# Another WWII "What If" -- no P-51 Mustang? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 22, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044 "2010-12-22T05:51:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/21 "2010-12-23T16:58:35Z")
Some Spitfires could carry a centrally-mounted ‘slipper tank’ to extend their range. I don’t know if it could be jettisoned. I’d have to check my books (which I can’t right now, since I’m working – just coming here while my program runs), but I think later models could carry drop tanks on the wings. I’m pretty sure some variants could carry 250-lb bombs. However: Spitfires were not strong enough to carry wing stores in combat, so they had to be flown carefully until external stores were jettisoned. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/22 "2010-12-23T17:07:16Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > … The P-80 came too late to see combat in WWII, but it might have had not one crashed in England during a demonstration flight. Had the war lasted longer, it would have taken on all comers. I remember seeing something that claimed the Me-262 considerably outperformed both the P-80 and the Meteor. I think primarily because of of it’s swept wing technology. OTOH, supposedly the 262’s engine life was about 10-20 hours, while there is still a Meteor flying today with its original engines. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/23 "2010-12-23T17:09:08Z")
As an aside, the [Ford Mustang](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang) would probably be named something else. “Executive stylist Pres Harris, who was a fan of the World War II P-51 Mustang fighter plane, is believed by many to have suggested the name and designed the body.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/24 "2010-12-23T23:49:25Z")
On the big picture, I don’t think it would have had any major significance. The United States had a huge industrial lead over the Reich and had numerous developement programs going on - if the Mustang hadn’t been developed we would have developed some other plane that would have filled the same role. And even if we hadn’t, no big deal - it’s not like the Germans lost WWII by just a field goal. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/25 "2010-12-24T00:52:40Z")
I have read claims that the P-51 made D-Day possible. Not only by reducing bomber losses by 75%, but by having the range, performance and numbers to chase after the Luftwaffe and decimate their numbers. That is, supposedly, why the landings were virtually unopposed by German aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/26 "2010-12-24T09:56:51Z")
How would the P-61 Black Widow do in the day role? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/27 "2010-12-24T10:04:58Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I remember seeing something that claimed the Me-262 considerably outperformed both the P-80 and the Meteor. I think primarily because of of it’s swept wing technology. > > OTOH, supposedly the 262’s engine life was about 10-20 hours, while there is still a Meteor flying today with its original engines. If you look at jet engine development between England and Germany they tracked closely in design during the early stages. They both worked on centrifugal and multi-stage compressor designs. The British went with the centrifugal because it was more reliable. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/28 "2010-12-24T18:37:23Z")
> [@audit1](#): > > How would the P-61 Black Widow do in the day role? A heavy night fighter would be eaten alive in daylight, as they indeed were in the real war (Germans often committed them against the American bomber streams). At night, I’d still prefer a Mosquito. ---
**Author:** ![Deereman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Deereman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deereman)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/29 "2010-12-25T09:03:05Z")
I just don’t understand why the Army Air Force didn’t put a supercharger or turbocharger on the Allison. For some reason I THINK it was left out as cost cutting. The Allison performed GREAT at low altitude (where it could get enough air). Superchargers would have made all the difference in high altitude performance. The -38 had 'em and all other planes with good high altitude performance had them. The Merllin had a blower too, and that’s why it did so well. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/30 "2010-12-25T09:09:26Z")
> [@Deereman](#): > > I just don’t understand why the Army Air Force didn’t put a supercharger or turbocharger on the Allison. For some reason I THINK it was left out as cost cutting. > > The Allison performed GREAT at low altitude (where it could get enough air). Superchargers would have made all the difference in high altitude performance. The -38 had 'em and all other planes with good high altitude performance had them. The Merllin had a blower too, and that’s why it did so well. They did put a turbocharger on the Allison. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/31 "2010-12-25T12:53:55Z")
Look at the big round things on the tops of the P-38 booms sometime. Those are turbochargers for its V-1710 engines. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/32 "2010-12-25T13:07:10Z")
For the reasons that Sailboat and Magiver give above, I doubt it would have made a difference. Another aspect is that it would have been feasible to just concentrate on night bombing. There were limited targets to attack, and a lot had been damaged before the Mustang came along. I don’t have any statistics but I’m not sure that carpet bombing at night would have been less efficient than “precision” bombing during daylight. And of course there was the Soviet air offensive from the East. It is difficult to believe that Germany could have withstood the pressure of the Soviet Union and the Allied advance eventually no matter how the bombing campaign went. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/33 "2010-12-25T15:02:20Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Would the Army Air Force have stopped daylight bombing because of unacceptable casualties? One thing it might have done is ramp up production of the B-29 which would have been much harder to shoot down than a B-17. ---
**Author:** ![Deereman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Deereman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deereman)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/34 "2010-12-25T15:15:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > They did put a turbocharger on the Allison. I didn’t word that very clearly. They should have put one on the Mustang’s Allison. It was necessary for the P-38, and all other planes that had good high altitude performance ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/35 "2010-12-25T17:06:51Z")
Here’s some of what Wiki says about the P-38: > [@](#): > > The P-38 remained active in the Mediterranean for the rest of the war. It was in this theatre that the P-38 suffered its heaviest losses in the air. On 25 August 1943, 13 P-38s were shot down in a single sortie by Jagdgeschwader 53 Bf 109s without achieving a single kill… > > Kurt Buehligen, third highest scoring German pilot on Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow.” General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, “it had similar shortcomings in combat to our ME-110, our fighters were clearly superior to it.”… > > …After some disastrous raids with B-17s escorted by P-38 Lightnings (and P-47s), in 1944, Jimmy Doolittle, then head of the United States Eight Air Force went to Farnborough, asking for evaluation of the P-38 (and P-47 and Mustang). Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough, in 1944-1949 and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight in 1947-1949, recalled: > > ``` > “We had found out that the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn’t fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.” [65] > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/36 "2010-12-25T17:31:31Z")
The P-47 was apparently a much more formidable dogfighter, but lacked the range for deep penetration raids into Germany until later models appeared. And, by the end of the war, almost every one of the P-47 units had switched to the P-51. Of course, the fact that it wasn’t as good as the p-51 as a dogfighter doesn’t mean that it wasn’t good enough to be a dogfighter. So I will ask again about D-day. No other plane had the performance to escort the bombers, and then go on what amounted to fighter sweeps, loitering and searching the countryside to destroy German aircraft all over the place. And I seriously wonder if D-Day might have had to wait another year had the Luftwaffe not been so devastated. And if it was delayed by a year, and perhaps the Allied bomber focus on fuel production facilities had not happened (because they in particular, were very deep penetration missions), and there were a lot more Me-262s that became operational, et cetera et cetera et cetera… ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/37 "2010-12-25T18:15:29Z")
If there had been a wait of a year, Germany would still have been overrun by the Russians, by that stage of the war it was not even slightly close. You could speculate that the Italian campaign might have gained more ground, in addition, the Meteor would have been in full service, and the equal of the ME262, along with the Comet tank, perhaps even early variants of the Centurian.The Firefly tank was already able to take on any tank the Germans had with a reasonable chance of success, and that was nothing like as formidable as the Comet. The number of weapon platforms that both the Americans and British had that were just a little bit too late for a decisive role mean that the Allies would have been in an even stronger position, and no doubt there would have been quite a few more thousand bomber raids of the Dresden and Hamburg type - so the production of Germany was being significantly eroded all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/38 "2010-12-25T20:02:43Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > If there had been a wait of a year, Germany would still have been overrun by the Russians, by that stage of the war it was not even slightly close. > > You could speculate that the Italian campaign might have gained more ground, in addition, the Meteor would have been in full service, and the equal of the ME262, along with the Comet tank, perhaps even early variants of the Centurian.The Firefly tank was already able to take on any tank the Germans had with a reasonable chance of success, and that was nothing like as formidable as the Comet. > > The number of weapon platforms that both the Americans and British had that were just a little bit too late for a decisive role mean that the Allies would have been in an even stronger position, and no doubt there would have been quite a few more thousand bomber raids of the Dresden and Hamburg type - so the production of Germany was being significantly eroded all the time. From what I’m reading the early Meteors were not the equal of the Me-262, being 50 mph slower. Here’s [one site](http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gloster_meteor_WWII.html) with a brief comparison near the bottom. There are a bunch of others, but most of them seem to be military discussion boards that don’t seem suitable as evidence of anything other than (perhaps) informed opinions. I found [this other page](http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21293226373) claiming there was past-war comparison flights of the P-80 and the Me-262, and the 262 came out ahead in most areas. > [@](#): > > The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding: “Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.” This same site says about the Meteor: > [@](#): > > The Me 262 was found during testing to have advantages over the early models of Gloster Meteor. It was faster, had better cockpit visibility to the sides and rear (mostly due to the canopy frame and the discoloration caused by the plastics used in the Meteor’s construction), and was a superior gun platform as the early Meteors had a tendency to snake at high speed and exhibited “weak” aileron response.[17] The Me 262 did have a shorter combat range than the Meteor. To be fair, the US tests had to be discontinued because the Me-262s engines failed so frequently, The engines had to be replaced 4 times, and two test flights ended with emergency single-engine landings. Also, I would note that if D-Day had been delayed a year or more, and the Russians had indeed continued at the same pace into Germany, there is a decent chance they would have kept going west. We might have ended up with a united Germany entirely Soviet dominated, and perhaps all or a good part of France as well. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/39 "2010-12-26T14:42:03Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Here’s some of what Wiki says about the P-38: I don’t understand how that paragraph squares with everything I’ve read. The Lightning was the first combat aircraft to _reach_ Mach 1.0, which is _why_ it had compressibility problems. American ace Robin Olds once took on 40 BF-10s with only two Lightnings _because_ of his confidence in the aircraft. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > So I will ask again about D-day. No other plane had the performance to escort the bombers, and then go on what amounted to fighter sweeps, loitering and searching the countryside to destroy German aircraft all over the place. And I seriously wonder if D-Day might have had to wait another year had the Luftwaffe not been so devastated. And if it was delayed by a year, and perhaps the Allied bomber focus on fuel production facilities had not happened (because they in particular, were very deep penetration missions), and there were a lot more Me-262s that became operational, et cetera et cetera et cetera… D-Day was planned around the most numerous Allied fighter by far at the time, the Spitfire. Only beaches within range of the Spit were considered. I’m not sure how much of the devastation of the Luftwaffe by deep-penetration had occurred by the _spring_ of '44, when D-Day planning was peaking, but on the day itself 12,000 Allied aircraft covered the beaches. A fully intact Luftwaffe would have had a hard time stopping that (and as mentioned above, apparently the Luftwaffe feared the Spitfire most of all, and thousands upon thousands of them filled the air that day.) The Mustang was hot, and a key weapon of air superiority, but I doubt it gets credit for permitting D-Day. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044/40 "2010-12-26T14:50:59Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > I don’t understand how that paragraph squares with everything I’ve read. The Lightning was the first combat aircraft to _reach_ Mach 1.0, which is _why_ it had compressibility problems. American ace Robin Olds once took on 40 BF-10s with only two Lightnings _because_ of his confidence in the aircraft… I interpret it as a “speed limit” while retaining combat maneuverability. So while the P-38 could achieve higher speeds, certainly useful for escape or for a hit and run attack, it had to drop to lower speeds than its opponents to mix it up in a dogfight. Escort fighters can’t leave their bombers, so hit and run attacks aren’t a good option for them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-wwii-what-if-no-p-51-mustang/565044.md?page=3)