around as those lucky enough to have ejection seats or have an emergency exit panel right next to them bail out, but unfortunately those deeper in the plane in the EWS/ECM section, with the plane spinning and everything aren't able to reach an exit before it just explodes mid-air... One of the men that managed to bail out had to get through an intense cabin fire to bail out AND was lit on fire by the burning fuel spraying out from the nonexistent fuel tank that wing had and all the pipes to other fuel tanks etc. So his shoots deployed, he's on fire, his Parachute's on fire, it's a no good very bad day... then upon the bomber exploding in mid air he's doused in even more jet fuel, which puts the fires out and saves his life... Also, the Russians stow their extra tank rounds in a protected bin essentially like "Wet Stowage" used by later Sherman's in WWII, except instead of Antifreeze to douse any smoldering propellant or hot spall/fragmentation that's pierced the liquid protective tank, the Soviets decided to use their diesel fuel tanks to stow and protect "Some" of the additional main gun rounds the rest are still easy to hit and scattered all around the interior to the point it's probably harder to NOT hit one... which is why Soviet tanks always pop their lids in only like 1-3 penetrating hits. But yeah, not only did the Soviets now Russians and half of Eastern Europe decide a fuel tank inside the crew compartment was fine, but beneficially it could double as "Safe Stowage" because IF it doesn't atomize the diesel fuel and immediately explode when hit by something hitting hard enough to get inside in the first place, THEN the diesel will just spill out pouring from everywhere it was penetrated, and likely just put out any fires or smoldering dangerous stuff. TLDR - With the right fuel it's actually a very efficient use of it, makes sense, and would be a pro by reducing the amount of failure points enemy fire could hit. It's also still commonly done on modern aircraft both military and civilian, for jet fuel to be used to also cool the engine just like a radiator would.
It was no more a weakness than any other liquid-cooled aircraft. I doubt it is even true. The Allies had a lead on pressurised radiators so fuel cooling was unnecessary. Calum E. Douglas makes a lot of comment about pressurised radiators in his book, _'The Secret Horsepower Race'._ He makes no mention of fuel cooling.
Op Pointblank directive was issued 14 June 1943 to destroy the LW in advance of DDay. Fighter pilots were later told that any aircraft destroyed on the groud would count towards their kill score. P-51B's had the range to go into germany to carry out this operation, P-47s didn't have the range during that timeframe.
The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire. This is a high altitude fighter, this is where it shines. Unfortunately the USAF in the Korean conflict didn’t learn the lessons from its performance in WW2 and used this aircraft again in the ground attack role to unfavourable results.
Not ideal, but not terrible more than any others with liquid cooling. US used P-38, P-39 and P-40 as well with good results. Okay, P-39 was rather used at PTO where Japanese AAA was less effective the the German ones, but still deadly (and somewhat at MTO), P-40 almost in all theatre (CBI, PTO, MTO), Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, used by the RAF for the same role, and Germany also used the Bf-109 for Jabo missions (yes, alongside with the more rugged Fw-190 and twin engined Bf-110). The Allison engined P-51 had a dedicated version for ground attack, dive bombing: the A-36 Apache. So just having liquid cooled engine is not necessarily means that it cannot used succesfully for ground attack role. Certainly, if I could choose going down low to do the dirty job, I would be more happy in a P-47, F6F or F4U.
*_"The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire."_* Oh fer Christ's sake stop it. The P-51 was at least as successful as the P-47 against aircraft on the ground. Statistics absolutely bear this out. The liquid cooling made next to no difference. There were three things that made the ground attack mission more dangerous than any other: 1) enemy aircraft in the area, 2) Flak and 3) collision, either with the target or other aircraft. Flying into the ground was more common than people realise. That's how Gabresky was captured: He flew so low that he bent his propeller on the ground and had to crash land. But there’s very little point worrying about a stray bullet in the radiator which might see you crash land ten minutes later when you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds. That affected the P-47 as much as the P-51. For such a 'terrible ground attack aircraft', the P-51 did extremely well. It scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47 and in half the number of missions. And it did that over the most heavily defended airfields in the world at the time In fact, the P-51, as a ground attack aircraft was at least the equal of any other.
*_"The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire."_* Good grief, I wish people would at least think before posting this claim. There were many successful liquid-cooled aircraft which were used as ground attack aircraft: Ju-87, Typhoon, Sturmovik, even the Mosquito.
When the P-51D came out, it almost was taken out of service. Shortly after it arrived, there occured several crashes where the P-51Ds disintegrated mid-air without warning. That got the whole fleet grounded. They investigated fervently what could have caused that, but did not find anything. They had propped up a P-51D in flight condition, and found nothing, until in the evening, when they were about to go, one of the mechanics heard a sound behind him. Looking VERY closely, it turned out one of the undercarriage legs had lowered itself a little bit. It turned out that up to the P-51C the undercarriage strut was secured in the 'up' position by a movable hook that caught the leg. With the P-51D model they had saved the catch and relied on the pressure of the hydraulics to keep the undercarriage up. But when the pressure lessened during the flight for some reason, the undercarriage began to drop slightly. And when it came out too far, in fast flight (where you NEVER would extend the undercarriage), the airstream caught the fairing and ripped out the undercarriage in an instant, and the drag of the undercarriage was simply too much and broke off the wing from that point. When they had found the issue, the fix was easy, they just reinstalled this catch from the previous models again and the spook was over, the P-51D could start its career as superb escort fighter.
Sidenote: In the months before D-Day, it was decided that it would be the best to destroy the Luftwaffe as completely as possible, so that it was not able to attack the landing troops on D-Day. And that meant that they wanted to shoot down as many Luftwaffe fighters as possible. So the orders were changed for the US fighters: Instead of the fighters screening of the bombers as much as possible, the fighters should chase after the Luftwaffe fighters, even when that meant to leave the bombers unprotected. So it could be that a 2nd wave of the Luftwaffe fighters had free "access" to the bombers. The strategy was successful, most of the Luftwaffe was gone until June 1944, so much that practically no airborne activities of the Luftwaffe occured over the landing beaches. But it also meant that additional losses in the bomber crews were unavoidable and deemed acceptable. Overall 27,000 US crew were killed in combat.
All respect for General James Harold "Jimmy" Doolittle, but he made a big mistake here. Ground aircraft kills should have NOT been counted, as qualification for ACE status! ! ! But I am just Monday morning quarterbacking here, Doolittle was a famous, B-25 Mitchell bomber pilot, not a P-51 Mustang fighter pilot.
At the General level, they are managing resources and subordinate leaders. The deadline had already been set in 1943 to neutralize the LW befoe DDay. Time was running out. Even the LW leaders in their post war comments said that attacking airfields was the last straw and turning point in their defeat. As thirdman says, look up Ops Pointblank & Argument.
Attacking a German airfield in a P-47 was considered to be a suicide mission. P-47 pilots considered strafing heavily defended ground targets, suicide. Even the P-47 couldn't survive in those conditions. Typhoons/Tempests were getting slaughtered trying to catch Me262 landing at their airfields. RAF Losses of Typhoons/Tempests were so bad that attacking Me262 at their airfields was prohibited by the RAF.
Plus Luftwaffe anti air units are the most experienced and get east experience from numerous engagement. It's down even when the teenage girls where able to shot down bombers due to numerous involvement as flak Gunners in city defense.
*_"Typhoons/Tempests were getting slaughtered trying to catch Me262 landing at their airfields."_* Really? Can you cite something to back up your claim please? *_"RAF Losses of Typhoons/Tempests were so bad that attacking Me262 at their airfields was prohibited by the RAF."_* I can find no evidence that this is true.
the P-51 started life as a Fighter Bomber for the RAF as the MkI. In the first 18months of combat with the RAF, only 8 Mustangs were shot down. And those 8 losses include multiple aircraft lost to unknown causes. All unknown causes were assumed to be from enemy fighters or AAA, even though most were crashing due to CFIT from pilots flying so low and fast. The Allison Mustangs were the single fastest piston aircraft of WW2 at low altitude (less than 15k ft). The P-51 had more armor than a P-47 too. P-51: Firewall, Windscreen, Dash, seat back P-47: windscreen, dash, seat back The A-36A was the single best dive bomber in all of WW2 and was preferred by its pilots over the P-47. And it was the Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.
* I'd politely challenge that last line of yours & correct you with saying "The Hawker Tempest" was instead But please DO NOT get me wrong, as I just LOVE the P.51 Mustang AND the Allison engined versions
@@Rain-uc4ru I'm not trying to be rude, but what you said is objectively not true. Allow me to explain... You said, "I'd politely challenge that last line of yours & correct you with saying "The Hawker Tempest" was instead" the "last line I wrote": 'And it was the Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.' The Tempest was not allowed to make danger close drops of 500lb bombs, and was not as effective a dive bomber than the A-36 Mustang. the Mustang could do true vertical dives, had a far wider armament selection than the Tempest, and was faster than the Tempest. And the RAF themselves praised the Mustang in the ground attack, CAS, interdiction, RECON role, and confirmed it was the fastest piston fighter of WW2 at low altitude. The RAF had far greater success with the Mustang than the Tempest as a ground striker, suffering astonishingly low losses.
Further to add to what I just wrote, above, regarding the Hawker Tempest "down on the deck level" There's a passage in Willi Heilmann's JG.54 book, where two Dora.9 Fw.190's were chasing 2 Hawker Tempests down on the deck & shooting one down, the last remaining Tempest "took off like a scalded cat" It accelerated to 490mph in level flight around 100ft (W.E.P) & it left the 2 Dora.9's "standing still" Willi Heilmann's observations & eyewitness accounts & his Dora.9 was just 6-weeks old I've got the book, it's in storage, but read an older copy waaay back in 1982 (published in NY) Also, if in doubt, read Axel Urbanke's (German accounts) of JG.54's fights against the Tempest ('190 pilots), "It climbed at low altitude like a homesick Angel & was our most dangerous opponent" www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Hearts-Defence-Homeland-1944-45/dp/0966070607 I'll take the words & powerful opinions of at least 6-7 Fw.190-D9 pilots any day of the week .
@@Rain-uc4ru the Tempest is not even remotely capable of 490mph in level flight. that is a wild fairy tale of fantasy. even Eric Brown only got about 430mph from the Typhoons and Tempests and had nothing remarkable to say about them. Whereas, RAF and USAAF pilots in 1942 were pushing the A-36, P-51A, and MkI/Ia/II to 75" MAP and over 1800HP down low, as confirmed by numerous pilots and letters, and even confirmed by an Allison test. The Tempests were small in number and slower and less maneuverable at low altitude than the Allison P-51, and at high altitude than the P-51B/C/D/K. They shot down far fewer Germans, and contributed very little of consequence overall to the war effort. German tankers weren't even afraid of Typhoons and Tempests attacking them.
It surely depends on what year and what loading (fuel, ammo) the aircraft is in. I read Peter Crump in JG26 shooting down low level two mustangs (recon?) from the same flight in spring 1943. Then continuing in the same mission, finding another P-51 flight and chasing one Mustang that stayed ahead, didn't leave him, while he peppered it with his Me-109G. He was wishing he had one of the Fw-190As as it was faster and could have caught the Mustang. Early model Allison P-51's being down on power versus later Allisons and more so later Merlin Mustangs?
I have seen comments complaining about the withdrawal of P47s from escort duty, claiming that they were perfectly capable of long range escort. Part of the reality of the situation was that they were not as capable as the P51B/D. German fighters has a Tactical mach number of 0.75. The P47 and P38 had numbers below that, the P51 above. Short story, the P51 could outrun and outmanoeuvre German fighters but the other two could not. The figures are as follows. Tactical mach numbers (highest fighting speed): UK Spitfire, 0.80; USA P38, 0.68, P47, 0.71, P51B/D, 0.78; German Bf109G, 0.75, FW190 0.75.
Tactical Mach in dives is different. There is also initial dive speed of which the P47 beat every other plane in the European theater. The P47 in a strait line was the fastest prop fighter of the war, with crews of P47Ms reporting speeds in excess of 500mph. Also against the late models of FW 190s and BF 109s the P47 would completely outmatch them in high altitude performance. Only the TA 152 could really match the performance of a P47 at high altitudes. A P51 honestly doesn’t offer that much better in terms of it being a fighter. It’s not as maneuverable as a 109 and can really only out turn the late variants of the 190As and other 190s variants. The P51 isn’t that maneuverable of a plane unless it is at really high speeds. The problem of the P47 wasn’t its performance, it had some of the best for the altitudes it fought at, it was range. The 8th needed a plane that could make it to Romania and back which the P47 couldn’t do, so the replaced the majority of P47s to P51s and the remaining P47s were changed in role to ground attack and jet hunting which the P47 was pretty well suited to
Pilots got a shit deal, but if not for their courage and resolution, the war may have lasted a longer. Also wondering why bombers were not used more often as a separate command just for such missions.
Your videos keep getting better and better. Excellent research too. I know it is easy to be wise afterwards, but it is interesting to entertain the ' what if's '. First , on the American side , I'm wondering if once they realized their vulnerability to flack due to the airfield defenses, if perhaps some of the Mustangs couldn't have been assigned solely to attacking the anti-aircraft guns while the rest strafed the parked airplanes. Then on the Luftwaffe side , use could have been made of convincing looking mock-ups , causing the AAF to waste effort shooting at decoys while the real planes would be safely parked out of sight. Well I suppose it is a question of resources, by that time Germany was so stretched that most things had to be weighed up in terms of priority.
That's why the P51 largely replaced the P47 as a bomber escort. It wasn't that the P47 was inadequate as an escort, it was because it was a much better fighter bomber/ground attack than the P51. And with D-Day approaching, there was a growing need for that role.
@@whatwasisaying In his book "I flew for the Fuhrer" Heinz Knoke described always being able to escape from a single P47 by putting his BF 109G into a corkscrew climb, the P47 didn't have the climb rate or turning ability to match. But the P47s shot him down and destroyed his squadron in the end by sheer force of numbers, if a German pilot escaped one, the other P47s would be in position to get him.
*_"It wasn't that the P47 was inadequate as an escort, it was because it was a much better fighter bomber/ground attack than the P51."_* No. The P-47 was a terrible escort. First of all, the P-51 was an excellent fighter bomber. That is amply demonstrated by the fact it scored 30% more ground kills (aircraft) than the P-47. The P-47 was a failure as an escort for the very simple reasons that it lacked sufficient internal fuel. Drop tanks could not solve the problem. They could only offset the problem. The problem of the P-47's lack of range was not a 'bomber mafia' but a lack of engagement by Republic. Before the war started, USAAF Materiel Command directed manufacturers to increase their internal fuel capacity. North American, Lockheed, Curtiss and even Bell all complied. Republic didn't. In early 1942, the USAAF high command put out the same directive and again, all manufacturers complied _except Republic._ The result was that when the need came for fighters to escort bombers deep into Germany, the P-47 simply did not have the range to do it. This wasn't a conspiracy. If it was then it required tens of thousands of pilots, ground crew and commanders to stay shtumm on the matter. From that perspective, a conspiracy carries as much credibility as the claim that the Moon landings were faked. Eaker had been badgering Arnold for months about getting P-38s in early 1943. His problem was that the P-47 carried only 256 gallons internally and even with a 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon, it could only get to the Dutch border. The P-51 could do that on internal fuel alone. The theoretical range was, of course, greater than that. But escort work required less than optimal altitudes and throttle settings. The problem was that, as everyone knew, the war had to be taken further into Germany than the P-47 could go. The situation was simple. The Germans just waited until the P-47s turned for home before unleashing their attacks. The P-47's lack of range actually got people killed.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Oddly enough Gabby Gabreski states time and again that he escaped 190's and 109's with a corkscrew climb....it prob depends on the altitude of the engagement and energy state of the two combatants which in the heat of the moment is hard to truly know. You generally have to take pilot accounts with atleast the notion that their recollection was under incredible stress and high adrenaline so not always the best for technical analysis of airplane performance.
The P-51 began arriving in greater numbers in 1944. And Doolittle changed the 8th air force directive to "destroy enemy fighters" instead of "defend the bombers"... So the P-51 was there for the hulk-smash strategic hammer. The P-47, P-38, P-40, and of course Spitfire were there before the tide had turned, or victory was certain. The Spitfire Mk.I with it's initial three-blade constant-speed propeller and 100 octane, is the greatest aerial fighting machine ever devised.
The tactic might have been sound...if the better aircraft suited to that task were chosen and removing flak positions first, aircraft second. Taking out the guys shooting at you kinda helps the mission. Generals/Commanders can be stupid.
You need to read some history instead of repeating what you see on the internet. The P-51 was a much better strafer than most people on the internet give it credit for being. It accounted for 30% more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 and in half the number of missions. It also flew against some of the most heavily defended airfields in the world. No point worrying about a stray bullet to the radiator that may or may not end your day in the next ten minutes when you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next couple of seconds.
Defeating planes in the air would be a much better tactic as it would pilot and plane against pilot and plane. The risks to rewards would be much lower as the allied pilots would not be lost to empty aircraft. Also, replacing the p-47's with P-51' as a ground attack aircraft was another mistake that caused the loss of many pilots. You can't successfully replace a tank with an armed racing car.
Biggest issue was probably the fact that strafing requires you to fly in a long straight line where it's extremely easy for AAA to just lead you a little and BAM-BAM-BA- easily as your just tunnel visioned on hosing down all the planes you can see. And of course, against some of the most experienced AAA gunners in the world at that time, besides the USN crews on Mark/38 5" radar guided heavy AAA and its proximity fuzed rounds; and their couple of radar directed quad 40mm Bofors spraying the hate next to them. It's almost guaranteed to have been infeasible considering the added drag reducing range and performance, but IMO 2 HVAR's with enhanced fragmentation warheads whether prefragmented liners, ball Bearings, etc, doesn't matter. But 2x of those with a time delay fuze and just eyeballing it to detonate over or near the cluster of planes X the number of your wingmen each rippling off their rockets then immediately pulling off before entering essentially the "Killbox" for the AAA would've worked just as well if not better. Hell, in the Pacific Theater, which yes I know, was very different; they had para-frag bombs specifically to fly fast and low over airfields, AAA emplacements, fuel depots, etc, and like snake eyes in Vietnam they'd slow from the extra drag then just float down on their parachute but similar to my idea these para-frag bombs had time delays and would detonate above everything peppering planes, fuel tanks and drums, and anyone and everyone NOT under cover like an under ground bunker. You in a trench? Manning a useless Triple Hotchkiss 25mm AAA mount surrounded by cement and sandbags? Underneath a table but not surrounded so exposed to bombs further away? You're Done, ALL of Ya. When they all start airbursting with their enhanced fragmentation warheads, popping overhead of everyone; it doesn't matter what cover you're behind... it matters what you're BENEATH. IIRC the parafrag bombs were available as small bomblets held in a cluster by a metal band wrapped around them that opens and scatters them over the area when releases, an early cluster bomb if you will. Some support aircraft with those, maybe in a more aerodynamic bundle flying something fast like a Mosquito or P-38. P-51's mark targets with smoke rockets, spraying tracers at the aerodrome, or like Bombers and pathfinder aircraft did drop flares over the target. Then while the AAA is distracted the fast boys can zoom over the planes, fuel storage depot, and suspected AAA positions and scatter dozens of those parafrag bombs over them and just wait... Not likely to have ever happened though, as I think the main point was them using up their .50cal ammunition so the flight wasn't a complete waste and you at least destroyed SOMETHING with all the fuel everyone used up flying there and back. I doubt adding weapons making the fighter perform worse just so they "MAYBE" get a chance to pound something on their way back or sending even more planes JUST to attack targets you've "maybe" marked would even for a second actually be considered by the brass. At most probably a handshake, "thanks for those interesting suggestions, we'll certainly consider them and their potential", and get walked to and shown the door out.
1. Taking back Ace title from a combat pilot is completely unfare! He took a risks for doing this... If they wanted they could give 9th army ace title for their victories of tanks and ground airplains. 2. The command of shooting the airplaind on the ground should have come with a strategy how to deal with the anti aircraft fire, that was known to be there! Not to leave it to the pure luck...
A very well put together and interesting presentation. I’m a volunteer at IWM Duxford and will be able to build this into discussions with visitors when looking at the P51 and P47 and their respective roles.
GREAT that you use video game in construction AND ADVISE US. Result is a very good video. Also, very good insight that AAA on the ground had few losses but great, even growing experience. That seems a new insight--perhaps to build an entire video around.
Almost absent. They did try. In the film The longest Day, there is a wonderful sequence (probably fictional) of a couple of Luftwaffe fighter pilots flying over the beaches and making a token effort to strafe the allied forces. As they fly back the commander tongue-in-cheek declares it "Another glorious victory for the Luftwaffe".
@@simon-c2y Totally. And that was the objective of Operation POINTBLANK. That objective could not have been achieved in the allotted time period without the P-51.
Great video, makes me think this may be one of the few decisions i disagree with doolittle about. I understand that it was a "while your there" idea, but i wonder if they could have dedicated resources or more resources for ranger missions for the fighters to make up missions to attack airbases at dusk and dawn, that way theyd theorhetically have more surprise and could hit them before the bombers were around, cause by the time the bombers flew over and were heading home it had to be late morning/early afternoon, making the bases more active, I think the mosquito and later black widow missions were on to something and maybe they did and i just havent read about it.
"Targets of opportunity" usually refers to happening upon lightly defended potential targets and going off-script to take them out. But strafing armed-to-the-brim airfields isn't necessarily that. I'd have to crunch numbers to know if it was worth it. Shooting down enemy planes before they can take off is very smart. But being flak fodder is not. I suppose the short answer is if the kill ratio of going after grounded planes was better than the kill ratio in the air, then it was probably worth it. And although the Mustang is great, and possibly my favorite WW2 fighter, it's a gross exaggeration to say that it won the war. It played its part well, but it didn't steal the show.
Rather than arguing planes I would rather point out the consideration of the video, whether PP: a high risk tactical decision, was unnecessary rather than justified is more so justified than is grudgingly admitted here. I do not fault the originator’s thought process but do get the impression there was some conclusion on their part that the end game was inevitably in hand for the allies. I must remind gentle publisher Doolittle was put in charge of the 8th simply because very precious little had been going well for the 8th prior to his arrival. After a year and of futzing around casualties had brought the bombing campaign to a halt several times in the preceding year and the night campaign was pretty much a glorified terror exploit. (Not that the RAF wasn’t doing good work but it was not yet able to actually hit target’s reliably) Doolittle’s edicts played a very large part in forcing those remaining Luftwaffe pilots into the air burning lives and precious fuel. Even if it was only moving , at first pilots and planes, then pilots, fuel, support units, airfield to airfield the Germans were loosing sleep and using up resources (fuel and vehicles) that were in very short supply. Doolittle had spoken at length with Dowding and Park as to the Brits experience in the BoB as to what they found hardest to defend. PP: Direct attack on the airfields. Keeping the German fighter planes busy defending themselves paved the way for bombers to hit the synthetic fuel plants, railways, and other targets that eventually broke the Germans back. Additionally being able to hit anything that moved in any fashion brought the German land forces up short far sooner than later. It fringes armchair QBing to hedge whether it was carried too far… As sad as it is, the increased losses in the air were in almost certainly more than offset by reductions in what were, almost certainly, going to be higher proportional losses by the ground units.
And to queer the pitch for the necessity of escorts - it's worth remembering that the Mosquito could carry 4000 lb bomb load v the B17's 3500 lbs and get to Berlin and back quickly. Though what the Mosquito did lack was the loading configuration afforded by the B17.
@@lancerevell5979 I don't know anything about what Doolittle thought about using fighters for before he took command but he was smart enough to either procure drop tanks for escort fighters available or at least smart enough to take credit for it. He listened to subordinates and knew. good ideas when he heard one and made them 8th AAF policy. He certainly didn't assess daylight "precision" bombing results as anything like the success that Ira Eaker or Hap Arnold did and his use of bombing missions as bait for killing the Luftwaffe doesn't exactly reflect any bomber centric mindset on his part. Before the war came to the US he was a civilian race plane jocky.
I don't know why that was a problem. Doolittle's biggest problem was holding his charges back, not whether or not he was ordering them to commit suicide.
While you are correct that it did cost more lives, it saved far more lives than it cost... especially when it was the P-48 Thunderbolt doing the ground attack role. Yes, the P-51 did have a major vulnerability with its easy-to-target radiator on the belly, but the Thunderbolt was heavier and tougher, one even known to take a wing strike on a telephone pole and flying home with a six-foot chunk of that pole still upright and embedded in that wing. ---- The strategy DID work, when the proper aircraft got assigned the job.
It seems to e a better tactic might havecbeen to send in units. In several groups. First wave to take out aircraft on the ground and when fired upon have the next wave right behind the first , take out the anti aircraft batteries when they gave away their positions.
My two cents as someone who's never been shot at but has talked to fighter pilots - ground kills should only be counted as ground kills. They should not be considered for pilots' Ace status. Subjective I know, that's my thought.🎉
A badly researched program , firstly the Mustang never won the war . The history of using fighters as ground attack goes back to the 1st World War . The battle of Cambrai in 1917 was the first tactic where infantry supported by Tanks , mobile artillery and ground attack aircraft. Aircraft and tank losses were extremely high , at least 400 aircraft shot down , mostly by ground fire. Fast forward 23 years , the Desert Airforce in North Africa suffered huge losses using single engine fighters as flying artillery . The Russians suffered the same on the Eastern front. The Korean war mainly remembered for the first Jet vs Jet engagements , but most of the action was ground attack , and P-51's were at the forefront , losing about 250 planes and numerous pilots. To factualize the last statement , its worth noting the South African AF in Korea . The country purchased 90 Mustangs and had over 70 lost along with 50 pilots . Vietnam , the USAF and USN lost over 3000 fixed wing , mainly Jets , mostly to ground fire. I detest breast beating , something Americans a very good at, The 8th AF were not that good , poor weight of bombs . inaccurate delivery . But the fighter arm did destroy the Luftwaffe ,Kudos for that.
You animate (fly?) the P-51 losing coolant, spinning out and crashing. In reality what it means is it will limp on low sustainable engine power until it can't keep airborne, and then glide in for a crashlanding most likely somewhere in occupied territory. Still a kill in the sense of losing the airframe but not a quick fiery explosion.
In the case of D-Day, Eisenhower's joint staff came up with figures of enemy capability that would have to be reduced to have a chance of the landing and breakout successful. So, this more than likely was a player in the decision to use the tactic. A matter of take losses now when the decision of when to invade is in the balance, or later when the success of the invasion is in the balance? Also, German field units were often lacking AAA assets to cover movements and protect logistics routes, did the decision to emphasize protection of airfields hurt the ground units which had to resort to moving at night to keep the gnats off them?
True. Running the show until Gen Jimmy Dolittle entered the scene. He had no loyalty to a particular tactic and switched the focus to destroying the Luftwaffe where ever they were.
Total nonsense. Nobody who posts these kinds of comments knows what they're talking about. You can't learn anything of value from Greg's videos. There was no bomber mafia conspiracy.
The Brazilian expedicionary force went on strafing missions with the p 47 and many where shot down by the kraut flak. Very dangerous : Almost no time to bail out .
I believe that the loss rate of mustangs increased when they were doing low level attacks against airfields and other ground targets,liquid cooled engines did not help in this situation.
The FW 190s wasn’t that great of a dogfighter when it matched up against P51s. By the time they fought, the 190 was more equipped for fighting bombers than fighters. The lots of cannons and ammo for them contributes significantly to the weight pf the aircraft and the additional 30mms weren’t good in the slightest at taking down fast fighters. In terms of being the actual best fighters on paper it really comes down to the Spitfire and F4U-4. In terms of impact it’s the P47, P51, F4F, or hawker Hurricane
@@WALTERBROADDUS it wasn’t great, not horrible, but not the top. The late variants weren’t that great at it. Late A models were massacred by P51s and P47s in dogfights
I think it would have been more fair to credit the pilots of the other units with any ground "kills" that could be documented, rather than taking away the ones for the pilots of the 8th who were operating under the guidelines handed down from Doolittle and their other commanders. Though in hindsight, it would have been far better had the order to credit ground "kills" the same not been issued at all.
It was never just one aircraft that turned the tide of the war, (no hate to TJ3) and I feel like people forget that America was fighting in the pacific and in Africa. The P-51 was a fantastic aircraft, and so were the spitfires, and if the Merlin engine was not being produced for the mustangs, the mustang would have never been as good.
the real advantage of the mustang over the lightning and thunderbolt was cost, but if you're going to send them into the jaws of enemy ground fire, how much money does it really save you to use a plane that is much less likely to bring its irreplaceable pilot back
The 51 was a spam can, made of lightweight pressed-metal parts. This was done deliberately to increase range. The 38 and 47 were much better airplanes in both parts-design and construction. The 51 was superior in aerodynamics and the Packard V12 was as sweet engine with amazing torque and performance. We were lucky to have all 3
The Mustang was a good escort fighter & once it had burnt off it's maximum fuel load was good at 'diving' attacks, however the Canadians specifically forbade their fully armed reconnaissance Mustangs from engaging in dogfights with the Luftwaffe & provided them with Spitfire escorts because the Spitfire was so much superior at dogfighting.
P-51 was more vulnerable, but losses climbed in all fighter units. Attacking ground targets was dangerous and attrition was high. So high in fact that the British had trouble staffing their ground attack wings and started recruiting men from fighter units. There's an interview of a South African pilot who flew for the RAF on youtube. He stated that he was eager to go until he got there and saw how many planes did not return. His fighter squadron commander also came over after he did and was too proud to listen to his advice because it was harder to hit a target if he had. He was killed. The guy said the RAF lost 666 ground attack pilots killed between D-Day and the end of the war, not including captured or wounded. It looks like fun, but it was quite deadly no matter what you flew. PS-The Germans also had plenty of decoy mockup planes or old out of service or condemned planes to lure fighters to the guns. Imagine dying for a plane that was going to be melted down anyway. This video leaves a lot to be desired because it is unbalanced in that it mainly focusses on the successful pilots lucky enough to survive, giving a biased view rather than explaining loss statistics in detail, and it doesn't even attempt to give the average American pilot or the German gunner's point of view. It would be like a video that only gave the best German ace's accounts of attacking the allies in 1944, you would think they did better than they had. Also, the mock document that says "Brandenburgh" is wrong. Not sure if it was copied from an original, but it is Brandenburg.
@@bobsakamanos4469 that is a slippery slope, however. It is the same as all planes with turbo and superchargers. If a P51 is hit in the supercharger wouldn’t it also have to RTB. Normally if a plane gets hit in the super/turbo or any other important component would mean the plane would have to return home regardless of the plane or system. The thing is the P47 could operate without the system but sustain otherworldly damage for a fighter and return home. The only other fighters that I know that could sustain comparable damage are the P40 and the U.S. naval fighters
@@apersondoingthings5689 I suggest that's a false equivalency. The turbo system on the Jug is massive and easily hit. You're original assertion was that the radial engine made the Jug less vulnerable, but that's not the case. What was true is that with the disabled turbo, the Jug could limp home low level on its remaining s/c, however that's little consolation to the bombers left undefended. The Mustang record as an escort fight speaks for itself as its manouverability and performance metrics were well above that of the Jug. At least the Jug was a better fighter than the P-38, it just had to wait until mid '44 for more internal fuel and dive recovery brakes... too late to really assist destroying the LW before DDay.
I really think I would have preffered the Jug over the Mustang!!! The speed and power is great, but the 47 had the power AND it was like trying to take down a bull.
I think you are overlooking the real effect of the destruction of aircraft on the ground. Germany never had the industrial infrastructure for a prolonged war, so by 1944 they had to make choices as to where to focus what manpower they did have. they felt that aircraft were a high priority, even though they didn't have the pilots. So, in fact, they wasted a good deal of effort producing air craft that didn't make any difference. That effort could have been put into producing something else that would make a difference.
lt is easy to secont guess but you do what ask to do in war.....Thanks Trent of TJ3 History for your EXCELLENT WW2 air war videos....... Old F-4 II Shoe🇺🇸 in my 80s now....
Top European Ace Gabby Gabrieski bent his prop trying to fly low to avoid being hit at a Greman aerodrome. He was attacking planes that were on the ground. His plane crashed and he was taken prisoner of war. I don't believe he was hit. But he flew too low. He served in 2Korea and shot down some Migs.
Attacking German airfields even in the tough old P-47 Thunderbolt was very dangerous business much less in a P-51 Mustang with its vulnerable inline engine. Well coordinated air defence with multiple 4 barreled 20mm Flak Vierling AA positions and other large caliber AA guns can decimate an attacking squadron of fighters doing strike missions. Doolittles tactic of attacking ground targets of opportunity was sound enough but required careful thought on what should be attacked and what should be avoided.
If only the American European theatre Airforce Generals had a good hard look at what was achieved in Papua New Guinea by the local production of the "Brisbane Tanks" for the P47's.
I need to re-download War Thunder. I quit playing it and felt guilty every time I logged on and played something else, so I deleted it so as to not see it anymore lol... I should've just opened and played it. I'm gonna go download it right now. That game was super fun, ESPECIALLY for being free and allowing online multiple-player play.
I was reminded of balloon busting in the first world war. Observation balloons were heavily defended by flack and machine guns. Therefore, they were considered more dangerous than aerial combat and were counted as aerial kills. I’m not sure. I see a difference here.
No I think they were really robbed of their Ace status. But, the bottom line it shortened the War. Just lost a lot of planes telling them on ground kills counted. Great documentary! 💯👊👍
Was it right or fair? I cannot say, but for the military to take away hard earned status afterward...is typical of a bunch of bean-counters piloting the desks in Washington. The problem is, the heroes have retired but the bean-counters seem to multiply. Just ask Agent Orange sufferers who were denied benefits because they got cancer from smoking; or, the more recent vets who were denied full benefits because their PTSD was attributed to something other than combat. Or, like me, who was promised college benefits but was denied them because my recruiter failed to file the proper paperwork.
Download War Thunder free here! playwt.link/tj3history2024 - And come fly with me in my videos! Just join my discord here: discord.gg/CyVuBNXcgq
I used to play online flight simulators at the turn of the century. It cost five bucks a month and was so much fun I would sometimes log in after work on Friday and finally go to bed at 10:00 Saturday MORNING. It got to be such a time suck that I literally threw away my joystick. But lately I noticed these new games and thought I'd give one a try on my desktop. Sadly, it cost money to really do anything fun, and it seemed to want to nickel and dime me to death. So after an hour or so I left it. Not that it's probably not worth it. Heck, if I were in my 20's or 30's I'd probably consider it a major part of my entertainment.
But I'm 70 with 32 acres of my private "park" to maintain here in rural Kentucky, and my bass to practice. So I'm STILL limiting myself to Command and Conquer Generals, zero hour and Red Alert II. Oddly, my 19 year old grandson loves playing that with me online from his home in Chicago.
🤣
Love your videos, BTW! FWIW, when I was in high school (graduated in '72) I had a collection of roughly 60 1/72 scale WWII aircraft models. Even Soviet and Italian planes. I read a lot and was really into their specs. Yet I've learned ten times more in the last year from your (and others) TH-cam videos than I did back then. Simply amazing. Nicely done!
War Thunder is really easy to run. I built a budget PC with an i3 12100f and MSI RTX 3050 8GB and it runs 4k 60+ high preset with HDR and 12-bit over HDMI 2.1.
@@Kyleplier Can you play it much for free? My issue with most of these games is that online purchases of stuff needed to play the game is an ongoing thing. The last time I paid to play a computer game (beyond the initial cost) was back at the turn of the century when I paid five bucks a month to play an online WWII flight simulator. It was a lot of fun, but all I ever had to pay was the five bucks a month.
@@ReasonablySaneyou can access every tech tree vehicle in the game without spending a single penny. I however chose to buy premium aircraft like the MiG-23ML, A-10A Early, F-5C, A-5C, and the Su-39 and am planning to buy another when my SSDI check hits the bank tomorrow.
@@ReasonablySaneit’s just without premium aircraft and a premium account the grind will be long. But it’s complete possible to access every single vehicle from the F-16C, Su-27SM, J-11, etc without purchasing anything with real money.
Little known but infuriating scandal related to the AAF "Bomber Mafia" in 1943. P-47s were perfectly capable of escorting bombers as far as Berlin, had the Army Air Corps ordered large capacity drop tanks that had been designed and were available to be mass produced. Air Corps leadership chose not to, thinking it was unnecessary. Even when it proved to be disastrous, their first response was the B-17 gunships, a ridiculous concept. Meanwhile, P-47s in the Far East were doing very long range escort missions in New Guinea, equivalent to Berlin and back, using a large capacity drop tank developed by the Australians. The post WW2 narrative that fully escorted missions deep into Germany were not possible until the Mustang was false, to cover the bad decisions. Also, the P-47 was the better fighter overall, but the Mustang's fuel burn advantage and much lower unit cost (about 2/3rds) made it a no brainer logistically and is the real reason it dominated later in the war.
Yeah, I Couldn't Agree More! I've Always Been A Fan Of The 56th FG & The P-47. Thank You. (Like #2)
Facts indeed.
lItTlE kNoWn
Mustangs were half the cost of jugs
Wrong. Even with fuel tanks, it still fell short of going to and around Berlin. The 47 proved to be a ground attack aircraft
The mustang was a great plane. To say it won the war is ridiculous
I think that the DC-3 was perhaps even more important.
We all know the ‘spitfire’ won the war 😂
If you read about the prosecution of Operation POINTBLANK and Operation ARGUMENT, you will realise that the P-51 was almost solely responsible for the turnaround in the course of the European air war. It was undoubtedly the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe. If one single aircraft changed the course of the war, it was the Mustang.
If you want figures, I can provide them.
@@artnull13 Oh stop it. There is only one regular poster who claims that.
What a completely idiotic claim.
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
Ernest Hemingway
'Dulce et decorum est [pro patria mori]. WW1 poem by Wilfrid Owen. He was being sarcastic.
@@stoobydootoo4098 "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim"--Ovid
What Hemingway didn't knew: in the old days the same. Or do you believe in Napoleons or Caesars army dying was any better than "like a dog"?
@@gargoyle7863 Interesting my replies magically disappear. TH-cam or the creator of this video!
@@ChetJang Maybe creator or the youtube algorithm doesn't like the topic "dying like a dog in war." That's maybe not "advertisement friendly".
I know one of the last P-51 pilots from the Korean war. My buddy's dad. He's still getting around a bit.
After training he took an "unauthorized flight" in his plane before they shipped out. They wouldn't give him leave.
Flew to his girlfriend's house. I don't remember if it was a road or field he landed on. Got a preacher, got married and came back. Spent a few months in the hoosegow.
Said it worth every minute. He kept flying his own planes for many years, went twin engine and used it for an air ambulance for Shriner's Hospitals ferrying kid's across the country.
Cool!
I wonder if they could have restricted the strafing to the P-47? It had the air cooled engine, a tougher frame and 2 more 50 caliber machine guns.
It also could escort bombers to Berlin. It was a more formidable aircraft than the P-51, but didn't receive the same acclaim... smh
They had such a superiority in numbers that they could do what ever they liked.
@@atomicwedgie8176they were better for a lot of things but the p51 was still a remarkable fighter at about half the price
I think they were able to crank out the mustangs in greater numbers and a fraction of the cost , so it became the go to fighter, .
@@atomicwedgie8176not true, the only fighter capable of running the Berlin Marathon was the P-51 with drop tanks! No other fighters could do this!! Later on the P47’s soon became the go to ground pounder.The liquid cooled mustangs were venerable to ground fire, 1 bullet piercing a coolant line, which was located under the aircraft near the coolant radiator intake, will not a good idea to strafe and have small arms fire damaged this weak spot!! Thanks!!
The idea that the Mustang was the most important aircraft in WWII is ridiculous as it only became a real factor in the last year of the war in Europe. By that time Germany's goose was already cooked.
Early P-51s with the Allison engine were garbage. The British used them and they suffered the highest loss rate of any aircraft used by the RAF. The Merlin engine variant only entered service in Dec 1943 and was only available in appreciable numbers by the spring of 1944. By that time the Spitfire had been fighting for five years before the P-51 had barely gotten started.
In football terms it's like the backup quarterback coming on to play in the 4th quarter with his team way ahead, then afterwards claims credit for the win.
This táctic could have worked with top level protection and the usual straffing Sqdr. And a Flak supression squadron?
Boy oh boy. You wonder how these "facts" get around. Those "early P-51s" (actually, the Mustang 1 and 1A - it wasn't even called the P-51 yet, since they were built specifically for the British) were the fastest thing on the deck. Faster than Spitfires, Me109s, FW-190s, etc. And the British found them very, very useful. They were used for low-level intruder missions ("rhubarbs"), for reconnaissance and for ground attack. In Britain they were assigned to Army Cooperation Command, not Fighter Command. "Highest loss rate"???? Whereever did you find this "fact"? They could outfight anything at low altitudes. The first two kills were a pair of FW-190s over Dieppe.
@@iskandartaib fast on the deck, but they couldn't turn. That wing was simply to sensitive for high AOA dogfights.
So it was fast on the deck, but out of power up high where intecepts were done, AND it couldn't turn.
@@stijnvandamme76 It certainly could turn with the Me109s and FW190s, which had small wings, were relatively heavy and tended to tip-stall into a spin, especially at low altitudes. A Spitfire or Hurricane would be another matter, but it could outrun those.
Ah, the youtube comment section...where everyone acts like they were actually there flying these planes and know more about them than anyone else, but in reality have probably only flown flight simulators.
I lived in the FRG from the early 1970s. My landlord, Herr Lehr, was a veteran of WW2 and had been invalided early. We spoke of the war as often as I was able to prevail upon him to do so. He told me among many other things that from a certain point in the conflict one just didn't go out in daylight, PERIOD. He described the fighters attacking farms, farmers, tractors, livestock, anything that moved or sustained the war effort. I've often tried to imagine any given strike which after the bombs were toggled, 600 fighters were then freed up to ravage the countryside, all the way back to the coast. Not to mention aircraft already at it as part of the tactical air force. Since relating some of his experiences has in the past caused some people heartburn, let me just relate, mine are solely retold observations, with no hidden messages whatsoever. Duane Beeson had been a Eagle Squadron pilot, getting out of his Spitfire and into the Jug with kills already under his belt. Seems to me his airplane was named 'The Boise Bee'. I have seen a P-51B under restoration in Nampa, Idaho and it was marked as Beesons Mustang. I think Beeson lived through the war and was dead a year later from a brain tumor.
I recently finished reading the memoir of a fellow I met last summer, who as a young kid lived in Slovenia during WWII. He writes about the terror they had of wolfpacks of P-38s that pretty much owned the skies the last 12 months or so of the war. Nothing with wheels was safe in daylight.
A Norwegian war hero, Sverre Bergh, a spy operating in Germany for the duration of WW2, bairly survived the Dresden bomb raid in 1945. In his memoars he describes American fighters shooting at refugees escaping the burning city. Bergh himself dodging bullets and seeing "rivers of blood" on the roads packed with women and children.
Bergh is the spy who mapped the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant on the ground and the V1 and V2 facilities at Peenemunde. He also smuggled a lot of documentation about Hitlers nuclear program out of Germany. He is a real life James Bond. Just Google Sverre Bergh spy.
@@davidabbott1951 I would think the P-38 was among the MOST terrifying, because of their inherent quietness. One might be Swiss Cheese before ever hearing a threat.
I have to agree with you , and would add that the p-38s wer built with purpose and intent and not meant to be multi usage aircraft. They were meant to be fast , agile long range machines of destruction. I personally believe they were the predecessor of the A-10 wart hog. A gun with plane built around it!! e@@christinebridges5700
Plenty of mis fires from allied fighters even the British mosquito had killed civilians in Denmark on a raid due to poor intelligence on the ground.
Never send a Mustang to do a Mosquito's job.
So true.
You mean strafing airfields in daylight???? No, that wasn't "a Mosquito's job".
@@iskandartaib Mosquitos were equally capable of strafing in daylight or in the dark, being invisible to radar, out running or out climbing most anything else flying, delivering low altitude bombs on target. By the time the AA batteries realized they were coming, it was already all over.
@@surferdude4487 Be serious. They weren't THAT fast, Mustangs were faster and THEY didn't surprise the flak batteries. They would be as vulnerable to Flak as anything else would be, they make a bigger target and they couldn't actually mix it up with single seaters. That's why they weren't used for wholesale strafing missions in the daytime, they used Typhoons, Mustangs and Thunderbolts for that. They were great at night and they were great over the Bay of Biscay where there were no FW190s. And invisible to radar?? 🤣
@@iskandartaib My opinion is that strafing missions were a big mistake and should have been left undone. Who gives a whit how many thousands of billions of fighters does enemy have if their Ploesti and even their synthetic oil facilities have been bombed to nonexistance. Anyway, you have no idea how great Mosquito was in extremely low level attacks. In one instance, a mosquito pilot locked gazes with a young German guard. The guards facial expression was like "how are you Brits there without us getting any forehand warning? Are our air watches drunk or sleeping?"
Unfortunately in Korea the same error was repeated; P51 (F51) got used as ground attackers. Probably because most P47 already have been scrapped at this time.
Yep - even the Corsair had to join in there! While the Thunderbolt would have likely been the best pick!
the P-51 started life as a Fighter Bomber for the RAF as the MkI. In the first 18months of combat with the RAF, only 8 Mustangs were shot down.
The P-51 had more armor than a P-47 too.
P-51: Firewall, Windscreen, Dash, seat back
P-47: windscreen, dash, seat back
The A-36A was the single best dive bomber in all of WW2 and was preferred by its pilots over the P-47. And it was teh Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.
@@SoloRenegade All the armor you mention is important for the survial of the pilot, but not for the durability of the P51. One bullet to the intercooler and its game over. The RAF having fewer losses might indicate the did not fly the same sort of missions.
@@TJ3 They HAD the best pick already - The A1 🙄
Problem was, they had far too few
As for Solo's The RAF 'didn't fly rhubbarb'?
They lost huge numbers of Typhoons on that job. Proportionately more than the US lost P51s
@@SoloRenegade I guess the idea was that the huge radial functioned as armor from frontal attacks.
For me it was just nice seeing the P-51 without invasion stripes. They were only on the airplanes for a couple of weeks and in the case of the P-47s they were off at least on the top surfaces within about 10 days. Still... almost every example you see today has the stripes. Go look at historical pictures and see that they are not common.
Interesting.
The sad arithmetic to this was that the USAAF could afford to lose more fighters and pilots than the Luftwaffe. A good book to read on the subject is Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray., which details many of the disastrous decisions that lead to the Luftwaffe's defeat. Like failure to achieve maximum production, lack of a strategic bomber, etc. A particularly bad decision was removing flight instructors and assigning them to fighter squadrons.
Gotta read that book. Tks !
I'm pleased to see someone here besides me has read it.
You're already better informed than most.
@@xzqzq It's good. It's very dry though and you may find it tough going at certain points but persistence pays off.
I hope you enjoy it.
@@thethirdman225 I've always found it useful to go beyond the standard sources, so books like this were invaluable. Don't know if it's still in print.
@@brunozeigerts6379 I don’t think so but ABE Books would have it.
In the video I kept seeing P-51As or A-36s!! They had the scoops above the cowling due to the Allison engines. Those were never used for escort duties as far as I know, so that's a bit unrealistic. If anyone can find any evidence of Allison powered Mustangs escorting bombers late in the war, I'd be surprised. At least in Europe. Some P-51As were used as escorts in Burma, China and India. The A-36 was never, ever used for escort because it was a dive bomber/ground attack version with dive brakes.
This is a limitation of the flight simulator used for the visuals unfortunately.
@@TJ3 You have to BUY the P51-C & D's in War Thunder.
@@johnjefferson9121 no you actually do not.
@@TJ3Is it? Might just be me but at like... 2.0 or something, I think there is an A-36 cuz we always call out to each other with my buddies to be careful cuz that's just an "Attack Mustang". I believe it just didn't catch your attention at the time of making this video, or something.
@hunormagyar1843 no - the limitation is actually in skins, not aircraft. The only skin (other than a custom made user skin which only I can use) available for P51C is the redtails. So instead for the extras, we have to use the A36, as they are the appropriate Olive Drab livery used by these fighter groups.
“Gregg’s automobiles and aircraft”discussed this subject and explained about the bomber mafia and the fact that the “Jug” was more than capable of escorting bombers all the way to the target,given the correct drop tanks,which were available.
Greg has been smoking something. Mind you, he's got a willing audience.
@@thethirdman225 Make your case then, as to why Greg is wrong.
@@davelindsey6890 Well, if there was a ‘bomber mafia’, as he claims then they must have been very keen to get Americans killed, including people they knew, in the name of doctrine (sounds like communism). Secondly, if there was an actual conspiracy then it involved tens of thousands of pilots, ground crews and commanders keeping their mouths shut for an awfully long time. And thirdly, if the ‘official story’ was ‘ass covering’, I would have expected more people to come forward and speak out against that story.
While humans don’t fully agree on absolutely everything, it’s hard to imagine a conspiracy with so little practical evidence.
@@davelindsey6890 TH-cam is deleting my replies.
@@davelindsey6890 For Greg’s claim of a ‘bomber mafia’ to be credible, you have to believe that tens of thousands of pilots, air crew, ground crew and commanders were in on it and said nothing. Secondly, you’d have to believe that a cabal of senior commanders was hell bent on killing American bomber crews, many of whom they knew, in the interests of ‘doctrine’ (sounds like ‘communism’). Thirdly, to claim that the ‘official story’ is actually ‘ass covering’ to protect incompetent senior commanders, you would also have to reject those memoirs and extensive histories that cover the theatre in far greater detail and with far more verifiable sources from both sides. Finally, you would have to accept Greg’s version of events as actual history, which it isn’t. Greg uses some impressive technical detail to indulge in logical fallacy and conjecture. It might be a useful debating technique but it’s historically useless if what you’re looking for is a deeper understanding of what happened.
Don Blakeslee is on record as saying that a lot of pilots were lost on "groundwork", but that was how they earned their hazard pay . . .
Those "heroes" of the USAAF often times shot at any civilian moving on the ground. My father and three of his friends were returning from school on bicycles in 1944 when they were attacked by Mustangs, killing two of the little boys and injuring my father seriously.
They also regularly shot at farmers and their horses, actually counting the killed horses as "victories".
True "heroes" and "aces" (with a ridiculous 5 victories, a count that wouldn't make you anything special in the Luftwaffe)...
1945 hatte eine P-47 Thunderbolt einen UNBEWAFFNETEN ZIVILEN FLÜCHTLINGSTRECK mit weißen Fahnen in der Nähe von Trier/Deutschland mit 20 mm-Bordwaffen beschossen. Mein Großvater führte als altgedienter Oberfeldwebel des 1. Weltkriegs den Treck an. Er konnte nach der ersten Attacke des VERWIXXTEN US-PILOTEN (GOTT möge ihn bestraft haben!), der zum Glück niemand verletzte (es war zum Glück nur einer von diesen typischen skupellosen jungen Piloten ohne Erfahrung), den Treck rasch in eine offene große Scheune in Sicherheit bringen. Da der Trottel von Pilot 2 Wendemanöver brauchte, schoß er vermutlich nicht mehr, da er niemand auf der Dorfstraße sah.
2 Tage später schoss die FLAK-Einheit (4 x 20 mm Geschütze) meines Onkel (damals Leutnant) im gleichen Tal eine tief fliegende P-51 Mustang ab. Der Pilot hatte sich mit dem Schleudersitz zunächst "gerettet", fiel aber verdientermaßen in die Hände der Dorfbewohner.
Kurz vor seinem Tod in 2012 zeigte er mir ein Foto des massakrierten Piloten. Er muss wie ein reudiger Hund um sein Leben gelaufen sein...
Totally unfair to take away their credits. It's not like they were shooting things without difficulties. In fact the difficulties were even more since they were facing flak, 40mm, 20mm..... instead of the guns used in the aircrafts.
I was surprised to hear there were also 40mm flak guns....because 40mm was NOT German caliber. 40mm ammunition was used by Swedish Bofors AAA-cannons.
@@Cybernaut76 Everyone could have all kinds of caliber at their disposal if they had the manufacturing capabilities to produce the gun I guess, it's more that some became more prevalent, more common or more successful or whatever. Germans also had their 12.7mm as far as I'm aware, or alas I think I heard a Hungarian-tweaked Reggiane Re.2000 we called the Héja I or II had the Italian 12.7 replaced with German guns of that cal., of course differences in cartridge length or the gun or the cartridge propellant or literally anything could've been present, but I think it was still a 12.7mm in diameter.
It's not impossible the Germans had 40mm cannons that way either.
@@Cybernaut76 License produced bofors from Poland, Norway and maybe Hungary.
Best regards.
Great start to the weekend. Another amazing video TJ. We Always learn something new with each new video. Thank you for not only going above and beyond with your research for each video but for putting you heart into them as well. I always knew you would do well and you never disappoint. Thanks for your hard work and Please Keep 'em Flyin we've got your six.
Thanks a ton!! Have a good one! :D
Being able to change tactics in a changing battlefield is what good leadership is about. Attacking aerodromes was a good idea until they were guarded by ground defenses. It then should of changed to go after what ever you can to draw them out of their protective bubble.
You've got P-51s flying in 3-plane formations, like the RAF used during the Battle of Britain. But by 1941, Allied fighters typically flew in 4-ship "finger four" formations.
Of German origin
@@sandypatience It worked for them so we made it work for us, having learned the hard way . . .
@@sandypatience Douglas Bader claims he invented it.. 🤣🤣
@@iskandartaib I sometimes wonder how he managed to fit his ego into the cockpit.
I got bored watching the WT ad and left.
Hopefully you tell Gabreski’s story as well as Zemke’s story. For that matter, the story of the P-47 only 56th FG
On my list!!
@@tjf5148 correct sir. Leading ace in the ETO at the time
His prop struck the ground at a LW airdrome
@@tjf5148 Zemke was reassigned to a P-51 unit and he encountered strong weather and his wing folded in flight. Both pilots spent the last days as a POW
@@tjf5148 No, that was Gabresky.
Air to ground strafing was absolutely necessary for several reasons.
1 the me 262 jet fighter could only be effectively attacked on the ground
2. What is not talked about is the demoralization of the Luftwaffe
3. The documentary states 51 aircraft lost to ground attack without mentioning how many were destroyed I believe it is approximately 4 to 1 in favor of strafing. Most of the fighter losses to flack were suffered by the 8th Air Force. The 9th were used planes configured for ground attack
4. It is true a P51 was designed for air to air combat but it was excellent in air to ground especially if armed with rockets. The problem was the P51s of the 8th were configured for air to air when escorting bombers. I believe that once German flack was identified as the main problem when Ground Attack was assigned to the 9th Air Force and 23rd Fighter Group which were properly configured for the mission of Ground Support
Also it appears that the campaign to degrade the Luftwaffe worked a treat. During the Normandy campaign, the Allies had total control of the air. It wasn't until New Year's Day, 1945 that the German air force reappeared as part of the Germans' Ardennes campaign to attack Allied airfields. Some of the German planes were shot down on the way by their own AA guns because they were so unused to seeing German planes in the air. And this battle proved to be a last hoorah for the German air force.
332nd Fighter Group shot down 3 on one mission. Guess they only count as 3/5 each, right?
Actually 262s could be fought in the air. The 262 had pretty bad engines and one suffering from lower out put would have not a fun time against a P47M which according to the people who flew it could attain a little over 500mph. If they were also baited into a dogfight a 262 can’t really do much against any prop
@@apersondoingthings5689 The P-47M never flew at 500mph.
@@thethirdman225 crews rated it at 500mph in Europe likely because they tuned it for extra power.
Superb video and deadly accurate. Great history combined with thrilling visuals! Thanks!!!
Thanks for watching - I realize this is always a controversial topic! But I tried to cover it with as many reputable sources as possible, in a neutral and unbiased way. Please consider supporting my Patreon so I can continue to make videos HERE: Patreon.com/TJ3History
You don't have to practise your reading on TH-cam. The electrons won't get tired if you rehearse "off the air" until you know what the script says, get your reading evened out, and are ready for prime time.
Controversial says the guy who says that Americans won the war.
Man... the P-51, once the D series came out, that's when they really shined. Bubble canopy, 2 more guns with 1 in each wing, the little fin doodad at the vertical stabilizer the Brits coined, im sure there's more differences I'm not remembering, but that's the Mustang I adore.
That radar guided 20 and 40 mm flak cannons were deadly.The majority of people dont know the germans had them.Yes,they had them in different configurations.
The majority of people don't know Canada designed and built the first sets of ground laying radar for the Allies.
very few german units had them. But German AAA stopped the RAF from attacking Me262 at their airfields.
If that is true,why would the British plan and execute the mission called Dieppe.That raid,among other things,was to capture semi conductors and gather information on the huge radar disc that was an early warning system for Germany to know when an allied attack was being flown across the channel?
@@SoloRenegade They had plenty of them,especially on rail box cars and around airdromes during 44 and 45.
@@markpaul-ym5wg like I said, most german units didn't have them. the war for germany started in 1939
I agree with your assessments: a) strafing the Luftwaffe not as effective as shortage of skilled pilots and fuel; b) this was not clear until after the war; c) therefore, directing 8AF fighter pilots to strafe was probably worth the risks--the right decision based on what was known and knowable at the time. As you also said, in the end, the war was won: even the loss of top performers like Chatterly fade considerably given this more considerable win. Individual bravery, skill, and even survival do not mean so much when your side loses. Final note on this point: I doubt very much that you'll find ANY groundpounders who feel guilty about sending those Mustang pilots into (more of) harm's way: every plane they took out was one less to kill their brothers, who arguably were in just as much if not more danger than their air brethren.
Regarding the granting/revoking of ground kills as equal to air kills, I further agree that the 8AF's granting of ground kill credit was not fair given the long and ongoing mission of the 9AF (vastly underreported and underrated!) let alone the USAAF over all theaters. It represents therefore a WW2 version of "award creep." However, it seems that the 8AF could have made a bit of lemonade out of this bitter situation by some sort of dark humor. Like, "Okay, so I had 4 in the air and 2 in the dirt," and paint something like a swastika dipped in...latrine dirt, say. C'mon, guys, even if this was only for internal (to 8AF) bragging rights, give 'em something rather than nothing! "The rest of the USAAF only regards us as having X (air) kills, but internally, we know better and will act accordingly." The granting of the incentive of counts towards ace status shouldn't lose its effect on morale or aggressiveness even if it couldn't align well with the larger force.
Running fuel through the radiator is a strange weakness of an otherwise great aircraft ..
Makes sense when you think about it, and was actually pretty common. Most military fighter are gonna be running high octane fuel which is specifically made to prevent pre-ignition i.e. engine knock; so the fuel doesn't prematurely detonate because of the heat of the piston compressing it and all the air, UNTIL the sparkplug tells it to, anything before that will make performance suffer and actually damage the pistons essentially eating at it with the explosions. Same things happen to ship Propellers if they spin too fast and start cavitating, they essentially create bubbles that then implode on themselves and explode against the screw; you can see pictures of drydocked ships that didn't care and ignored this and the props look like they've been sitting in acid for months...
Anyways, the fuel is designed to require more Oomph to set off, so using it to double as coolant is not only safe; but improves survivability by only having 1 line that if shot ruins your day instead of 2. So literally your chance of taking that his has been cut in half.
Additionally tons of jets, including airliners, use engines that run jet fuel as coolant in their hot ass engines. Even the SR-71 Blackbird famously used its special blend of fuel to double as coolant for the engine. It helps that diesel and Kerosene (Jet fuel, literally all it is, is a lot of Kerosene and some additives for certain effects aka the special sauces); are notoriously resistant to wanting to be on fire, until they are. You can drop a match into a pool of diesel fuel (I DO NOT recommend this!) and the diesel will just put the match out.
Another example is during a tragic friendly fire incident in the 1950's or 60's a B-52 was returning from a training mission and flying past an interceptor air wing so they scrambled to intercept the B-52 so they could double the training being done, the B-52 pilot didn't exactly love the idea of being a target drone for a bunch of interceptor but figured what the hell, at least his tail gunner could get some practice "pretend shooting" the planes. They made multiple passes, mock missile launches, and gun runs with everything fine. Now the last fighters locked onto the B-52 for the final training shot, they ARE carrying LIVE AIM-9 sidewinder BUT they've been disconnected and besides getting a lock from the missiles seeker and getting a "Kill", they're unplugged and safe.
So pilot get lined up behind the B-52, Sidewinder growls and he gets a tone indicating a lock, he presses the pickle button or whatever his flight stick had for "Fire secondary weapon" and *WHHUUOOOOOOOMP-!*... Blood turns ice cold and immediately radios "Missile Loose, EVADE, EVADE" or something to that effect right as his AIM-9 blows off the left wing and this big ass bomber just immediately rolls over and never stops, keeps spinning around as those lucky enough to have ejection seats or have an emergency exit panel right next to them bail out, but unfortunately those deeper in the plane in the EWS/ECM section, with the plane spinning and everything aren't able to reach an exit before it just explodes mid-air...
One of the men that managed to bail out had to get through an intense cabin fire to bail out AND was lit on fire by the burning fuel spraying out from the nonexistent fuel tank that wing had and all the pipes to other fuel tanks etc. So his shoots deployed, he's on fire, his Parachute's on fire, it's a no good very bad day... then upon the bomber exploding in mid air he's doused in even more jet fuel, which puts the fires out and saves his life...
Also, the Russians stow their extra tank rounds in a protected bin essentially like "Wet Stowage" used by later Sherman's in WWII, except instead of Antifreeze to douse any smoldering propellant or hot spall/fragmentation that's pierced the liquid protective tank, the Soviets decided to use their diesel fuel tanks to stow and protect "Some" of the additional main gun rounds the rest are still easy to hit and scattered all around the interior to the point it's probably harder to NOT hit one... which is why Soviet tanks always pop their lids in only like 1-3 penetrating hits. But yeah, not only did the Soviets now Russians and half of Eastern Europe decide a fuel tank inside the crew compartment was fine, but beneficially it could double as "Safe Stowage" because IF it doesn't atomize the diesel fuel and immediately explode when hit by something hitting hard enough to get inside in the first place, THEN the diesel will just spill out pouring from everywhere it was penetrated, and likely just put out any fires or smoldering dangerous stuff.
TLDR - With the right fuel it's actually a very efficient use of it, makes sense, and would be a pro by reducing the amount of failure points enemy fire could hit. It's also still commonly done on modern aircraft both military and civilian, for jet fuel to be used to also cool the engine just like a radiator would.
It was no more a weakness than any other liquid-cooled aircraft. I doubt it is even true. The Allies had a lead on pressurised radiators so fuel cooling was unnecessary. Calum E. Douglas makes a lot of comment about pressurised radiators in his book, _'The Secret Horsepower Race'._ He makes no mention of fuel cooling.
Op Pointblank directive was issued 14 June 1943 to destroy the LW in advance of DDay. Fighter pilots were later told that any aircraft destroyed on the groud would count towards their kill score. P-51B's had the range to go into germany to carry out this operation, P-47s didn't have the range during that timeframe.
The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire. This is a high altitude fighter, this is where it shines. Unfortunately the USAF in the Korean conflict didn’t learn the lessons from its performance in WW2 and used this aircraft again in the ground attack role to unfavourable results.
Not ideal, but not terrible more than any others with liquid cooling. US used P-38, P-39 and P-40 as well with good results. Okay, P-39 was rather used at PTO where Japanese AAA was less effective the the German ones, but still deadly (and somewhat at MTO), P-40 almost in all theatre (CBI, PTO, MTO), Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, used by the RAF for the same role, and Germany also used the Bf-109 for Jabo missions (yes, alongside with the more rugged Fw-190 and twin engined Bf-110). The Allison engined P-51 had a dedicated version for ground attack, dive bombing: the A-36 Apache. So just having liquid cooled engine is not necessarily means that it cannot used succesfully for ground attack role. Certainly, if I could choose going down low to do the dirty job, I would be more happy in a P-47, F6F or F4U.
Do you actually know what a P51 is?
So did the Israelis and you know their history of losing every war they have fought.
*_"The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire."_*
Oh fer Christ's sake stop it. The P-51 was at least as successful as the P-47 against aircraft on the ground. Statistics absolutely bear this out. The liquid cooling made next to no difference. There were three things that made the ground attack mission more dangerous than any other: 1) enemy aircraft in the area, 2) Flak and 3) collision, either with the target or other aircraft. Flying into the ground was more common than people realise. That's how Gabresky was captured: He flew so low that he bent his propeller on the ground and had to crash land.
But there’s very little point worrying about a stray bullet in the radiator which might see you crash land ten minutes later when you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next three seconds.
That affected the P-47 as much as the P-51.
For such a 'terrible ground attack aircraft', the P-51 did extremely well. It scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47 and in half the number of missions. And it did that over the most heavily defended airfields in the world at the time
In fact, the P-51, as a ground attack aircraft was at least the equal of any other.
*_"The P-51 is a terrible ground attack aircraft. Water cooled with the radiator at the bottom. It’s far too susceptible to ground fire."_*
Good grief, I wish people would at least think before posting this claim. There were many successful liquid-cooled aircraft which were used as ground attack aircraft: Ju-87, Typhoon, Sturmovik, even the Mosquito.
When the P-51D came out, it almost was taken out of service.
Shortly after it arrived, there occured several crashes where the P-51Ds disintegrated mid-air without warning.
That got the whole fleet grounded.
They investigated fervently what could have caused that, but did not find anything.
They had propped up a P-51D in flight condition, and found nothing, until in the evening, when they were about to go, one of the mechanics heard a sound behind him.
Looking VERY closely, it turned out one of the undercarriage legs had lowered itself a little bit.
It turned out that up to the P-51C the undercarriage strut was secured in the 'up' position by a movable hook that caught the leg.
With the P-51D model they had saved the catch and relied on the pressure of the hydraulics to keep the undercarriage up.
But when the pressure lessened during the flight for some reason, the undercarriage began to drop slightly.
And when it came out too far, in fast flight (where you NEVER would extend the undercarriage), the airstream caught the fairing and ripped out the undercarriage in an instant, and the drag of the undercarriage was simply too much and broke off the wing from that point.
When they had found the issue, the fix was easy, they just reinstalled this catch from the previous models again and the spook was over, the P-51D could start its career as superb escort fighter.
Sidenote: In the months before D-Day, it was decided that it would be the best to destroy the Luftwaffe as completely as possible, so that it was not able to attack the landing troops on D-Day.
And that meant that they wanted to shoot down as many Luftwaffe fighters as possible.
So the orders were changed for the US fighters: Instead of the fighters screening of the bombers as much as possible, the fighters should chase after the Luftwaffe fighters, even when that meant to leave the bombers unprotected.
So it could be that a 2nd wave of the Luftwaffe fighters had free "access" to the bombers.
The strategy was successful, most of the Luftwaffe was gone until June 1944, so much that practically no airborne activities of the Luftwaffe occured over the landing beaches.
But it also meant that additional losses in the bomber crews were unavoidable and deemed acceptable. Overall 27,000 US crew were killed in combat.
All respect for General James Harold "Jimmy" Doolittle, but he made a big mistake here. Ground aircraft kills should have NOT been counted, as qualification for ACE status! ! !
But I am just Monday morning quarterbacking here, Doolittle was a famous, B-25 Mitchell bomber pilot, not a P-51 Mustang fighter pilot.
You need to read more about Doolittle and Operation POINTBLANK and Operation ARGUMENT.
At the General level, they are managing resources and subordinate leaders. The deadline had already been set in 1943 to neutralize the LW befoe DDay. Time was running out. Even the LW leaders in their post war comments said that attacking airfields was the last straw and turning point in their defeat. As thirdman says, look up Ops Pointblank & Argument.
Just curious as to your use of the Allison-powered P-51s in your video. Were they still being used by the USAAF at the start of 1944?
Attacking a German airfield in a P-47 was considered to be a suicide mission. P-47 pilots considered strafing heavily defended ground targets, suicide. Even the P-47 couldn't survive in those conditions. Typhoons/Tempests were getting slaughtered trying to catch Me262 landing at their airfields. RAF Losses of Typhoons/Tempests were so bad that attacking Me262 at their airfields was prohibited by the RAF.
Plus Luftwaffe anti air units are the most experienced and get east experience from numerous engagement. It's down even when the teenage girls where able to shot down bombers due to numerous involvement as flak Gunners in city defense.
*_"Typhoons/Tempests were getting slaughtered trying to catch Me262 landing at their airfields."_*
Really? Can you cite something to back up your claim please?
*_"RAF Losses of Typhoons/Tempests were so bad that attacking Me262 at their airfields was prohibited by the RAF."_*
I can find no evidence that this is true.
0:20 the detail of slowly rolling into a faster spin as the dead pilot is slumped over most like on the stick causing it to rolling
the P-51 started life as a Fighter Bomber for the RAF as the MkI. In the first 18months of combat with the RAF, only 8 Mustangs were shot down. And those 8 losses include multiple aircraft lost to unknown causes. All unknown causes were assumed to be from enemy fighters or AAA, even though most were crashing due to CFIT from pilots flying so low and fast. The Allison Mustangs were the single fastest piston aircraft of WW2 at low altitude (less than 15k ft).
The P-51 had more armor than a P-47 too.
P-51: Firewall, Windscreen, Dash, seat back
P-47: windscreen, dash, seat back
The A-36A was the single best dive bomber in all of WW2 and was preferred by its pilots over the P-47. And it was the Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.
*
I'd politely challenge that last line of yours & correct you with saying "The Hawker Tempest" was instead
But please DO NOT get me wrong, as I just LOVE the P.51 Mustang AND the Allison engined versions
@@Rain-uc4ru I'm not trying to be rude, but what you said is objectively not true. Allow me to explain...
You said, "I'd politely challenge that last line of yours & correct you with saying "The Hawker Tempest" was instead"
the "last line I wrote": 'And it was the Only Allied dive bomber in all of WW2 permitted to make Danger Close drops of 500lb bombs to support friendly troops in contact.'
The Tempest was not allowed to make danger close drops of 500lb bombs, and was not as effective a dive bomber than the A-36 Mustang. the Mustang could do true vertical dives, had a far wider armament selection than the Tempest, and was faster than the Tempest. And the RAF themselves praised the Mustang in the ground attack, CAS, interdiction, RECON role, and confirmed it was the fastest piston fighter of WW2 at low altitude. The RAF had far greater success with the Mustang than the Tempest as a ground striker, suffering astonishingly low losses.
Further to add to what I just wrote, above, regarding the Hawker Tempest "down on the deck level"
There's a passage in Willi Heilmann's JG.54 book, where two Dora.9 Fw.190's were chasing 2 Hawker Tempests down on the deck & shooting one down, the last remaining Tempest "took off like a scalded cat"
It accelerated to 490mph in level flight around 100ft (W.E.P) & it left the 2 Dora.9's "standing still"
Willi Heilmann's observations & eyewitness accounts & his Dora.9 was just 6-weeks old
I've got the book, it's in storage, but read an older copy waaay back in 1982 (published in NY)
Also, if in doubt, read Axel Urbanke's (German accounts) of JG.54's fights against the Tempest
('190 pilots), "It climbed at low altitude like a homesick Angel & was our most dangerous opponent"
www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Hearts-Defence-Homeland-1944-45/dp/0966070607
I'll take the words & powerful opinions of at least 6-7 Fw.190-D9 pilots any day of the week
.
@@Rain-uc4ru the Tempest is not even remotely capable of 490mph in level flight. that is a wild fairy tale of fantasy.
even Eric Brown only got about 430mph from the Typhoons and Tempests and had nothing remarkable to say about them.
Whereas, RAF and USAAF pilots in 1942 were pushing the A-36, P-51A, and MkI/Ia/II to 75" MAP and over 1800HP down low, as confirmed by numerous pilots and letters, and even confirmed by an Allison test.
The Tempests were small in number and slower and less maneuverable at low altitude than the Allison P-51, and at high altitude than the P-51B/C/D/K. They shot down far fewer Germans, and contributed very little of consequence overall to the war effort. German tankers weren't even afraid of Typhoons and Tempests attacking them.
It surely depends on what year and what loading (fuel, ammo) the aircraft is in. I read Peter Crump in JG26 shooting down low level two mustangs (recon?) from the same flight in spring 1943. Then continuing in the same mission, finding another P-51 flight and chasing one Mustang that stayed ahead, didn't leave him, while he peppered it with his Me-109G. He was wishing he had one of the Fw-190As as it was faster and could have caught the Mustang. Early model Allison P-51's being down on power versus later Allisons and more so later Merlin Mustangs?
I have seen comments complaining about the withdrawal of P47s from escort duty, claiming that they were perfectly capable of long range escort. Part of the reality of the situation was that they were not as capable as the P51B/D. German fighters has a Tactical mach number of 0.75. The P47 and P38 had numbers below that, the P51 above. Short story, the P51 could outrun and outmanoeuvre German fighters but the other two could not. The figures are as follows.
Tactical mach numbers (highest fighting speed): UK Spitfire, 0.80; USA P38, 0.68, P47, 0.71, P51B/D, 0.78; German Bf109G, 0.75, FW190 0.75.
Tactical Mach in dives is different. There is also initial dive speed of which the P47 beat every other plane in the European theater. The P47 in a strait line was the fastest prop fighter of the war, with crews of P47Ms reporting speeds in excess of 500mph. Also against the late models of FW 190s and BF 109s the P47 would completely outmatch them in high altitude performance. Only the TA 152 could really match the performance of a P47 at high altitudes. A P51 honestly doesn’t offer that much better in terms of it being a fighter. It’s not as maneuverable as a 109 and can really only out turn the late variants of the 190As and other 190s variants. The P51 isn’t that maneuverable of a plane unless it is at really high speeds. The problem of the P47 wasn’t its performance, it had some of the best for the altitudes it fought at, it was range. The 8th needed a plane that could make it to Romania and back which the P47 couldn’t do, so the replaced the majority of P47s to P51s and the remaining P47s were changed in role to ground attack and jet hunting which the P47 was pretty well suited to
Pilots got a shit deal, but if not for their courage and resolution, the war may have lasted a longer. Also wondering why bombers were not used more often as a separate command just for such missions.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Or are you just making motherhood statements in anticipation of likes?
Your videos keep getting better and better. Excellent research too. I know it is easy to be wise afterwards, but it is interesting to entertain the ' what if's '. First , on the American side , I'm wondering if once they realized their vulnerability to flack due to the airfield defenses, if perhaps some of the Mustangs couldn't have been assigned solely to attacking the anti-aircraft guns while the rest strafed the parked airplanes. Then on the Luftwaffe side , use could have been made of convincing looking mock-ups , causing the AAF to waste effort shooting at decoys while the real planes would be safely parked out of sight. Well I suppose it is a question of resources, by that time Germany was so stretched that most things had to be weighed up in terms of priority.
That's why the P51 largely replaced the P47 as a bomber escort. It wasn't that the P47 was inadequate as an escort, it was because it was a much better fighter bomber/ground attack than the P51. And with D-Day approaching, there was a growing need for that role.
The early P-47's, before the paddle prop, were not the best dogfighters.
@@whatwasisaying In his book "I flew for the Fuhrer" Heinz Knoke described always being able to escape from a single P47 by putting his BF 109G into a corkscrew climb, the P47 didn't have the climb rate or turning ability to match. But the P47s shot him down and destroyed his squadron in the end by sheer force of numbers, if a German pilot escaped one, the other P47s would be in position to get him.
*_"It wasn't that the P47 was inadequate as an escort, it was because it was a much better fighter bomber/ground attack than the P51."_*
No.
The P-47 was a terrible escort.
First of all, the P-51 was an excellent fighter bomber. That is amply demonstrated by the fact it scored 30% more ground kills (aircraft) than the P-47.
The P-47 was a failure as an escort for the very simple reasons that it lacked sufficient internal fuel. Drop tanks could not solve the problem. They could only offset the problem.
The problem of the P-47's lack of range was not a 'bomber mafia' but a lack of engagement by Republic. Before the war started, USAAF Materiel Command directed manufacturers to increase their internal fuel capacity. North American, Lockheed, Curtiss and even Bell all complied. Republic didn't. In early 1942, the USAAF high command put out the same directive and again, all manufacturers complied _except Republic._
The result was that when the need came for fighters to escort bombers deep into Germany, the P-47 simply did not have the range to do it. This wasn't a conspiracy. If it was then it required tens of thousands of pilots, ground crew and commanders to stay shtumm on the matter. From that perspective, a conspiracy carries as much credibility as the claim that the Moon landings were faked.
Eaker had been badgering Arnold for months about getting P-38s in early 1943. His problem was that the P-47 carried only 256 gallons internally and even with a 108 gallon drop tank on the centreline pylon, it could only get to the Dutch border. The P-51 could do that on internal fuel alone. The theoretical range was, of course, greater than that. But escort work required less than optimal altitudes and throttle settings. The problem was that, as everyone knew, the war had to be taken further into Germany than the P-47 could go.
The situation was simple. The Germans just waited until the P-47s turned for home before unleashing their attacks. The P-47's lack of range actually got people killed.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Oddly enough Gabby Gabreski states time and again that he escaped 190's and 109's with a corkscrew climb....it prob depends on the altitude of the engagement and energy state of the two combatants which in the heat of the moment is hard to truly know. You generally have to take pilot accounts with atleast the notion that their recollection was under incredible stress and high adrenaline so not always the best for technical analysis of airplane performance.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS altitude and date are important. In 1943, the P-47 wasn't a good dogfighter, didn't climb well and had limited range.
The P-51 began arriving in greater numbers in 1944. And Doolittle changed the 8th air force directive to "destroy enemy fighters" instead of "defend the bombers"...
So the P-51 was there for the hulk-smash strategic hammer. The P-47, P-38, P-40, and of course Spitfire were there before the tide had turned, or victory was certain.
The Spitfire Mk.I with it's initial three-blade constant-speed propeller and 100 octane, is the greatest aerial fighting machine ever devised.
The tactic might have been sound...if the better aircraft suited to that task were chosen and removing flak positions first, aircraft second. Taking out the guys shooting at you kinda helps the mission. Generals/Commanders can be stupid.
You need to read some history instead of repeating what you see on the internet. The P-51 was a much better strafer than most people on the internet give it credit for being. It accounted for 30% more aircraft on the ground than the P-47 and in half the number of missions. It also flew against some of the most heavily defended airfields in the world.
No point worrying about a stray bullet to the radiator that may or may not end your day in the next ten minutes when you might be vaporised by a 37mm in the next couple of seconds.
P-47s didn't have the range to penetrate to the LW airfields deep in Germany, but they were better than the P-38 as shorter range escorts at least.
Did the fighters ever split up and attack the Flac guns from low level? Then go on to the aircraft.
Defeating planes in the air would be a much better tactic as it would pilot and plane against pilot and plane. The risks to rewards would be much lower as the allied pilots would not be lost to empty aircraft. Also, replacing the p-47's with P-51' as a ground attack aircraft was another mistake that caused the loss of many pilots. You can't successfully replace a tank with an armed racing car.
Yeah, TBF the Mustang was the better A2A fighter. Maybe the USAF wasn't thinking A2G when trying to choose between the -51 and -47.
@@treyhelms5282 Wars are often won by the side that makes the fewer critical errors.
Biggest issue was probably the fact that strafing requires you to fly in a long straight line where it's extremely easy for AAA to just lead you a little and BAM-BAM-BA- easily as your just tunnel visioned on hosing down all the planes you can see. And of course, against some of the most experienced AAA gunners in the world at that time, besides the USN crews on Mark/38 5" radar guided heavy AAA and its proximity fuzed rounds; and their couple of radar directed quad 40mm Bofors spraying the hate next to them.
It's almost guaranteed to have been infeasible considering the added drag reducing range and performance, but IMO 2 HVAR's with enhanced fragmentation warheads whether prefragmented liners, ball Bearings, etc, doesn't matter. But 2x of those with a time delay fuze and just eyeballing it to detonate over or near the cluster of planes X the number of your wingmen each rippling off their rockets then immediately pulling off before entering essentially the "Killbox" for the AAA would've worked just as well if not better.
Hell, in the Pacific Theater, which yes I know, was very different; they had para-frag bombs specifically to fly fast and low over airfields, AAA emplacements, fuel depots, etc, and like snake eyes in Vietnam they'd slow from the extra drag then just float down on their parachute but similar to my idea these para-frag bombs had time delays and would detonate above everything peppering planes, fuel tanks and drums, and anyone and everyone NOT under cover like an under ground bunker. You in a trench? Manning a useless Triple Hotchkiss 25mm AAA mount surrounded by cement and sandbags? Underneath a table but not surrounded so exposed to bombs further away? You're Done, ALL of Ya. When they all start airbursting with their enhanced fragmentation warheads, popping overhead of everyone; it doesn't matter what cover you're behind... it matters what you're BENEATH.
IIRC the parafrag bombs were available as small bomblets held in a cluster by a metal band wrapped around them that opens and scatters them over the area when releases, an early cluster bomb if you will. Some support aircraft with those, maybe in a more aerodynamic bundle flying something fast like a Mosquito or P-38. P-51's mark targets with smoke rockets, spraying tracers at the aerodrome, or like Bombers and pathfinder aircraft did drop flares over the target. Then while the AAA is distracted the fast boys can zoom over the planes, fuel storage depot, and suspected AAA positions and scatter dozens of those parafrag bombs over them and just wait...
Not likely to have ever happened though, as I think the main point was them using up their .50cal ammunition so the flight wasn't a complete waste and you at least destroyed SOMETHING with all the fuel everyone used up flying there and back. I doubt adding weapons making the fighter perform worse just so they "MAYBE" get a chance to pound something on their way back or sending even more planes JUST to attack targets you've "maybe" marked would even for a second actually be considered by the brass. At most probably a handshake, "thanks for those interesting suggestions, we'll certainly consider them and their potential", and get walked to and shown the door out.
Nonsense. The P-51 worked fine as a ground attacker and accounted for 30% more ground targets (aircraft) than the P-47 (Wagner figures).
1. Taking back Ace title from a combat pilot is completely unfare! He took a risks for doing this...
If they wanted they could give 9th army ace title for their victories of tanks and ground airplains.
2. The command of shooting the airplaind on the ground should have come with a strategy how to deal with the anti aircraft fire, that was known to be there! Not to leave it to the pure luck...
A very well put together and interesting presentation. I’m a volunteer at IWM Duxford and will be able to build this into discussions with visitors when looking at the P51 and P47 and their respective roles.
GREAT that you use video game in construction AND ADVISE US. Result is a very good video. Also, very good insight that AAA on the ground had few losses but great, even growing experience. That seems a new insight--perhaps to build an entire video around.
There was a payoff. The Luftwaffe was absent at D-day.
Almost absent. They did try. In the film The longest Day, there is a wonderful sequence (probably fictional) of a couple of Luftwaffe fighter pilots flying over the beaches and making a token effort to strafe the allied forces. As they fly back the commander tongue-in-cheek declares it "Another glorious victory for the Luftwaffe".
@@simon-c2y Totally. And that was the objective of Operation POINTBLANK. That objective could not have been achieved in the allotted time period without the P-51.
@@philiphumphrey1548 That was Priller.
This is a myth. Yes the scene of Priller and Wodarczyk is brilliant, but there were numerous attacks this day.
@@lokro7722 That’s true but it remains that the Luftwaffe was not a serious problem for them. It could have been much worse.
Fantastic visuals ! Great stories.....
No wonder so many of the pilots preferred the P47 to the P51.
You're wrong, once they'd flown the Mustang.
@@curiousuranus810 Actually no. I"m talking about those that had flown both.
@@ReasonablySane
I’ve known and interviewed several of them. They all preferred the maneuverability and climbing speed of the Mustang.
@@Frankie5Angels150 Your information is more reliable than mine, so I give you this one. 🙂
Great video, makes me think this may be one of the few decisions i disagree with doolittle about. I understand that it was a "while your there" idea, but i wonder if they could have dedicated resources or more resources for ranger missions for the fighters to make up missions to attack airbases at dusk and dawn, that way theyd theorhetically have more surprise and could hit them before the bombers were around, cause by the time the bombers flew over and were heading home it had to be late morning/early afternoon, making the bases more active,
I think the mosquito and later black widow missions were on to something and maybe they did and i just havent read about it.
"Targets of opportunity" usually refers to happening upon lightly defended potential targets and going off-script to take them out. But strafing armed-to-the-brim airfields isn't necessarily that. I'd have to crunch numbers to know if it was worth it. Shooting down enemy planes before they can take off is very smart. But being flak fodder is not. I suppose the short answer is if the kill ratio of going after grounded planes was better than the kill ratio in the air, then it was probably worth it. And although the Mustang is great, and possibly my favorite WW2 fighter, it's a gross exaggeration to say that it won the war. It played its part well, but it didn't steal the show.
What a terrible opening statement
Rather than arguing planes I would rather point out the consideration of the video, whether PP: a high risk tactical decision, was unnecessary rather than justified is more so justified than is grudgingly admitted here.
I do not fault the originator’s thought process but do get the impression there was some conclusion on their part that the end game was inevitably in hand for the allies. I must remind gentle publisher Doolittle was put in charge of the 8th simply because very precious little had been going well for the 8th prior to his arrival. After a year and of futzing around casualties had brought the bombing campaign to a halt several times in the preceding year and the night campaign was pretty much a glorified terror exploit. (Not that the RAF wasn’t doing good work but it was not yet able to actually hit target’s reliably)
Doolittle’s edicts played a very large part in forcing those remaining Luftwaffe pilots into the air burning lives and precious fuel. Even if it was only moving , at first pilots and planes, then pilots, fuel, support units, airfield to airfield the Germans were loosing sleep and using up resources (fuel and vehicles) that were in very short supply.
Doolittle had spoken at length with Dowding and Park as to the Brits experience in the BoB as to what they found hardest to defend. PP: Direct attack on the airfields.
Keeping the German fighter planes busy defending themselves paved the way for bombers to hit the synthetic fuel plants, railways, and other targets that eventually broke the Germans back. Additionally being able to hit anything that moved in any fashion brought the German land forces up short far sooner than later.
It fringes armchair QBing to hedge whether it was carried too far… As sad as it is, the increased losses in the air were in almost certainly more than offset by reductions in what were, almost certainly, going to be higher proportional losses by the ground units.
And to queer the pitch for the necessity of escorts - it's worth remembering that the Mosquito could carry 4000 lb bomb load v the B17's 3500 lbs and get to Berlin and back quickly. Though what the Mosquito did lack was the loading configuration afforded by the B17.
Plus you're only risking two men and not dozens.
Inb4 _Moskeeto is pussy air plain how many gun'ses LOL_
Excellent video 👍
The big problem was those top brass ordering the fighters to do ground attack, were themselves bomber guys - like Dolittle.😮
@@lancerevell5979 I don't know anything about what Doolittle thought about using fighters for before he took command but he was smart enough to either procure drop tanks for escort fighters available or at least smart enough to take credit for it. He listened to subordinates and knew. good ideas when he heard one and made them 8th AAF policy.
He certainly didn't assess daylight "precision" bombing results as anything like the success that Ira Eaker or Hap Arnold did and his use of bombing missions as bait for killing the Luftwaffe doesn't exactly reflect any bomber centric mindset on his part. Before the war came to the US he was a civilian race plane jocky.
I don't know why that was a problem. Doolittle's biggest problem was holding his charges back, not whether or not he was ordering them to commit suicide.
While you are correct that it did cost more lives, it saved far more lives than it cost... especially when it was the P-48 Thunderbolt doing the ground attack role. Yes, the P-51 did have a major vulnerability with its easy-to-target radiator on the belly, but the Thunderbolt was heavier and tougher, one even known to take a wing strike on a telephone pole and flying home with a six-foot chunk of that pole still upright and embedded in that wing. ---- The strategy DID work, when the proper aircraft got assigned the job.
War thunder got a good person to sponsor!
Thank you :)
It seems to e a better tactic might havecbeen to send in units. In several groups. First wave to take out aircraft on the ground and when fired upon have the next wave right behind the first , take out the anti aircraft batteries when they gave away their positions.
In the category, "If I knew then what I know how"... attacking fuel processing facilities sounds like it may have had better success.
There were a lot of bomber raids against Romanian oilfields and refineries during the war, including one notably disastrous one for the US.
My two cents as someone who's never been shot at but has talked to fighter pilots - ground kills should only be counted as ground kills. They should not be considered for pilots' Ace status. Subjective I know, that's my thought.🎉
Most of them agree with this sentiment I believe.
Just fixed three typos. Stupid auto spell correct!
A badly researched program , firstly the Mustang never won the war .
The history of using fighters as ground attack goes back to the 1st World War . The battle of Cambrai in 1917 was the first tactic where infantry supported by Tanks , mobile artillery and ground attack aircraft. Aircraft and tank losses were extremely high , at least 400 aircraft shot down , mostly by ground fire.
Fast forward 23 years , the Desert Airforce in North Africa suffered huge losses using single engine fighters as flying artillery . The Russians suffered the same on the Eastern front.
The Korean war mainly remembered for the first Jet vs Jet engagements , but most of the action was ground attack , and P-51's were at the forefront , losing about 250 planes and numerous pilots.
To factualize the last statement , its worth noting the South African AF in Korea . The country purchased 90 Mustangs and had over 70 lost along with 50 pilots .
Vietnam , the USAF and USN lost over 3000 fixed wing , mainly Jets , mostly to ground fire.
I detest breast beating , something Americans a very good at, The 8th AF were not that good , poor weight of bombs . inaccurate delivery . But the fighter arm did destroy the Luftwaffe ,Kudos for that.
The P-51, great fighter that it was did NOT win the war...
It didn't have to
@@redhunter68 Uhh, OK...
@@Mr.SharkTooth-zc8rm not surprising you're comfused
@@redhunter68 Put the Cheetos down, get away from your computer and go play outside in the sunshine. Go on now, GIT!
I thought the m1 Garand won the war?
You animate (fly?) the P-51 losing coolant, spinning out and crashing. In reality what it means is it will limp on low sustainable engine power until it can't keep airborne, and then glide in for a crashlanding most likely somewhere in occupied territory. Still a kill in the sense of losing the airframe but not a quick fiery explosion.
In the case of D-Day, Eisenhower's joint staff came up with figures of enemy capability that would have to be reduced to have a chance of the landing and breakout successful. So, this more than likely was a player in the decision to use the tactic. A matter of take losses now when the decision of when to invade is in the balance, or later when the success of the invasion is in the balance? Also, German field units were often lacking AAA assets to cover movements and protect logistics routes, did the decision to emphasize protection of airfields hurt the ground units which had to resort to moving at night to keep the gnats off them?
Bomber Mafia running the show
True. Running the show until Gen Jimmy Dolittle entered the scene. He had no loyalty to a particular tactic and switched the focus to destroying the Luftwaffe where ever they were.
Total nonsense. Nobody who posts these kinds of comments knows what they're talking about.
You can't learn anything of value from Greg's videos. There was no bomber mafia conspiracy.
Originally, the P511A and the A36 were ground attack planes so the USAAF knew the variability of the aircraft from the beginning.
May have won European Theatre but not the Pacific. F6F won that one with help from P38.
The Brazilian expedicionary force went on strafing missions with the p 47 and many where shot down by the kraut flak. Very dangerous : Almost no time to bail out .
You'd really like have to have perfect vision to be able to see any of this crap on the ground
I wonder how many German aircrafts destroyed on the ground, an recorded as kills, were decoyes or old worn out aircrafts.
I believe that the loss rate of mustangs increased when they were doing low level attacks against airfields and other ground targets,liquid cooled engines did not help in this situation.
P 51 wasn't the best fighter of ww2
FW 190 was the best
P 51 with it's tiny 12.7 mm was no match for the 20mm of the FW190
100% agreed
Tiny? Seriously?
The FW 190s wasn’t that great of a dogfighter when it matched up against P51s. By the time they fought, the 190 was more equipped for fighting bombers than fighters. The lots of cannons and ammo for them contributes significantly to the weight pf the aircraft and the additional 30mms weren’t good in the slightest at taking down fast fighters. In terms of being the actual best fighters on paper it really comes down to the Spitfire and F4U-4. In terms of impact it’s the P47, P51, F4F, or hawker Hurricane
@@apersondoingthings5689 the 190 is not a bad dog fighter. The quality of the operators however were not always the best.
@@WALTERBROADDUS it wasn’t great, not horrible, but not the top. The late variants weren’t that great at it. Late A models were massacred by P51s and P47s in dogfights
Babe wake up, new TJ video just dropped! Another great video tj, stay awesome
Thanks :)
I'm awake!
I think it would have been more fair to credit the pilots of the other units with any ground "kills" that could be documented, rather than taking away the ones for the pilots of the 8th who were operating under the guidelines handed down from Doolittle and their other commanders.
Though in hindsight, it would have been far better had the order to credit ground "kills" the same not been issued at all.
@TJ3 >>> Great video...👍
It was never just one aircraft that turned the tide of the war, (no hate to TJ3) and I feel like people forget that America was fighting in the pacific and in Africa. The P-51 was a fantastic aircraft, and so were the spitfires, and if the Merlin engine was not being produced for the mustangs, the mustang would have never been as good.
German AAA guarding Luftwaffe aerodromes were radar-guided and extremely lethal.
Yummy, yummy, yummy, heut´knalln wir ab den AMI...
As far as kills by aircraft the Hellcat got the most...Still when you think of iconic ww2 aircraft the mustang tops the list..
They needed two types of aces. Clearly they are not the same but a ground kill was more dangerous so . . .
War Thunder graphics is so good that it is used a cinematic video for historical stories.
When is Gaijin going to give you a decal
Theyve sponsored you at least 5 times and still havent given you a decal
Good question lol
the real advantage of the mustang over the lightning and thunderbolt was cost, but if you're going to send them into the jaws of enemy ground fire, how much money does it really save you to use a plane that is much less likely to bring its irreplaceable pilot back
The 51 was a spam can, made of lightweight pressed-metal parts. This was done deliberately to increase range. The 38 and 47 were much better airplanes in both parts-design and construction. The 51 was superior in aerodynamics and the Packard V12 was as sweet engine with amazing torque and performance. We were lucky to have all 3
The Mustang was a good escort fighter & once it had burnt off it's maximum fuel load was good at 'diving' attacks, however the Canadians specifically forbade their fully armed reconnaissance Mustangs from engaging in dogfights with the Luftwaffe & provided them with Spitfire escorts because the Spitfire was so much superior at dogfighting.
What are we supposed to conclude from this?
P-51 was more vulnerable, but losses climbed in all fighter units. Attacking ground targets was dangerous and attrition was high. So high in fact that the British had trouble staffing their ground attack wings and started recruiting men from fighter units. There's an interview of a South African pilot who flew for the RAF on youtube. He stated that he was eager to go until he got there and saw how many planes did not return. His fighter squadron commander also came over after he did and was too proud to listen to his advice because it was harder to hit a target if he had. He was killed. The guy said the RAF lost 666 ground attack pilots killed between D-Day and the end of the war, not including captured or wounded. It looks like fun, but it was quite deadly no matter what you flew. PS-The Germans also had plenty of decoy mockup planes or old out of service or condemned planes to lure fighters to the guns. Imagine dying for a plane that was going to be melted down anyway. This video leaves a lot to be desired because it is unbalanced in that it mainly focusses on the successful pilots lucky enough to survive, giving a biased view rather than explaining loss statistics in detail, and it doesn't even attempt to give the average American pilot or the German gunner's point of view. It would be like a video that only gave the best German ace's accounts of attacking the allies in 1944, you would think they did better than they had. Also, the mock document that says "Brandenburgh" is wrong. Not sure if it was copied from an original, but it is Brandenburg.
You think the P-47 massive turbo system wasn't vulnerable? It certainly was.
@@bobsakamanos4469yes but the P47 is a radial which can take more damage than the inline engines of other planes
@@apersondoingthings5689 that is somewhat true, but if the turbo system is hit, the Jug can no longer function in the ETO escort role.
@@bobsakamanos4469 that is a slippery slope, however. It is the same as all planes with turbo and superchargers. If a P51 is hit in the supercharger wouldn’t it also have to RTB. Normally if a plane gets hit in the super/turbo or any other important component would mean the plane would have to return home regardless of the plane or system. The thing is the P47 could operate without the system but sustain otherworldly damage for a fighter and return home. The only other fighters that I know that could sustain comparable damage are the P40 and the U.S. naval fighters
@@apersondoingthings5689 I suggest that's a false equivalency. The turbo system on the Jug is massive and easily hit. You're original assertion was that the radial engine made the Jug less vulnerable, but that's not the case. What was true is that with the disabled turbo, the Jug could limp home low level on its remaining s/c, however that's little consolation to the bombers left undefended. The Mustang record as an escort fight speaks for itself as its manouverability and performance metrics were well above that of the Jug. At least the Jug was a better fighter than the P-38, it just had to wait until mid '44 for more internal fuel and dive recovery brakes... too late to really assist destroying the LW before DDay.
I really think I would have preffered the Jug over the Mustang!!! The speed and power is great, but the 47 had the power AND it was like trying to take down a bull.
I think you are overlooking the real effect of the destruction of aircraft on the ground. Germany never had the industrial infrastructure for a prolonged war, so by 1944 they had to make choices as to where to focus what manpower they did have. they felt that aircraft were a high priority, even though they didn't have the pilots. So, in fact, they wasted a good deal of effort producing air craft that didn't make any difference. That effort could have been put into producing something else that would make a difference.
lt is easy to secont guess but you do what ask to do in war.....Thanks Trent of TJ3 History for your EXCELLENT WW2 air war videos.......
Old F-4 II Shoe🇺🇸 in my 80s now....
Thanks Shoe!! You're awesome.
Top European Ace Gabby Gabrieski bent his prop trying to fly low to avoid being hit at a Greman aerodrome. He was attacking planes that were on the ground. His plane crashed and he was taken prisoner of war. I don't believe he was hit. But he flew too low. He served in 2Korea and shot down some Migs.
Attacking German airfields even in the tough old P-47 Thunderbolt was very dangerous business much less in a P-51 Mustang with its vulnerable inline engine. Well coordinated air defence with multiple 4 barreled 20mm Flak Vierling AA positions and other large caliber AA guns can decimate an attacking squadron of fighters doing strike missions. Doolittles tactic of attacking ground targets of opportunity was sound enough but required careful thought on what should be attacked and what should be avoided.
The problem with attacking a line of aircraft on the ground is the flak crew knows your flight path and you can't maneuver out of it 😢
Great video
Humm, do I see some Allison-engined Mustangs? 🙂
Ah yes, the Meme of all WWII Aviation enthausiasts:
"THE P-51 MUSTANG, THE PLANE THAT WON THE WAR" -TommytheThompson
If only the American European theatre Airforce Generals had a good hard look at what was achieved in Papua New Guinea by the local production of the "Brisbane Tanks" for the P47's.
I need to re-download War Thunder. I quit playing it and felt guilty every time I logged on and played something else, so I deleted it so as to not see it anymore lol... I should've just opened and played it. I'm gonna go download it right now. That game was super fun, ESPECIALLY for being free and allowing online multiple-player play.
I was reminded of balloon busting in the first world war. Observation balloons were heavily defended by flack and machine guns. Therefore, they were considered more dangerous than aerial combat and were counted as aerial kills. I’m not sure. I see a difference here.
Frank Luke
No I think they were really robbed of their Ace status. But, the bottom line it shortened the War. Just lost a lot of planes telling them on ground kills counted. Great documentary! 💯👊👍
Was it right or fair? I cannot say, but for the military to take away hard earned status afterward...is typical of a bunch of bean-counters piloting the desks in Washington.
The problem is, the heroes have retired but the bean-counters seem to multiply. Just ask Agent Orange sufferers who were denied benefits because they got cancer from smoking; or, the more recent vets who were denied full benefits because their PTSD was attributed to something other than combat. Or, like me, who was promised college benefits but was denied them because my recruiter failed to file the proper paperwork.
I wish your decal was available in War Thunder, like the actual game CC's are.
The production of weapons, tanks, airplanes, anything increased up to autumn 1944. I think it was october 44.