Why were the planes used in the two theaters of WWII different?

I just watched a TV show about WWII, and it talked about the P-51 in Europe and the Hellcat in the Pacific, and the B-17 in Europe and the B-29 in the Pacific. What made these and other planes more suited for one theater than the other?

**Edit by Otto: to remove spammy links.

 

Well, the B-17 was in action in the Pacific before it was in action in Europe - excepting the early RAF testing of course. The P-51 and P-47 did fight in the Pacific, but not until later in the war. The B-24 fought well in all theater s. Meanwhile, the P-38 performed better in the Pacific than Europe.

All of the USN aircraft also fought in Europe under Royal Navy colors - not much need for masses of carrier aircraft in Europe.

However, it mostly boiled down to increased range needed for the Pacific and the usually lowers altitudes at which Pacific air actions occurred.

 

And it was not really needed in Europe, but was mandatory for the very long range necessary to bomb Japan.

 

The Hellcat was a naval carrier-based fighter, so naturally saw most of its action in the Pacific. As @Takao mentioned, it was also used by the RN in European waters, and two American escort carriers with Hellcats took part in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France.

The P-38 was not as effective as the -47 or -51 against German fighters, especially at high altitudes where most of the bomber-escort action took place, but it did well in the Pacific. I suspect the ability to get home on one engine was particularly appreciated in the Pacific, where one was usually over water, jungle, or the Japanese.

The B-25 and -26 medium bombers had comparable performance, but the -25 was better suited for rough airfields or extreme climate. B-26s were used in the Pacific in the first year of the war, mainly by a group operating from Australia and Port Moresby, but after that they were reserved for the European theater.

With the B-17 and -24, no theater had all one or the other. Early in the war, air groups tended to be sent wherever they were most urgently needed as they became available. Over time, the B-24 with its longer range became more common in the Pacific, while the 8th Air Force in England came to have mainly the rugged Flying Fortresses.

Logistically it might be easier to assign aircraft types entirely to one theater, but operational requirements and simple availability usually dictated otherwise.

 

For 1944-45, Pacific only, aircraft on hand were as follows.
Land-based Marine a/c were 13,873 and land-based USN a/c were 6,751

Carrier-based Marine & USN a/c were 25,236

Naval Aviation Combat Statistics-World War II.

 

As did the PBJ(navy B-25), PB4Y(navy B-24), PV-1 Ventura, PV-2 Harpoon, and all land based carrier types.

 

.......the first B29s were in ''small'' operations about mid 1944....? the first B29s in the Marianas were late 1944? and it is my understanding they still had problems because it was ''new''.....so you have many, many B17s already based in the European theater [ and Pacific ] ---with spare parts/crews more than familiar with the B17/etc --the system is running ''perfectly'' --so why bring in an ''untested'' aircraft and replace the sure thing? why replace a ''fine tuned'' working system? when at this time--late 1944, a lot of people thought the European war was almost over?

B-29s | American Experience | PBS

 

The CAF Lake Superior Squadron is in the process of getting one airworthy and restored to WW2 appearance. They have taken the fuselage of a wrecked PBY and mated it with the wing and engines of another whose fuselage was to corroded to save.

 

The AAF removed all B-17s from the Pacific by the end of 1943 leaving only B-24's there in "Heavy" category. (the B-29 was "Very Heavy") All B-17's were in Europe from that point, mostly in the 8th AF with one Wing in the 15th.

 

..very interesting...were they redeployed to Europe?
..in Europe you had the ''main/static airbase = England--where the B17s could reach the enemy ..no need to build an airbase, then move it, then move all the supplies, etc like what was needed in the Pacific ....the Pacific was not conducive for efficient ''big'' bomber/B17 bases/operations--....?? [ until the B29 had the range to reach Japan from the Marianas ] the front lines kept changing...then in 1944, the frontlines moved far and '''faster'''......and Tinian/etc distance to Japan about 2400 miles? so, they were not much use--efficiently--considering the supplies/shipping/etc needed....?
..where as in Europe, the B17s could reach Germany for the duration of the war

...I thought the B17s didn't contribute much based on Guadalcanal/Espritu Santo/etc--except for recon maybe...they couldn't hit ships much ....and there weren't a lot [ if any ] ''big'' forces/industry/railroads/etc to hit....per my above statements, they weren't ''permanently'' based on the Canal for many reasons = the Pacific was not conducive for efficient B17 operations/bases/etc

 

I see flying boats semi regularly here in Darwin...Paspaley Pearls...a local business selling some of the best pearls in the world...the family have made a serious amount of wealth...this is one of their flying boats...A Mallard

 

The key factor was the range of the B-29, about twice that of the -17 or -24. They were the only aircraft which could conduct strategic bombing of Japan in 1944, from the Marianas or briefly from China.

The B17/etc could only bomb Japan after the capture of Okinawa in April-June 1945. As with the Marianas, captured June-August 1944, it would take a few months to build up bases and supplies and get an ongoing bombing campaign underway.

 

.....yes, per my post # 16--they could reach Germany but not Japan ....I'd like a discussion on the B17s worth in the Pacific vs how much effort was used to keep them operating--and compared to the B25s/etc...damage done by B17s vs the dive bombers/etc