# The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge. 
Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2019)

Hurricane and Spitfire joint effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.

I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2019)

To me the Hurricane, the Spitfire came comparatively late to the game.


ykickamoocow said:


> I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.
> 
> I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.


The LW never recovered its bomber strength after the Battle of France throughout the whole war. If you consider the battles of Czechoslovakia Poland Norway Netherlands Belgium France and Britain as one battle of attrition then the Hurricane played by far the biggest single part, but not by any means the only part..

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

I think the Spitfire and especially the Hurricane are great pics here. I almost couldn't decide between them and the Dauntless. I decided on the SBD but must admit to a little personal bias as my Grandfather worked at Douglas durring the war and helped build SDBs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think the Spitfire and especially the Hurricane are great pics here. I almost couldn't decide between them and the Dauntless. I decided on the SBD but must admit to a little personal bias as my Grandfather worked at Douglas durring the war and helped build SDBs.


At the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each. All losses inflicted by the RAF in France up to Dunkerque were by Hurricanes, and other forces used Hurricanes too, Hawkers could make them faster than the RAF could take them into service. Without the Hurricane we would have had no real numbers of pilots experienced on monoplane fighters. Of course if there wasn't a "Hurricane" much more effort would have been put into other things, but that is "what if".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> At the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each. All losses inflicted by the RAF in France up to Dunkerque were by Hurricanes, and other forces used Hurricanes too, Hawkers could make them faster than the RAF could take them into service. Without the Hurricane we would have had no real numbers of pilots experienced on monoplane fighters. Of course if there wasn't a "Hurricane" much more effort would have been put into other things, but that is "what if".


Agreed, maybe not by folks here but in the general public I think contribution of the Hurricane is way, way, way under apreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Agreed, maybe not by folks here but in the general public I think contribution of the Hurricane is way, way, way under apreciated.


Since joining this forum my opinion has changed from the Spitfire and Hurricane being equal partners in the conflict because I wasn't aware of what went on in France and other European countries or the state of Spitfire production and service in Sept 1939. Without Hurricanes what would the BEF have used? If they sent all Spitfires then the Battle of Britain would have been fought with bi planes. This as I said based on no Hurricane means nothing else either.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Since joining this forum my opinion has changed from the Spitfire and Hurricane being equal partners in the conflict because I wasn't aware of what went on in France and other European countries or the state of Spitfire production and service in Sept 1939. Without Hurricanes what would the BEF have used? If they sent all Spitfires then the Battle of Britain would have been fought with bi planes. This as I said based on no Hurricane means nothing else either.


I must admit also of only recently becoming aware of the full extent of the contribution of the Hurricane. I always thought it was underrated and did alot more than most give it credit for but now I would go as far as to say it may have been THE most determinant aircraft of the war.
Certainly it was in the top 2 or 3 in this regard at the very least.
Maybe a tie, Hurricane in Europe and SBD in the Pacific with the Spitfire very close next rounding out the top 3. I think I'm comfortable with that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s.

Let's also not forget the capturing and reverse engineering of B-29 technology by the Soviets, which admittedly happened after the war, but was a consequence of it. This revolutionised the Soviet aviation industry. Every single modern combat aircraft that was built in the Soviet Union has a bit of B-29 DNA in it as a result. Virtually every aspect of the Soviet aviation industrial complex benifitted from the tech that was reverse engineered, from fabrics, to electronics, gunnery, to undercarriage systems, hydraulics, pressurisation, radio, radar... Everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s.



But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job. I mean if necessary the Americans could have always borrowed a Lancaster and modified it since Little Boy was under the Lancaster's bomb load capacity and the British had been dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys from Lancasters for years, both of whom were bigger than the atomic bomb.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

I've added more.



ykickamoocow said:


> But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job.



I'm sure they would have, but it did exist, so that kinda renders your argument moot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> I've added more.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they would have, but it did exist, so that kinda renders your argument moot.



The Lancaster was quite adaptable as I think this is a photo of it with the Grand Slam







Also I could be wrong but I think this thread is about what aircraft changed the war in the sense that without that aircraft it would have greatly affected the war in a negative way. This is why the Spitfire and Hurricane are being mentioned, because without them the British had nothing else to defend themselves. The B29 though, while it was ideal for dropping the Atomic Bomb it was not the only option. The Americans would have found a way to drop the Atomic Bomb even if the B29 never existed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

Really?! Not wanting to get into this too much, since I think your logic, as sound as it might appear, is slightly misplaced in this particular discussion, but I'll bite for the hell of it.



ykickamoocow said:


> The Americans would have found a way to drop the Atomic Bomb even if the B29 never existed.



You could argue this about every single aeroplane made during the war. If Britain had not built the Hurricane, there was the Spitfire, or no Spitfire, the Hurricane, or no Dauntless, the whatever, or, or, or. Perhaps if a young Adolf Schickelgruber had been accepted into the Vienna School of Fine Arts, he might not have become The Great Dictator. Perhaps if the Japanese had not been so militaristic in Asia...

Your argument is pointless and does not prove the B-29 shouldn't be included in this discussion, because the B-29 did exist and it was used to drop the atomic bombs. The point of the discussion was to examine aircraft that turned the tide of the war. The B-29 did just that.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s.
> 
> Let's also not forget the capturing and reverse engineering of B-29 technology by the Soviets, which admittedly happened after the war, but was a consequence of it. This revolutionised the Soviet aviation industry. Every single modern combat aircraft that was built in the Soviet Union has a bit of B-29 DNA in it as a result. Virtually every aspect of the Soviet aviation industrial complex benifitted from the tech that was reverse engineered, from fabrics, to electronics, gunnery, to undercarriage systems, hydraulics, pressurisation, radio, radar... Everything.


Certainly the B29 was highly effective and an engineering marvel for its time. Don't think anyone would argue that but I don't think it did much to turn the tide of the war. The tide had been turned before the B29 dropped its first bombs.
Certainly it contributed to the war effort, big time. Without it dropping the atomic bombs perhaps a invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been nescesary........perhaps....but that's a big perhaps. There were other options like the Lancaster( also a criminally under appreciated plane in my view) if it really came down to it and there were several other posible contributing factors in Japans decision to surrender such as the Russian offensive although we'll never know for sure the reasons for the Japanese leaderships decision.
In any case while the B29 was a marvelous plane and may have changed the course of the war but IMHO it was to late to contibute to any turning of the tide.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

Dammit, now you've got me thinking. The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type. The Lancaster was not going to be used by the US armed forces to carry out such an operation. No way in any form of reality. Besides, the atom bombs couldn't have fitted in the Lanc's bomb bay. Yes, the Lanc could carry a big load, but the bomb's shape, specifically Fat Man would have meant it wouldn't fit. weight was probably not the issue as you have pointed out, since the Lanc could carry a significant load, but not without considerable modification and at the expense of range. The Marianas are 1,500 miles from Japan and the B-29 was pressurised for operations at a greater height for better efficiency. I doubt you could get the Lancaster to do it, frankly, although someone with figures to hand might be able to confirm it.



> The tide had been turned before the B29 dropped its first bombs.



Yeah, that much is true, but the dropping of the bombs brought the war to an end. If that isn't a sea change, or turning of the tide, I don't know what is. The war ended as a result of the dropping of those bombs. That's pretty tide turning. Had they not been dropped, and let me reiterate, there was no other aircraft that the USAAF had that could have, the war would have gone on for longer, that is without dispute.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Dammit, now you've got me thinking. The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type. *The Lancaster was not going to be used by the US armed forces to carry out such an operation. No way in any form of reality.* Besides, the atom bombs couldn't have fitted in the Lanc's bomb bay. Yes, the Lanc could carry a big load, but the bomb's shape, specifically Fat Man would have meant it wouldn't fit. weight was probably not the issue as you have pointed out, since the Lanc could carry a significant load, but not without considerable modification and at the expense of range. The Marianas are 1,500 miles from Japan and the B-29 was pressurised for operations at a greater height for better efficiency. I doubt you could get the Lancaster to do it, frankly, although someone with figures to hand might be able to confirm it.



I am not sure I agree as while the US would have preferred using an American aircraft they would hardly say "well we are not going to use our new wonder weapon because we would have to fly a British aircraft". Americans used plenty of British equipment in WW2.

I also think the Lancaster could have been modified to take the atomic bombs as it had been modified in the past to take some odd shaped weapons, like the Grand Slam and the Dam Buster bomb.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I am not sure I agree as while the US would have preferred using an American aircraft they would hardly say "well we are not going to use our new wonder weapon because we would have to fly a British aircraft". Americans used plenty of British equipment in WW2.



Only because they didn't have anything of their own to do the job they used those aircraft for. They did have in the B-29, whose development actually predated the Lancaster's, if you don't count the Manchester. And, yes, I do think they would not have used the Lancaster to do it because I have serious doubts it could have done the job, but once again, I restate, the B-29 existed and they didn't have anything else to carry the bombs in 1944/45, so they used it and didn't have to make that decision, so this argument is pointless within the scope of this thread.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Dammit, now you've got me thinking. The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type. The Lancaster was not going to be used by the US armed forces to carry out such an operation. No way in any form of reality. Besides, the atom bombs couldn't have fitted in the Lanc's bomb bay. Yes, the Lanc could carry a big load, but the bomb's shape, specifically Fat Man would have meant it wouldn't fit. weight was probably not the issue as you have pointed out, since the Lanc could carry a significant load, but not without considerable modification and at the expense of range. The Marianas are 1,500 miles from Japan and the B-29 was pressurised for operations at a greater height for better efficiency. I doubt you could get the Lancaster to do it, frankly, although someone with figures to hand might be able to confirm it.


Good points about it being more of a headache with the Lancaster but if push came to shove, there was no other option, and that's what needed to be done I'm pretty sure we would have used the Lancaster and made it work. There is ample president for the US using British aircraft like the Spitfire and we overcame bigger engineering road blocks than that involved with modification of the Lancaster to accept a wider load I believe.
However, even if this were not possible it may have certainly changed the course of the war but by then the tide had already been turned and I don't think the ultimate outcome was in any doubt.
My 2 cents on it anyway.


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 3, 2019)

In the Pacific I would go with the SBD, F6F and TBF. In the Atlantic the TBF and kin were very important in turning the tide firmly against the U Boats. Even without the Atomic Bombs, the B-29 certainly hastened the end by destroying much of japan's industrial capacity. 

I'm not familiar enough with tactical aircraft employment on Russia's "Western front" to comment, but certainly war on a massive scale!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> There is ample president for the US using British aircraft like the Spitfire and we overcame bigger engineering road blocks than that I believe.



Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.



Tinian would not have been the only option for where they could have launched the bomber on its way to Japan. Iwo Jima could have been used and that would have been well within range of the Lancasters.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.


It's certainly possible that it may have been impossible with the Lancaster or any other aircraft. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure but as long as the wieght was within its capacity it seems like other hurdles wouldn't be to hard ro overcome.
Like flying from Okinawa instead of the Marianas for example.
Regardless while the absence of the B29 may have changed the course of the war by making things more difficult and costly it was to late to turn the tide as it had already bean thoroughly turned. At least to the best of my understanding.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 3, 2019)

In preparations for Tiger Force, the RAF was in the process of modifying 600 Lancasters to serve as in-flight refueling aircraft in order to refuel Lincoln bombers. Without the B-29, I'm sure the USAAF would be able to take a few tanker Lancasters, modify a few 'Atomic' Lincolns, and hit Japan from Okinawa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.



There were three devices designed during WW2.

The first was Thin Man. This was 38" (0.97m) in diameter and 17' (5.2m) long. This compares to the Tallboy (12,000lb, 38"/0.97m diameter x 21ft/6.4m long) and the 12,000lb HC bomb (38"/0.97m diameter x 17.3ft/5m long). Not sure what the weight of Thin Man was.

Thin Man (nuclear bomb) - Wikipedia says "There were no aircraft in the Allied inventory that could carry a Thin Man without being modified. However, the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress could be modified to carry it by removing part of the bulkhead under the main wing spar and some oxygen tanks located between its two bomb bays."

I don't believe that is correct, since the Lancaster had been carrying the Tallboy, 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs internally, with the aid of bulged bomb bay doors.


The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was little Boy. Size wise it was much the same as the 4,000lb HC Cookie, which had been used by Bomber Command in Wellingtons, Lancasters and Mosquitoes. At 9,700lb it was quite a bit heavier, however, but no problem for the Lancaster.


Fat Man was heavier, at 10,300lb, but still within the capability of the Lancaster. The diameter would be the biggest problem, at 60" (1.5m) it was bigger than the Grand Slam, which was 46" (1.2m). The bomb would have had to hang down below the fuselage. Length was not an issue.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

I agree with other posters here - while the B-29 was influential in the outcome of the war, it basically accelerated the inevitable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Tinian would not have been the only option for where they could have launched the bomber on its way to Japan. Iwo Jima could have been used and that would have been well within range of the Lancasters range.



Alright, let's look at some numbers. The Lancaster B.I Special that carried the Grand Slam had a maximum range of 1,550 miles carrying a 22,000lb load at an all up weight of 72,000lbs.

A standard unmodified B-29 Superfortress had a maximum range of 5,830 miles and a gross weight of 105,000 lbs.

You might be underestimating a few things here. I'm looking at performance charts for the Lanc right now and I suspect you haven't taken into consideration reduced performance as a result of tropical conditions and extra drag from the modifications required to fit a Little Boy, let alone a Fat Man aboard the aircraft. Firstly, the bog standard Lanc Mk.I's performance suffers considerably in tropical conditions at maximum weight (66,500lbs max take off weight), it would be even worse at 72,000 lbs modified. Cruise altitude in tropical conditions becomes 17,000 ft at a speed of 162 mph. Range as a result would decrease as fuel consumption increases. The Specific air range drops from 1.01 ampg (air miles per gallon) to 0.95 ampg, fully supercharged in tropical conditions.

From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

I'm still examining this so haven't come to a conclusion yet as to whether it might or might not be able to do it...



wuzak said:


> don't believe that is correct, since the Lancaster had been carrying the Tallboy, 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs internally, with the aid of bulged bomb bay doors.





wuzak said:


> The diameter would be the biggest problem, at 60" (1.5m) it was bigger than the Grand Slam, which was 46" (1.2m). The bomb would have had to hang down below the fuselage.



Weight is certainly not the issue as I identified earlier. It's the bombs' shape and the effect that carrying them would have on drag. The Lanc is much less powerful and less capable than the B-29 and as a result it's performance would suffer considerably in tropical conditions.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> while the B-29 was influential in the outcome of the war, it basically accelerated the inevitable.



A simplistic view, but true, granted. The war's end was inevitable, but at what cost? Could anyone have accurately predicted when it was going to end at that time? I doubt it, as the decision wouldn't have been made to drop the bombs otherwise. As it was, the decision was made to bring about a swift end to the war and to save lives, as the argument goes, so that is most definitely a turning of the tide. What was Midway? The carrier battle hastened the end of Japanese naval dominance in the Pacific after the Coral Sea.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Weight is certainly not the issue as I identified earlier. It's the bombs' shape and the effect that carrying them would have on drag. The Lanc is much less powerful and less capable than the B-29 and as a result it's performance would suffer considerably in tropical conditions.



Certainly the Lancaster could not do it as well as the B-29, but it could have done it if required.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Certainly the Lancaster could not do it as well as the B-29, but it could have done it if required.



Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing. Thankfully though, the B-29 was built and could do the job.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing.



Still could have used a closer airfield and refuelling would not have been necessary. Iwo Jima was not far away from Japan and by August 1945 it was completely secure.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> A simplistic view, but true, granted. The war's end was inevitable, but at what cost? Could anyone have accurately predicted when it was going to end at that time? I doubt it, as the decision wouldn't have been made to drop the bombs otherwise. As it was, the decision was made to bring about a swift end to the war and to save lives, as the argument goes, so that is most definitely a turning of the tide. What was Midway? The carrier battle hastened the end of Japanese naval dominance in the Pacific after the Coral Sea.



I think we need to look at the term "turning the tide".

To me it means that one side is winning, then that is stopped and then the other starts winning. A reversal of fortune.

When the B-29 started operations the US was doing the winning. That did not change with B-29 operations or the atomic bombs.

Did the atomic bombs hasten the end of the war? Probably.

Did the atomic bombs alter the outcome of the war? Not in terms of the result. Probably prevented a long and bloody invasion of Japan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Regardless while the absence of the B29 may have changed the course of the war by making things more difficult and costly it was to late to turn the tide as it had already bean thoroughly turned.



Hmm, see my comments above, but reluctantly I'm thinking you guys might be right on second thoughts, although I still believe that its impact shortened the war and that this essentially qualifies it for inclusion here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing. Thankfully though, the B-29 was built and could do the job.



Only the Fat Man would have been problematic in terms of size.

The B-29 had to be modified to do the job as well.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy _might_ have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions? Besides, if I had a choice I would have chosen the Lincoln over the Lancaster because of its improved performance.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy might have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions?



Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is 1300km, so a 2600km round trip. The Lancasters range was 4000km so even if the range was affected by the Little Boy it would not have been affected enough to cause problems, especially since the Lancaster would only need to carry the bomb for 1300km.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2019)

On the early bombs the bomb had to be accessible to a crewman while in flight. This requirement lasted for quite a while into the 40s if not the very early 50s ?

The other problem with using them was dropping them from a height that allowed the bomber enough time (using a lot of engine power) to clear the blast area. 
The idea was that the plane and crew dropping the bomb could survive. 

Accounts differ but it seems the Hiroshima bomb was dropped from somewhere between 26,000 and 30,060ft (?). one account saying it took just over 44 seconds to descend (Small parachutes/s on the bomb) to detonation height (600 meters?) and the Enola Gay was 11 1/2 miles away when the bomb went off. 

The Lancaster might have been able to carry the bomb and drop it but it's chances of getting back to base are a lot less.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

I think there may be some confusion here about changing the course of the war as oposed to changing the tide. At least as I perceive it changing the tide means to literally change the direction i.e. we were loosing.... but now were winning as oposed to changing the course of the war which can happen in the same general direction but in a somewhat different.....well......course i.e we were already winning but now were winning at less cost for example.
Great picks all though

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think there may be some confusion here about changing the course of the war as oposed to changing the tide. At least as I perceive it changing the tide means to literally change the direction i.e. we were loosing.... but now were winning as oposed to changing the course of the war which can happen in the same general direction but in a somewhat different.....well......course i.e we were already winning but now were winning at less cost for example.
> Great picks all though



I bet when creating the thread you were not imagining a passionate discussion on whether a Lancaster could carry an atomic bomb

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I bet when creating the thread you were not imagining a passionate discussion on whether a Lancaster could carry an atomic bomb


I must admit I was not but that's ok. I usually learn the most around here durring "thread drift"I believe is the term.😁

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing.



It would have been eventually though:

_Flight refueling is undoubtedly a successful method of increasing the range and or bomb load of an aircraft, and the number of unsuccessful sorties during the trials was only two out of 36 flights. While single aircraft could be refueled without difficulty, the question of refueling large numbers of aircraft in a short space of time becomes more complicated._
- Bomb Development Unit​
An interesting side note is that after the bombs were dropped and everything was cancelled, some of the stored equipment was later refurbished, modified, and delivered to the US to meet an urgent requirement for flight refueling SAC B-29s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is 1300km, so a 2600km round trip. The Lancasters range was 4000km so even if the range was affected by the Little Boy it would not have been affected enough to cause problems, especially since the Lancaster would only need to carry the bomb for 1300km.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg


as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.

A Tall Boy was 38in in diameter 
The Fat Man atomic bomb was 60in diameter. 

Granted Little boy was only 28 in diameter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job. I mean if necessary the Americans could have always borrowed a Lancaster and modified it since Little Boy was under the Lancaster's bomb load capacity and the British had been dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys from Lancasters for years, both of whom were bigger than the atomic bomb.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg
> 
> 
> as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.
> ...



The Grand Slam was 46 inches which is getting up there.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 3, 2019)

What would have been the back-up plan in case of no Wildcat? Just the Buffalo? (looking at Coral Sea/Midway)


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg
> 
> 
> as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.
> ...



So, 2,250 miles (3,621km) range with 10,000lb bombs (about the weight of the atomic bombs).

A 2,600km round trip, as suggested by ykickamoocow, should be possible.

As I said before, Little Boy was the size of a 4,000lb HC "cookie". Just a change to the tail of the bomb (to a British style round tail) and it would have fitted into a Mosquito. Not that a Mosquito could carry the weight.

Arming the bomb in flight was for safety, not necessity. Partly because several B-29s had crashed and burned on take-off from Tinian previously.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the early bombs the bomb had to be accessible to a crewman while in flight. This requirement lasted for quite a while into the 40s if not the very early 50s ?
> 
> The other problem with using them was dropping them from a height that allowed the bomber enough time (using a lot of engine power) to clear the blast area.
> The idea was that the plane and crew dropping the bomb could survive.
> ...



If it took 44s for the bomb to fall to detonation height, and the Enola Gay was 11.5 miles away, then the Enola Gay would have been travelling at around 940mph.

Something would seem to be amiss.

At 350mph, a B-29 would travel around 4.2 miles. At 280mph, a Lancaster would be ~2.3 miles away (assuming a reduced time of 30s for the drop).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy _might_ have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions? Besides, if I had a choice I would have chosen the Lincoln over the Lancaster because of its improved performance.



The Lincoln would have been better - if they were available.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Lincoln would have been better - if they were available.



According to wikipedia anyway the Lincoln became operational in Augst 1945, so that would be possible, though if the B-29 did not exist the Americans might prefer using the proven Lancaster.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems.



Do you have figures to prove that? Again we are talking about a bomb the weight of Tall Boy, reduced range and increased fuel consumption because of tropical conditions, flying at an altitude of 17,000 ft, possibly less at a speed of 162 mph to achieve sufficient range. Again, why bother when, like Greyman suggested, the RAF use the Lincoln? But I don't agree in flight refuelling being ready in time for August 1945 along the existing timeline, unless with the planning that went into such a hypothetical raid, it might have been, but again, we are getting into hypotheticals, changing of timelines etc. This is all outside of reality, and I don't believe the USAAF would have turned to the Brits at any rate, not with something as sensitive as the atomic bomb. 

Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 3, 2019)

The main advantages for the Lincoln would have been an extra few thousand feet of bombing altitude and extra speed. But it still would not have been close to the B-29's performance.

A Lincoln with a 2 stage Griffon may have been even better, though more fuel would have to be carried.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 3, 2019)

For what its worth the new Lancaster VI (Merlin 85s) was good for 312 mph at 18,000 feet (62,000 lb). And that's with flame dampers, H2S blister, etc.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Do you have figures to prove that? Again we are talking about a bomb the weight of Tall Boy, reduced range and increased fuel consumption because of tropical conditions, flying at an altitude of 17,000 ft, possibly less at a speed of 162 mph to achieve sufficient range. Again, why bother when, like Greyman suggested, the RAF use the Lincoln? But I don't agree in flight refuelling being ready in time for August 1945 along the existing timeline, unless with the planning that went into such a hypothetical raid, it might have been, but again, we are getting into hypotheticals, changing of timelines etc. This is all outside of reality, and I don't believe the USAAF would have turned to the Brits at any rate, not with something as sensitive as the atomic bomb.
> 
> Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.



I don't know much about the B-32 bomber, but looking at its wikipedia page it seems to have been introduced in January 1945 and retired 8 months later so there was something that the US Air Force did not like about it. Still, if the B-29 was not around perhaps the US military would have overlooked whatever flaws the B-32 had.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> According to wikipedia anyway the Lincoln became operational in Augst 1945, so that would be possible, though if the B-29 did not exist the Americans might prefer using the proven Lancaster.



In a very small circle the Lancaster was looked at but never really seriously considered. The B-32 was planed at a "back up" to the B-29. Although the Lancaster and Lincoln were great aircraft, in reality they were a half step back from the B-29

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 4, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.



So we're in agreement then, the B-29 is not the airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I don't know much about the B-32 bomber, but looking at its wikipedia page it seems to have been introduced in January 1945 and *retired 8 months later* so there was something that the US Air Force did not like about it. Still, if the B-29 was not around perhaps the US military would have overlooked whatever flaws the B-32 had.



Because the war ended!


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 4, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because the war ended!



I thought there might be another reason, as it seems odd to just retire an aircraft like that. I mean the British did not just retire the Centurion Tank just because WW2 ended.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I thought there might be another reason, as it seems odd to just retire an aircraft like that. I mean the British did not just retire the Centurion Tank just because WW2 ended.


Well the USAAF did - Sept 1945 about 2000 of them were cancelled. There were ample B-29s at the end of the war, there were only about 30 B-32s delivered at wars' end

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 4, 2019)

The Dominator was superfluous in peacetime with the Superfortress in the picture. The Centurion was not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 4, 2019)

What was the distance of the atomic bomb flights? Just looking at the Tallboy Tirpitz strikes:
68,500 lb all up weight​12,000 lb bomb​2,400 miles​


----------



## wuzak (Feb 4, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Do you have figures to prove that? Again we are talking about a bomb the weight of Tall Boy, reduced range and increased fuel consumption because of tropical conditions, flying at an altitude of 17,000 ft, possibly less at a speed of 162 mph to achieve sufficient range.



Neither of the atomic bombs used were the weight of the Tallboy bomb.

Little Boy would have had no bearing on performance, because it was below the normal maximum load of the aircraft (14,000lb) and did not require any bomb bay modifications - not even the bulged bomb bay doors required to fit the Tallboy, 8,000lb HC or 12,000lb HC bombs.

Fat Man would have cause performance problems because it would have been hanging in the breeze.




nuuumannn said:


> Again, why bother when, like Greyman suggested, the RAF use the Lincoln?



If they were available.




nuuumannn said:


> This is all outside of reality, and I don't believe the USAAF would have turned to the Brits at any rate, not with something as sensitive as the atomic bomb.



The Lancaster was considered earlier on because of the size and shape of the Thin Man bomb. The B-29 needed extensive modifications to carry this bomb - the Lancaster didn't.

In the end, the Thin Man was not used. The modifications for the B-29 to carry the other bombs was much less, mainly involving changing the bomb racks to a single bomb carry frame. 

You are assuming that the British, at some level, were not aware of the atomic bomb project?

The Manhattan Project incorporated British research into atomic weapons, and probably a few personnel.

Niels Bohr was smuggled out of Sweden on a Mosquito operated by BOAC and worked with the British Nuclear program before consulting with the Manhattan Project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 4, 2019)

Greyman said:


> What was the distance of the atomic bomb flights? Just looking at the Tallboy Tirpitz strikes:
> 68,500 lb all up weight​12,000 lb bomb​2,400 miles​



According to Google, Tinian to Hiroshima was 2,526km (1,570mph). One way.

From Okinawa it was about half that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2019)

As Joe pointed out, the B-32 was there in the event the B-29 was not.

And for all the pros and cons of the Lancaster, consider that the Atom Bombs were dropped from 26,000 feet and the Lancaster's service ceiling was 21,000 feet at 63,000 pounds.

The B-29 was capable of lifting the necessary weight of the Atom Bombs, getting to the target area at the required altitude and doing so at a speed that made AA and interception difficult.




Greyman said:


> What would have been the back-up plan in case of no Wildcat? Just the Buffalo? (looking at Coral Sea/Midway)


The F4F was accepted into service with the USN at the end of 1940, so it's unlikely that it wouldn't have been available - however, there was the F2A and the F3F in service prior to 1940.
The Grumman F3F was a biplane, yes, but it did have good characteristics and would have had to shoulder the burden until the F4F (or an alternate) became available.
And as a side note: the SBDs contributed considerably during the battle of Coral Sea, driving off Japanese elements while they were serving as temporary CAP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2019)

I would like to propose the VLR Liberator because without them there is a very good chance that the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 4, 2019)

Glider said:


> I would like to propose the VLR Liberator because without them there is a very good chance that the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost.



The Liberator definitely helped a lot but I heard it was a combination of things that won the battle of the Atlantic, and the Liberator was only one component of that?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 4, 2019)

Would it have gotten to a point where Lancasters or Halifaxes were finally taken from Harris?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2019)

I don't think you can design a bomb without a plane to drop it, if there wasn't a B-29 there would have been a different plane or a different bomb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 4, 2019)

I consider the tide turning with Midway and the other battles in the 4th Quarter of 1942, with Midway, Guadalcanal, Torch and El Alamein, and Stalingrad. The aircraft in the period were the SDB, F-4F, and P-40 that turned the tide for the US. Many P-40s were sent to Russia. At least for the US, I would say the SBD was the aircraft that helped turned the tide in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muskeg13 (Feb 4, 2019)

The Boeing B-17, with Honorable Mention going to the Curtiss Hawk series. While the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington were notable nocturnal bomb trucks, able to set fires in big cities causing lots of mayhem, it took daylight precision bombing, no matter how costly, to actually knock out the Nazi strategic targets. I mean, at least some of your bombs must hit in the intended target area to achieve the necessary effect. I mention the Hawk series, particularly the Model 75 exports because so many allied air forces used them with some success early in the conflict. Just think how bad/how long the war would have been without them soldiering on.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 4, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> I consider the tide turning with Midway and the other battles in the 4th Quarter of 1942, with Midway, Guadalcanal, Torch and El Alamein, and Stalingrad. The aircraft in the period were the SDB, F-4F, and P-40 that turned the tide for the US. Many P-40s were sent to Russia. At least for the US, I would say the SBD was the aircraft that helped turned the tide in the Pacific.


The first allied victory in the PTO was achieved by the Aussies at Milne Bay. The aircraft that turned the tide was the Kittyhawk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 4, 2019)

muskeg13 said:


> The Boeing B-17, with Honorable Mention going to the Curtiss Hawk series. While the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington were notable nocturnal bomb trucks, able to set fires in big cities causing lots of mayhem, it took daylight precision bombing, no matter how costly, to actually knock out the Nazi strategic targets. I mean, at least some of your bombs must hit in the intended target area to achieve the necessary effect.



Right. And you think that USAAF 8th AF precision bombing was actually precise?

Their accuracy was probably not much different to the Lancasters at night.

Also, when Lancasters were sent against the German oil industry they needed fewer sorties to knock the facilities out than did B-17s.


----------



## mcoffee (Feb 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> If it took 44s for the bomb to fall to detonation height, and the Enola Gay was 11.5 miles away, then the Enola Gay would have been travelling at around 940mph.
> 
> Something would seem to be amiss.
> 
> At 350mph, a B-29 would travel around 4.2 miles. At 280mph, a Lancaster would be ~2.3 miles away (assuming a reduced time of 30s for the drop).



11.5 miles was slant range from the point of detonation, not horizontal distance. The bomb was released at 31,060 and exploded at 1968 ft. The bomb continued forward from the release point while the Enola Gay immediately executed a 155 deg turn which was calculated to give maximum separation at time of detonation. Still the B-29 was tossed by the shockwave.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Lancaster was considered earlier on because of the size and shape of the Thin Man bomb. The B-29 needed extensive modifications to carry this bomb - the Lancaster didn't.
> 
> In the end, the Thin Man was not used. The modifications for the B-29 to carry the other bombs was much less, mainly involving changing the bomb racks to a single bomb carry frame.



Actually the modifications needed to carry an atomic bomb on a B-29 involved the modification of the bulkhead that separated the bomb bays. This modification was known as "Operation Silverplate" and IIRC was eventually incorporated on production line aircraft as well as on the later B-50.

Gentlemen - in discussing this thread I think it's going to be difficult to really argue for a specific aircraft as the war in the Pacific was a lot different than in Europe, in Africa or over the Med. There were several aircraft that made a difference but I think it would be hard to nail it down to one specific airframe.

BUT - IMO the closest aircraft you're going to find to meet this criteria was IMO the "best" over-all aircraft of WW2, if not of all time - that being the C-47!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Manhattan Project incorporated British research into atomic weapons, and probably a few personnel.
> 
> .


 A local community centre here in NE England was used in the early days of nuclear research which, is more distillation/chemistry than physics. One of the rooms was lined with lead on all the walls and ceilings.


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> The Liberator definitely helped a lot but I heard it was a combination of things that won the battle of the Atlantic, and the Liberator was only one component of that?


It was of course a combination of things but only the VLR Liberator could fill the gap in the middle of the Atlantic and it was only constant air cover that forced the U Boats to submerge. Thus making it much harder for the convoys to be tracked, wolf packs to be formed and the attacks undertaken. There were a number of cases where with an aircraft overhead attacks were almost negligible, but once the aircraft left the U Boats would attack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2019)

The SBD was a very good airplane but it was simply in the right place at the right time at Midway. There was no outstanding characteristic of the SBD that the results of the battle hinged on. The SBDs had NOT fought off interceptors to get to the bombing positions. It had not required a radius of action that other planes did not have, it didn't even require anything out of the ordinary in regards to bomb load. 
Yes it delivered the mortal blow to Japanese carrier aviation and so turned the tide of the war in the Pacific.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2019)

The SBDs also played a key role in the Battle of Coral Sea, too.

I understand that the SBD was "the right plane at the right time", but then again, so was the Hurricane, the F4F, the P-40 and so on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Feb 4, 2019)

The standard Lancaster used low-altitude Merlins because flying higher would leave contrails, which would serve as a 'This way to the bomber' trail, but the Mark VI Lancaster, which was issued to 635 Squadron in 1944 could cruise happily at 28-30,000 feet as they were fitted with high-altitude engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 4, 2019)

I'm going to go with two choices. The first was touched / flown by almost every Allied pilot during the war, and the second because it was there, in the heat, cold, deserts, and mountains. 

1. T-6 / SNJ Texan / Harvard
2. C-47 Dakota / Skytrain

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 4, 2019)

I think the C47 is a great pick. I had not considered it as turning the tide but now that I think about it having such an effective trasport( another Douglas product by the way...... just thought I'd throw that in) certainly contributed to turning the tide in all theaters.
If you have the equipment you need and the other guy doesn't, like in north Africa for example, that certainly tends to turn the tide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The SBD was a very good airplane but it was simply in the right place at the right time at Midway. There was no outstanding characteristic of the SBD that the results of the battle hinged on. The SBDs had NOT fought off interceptors to get to the bombing positions. It had not required a radius of action that other planes did not have, it didn't even require anything out of the ordinary in regards to bomb load.
> Yes it delivered the mortal blow to Japanese carrier aviation and so turned the tide of the war in the Pacific.



Very true. The SBDs were part of a weapons system of the Carrier Wing with F4-Fs, SBD, and TBDs. Add to that the Naval Aviators in '42 who I would argue were some of the best pilots of the War. The men John Lundstrom called "the First Team" in his two books.


----------



## Baxter (Feb 5, 2019)

I think it might have been the IL-2 Sturmovik. That plane hammered holes in the German lines through which the T34's poured westwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

I have to say that the C-47 was indeed the backbone of the Allied effort - however, it was the fighters that cleared the path for them to be effective.
They didn't really turn the tide of war, they were able to do what they did after the skies were cleared of the enemy - in otherwords, after the tide had turned.

A classic example (or two) of what happens when transports are operating in contested airspace would be the Ju52/M3 and Me323 massacres in the MTO and again during the airlift at Stalingrad where the Luftwaffe threw everything into the effort from He111 and Ju88 bombers to Si204 trainers piloted by school instructors.
Without air supremacy, they were royally screwed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2019)

I have two nominees.

firstly, the C-47. In my opinion it probably did more to influence the outcome of the war on so many theatres of operation.....Burma, Manchuria, new guinea, Italy, NW Europe, to name just a few.

secondly the IL-2. Despite its horrendous losses and disdain we in the wwest tend to view it, it probably did more than any other attack plane, or fighter due to the impact it had on the eastern front.

Least important are any and all the fighters of any nation. They were needed and they were important, but nowhere can it be said that they won the war, or even averted defeat. The nearest that this was achieved was probably Phil sea, but even if the IJN had broken through and a surface battle ensued, the Japanese fleet was so outclassed by that stage I think they would have lost in any case.

I don't agree with the B-29 argument. The dropping of the a-bombs had far less effect influencing the Japanese to surrender than Americans believe . It had an effect, but not critical. The invasion of Manchuria by the red army was more important as an influence to the Japanese surrender. It did lead to the Japanese acceding or forfeiting one of their last two conditions for surrender, namely that the home islands not be occupied, the other being that the emperor be respected. Even here, it is arguable that the Japanese gave up their resistance to being occupied solely because of the bomb being dropped. some believed, that with the 2.5 million Russians now in the war, the Japanese at last realized that the jig was up.

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan ... Stalin Did

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 5, 2019)

What Joe, Mike and Dave said about the C-47, with a special mention of the B-29 and its future impact, in Soviet use and as a nuclear bomber. (tee hee)


----------



## The Basket (Feb 5, 2019)

Maybe it was not aircraft that was built but aircraft that were not built that turned the tide of war.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 5, 2019)

parsifal said:


> I have two nominees.
> 
> firstly, the C-47. In my opinion it probably did more to influence the outcome of the war on so many theatres of operation.....Burma, Manchuria, new guinea, Italy, NW Europe, to name just a few.
> 
> ...



I agree, the jig was up, but what those 2 bombs did was to give the Japanese an excuse to surrender which they would never have had if the Americans hadn't dropped them. My view is that dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war with Japan because it gave them a face saving method for surrendering.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 5, 2019)

parsifal said:


> I have two nominees.
> 
> firstly, the C-47. In my opinion it probably did more to influence the outcome of the war on so many theatres of operation.....Burma, Manchuria, new guinea, Italy, NW Europe, to name just a few.
> 
> ...




Agree with most of your comments but I have one exception to the "fighters were useless" rule. I'd present the Hurricane during the BoB as that exception. I don't want to get into (yet) another "would Operation Sea Lion succeed" discussion, but I think it's pretty self-evident that if Fighter Command had failed, then Churchill's government would have fallen and potentially replaced with a more supine alternative that may have taken Britain out of the war. No Britain means no success in North Africa, no containment (and ultimately invasion) of Italy and no D-Day. Now I will accept there are a lot of "probables" and "maybes" in that train of thought...but it's a potential course of action that's a lot more realistic than Germany having a nuclear bomber to attack America in 1946.

All that being said, the Hurri simply doesn't match up to the C-47...or several other types mentioned in this thread to-date.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2019)

parsifal said:


> ...
> 
> Least important are any and all the fighters of any nation. They were needed and they were important, but nowhere can it be said that they won the war, or even averted defeat.
> ...



Hurricanes and Spitfires were crucial in winning Battle of Britain, unlike the Wellingtons, Battles or Blenheims.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2019)

While fighters may not have "won" the war, there was an awful lot that went on because fighters were there. 

The light and medium bombers of the desert air force would have been much less effective without fighter escort.

I would note that even the vaunted IL-2 needed fighter escorts if it was to provide the close support it did without prohibitive losses. 

Unescorted IL-2 operations _on average _didn't do so well.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2019)

Fighters were important, but not tide turning, even in the Battle of Britain. Sure fighters were needed by all the combatants, but they did not win any battles on their own, even for the BoB.

BoB was more lost by the LW over being won by FC. Moreover, deployment of Fighters to the SE was more about making a statement that the LW was getting nowhere, rather than any operational necessity to keep them there. Further, from the German perspective, the air battle in the south east was but a part of the overall strategy against Britain in the Summer 1940. The German goals were primarily to force Britain to seek terms of surrender. That was to be achieved by a cross channel attack. The German goals and the British need thwart them were demonstrably more important than the British objectives of essentially “blowing raspberries” along the Kentish coastline. 

A precursor to that cross channel operation was the winning of air superiority over the SE coastline. The amphibious operation could certainly not progress without air superiority, but it is doubtful that even with air superiority, it could be successful.

The obvious alternative if German air force was able to force a withdrawal from the south east would be to deploy RAF assets to the north of London. This would ensure that the LW would at best achieve air parity over the South East, and that simply was not enough to secure success for the overall operation to which the air operations were linked. All Britain had to do was remain present over the battlefield, as opposed to being in it much less winning complete dominance over it.

The critical problem for the LW was the equipment failures, and inadequate logistics and re-supply. The Germans were never going to win air superiority in 1940 with a mix of vulnerable bombers and a short legged fighter, and all in too few numbers to overwhelm the British. As the Americans and BC found in 1944-5, winning control of the skies did not come cheap, and fighters in that campaign whilst critical in the conduct of operations, were not critical in the strategic objective of attritioning the LW out of the equation. During 1944, LW overall, lost well in excess of 30000 airframes. Fighters are believed to have been directly responsible for the loss of maybe 5000 of those losses. Overwhelmingly German losses were non-combat related. Many were burnt or simply abandoned due to a lack of fuel. Many were lost in accidents. It was the bombers and the ground attack aircraft that did the heavy lifting to achieve those results. Fighters were necessary, but more important in maintaining that unrelenting pressure was logistics and re-supply. Transport command was more important in that respect.

Note that I am not claiming that fighters were not required. They most certainly were to achieve operational outcomes they were needed, Operational success however does not turn the tide of war. We are talking about the most important aircraft that caused a turning point in the war. Tide turning means winning your objectives. Fighters, don’t win objectives. There is not one example in WWII where aircraft alone won a battle completely on their own. Those that influenced ground battles, either by ground attack, logistic support, or perhaps even liaison or battlefield reconnaissance were more influential and tide turning influences over fighters. Fighters were in fact the least important factor turning the tide and winning strategic objectives.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 5, 2019)

I don't want to get into an argument over this but I fundamentally disagree with many of your statements. IMHO providing air defence up-threat of London was a vital strategic need and a key centre of gravity for the UK. Moving aircraft to the north of London isn't some arbitrary tactical withdrawal to some obscure grid reference. It's leaving the capital entirely exposed...or at least it would have been perceived as such by the civilians in the firing line. Under those circumstances, a change of government was almost inevitable...with the real risk that the strategic battle, that of keeping Britain in the fight, would have been lost. 

Anyhoo...we can agree to disagree. We should probably get back to other aircraft that have a better claim to the subject of the thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 5, 2019)

parsifal said:


> There is not one example in WWII where aircraft alone won a battle completely on their own. Those that influenced ground battles, either by ground attack, logistic support, or perhaps even liaison or battlefield reconnaissance were more influential and tide turning influences over fighters. Fighters were in fact the least important factor turning the tide and winning strategic objectives.




This is quite true but then there are very few battles indeed where one type of weapon or unit won _completely on their own. _No tank (type) won a battle completely on it's own. NO artillery piece (25pdr, 105mm how, 155mm etc) won a battle completely on it's own. Few, if any ships won a battle completely on their own unless it was more of a one on one duel.

These weapons were all part of a team or group effort. We can say that fighters (in general) could not affect a land or sea battle with their own weapons to any great extent. But by using their weapons they could allow friendly bombers, or recon aircraft to operate and influence a battle to bigger degree, they could also deny the enemy the ability to use his bober and recon aircraft with as much freedom as he could wish and thus deny the enemy opportunities to influence the battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2019)

If the RAF had lost the BoB I don't see how the UK could have continued the war, and having lost the BoB they would certainly have lost Malta.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

Not one but two examples where aircraft alone decided the outcome of a battle:
Coral Sea & Midway

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2019)

Coral Sea and Midway, as well as Phil Sea and Pearl Harbour, even the attacks on Force Z were fought with airpower. But they were not decided purely by air power alone. If airpower was the sole determinant, the Japanese would have won at both Coral Sea and Midway. The Americans should have defeated the IJN at Pearl and the air groups used in the attacks on force Z should have suffered far heavier losses than they did.

There were other factors at work that made each of these battles quite different to the norm

I will concede however, that these represent examples of battles decided by air power. A battle however, is not a campaign and it takes more than a battle to create a tide turning effect. Midway is often touted as the turning point of the war. Unfortunately it was not. Mounting Japanese losses, of which midway was one event, were the cause of the tide turning in the Pacific. The Japanese did not shelve their offensive intentions after Midway. What forced them onto the defensive, and hence a turning of the tide was the combined effects of midway and the vicious attrition they suffered on guadacanal.

Coral sea was more or less the same. Japan did not abandon her objective of capturing Moresby after coral sea, they merely adjusted their operational plans. Airpower in that situation was successful in influencing operations, but was not a strategic campaign altering event. The change in strategy was a combination of the defeat at sea in coral sea, and the defeat they suffered in the Owen Stanleys. Had the Japanese won coral sea, it is doubtful that their embarked ground force could have succeeded in dislodging the allies from the port anyway. Similar conclusions can be made about Midway. It is doubtful (or at least debateable), that Midway could have been taken with the IJN detachment charged with its capture.

In both cases, the real reasons underscoring the defeats wasn’t just airpower. Its far more nuanced than that. A lot of it was the strategic overreach by the Japanese. They faced an unsolvable problem really. On the one hand they had a reviving USN that in the not too distant future would be able to overwhelm the Japanese. In the second instance, the Japanese had stretched their logistics well beyond what was sustainable for them

So, airpower can win battles, but it is harder to argue that they can win campaigns unaided. neither can any of the other machines of war, completely on their own.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2019)

Perhaps I am missing something here.

In the battle of Coral Sea and again at Midway, the enemies engaged each other solely by aircraft alone and the opposing fleets suffered damage and destruction solely by aircraft alone.

And it was the action of these aircraft that altered the intentions of the fleets - in the case of Coral Sea, the planned invasion of Port Moresby was abandoned and in the case of Midway, the invasion of Midway island was abandoned.

There were no engagements by surface ships or actions by submarines that influenced the course of either battle. The order to abandon the Port Moresby invasion was mainly due to the fact that the Japanese suspected there were more Allied carriers in the area...in otherwords, for the fear of more *air attacks*.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 5, 2019)

I think the thread went off topic with the B-29. 

I think the B-29 was a revolutionary aircraft. A leap in technology for the time. With the Bomb it ended the war. But I don't think it turned the tide. There was no doubt about the outcome of the War in August of 45, it was a matter of when the fighting would end, and how many lives would be lost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps I am missing something here.
> 
> In the battle of Coral Sea and again at Midway, the enemies engaged each other solely by aircraft alone and the opposing fleets suffered damage and destruction solely by aircraft alone.
> 
> ...




In my opinion you are missing something. A single battle does not cause a game changing change in strategy. To be fair no single aircraft type did. Neither did any other system. SR mentioned the same thing. To bring about the game changing change of strategy, the Japanese had to be defeated several times over. Capture of midway was not the end in itself. the strategy was to destroy the USN. the Japanese did not abandon that immediately after midway. Far greater damage was done to that aspiration in the November battleship action off guadacanal, and the mindset that led to that occurred in the 3month meatgrinder that preceded it. 

For coral sea, the Japanese objective was the capture of Moresby. Whilst the battle led to the temporary postponement of the operation (which is how the Japanese viewed it at the time), it led to no cancellation of the operation. The Japanese intended to return after the midway operation to finish the job. of course they never did. But even then they would not abandon their strategy, so not even the combined effects of midway AND Coral Sea led to any change of strategy by the Japanese. it would take the combined effects of Midway, Coral sea, Guadacanal and Owen stanleys to induce the Japanese to change strategy, and moreover, for the allies to change their strategy as well.

Aircraft were capable of achieving operational successes. ive already conceded that, and that's what you are saying (though you dont seem to realise it). Strategic change is not one battle, or one operation. strategic change occurs when your overall objectives are forced to change. That didn't happen due to fighters at the BoB, and it didn't happen solely because of coral sea or midway. They were big operational successes, but they were not overwhelming strategic victories 9as is so often touted for them0 because they did not lead to any change in Japanese objectives at the time, or allied objectives either 9well maybe watchtower was made possible I guess)


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2019)

But you stated that "no aircraft decided the outcome of a battle" and I cited two examples that run to the contrary.

To be realistic here, no single aircraft type was able to turn the tide of the war - the "war" being WWII as a whole or by theater. It took a team of aircraft types to inflict losses to the enemy's ability to wage war in kind.

However, in the case of a singular battle, there are elements, either on land or on sea that dictates the outcome of that particular battle. In the case of Coral Sea and Midway, it was the airplane that dictated the terms of the battle.
In the case of Coral Sea, the Japanese plan of invasion was halted - regardless of what they intended in the future, the bottom line is their intentions were stopped by air power alone. It was that instance of air power that altered the outcome.
In the case of Midway, yes the Japanese considered going back, but without airpower (all their carriers were gone) they were at risk from enemy aircraft revisiting them and the prospect of surface contact...so with the odds against them, it was decided not to risk it. So again, regardless of what they intended to do, the outcome was dictated by airpower alone.

And it has been pointed out that the battle of Midway was the *turning point* of the Pacific war...so that being the case, the aircraft that turned the tide would have to be the Douglas SBD, which inflicted fatal or ultimately fatal blows to the IJN that day and it was teamwork (by all types) that finished the job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 6, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps I am missing something here.
> 
> In the battle of Coral Sea and again at Midway, the enemies engaged each other solely by aircraft alone and the opposing fleets suffered damage and destruction solely by aircraft alone.
> 
> ...



Except for the fact that, except for land-based aircraft at Midway itself, all those air sorties were flown off ships. Ergo to say it was "only aircraft" is stretching things a little. It took a lot of naval resources, not just the carriers themselves, to get both sets of forces ready for action around Midway.




parsifal said:


> Strategic change occurs when your overall objectives are forced to change. That didn't happen due to fighters at the BoB, and it didn't happen solely because of coral sea or midway. They were big operational successes, but they were not overwhelming strategic victories 9as is so often touted for them0 because they did not lead to any change in Japanese objectives at the time, or allied objectives either 9well maybe watchtower was made possible I guess)



Again, 'fraid I disagree. The extent to which an action is or is not strategic is largely dependent on each side's primary strategic centre of gravity. It is entirely possible for a battle to have major strategic consequences even if an adversary's strategy doesn't change. 

Take the Battle of Britain as an example. Until that time Hitler had the luxury of, for the most part, embarking on a sequential series of campaigns with a common objective. Everything was moving in one direction and he was never forced to fight a true 2-front effort. After the BoB, the entire strategic calculus had changed. Hitler had to face the prospect of a 2-front war which any good student of military history will tell you is a recipe for disaster. Fortunately for the Allies, Hitler's megalomania refused to concede that he could possibly lose and so he pressed ahead. His strategic objective remained unchanged but the context surrounding that strategy had shifted seismically against him...it's just that he refused to respond to that change. The ultimate result was disaster for his aspirations of global dominion. 

Bottom line...you don't have to force a change of adversary objective to result in a strategic impact. If the enemy is too stupid to realize that the situation has changed, they may well press ahead with original plans, to their own detriment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 6, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Except for the fact that, except for land-based aircraft at Midway itself, all those air sorties were flown off ships. Ergo to say it was "only aircraft" is stretching things a little. It took a lot of naval resources, not just the carriers themselves, to get both sets of forces ready for action around Midway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





buffnut453 said:


> Except for the fact that, except for land-based aircraft at Midway itself, all those air sorties were flown off ships. Ergo to say it was "only aircraft" is stretching things a little. It took a lot of naval resources, not just the carriers themselves, to get both sets of forces ready for action around Midway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be more accurate, in Summer 1940, the Nazis are fighting on two fronts, an aerial campaign to their West, a naval campaign in the Atlantic and Arctic. By the Spring of 1941, they've added an extra front in the Mediterranean supporting their Italian allies and in the Summer they add a new one, the Eastern Front against the USSR. They're fighting a war on 4 fronts. They simply can't possibly expect to win.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 6, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> The Liberator definitely helped a lot but I heard it was a combination of things that won the battle of the Atlantic, and the Liberator was only one component of that?


The Battle of the Atlantic was won primarily by the surface escorts before the mid Atlantic gap was closed. Read the book Black May which tells the story of the pivotal convoy battle of the war, convoy ON5. Without any air support the 4 corvettes , 1 frigate and 1 destroyer of Escort Group B5 (reinforced sporadically by destroyers) fought off two wolfpacks totaling 43 U boats . The fighting was extraordinarily intense such that historians have difficulty in counting the numbers of attacks that were made. The final tally was 13 merchantman ships lost for 6 U boats sunk and 7 damaged, a exchange ratio the Germans could not afford. This was followed by the successful defense of 3 more convoys. Donitz called off the attacks on north Atlantic convoys on May 24, 1943. Air power certainly contributed but it was not the most important element. A convoy could be successfully defended by surface vessels alone but could not be defended by airpower alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 6, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Right. And you think that USAAF 8th AF precision bombing was actually precise?
> 
> Their accuracy was probably not much different to the Lancasters at night.
> 
> Also, when Lancasters were sent against the German oil industry they needed fewer sorties to knock the facilities out than did B-17s.



In fact on average the RAF was more accurate at night than the USAAF was during the day. I posted several papers on american bombing accuracy (or lack there of) in this previous thread,
Aerial Bombing Question

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 6, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Battle of the Atlantic was won primarily by the surface escorts before the mid Atlantic gap was closed. .



Very true. Its like saying the War could have been won with bombing alone, in the end it took soldiers on the ground invading Germany for the War to end. 

I think the Tipping Point for the Air War in the Battle of the Atlantic was when Coastal Command and supporting USAF units with Leigh Lights were finally directed to patrol the Bay of Biscay. A good book on the Battle is 

Blackett's War: The Men Who Defeated the Nazi U-Boats and Brought Science to the Art of Warfare Warfare

Blackett basically invented what we now call Operational Research. He and his team showed by analysis patrolling the Bay of Biscay and thereby the routes every U-boat had to use when departing the sub pens in France would be far more productive then patrolling the Atlantic or bombing the sub pens.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2019)

250 Uboats were sunk by aircraft, 264 were sunk by ships. there were some instances of co-operation between the surface escorts and a/c.

The following link provides information as to when and where losses were inflicted. According to this source, it wasn't until August 1941 that the first U-boat was lost to air attack. If it had solely or predominantly been aircraft in the battle, the allies would have lost the war. 

German U-Boat Casualties in World War Two

The greatest contribution was not sinking U-Boats. It was preventing U-Boats from getting into position to attack allied shipping. They could scout ahead of the convoy and allow the Convoy commander to re-route his convoy to avoid a developing wolf pack . Since Uboats mostly travelled on the surface, A/C could force them to submerge, theeby allowing the convoy to get away from the U-Boat. Lastly, A/C could act as force multipliers, giving tactical information on location, course and speed to the escort, and thereby allow them the opportunity to sink or drive off more U-Boats than they might otherwise be able to.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Feb 7, 2019)

muskeg13 said:


> The Boeing B-17, with Honorable Mention going to the Curtiss Hawk series. While the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington were notable nocturnal bomb trucks, able to set fires in big cities causing lots of mayhem, it took daylight precision bombing, no matter how costly, to actually knock out the Nazi strategic targets. I mean, at least some of your bombs must hit in the intended target area to achieve the necessary effect. .

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Feb 7, 2019)

Well, wars are won through logistics. With that, I'll go with the C-46 Commando and C-47 Skytrain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Buster01 (Feb 7, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
> Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
> Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
> So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.



I believe the C-47/Dakota was the one aircraft that made victory possible. The true turning point of the war in Europe was D-Day and without the paras and gliders backing up the invasion, the invasion would have not been a success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Feb 7, 2019)

It's far from certain that Germany intended to invade Britain. "Sea Lion" looks much like a staff study than a serious plan. For one thing, the Wehrmacht lacked the amphibious capability and for another (greater) reason, Hitler's focus was eastward, not west. 

IMO we gotta remember that WW II was...a world war. One aircraft type did not do more to win "the war" than another across the globe. The Mustang is an obvious choice for the ETO/MTO, considering that daylight strategic bombing might have ended without long-range fighters.

Against Japan, nominations are closed with one mention: the Douglas SBD Dauntless, for all the obvious reasons. (Imagine 1942 only with SB2Us!) Other high finishers: the F6F, which destroyed Japanese airpower, and enabled many/most of the CentPac island victories. Next of course would be the B-29, but the Superforts couldn't have got to their Marianas bases absent the SBD and F6F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 7, 2019)

*The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. *

Actually all had a key impact on the war in different ways.
One nomination for WORK HORSE is the P40.
It fought in every single Theater of War and to the end.
No other plane did that unless introduced later in the war.
If we count all the planes it shot down it should be number one and was used the longest.

None of the Combatants knew what to do when WW2 began.
Everyone built weaponry they could build well, use available engines, flew reasonably and competitively well.

IMHO it was the P51 that was that significant plane that tuned the tide of the war.
I call it the Straw (the Plane) that broke the Camels back.

Its number one key attributes was Range backed up with everyday reliability and very competitive performance.
Other than a few Japanese Fighters nothing came close including their late model fighters.
The P51 came first or near first in every competitive feature for an fighter aircraft and even used as a bomb delivery system.
Plus had all the required logistics and maintenance to keep the plane flying, reliable, competitive.

One untold story was the engineering, manufacturing, training processes that were well sorted out before being manufactured.
This cannot be said often enough. 
The Mustang was the plane that could go all 12 rounds of a fight like a good Boxer.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 7, 2019)

Buster01 said:


> I believe the C-47/Dakota was the one aircraft that made victory possible. The true turning point of the war in Europe was D-Day and without the paras and gliders backing up the invasion, the invasion would have not been a success.



The turning point in Europe was November 1942. November '42 was a global Waterloo. Torch, El Alamein, Stalingrad, and Guadalcanal. After November '42, the Germans and Japanese never had a strategic victory.

Overlord wasn't a turning point, it was the final step to victory in the West. 

I agree the C-47 was critical, Eisenhower called it one of the most important weapons of the War.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## chipieal (Feb 7, 2019)

i think it is a generally accepted position that what really ended WWII was not the atomic bombs but Russia's entry into the was against Japan. Remember the firebombing of Tokyo killed and injured far more civilians that the Atomic bombs. I hate to admit it as I am as proud as any American my age of what our fathers accomplished but the idea that the atomic bombs ended WWII is pure propaganda. And as to the Superfortress, It made a massive contribution. Remember LeMay was running out of major targets prior to the atomic bomb drops.


----------



## Big Jake (Feb 7, 2019)

The question was "which airplane did the most to turn the tide of war", not who finished it and whether the Lancaster could or couldn't carry the atom bomb! 

So, in answer to the question:

For the RAF in Europe - the Hurricane (for obvious reasons - it and its pilots saved Britain); For the US in the Pacific - the SBD (finished off the Japanese carriers and thus directly influenced the course of the war); for the US in Europe - the duality of B-17 and B-24 (the war restarted in Europe when these two showed up and changed everything from 1943 as between 1941 and 1943 not much happened in that theatre).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 7, 2019)

Big Jake said:


> The question was "which airplane did the most to turn the tide of war", not who finished it and whether the Lancaster could or couldn't carry the atom bomb!
> 
> So, in answer to the question:
> 
> For the RAF in Europe - the Hurricane (for obvious reasons - it and its pilots saved Britain); For the US in the Pacific - the SBD (finished off the Japanese carriers and thus directly influenced the course of the war); for the US in Europe - the duality of B-17 and B-24 (the war restarted in Europe when these two showed up and changed everything from 1943 as between 1941 and 1943 not much happened in that theatre).



I could be wrong but weren't the British essentially launching some massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters before the USAF turned up in force with the B-17's? From memory the American bombing campaign took a while to get going because it took so long to get all the equipment and personnel into the UK.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I could be wrong but weren't the British essentially launching some massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters before the USAF turned up in force with the B-17's? From memory the American bombing campaign took a while to get going because it took so long to get all the equipment and personnel into the UK.


This is mostly true, however the bit about _massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters before the USAF turned up in force with the B-17's _needs a little clarification. The British only built 693 Lancasters in 1942. They used Lancasters in large number of raids in 1942 but the large numbers of aircraft per raid were made up of other bombers than the Lancaster. 

The Americans don't show up to bomb Germany until Jan of 1943 (they did bomb targets in france and low countries in late 1942) so the British do beat them on that score no matter how many or how few Lancasters were used. 

I don't have the production of B-17s by month but they built 512 B-17Es from late 1941 to the end of May 1942 at which point they started building B-17Fs. 3,405 Of the "F"s were built starting at the end of May/beginning of June 1942 and running to July of 1943 at which point production changed to the G. (each of the 3 factories was bit different) It usually took the US several months to get planes form the US factories to combat zones/missions. However even with the diversion of several hundred B-17s to the Pacific (a guess) the US handley out produced the Lancaster with B-17s in 1942/43. Lancasters only became available in truly large numbers in 1944 (1847 built in 1943 and 2933 in 1944) so I guess it depends on what one means buy large numbers and when. 
The British built 5428 medium and heavy bombers in 1942 (that includes Albemarles, Hampdens and Warwicks) of which almost exactly half ( 2702) were Wellingtons. 
The British did stage a number of large raids or campaigns before the Americans showed up, But the majority of the crews that flew those dangerous missions were flying planes other than Lancasters.

Please note I am not saying anything about how good the Lancaster was, just remarking on the timing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Americans don't show up to bomb Germany until Jan of 1943 (they did bomb targets in france and low countries in late 1942) so the British do beat them on that score no matter how many or how few Lancasters were used.



The first 8th AF raid into Germany was on the 27th January 1943. It was an attack on the naval base at Wilhelmshaven, not far into Germany. And possibly still within escort fighter range.

This massive raid consisted of 11 B-17s.

27th January 1943: US 8th Airforce’s first raid on Germany – ‘U.S. bombs, from U.S. airplanes, with U.S. crews’

By the time the 8th AF could send 100 B-17s and B-24s the RAF was regularly sending similar numbers of Lancasters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Feb 8, 2019)

pbehn said:


> At the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each. All losses inflicted by the RAF in France up to Dunkerque were by Hurricanes, and other forces used Hurricanes too, Hawkers could make them faster than the RAF could take them into service. Without the Hurricane we would have had no real numbers of pilots experienced on monoplane fighters. Of course if there wasn't a "Hurricane" much more effort would have been put into other things, but that is "what if".



The Hurricane was also cheaper to build, easier to repair, needed less skill to pilot (in particular with the wide undercart) and was a steadier gun platform.

IMHO if in the Battle of Britain the UK had only Hurricanes, it could still have won but it would have taken longer.

If it had had only Spitfires, especially taking into account the earlier service entry of the Hurricane increasing the number of monoplane pilots, it could well have lost.

Luckily the British had both. Fascinating contrast - last of the old generation of tube design (started as the Fury Monoplane - look how similar the Hurricane and Fury rear fuselages are in profile) - vs the new stressed-skin monocoque.

Back to aircraft that won the war - looking at Europe the C-47/Dakota, the Merlin-P51 for making daylight raids covering the whole of Germany (notably the oil industry) possible, and on the Eastern Front the IL-2. In the Pacific - SBD and Hellcat.


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 8, 2019)

In Season 3, Episode 4 of Grand Tour television show, James May echoes the argument that the hurricane won the Battle of Britain. He also asserts that the Battle of Britain was actually a draw. That would be so interesting argument.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> In Season 3, Episode 4 of Grand Tour television show, James May echoes the argument that the hurricane won the Battle of Britain. He also asserts that the Battle of Britain was actually a draw. That would be so interesting argument.



I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

How many Hurricanes were on hand versus how many Spitfires were on hand for the Battle of Britain?

Also, the Luftwaffe wasn't beaten during the BoB, they withdrew because of a series of idiotic policies (which worked in Britain's favor).


----------



## Ascent (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.



This is often repeated but not really true. You took on the aircraft in front of you in the one you were in.
And bombers weren't as easy a kill as some imagine, there's a lot of pilots who came a cropper by underestimating the bombers.


----------



## Elmas (Feb 8, 2019)

N° 1 Spitfire, as it clearly show that Nazis coud be beaten , not only _de facto_, but also psicologically, that was even more important in that particular occasion;
N° 2 – P-51, as not being the master of its own sky is the nightmare of any Air Force: even in this case the psicological perspective was as important as the technical one.

From another post, by my personal point of view there were ten airplanes that sealed the Axis fate:

1st and most important, Spitfire. It clearly shown that Nazis could be beaten.
2nd – B24. It closed the N.A. Gap and made the Nazi submarine force useless.
3rd – Swordfish. The Taranto raid practically stopped the activity of the Italian Navy in the Mediteranean sea, on which Hitler was counting a lot, and its use against the Bismarck sealed as well the surface activity of Kriegsmarine.
4th – Lancaster. Not only for the damage inflicted, but because the thousands of 88 flak used against them could have been used very efficiently against Red Army tanks.
5th – B17. Ditto.
6th – P 51. Many German General understood, seeing a single engine fighter over Berlin, that the war was lost.
7th – P47. To hole the engine of a train that carried ammo or fuel was probably more important than trying, unsuccesfully, to destroy the factories.
8th – Typhoon. Ditto.
9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible of the air defence.
10th – C47 – Without logistic, no Army can fight.

All the others Allied planes, say Tempests, P-38s ( personally I love P-38...) etc. were “extremely useful”, but they did not seal the Axis fate.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.


That was a preference, in fact in many if not most cases it didn't happen. Despite being similar with the same engine they had completely different climb characteristics so one covering the other wasn't easy or wasted much time.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 8, 2019)

ktank said:


> Back to aircraft that won the war - looking at Europe the C-47/Dakota, the Merlin-P51 for making daylight raids covering the whole of Germany (notably the oil industry) possible, and on the Eastern Front the IL-2. In the Pacific - SBD and Hellcat.


Without the Hurricane where would you launch your raids with Merlin engine P51s from, I doubt the British purchasing commission would have ordered any P-51s, so no UK bases, and no P-51, and probably no Packard Merlins either.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

Elmas said:


> 9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible of the air defence.



Not entirely relevant to this topic but why wasn't the Mosquito used more than it was? I mean I read that it left for bombing runs over Berlin hours after the Lancasters did and it still made it before the Lancasters in order to mark areas for Lancasters to target. I also know that the Mosquito was far more accurate with its bombings than the Lancasters (eg Operation Jericho) so why was it that thousands more Mosquitoes were not built and them being used to target key infrastructure in Germany to cripple their war effort?

Surely the faster, and much more accurate Mosquito bomber would have been ideal for taking down the German war machine, but for some reason it didn't seem to get used nearly as much as I think it could have been, especially considering that its payload was not much worse than that of the B-17 but it had a huge advantage in terms of speed.

Are my impressions wrong, is there a reason why the Mosquito could not have been used as a strategic bomber to take out very specific targets?


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

Was not a plane, nor a ship, nor anything in-between. Was the American war arsenal. That's it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

Husky said:


> Was not a plane, nor a ship, nor anything in-between. Was the American war arsenal. That's it.



No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.



Agree to some extent...but no. The US supplied the entire backbone of the entire allied effort...USSR included. Pick points and objects, sure...but, if not for the US industrial base and supplies....coulda, woulda been a different story.


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

The United States WAS the deciding factor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

Husky said:


> Agree to some extent...but no. The US supplied the entire backbone of the entire allied effort...USSR included. Pick points and objects, sure...but, if not for the US industrial base and supplies....coulda, woulda been a different story.



Had the Soviets not been involved in WW2 then odds are the Germans would have won. Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then the Germans would have won. Giving all the credit to the Americans does not seem particularly accurate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Had the Soviets not been involved in WW2 then odds are the Germans would have won. Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then the Germans would have won. Giving all the credit to the Americans does not seem particularly accurate.



A lot of 'had' there. History is what it is. The US supplied ALL. Not taking away due credit from allies, nor trying too. But, it is what is...without the US industrial base and logistical train....sorry.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

Husky said:


> A lot of 'had' there. History is what it is. The US supplied ALL. Not taking away due credit from allies, nor trying too. But, it is what is...without the US industrial base and logistical train....sorry.



The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.

As for the "had" argument, well you are doing that too, only you are saying "had the Americans not been involved then the Germans would have won"

Had the British sued for peace in 1940 before the Battle of Britain Germany would have had an extra 750,000 troops for Operation Barbarossa (250,000 that were in Norway/France to ward off British attacks, and 500,000 that were in North Africa), Germany would have also had an additional 2000 planes and some of their best pilots that were lost in the Battle of Britain and would have been able to attack the Soviets in May 1941 instead of June 1941 (since the British involvement in Greece forced a delay on the invasion of the Soviet Union). 

So without the British, Germany would have had 2000 additional aircraft, 750,000 additional troops and an extra 4 to 6 weeks to invade before the Russian winter hit.

It is so easy to play the "had" game, and I don't think you should pretend that you are not playing it as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.
> 
> As for the "had" argument, well you are doing that too, only you are saying "had the Americans not been involved then the Germans would have won"
> 
> ...



Not gunna get into it with ya. You go play your war without the US.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 8, 2019)

I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
> The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
> The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?




I tend to agree. But are you constraining yourself to Europe?


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
> The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
> The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?



I personally think 

*British/Soviets =* possible, though the Soviets would take even more casualties
*British/Americans =* Again possible, but both the British and especially the Americans would take far more casualties as they would be fighting the entire German military instead of just 30% of it.
*Americans/Soviets =* Almost impossible since the Americans would not really have any way of attacking the Germans, or supplying the Soviets.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 8, 2019)

Husky said:


> I tend to agree. But are you constraining yourself to Europe?


The other poster focused on Europe, specificaly " had the Russians not been involved the Germans probably would have won" so I was addressing that situation.
If one were to construct a situation where Japan attacks British intrests but not US so the that the US isn't fighting Japan either and it's just Britain and Russia against Japan and Germany then maybe but that scenario seems unlikely at best.
And I'm still putting my money on the Brits, Ausies, Russians,and Chinese even in that scenario.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.


The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).
Then there was the "Destroyer for Bases" deal, where the U.S. traded 50 Destroyers to Britain in exchange for various British territories (September 1940).
The U.S. was shipping food, raw materials, and a wide range of goods to Britain.
The British purchased P-39s in 1940, B-17Cs in 1940, F4Fs in 1940 amd then the P-40, DC-2 and the list goes on...all before the U.S. entered the war.

So the U.S. was more than "remotely" involved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).
> Then there was the "Destroyer for Bases" deal, where the U.S. traded 50 Destroyers to Britain in exchange for various British territories (September 1940).
> The U.S. was shipping food, raw materials, and a wide range of goods to Britain.
> The British purchased P-39s in 1940, B-17Cs in 1940, F4Fs in 1940 amd then the P-40, DC-2 and the list goes on...all before the U.S. entered the war.
> ...



Most of which happened after the Battle of Britain. FDR refused to help when it looked like the British might lose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Most of which happened after the Battle of Britain. FDR refused to help when it looked like the British might lose.


Nope...wrong.

FDR bent some rules in order to assist the British and several types of aircraft I listed (and some I didn't) were sold to Britain prior to the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Feb 8, 2019)

Let's get to the major issue. Could WWII be won without the US?

NO!

End of story.

Debate all the particulars you wish, but without the US's industrial might and logistical train it would be all over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Surely the faster, and much more accurate Mosquito bomber would have been ideal for taking down the German war machine, but for some reason it didn't seem to get used nearly as much as I think it could have been, especially considering that its payload was not much worse than that of the B-17 but it had a huge advantage in terms of speed.
> 
> Are my impressions wrong, is there a reason why the Mosquito could not have been used as a strategic bomber to take out very specific targets?



We have a number of threads on this. Basicly the Mosquito was too late in timing, by the time it "proved" itself (some point in 1943?) you already had major industrial programs going to build BOTH British and American 4 engine bombers. Trying to change course, close factories (or retool from metal to wood construction) would have delayed things by many months, perhaps over a year, perhaps more. The bit about it carrying almost as much bomb load as a B-17 is a very popular furphy (or close to it) Yes it did (eventually) carry 4000lbs but that required the bomb load to be a single block buster bomb, the bomb bay to have bulged doors (not a big deal) and certain other structural modifications that were incorporated on the production line. Very few older planes were modified to carry the 4000lb "cookie" as the CG was bit out of whack and there were some handling problems. The 4000lb bomb load/cookie was not used until 1944 by the Mosquito which is certainly a bit late to revamp the production schedules of the B-17, B-24, Lancaster and Halifax bombers. 

The B-17 could carry 5,000lb to Berlin if the bombs were HE bombs. (sometimes they carried 6,000lbs). the problem with the Mosquito carrying _almost as much is _not with Mosquito really but that when the B-17 carried incendiaries the _load weight _ dropped to close to 3000lbs due to the larger/bulker bombs for the same weight. The B-17s were *averaging *about 4,000lb per plane depending on how many planes in each raid were carrying which types of bombs. Mosquitoes rarely carried incendiaries and wouldn't have been very good at it or perhaps I should say they wouldn't have carried a large number (depending on size).

Another factor is the wood used. The Balsa core to the sandwich construction came from South America, there were no Balsa plantations, all trees had to be cut in the 'wild" and Balsa trees don't grow in groves, they tend to be spread out with only a few per hectare. More Mosquitoes could probably have been built but not 10's of thousands more.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2019)

Also, a Mossie carrying a 4,000 pound bomb made it vulnerable to attack, negating it's sole defense - speed.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 9, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, a Mossie carrying a 4,000 pound bomb made it vulnerable to attack, negating it's sole defense - speed.



How fast could the Mosquito go with those bombs? I know for instance it could still go way way way faster than the Lancaster.

I do wonder though if the British had enough wood, and prioritised the Mosquito over the Lancaster what Bomber Command's strategy would have been with a lot more Mosquito's, and if that strategy would have been more effective than simply carpet bombing German cities.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2019)

Again it is timing,

You would have had to prioritize the Mosquito in 1941 or early 1942, No 105 squadron got its first Mosquito in Nov 1941, The first operational raid by Mosquitos (4 of them) was on the 31st of May 1942. 

I would also note that in 1940-41 the Mosquito, _as planned and first built _could only hold four 250lbs in the bomb bay. They shortened the tail fins on the 500lb bombs and managed to squeeze in four of them once they saw the Mosquito's performance. Later versions got the four 500lbs in the bomb bay and a 500lb under each wing. finally came the 4000lb cookie. 
Prioritizing a plane with four 250lb bombs as it's planned bomb load over the 4 engine heavies wasn't going to happen in 1940/41/early 1942.

I believe (but am open to correction) that the famous twice to Berlin nights were flown by Mosquitos with 70 series engines (two stage superchargers) that flew higher and faster than the earlier Mosquitos with the 20 series engines. 

SO many people use backward projection. Why didn't the British figure out in 1941 what the mosquitos performance would be in 1944 and plan the factory and raw materials allocations with the 1944 performance as the criteria?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2019)

The Mossies carrying 4,000 bombs (cookies) flew at night for extra protection, although the Luftwaffe had various types that could hunt them down.
But just because the Mosquito "could" didn't mean it was a viable solution.

And there seems to be some misinformation about the Mosquito carrying the same load as a B-17 - this is simply not true. The B-17 could carry up to 17,600 pounds over short distances - with both internal and external stores.
But with any aircraft, the more the weight, the more the range penalty...especially if there's external stores, which create drag (adding additional performance penalty).
Typically, the B-17s carried 4,000 - 4,500 pounds of ordnance on deep penetration raids into Germany. This insured they had the range to get from England to Germany and back again using various routes that increased range but confused the Germans as to the specific target.

The Lancaster could carry up to 22,000 pounds (Grand Slam) or a max. of 14,000 pounds (internal) but again, the max. load meant shorter ranges.

The Short Stirling could carry a max. load of 14,000 pounds (internal), too...but again, max. load meant shorter ranges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 9, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.



The vast amount of material sent to Soviet Russia isnt revisionism. 10,000 tanks, 10,000 aircraft, almost 500,000 trucks, list goes on and on, plus rations, and raw materials. Add the 5000 tanks the UK sent. If you believe the Soviets really produced 40,000 T-34s, that means about 1 out 5 tanks on the Russian battle field were Lend Lease. The closed society of Russia means we'll never know what their home tank production actually was. Its rare to see photos of M-3, M-4 or Valentines in the Russian Army, they published photos of T-34. I think its possible Russia would have surrendered without Lend Lease.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Feb 9, 2019)

_„Kein Fleisch, kein Fett,
um acht ins Bett
den Arsch kaum warm
Fliegeralarm!“_
The bombs released by Mosquitoes were important not for the quantity but for the quality.
A single Mosquito arrives over Berlin soon after sunset.
It circles…
The fliegeralarm sounds
The nightfighers take off
The Flak starts to shoot
The Mosquito continues to circle
A bomb fell somewhere
The Mosquito departs undisturbed.
The fliegeralarm sounds.
After a quarter of an hour another Mosquito arrives.
It circles...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 9, 2019)

Husky said:


> Let's get to the major issue. Could WWII be won without the US?
> 
> NO!
> 
> ...



And without the USSR chewing through the German army on the Eastern Front, it would be all over.

And without the UK staying in the fight in 1940, it would be all over.

Undoubtedly the US made a vital contribution to winning WW2 but to say it was the sole factor in the Allied victory is rather jingoistic nonsense, I'm afraid.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 9, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Nope...wrong.
> 
> FDR bent some rules in order to assist the British and several types of aircraft I listed (and some I didn't) were sold to Britain prior to the BoB.



The only rule that was bent was in leaning towards the Allied cause...but even then, it was done at huge advantage to the US. The UK was paying for war materiel in gold until Lend Lease really kicked in in March 1941. The rapid expansion of US production capacity was, in large part, kick-started by British payments. It would have taken a lot longer for the "Arsenal of Democracy" to ramp up to full production without all the British gold coming in in 1939-1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Feb 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Basicly the Mosquito was too late in timing, by the time it "proved" itself (some point in 1943?) you already had major industrial programs going to build BOTH British and American 4 engine bombers. Trying to change course, close factories (or retool from metal to wood construction) would have delayed things by many months, perhaps over a year, perhaps more.
> ...
> Another factor is the wood used. The Balsa core to the sandwich construction came from South America, there were no Balsa plantations, all trees had to be cut in the 'wild" and Balsa trees don't grow in groves, they tend to be spread out with only a few per hectare. More Mosquitoes could probably have been built but not 10's of thousands more.



1. Mosquito was operational (and "proved) in 1941, Lancaster only next year
2. For other factories, reverse engineering all-metal Mosquito would not have been so time consuming. Same fuel/electric/engine/landing gear/instrument/weapons/cockpit -systems. Same aerodynamic shape.
Only replacing the structural components with 2024 or 7075 alloys.

Russians did this on the fly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 9, 2019)

An interesting question seems to have come up mainly, could the allies have won the war without the US or Russia?
After giving it some thought I'd say that depends on the scenario one constructs and what one means by" winning"
For example, if you take the US out of the war does that mean Imperial Japan confines its aggression to China( the only way to not involve the US is to not attack us) or do they carefully attack only British interests and avoid US ones?
If Japan doesn't attack the US or British interests and confines its aggression to China then I think the allies still win total victory over Germany and Italy no question even without the US, although it's more costly.
If, on the other hand, Japan attacks British interests but not the US( seems unlikely but posible) things become a bit more dodgy.
Now alot more variables come onto play.
For instance, in this scenario is the US still supplying the allies even though they are not actively fighting( it's hard to imagine we wouldn't) if so then I think the allies win for sure.
Also what do we mean by winning in this scenario? Even with no help of any kind from the US it's hard to imagine Germany, Japan, and Italy taking and occupying Australia, Russia, Canada, and Britain.
Even in the far fetched scenario that Japan attacks British interests and avoids US ones and the US does not even supply arms for some reason my money is still on the allies to at least hold the lines where they were in early 42 and most likely role most or all of that back eventually although it's going to be one tuff slog, that's for sure.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 9, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> An interesting question seems to have come up mainly, could the allies have won the war without the US or Russia?
> After giving it some thought I'd say that depends on the scenario one constructs and what one means by" winning"
> For example, if you take the US out of the war does that mean Imperial Japan confines its aggression to China( the only way to not involve the US is to not attack us) or do they carefully attack only British interests and avoid US ones?
> If Japan doesn't attack the US or British interests and confines its aggression to China then I think the allies still win total victory over Germany and Italy no question even without the US, although it's more costly.
> ...



I think this is a topic for an entirely new thread. It seems highly probable (to me, at least) that without the US, we would likely be looking at a Soviet-dominated Europe today because the odds of a D-Day landing occurring without the US are slim to non-existent. So Germany would absolutely be defeated but the "liberation" of Europe would be in name only. Situation in the Far East is also intriguing if Japan only attacks British/Dutch/French interests and leaves the US alone. It's entirely probably that US/Japan war would be delayed for a few years, and the entire make-up of the Allied side would likely be very different....so hard to discern how it might play out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2019)

We have a lot of threads on this too.

My own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere between the two camps. One "story" about P & W is that the French (often under appreciated in this scenario) financed an expansion of the P & W Hartford factory that doubled it's size, the British orders doubled it's size again. which is obviously a substantial contribution. However FDR called for an American Air force of 50,000 planes in May (?) of 1940. There were a number of spending bills passed in 1940. Ford was given 14.3 million dollars _just to build_ a new engine factory to make P & W R-2800s in Sept of 1940, that sum did not include a single engine, The Ford factory duplicated in size the P & W Hartford factory (the one that had quadrupled in size over it's 1937-38 size) The Ford factory would be tripled in size by some point in 1944. The P & W plant in Harford only expanded in size a limited amount after the two initial expansions. Instead 4 or 5 satellite plants were built at various locations in Connecticut. The plan to have other companies build P & W engines was in place well before Pearl harbor. Buick delivered 440 engines in March of 1942 so obviously plant construction/conversion had started well before Dec 7th. Chevrolet delivered their first engines in April of 1942. Studebaker delivered their first R-1820 Cyclones in Feb of 1942. 
The US built the Detroit tank arsenal with American money. Baldwin locomotive, Alco, Pacific Car and Foundry and other railroad shops (and even others (FMC (?) were given contracts and tooled up to build tanks well before Pearl Harbor, I don't believe that any of that tank production_ capacity_ was paid for the British. The British did get early versions of American tanks including the General Grant M3 with a British designed turret (no MG cupola and the radio in the turret instead of the hull). Some idea of the scale of things is one claim (I don't know how true it is) that the British order for M3 medium tanks (over 1200 initially) exceeded the total amount of "cash" the British had in the US at the time. Please note that much of the initial M3 medium tank production was supplied by the above mentioned railroad locomotive shops and not the special built tank arsenal/factories. 
M3 Half track production was well underway in 1941 even if not in full swing, While the British certainly wound up with half tracks (and the Russians got thousands) I don't believe they paid for any with cash, they might have been trying to set up bren/universal carrier production? They did build carriers in Canada.
Indirectly the increase in Canadian production benefited the US production as the vast majority of any machine tools used to equipe Canadian factories came from US tool makers (Britain could not supply their own machine tool needs) and I am sure the US machine tool industry benefited from such expansion and orders. Machine tools were always a big bottleneck in production. large buildings with empty floor space don't produce much of anything.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We have a lot of threads on this too.
> 
> My own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere between the two camps. One "story" about P & W is that the French (often under appreciated in this scenario) financed an expansion of the P & W Hartford factory that doubled it's size, the British orders doubled it's size again. which is obviously a substantial contribution. However FDR called for an American Air force of 50,000 planes in May (?) of 1940. There were a number of spending bills passed in 1940. Ford was given 14.3 million dollars _just to build_ a new engine factory to make P & W R-2800s in Sept of 1940, that sum did not include a single engine, The Ford factory duplicated in size the P & W Hartford factory (the one that had quadrupled in size over it's 1937-38 size) The Ford factory would be tripled in size by some point in 1944. The P & W plant in Harford only expanded in size a limited amount after the two initial expansions. Instead 4 or 5 satellite plants were built at various locations in Connecticut. The plan to have other companies build P & W engines was in place well before Pearl harbor. Buick delivered 440 engines in March of 1942 so obviously plant construction/conversion had started well before Dec 7th. Chevrolet delivered their first engines in April of 1942. Studebaker delivered their first R-1820 Cyclones in Feb of 1942.
> The US built the Detroit tank arsenal with American money. Baldwin locomotive, Alco, Pacific Car and Foundry and other railroad shops (and even others (FMC (?) were given contracts and tooled up to build tanks well before Pearl Harbor, I don't believe that any of that tank production_ capacity_ was paid for the British. The British did get early versions of American tanks including the General Grant M3 with a British designed turret (no MG cupola and the radio in the turret instead of the hull). Some idea of the scale of things is one claim (I don't know how true it is) that the British order for M3 medium tanks (over 1200 initially) exceeded the total amount of "cash" the British had in the US at the time. Please note that much of the initial M3 medium tank production was supplied by the above mentioned railroad locomotive shops and not the special built tank arsenal/factories.
> ...



Tough to know who paid for what when it comes to capacity. In my experience, if you lack capacity to build something, then you fold the costs of that capacity expansion into the price for the first batch of customers. The funding has to come from somewhere, the only real options are (1) the US Government pays for new factories, (2) the defence contractors fund it themselves from existing profits (possible but, methinks, unlikely), or (3) the cost gets added to the bill for new orders onto the production line. 

I never said the UK funded the entirety of US defence production ramp-up but it certainly helped get things moving (IMHO).


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 9, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I think this is a topic for an entirely new thread. It seems highly probable (to me, at least) that without the US, we would likely be looking at a Soviet-dominated Europe today because the odds of a D-Day landing occurring without the US are slim to non-existent. So Germany would absolutely be defeated but the "liberation" of Europe would be in name only. Situation in the Far East is also intriguing if Japan only attacks British/Dutch/French interests and leaves the US alone. It's entirely probably that US/Japan war would be delayed for a few years, and the entire make-up of the Allied side would likely be very different....so hard to discern how it might play out.


Verry interesting. I think the Russians would dominate more of Europe but not all.
In the no US scenario the Brits, Canadians, South Africans et all can still come up from North Africa and into Italy and ultimately France ( the Germans are still fighting a 2 front war with Russia to the east so they have to split there efforts).
So probably there is no D-day, but Imho, that doesn't mean the Russians take all Europe save Britain.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2019)

Timppa said:


> 1. Mosquito was operational (and "proved) in 1941, Lancaster only next year
> 2. For other factories, reverse engineering all-metal Mosquito would not have been so time consuming. Same fuel/electric/engine/landing gear/instrument/weapons/cockpit -systems. Same aerodynamic shape.
> Only replacing the structural components with 2024 or 7075 alloys.
> 
> Russians did this on the fly.


1. The first "Operational" use of the Mosquito in 1941 was as a photo recon plane. It was Sept 19 of 1941 (W4055) over Bordeaux and Brest. 
Of the first 50 Mosquitos 10 were photo recon, 30 were fighters (how many with radar I don't know) and only 10 were bombers. 
First bomber raid into Germany was the May 31st 1942 raid, the day/night after the first 1000 bomber raid according to some sources, and again, the first 10 bombers were rated for four 250lb bombs, the change to four 500lb bombs came after the first 10 bombers (although the first 10 may have been updated) 

Reverse engineering the mosquito to use metal construction might not be as easy as you think, certainly not impossible however. 
Yes you are keeping all the moving 'stuff' but then most aircraft used the same "stuff " ( instruments, cockpit controls) in the cockpit even if not standardized. 
Keeping the same shape while changing construction may or may not work. The Mosquito did have a better degree of surface finish than many metal aircraft so you do have that to worry about. 

It is not just changing the structural components, it is changing the wing and fuselage skinning. On the Mosquito much of the fuselage strength was in the 'skin". You need to design a whole new fuselage with frames, longerons and stringers to be covered in metal. I am not sure of the wings but again just sticking in metal spars and ribs isn't going to do the trick.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 9, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.



And someone can say that this just "European" or "pro-Soviet" revisionism. 
Operation Barbarossa did not succeed even before serious lend lease supplies started to arrive, indeed. But Barbarossa brought USSR to the brink of collapse. And there were other German operations later which threatened the very existence of the Soviet Union. 
Regarding US war materials... If we change the topic of this thread to "which *vehicle* did the most to turn the tide of the war", I'd suggest Studebaker trucks (probably US6 should be singled out) and Liberty ship. I see no opportunity for the Red/Soviet Army to conduct its large offensive operations in post Kursk period without this equipment.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 9, 2019)

Back to original subject of the _airplane turning the tide._

I thought about *Eastern Front* and began to draw my own list of "tide turners" there... But then I thought again and about the definition of "to turn the tide of the war". And I dropped the list.
In my (so humble) opinion, there were no such aircraft on the Eastern Front. 
One could mention Il-2 or Pe-2 - but they were used since summer 1941 and with mixed results. Or La-5 models which helped VVS in critical periods or lend lease bombers as B-25 and A-20 with their reliability and ruggedness. Or omnipresent and multirole PS-84/Li-2, etc. But I don't recall any major battle where one single type (OK, not single but 2-3) of the Soviet aircraft made decisive impact. 
There were, however, several "tide turning" factors of which I'd name just a three in no particular order.
1. Improvements in training and education.
2. Change of tactics.
3. Improved supply (including lend leased materials).
Aircraft type could be one or another, Il-2 could be replaced by Su-2, new Yaks could lose competition to I-185 in the corridors of the Kremlin politics, Tu-2 could be accepted in mass production 2 years earlier. But I don't think that any historical or imaginary "wunderSovietwaffe" could turn the tide of events in the East without the factors mentioned above.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2019)

One of the key problems with Germany, and to an extent, Japan, is that their immediate prewar and start of the war aircraft production was not at priority capacity.
It wouldn't be until 1944 for Germany and Japan both, that their aircraft production peaked - two full years after they lost any hope of a win or negotiated peace.

1939, Germany started their war with a production of nearly 8,300 aircraft and Japan, who was already two years into their conflict, produced 4,465 aircraft.
By 1940, the U.S., who was not at war at this point, actually out produced Japan's wartime production with over 6,000 aircraft produced compared to Japan's 4,768.

By 1943, the U.S. has not reached full production yet, manufacturing nearly 84,900 aircraft, *which was almost 10,000 more than Japan would manufacture between 1939 and 1945.*

In the end, the totals by all nations were:
Japan - 76,320
Germany - 119,907
Britain - 131,549
Soviet Union - 158,220
United States - 300,557

And not only did the U.S. have enough aircraft on hand to wage a global war, but provided aircraft to every Allied nation involved in the war and several nations who were neutral.

So it is safe to say that the U.S. had an impact on the Allied victory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 9, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> One of the key problems with Germany, and to an extent, Japan, is that their immediate prewar and start of the war aircraft production was not at priority capacity.
> It wouldn't be until 1944 for Germany and Japan both, that their aircraft production peaked - two full years after they lost any hope of a win or negotiated peace.
> 
> 1939, Germany started their war with a production of nearly 8,300 aircraft and Japan, who was already two years into their conflict, produced 4,465 aircraft.
> ...


I think absolutely the US had a HUGE impact on the war but the assertion brought up by the two posters that got this started was that the allies would have lost without the US or Russia.
Unless one constructs unlikely scenarios like that Japan attacks British and Dutch interests but not US ones and the U.S. supplies nothing to the allies the allies still win even without the U.S. or without Russia but not without both, imho.
One of the reasons I believe this that the British alone were outproducing Germany and not suffering the same atrition. At some point the situation will become untenable for the Germans it would seem.
Of course we'll never know for sure how it would have played out.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Feb 9, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> And someone can say that this just "European" or "pro-Soviet" revisionism.
> Operation Barbarossa did not succeed even before serious lend lease supplies started to arrive, indeed. But Barbarossa brought USSR to the brink of collapse. And there were other German operations later which threatened the very existence of the Soviet Union.
> Regarding US war materials... If we change the topic of this thread to "which *vehicle* did the most to turn the tide of the war", I'd suggest Studebaker trucks (probably US6 should be singled out) and Liberty ship. I see no opportunity for the Red/Soviet Army to conduct its large offensive operations in post Kursk period without this equipment.



And the tons of flour that all this tracks transported...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2019)

How about we move this “male member size measuring comparison” competition to its own thread and stop derailing this one? Oh, and try and keep it civil...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Feb 10, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Not entirely relevant to this topic but why wasn't the Mosquito used more than it was? I mean I read that it left for bombing runs over Berlin hours after the Lancasters did and it still made it before the Lancasters in order to mark areas for Lancasters to target. I also know that the Mosquito was far more accurate with its bombings than the Lancasters (eg Operation Jericho) so why was it that thousands more Mosquitoes were not built and them being used to target key infrastructure in Germany to cripple their war effort?



IIRC there was a bottleneck in the supply of one type of thin laminated wood.

Re accuracy etc, the Mosquito squadron crews were elites, so the standard was higher than most of Bomber Command.

Incidentally, the USAAF also used Mossies as recce aircraft.


----------



## ktank (Feb 10, 2019)

Timppa said:


> 1. Mosquito was operational (and "proved) in 1941, Lancaster only next year
> 2. For other factories, reverse engineering all-metal Mosquito would not have been so time consuming. Same fuel/electric/engine/landing gear/instrument/weapons/cockpit -systems. Same aerodynamic shape.
> Only replacing the structural components with 2024 or 7075 alloys.
> 
> Russians did this on the fly.



It wouldn't be "reverse engineering" - it would be a complete structural redesign. You may also have things such as different cg with metal. And remember that a major reason for going for wood was to avoid possible bottlenecks in alloy supplies.

Note also that by being made of wood the Mosquito also tapped a totally different skill set in the British economy, so avoiding skilled labour bottlenecks. One contractor for the Australian-built mozzies was a piano factory!

TLR - go to metal and you're removing a major part of the Mosquito concept, and taking up engineering time that was scarce.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Feb 10, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Back to original subject of the _airplane turning the tide._
> 
> I thought about *Eastern Front* and began to draw my own list of "tide turners" there... But then I thought again and about the definition of "to turn the tide of the war". And I dropped the list.
> In my (so humble) opinion, there were no such aircraft on the Eastern Front.
> ...



I was thinking along the same lines, that is, are we again forgetting the eastern front and focusing solely on bob and Midway? (At least I think El-Alamain has not popped up).*

It's also what we mean by 'turning the tide'. taken literally, it should mean either high tide or low ebb, and will relate primarily to the map. Then by most accounts the turning point is the autumn of 42, that is _after_ Moscow, Midway and certainly bob. other sharp corners were of course Kursk (and certainly Studebackers were extremely important at least for the speed of the subsequent Soviet advance), The Marianas and D-day, to name a few. In any event I think we are forgetting the inter-relatedness of ares. To take aircraft, the Soviet airforce was tying down the majority of die Luftwaffe until the daylight bombing offensive made for a shift to defence of Das Reich, the Mediterranean was at least a distraction throughout. The salient point being that Germany could not prioritize both, or rather all, of its fronts at the same time. As Evan Mawdsly (2005) mentioned in _Thunder in the east_ Lend-lease worked to the advantage of _all_ the allies. Thus USA got other nations to fill cockpits of more aircraft fighting the axis, and quite often of planes that the forum (mostly) agrees were not the aircraft the USA (or GB) most wanted for their own pilots. Though to be sure, they were sometimes better suited to some of the areas where they fought than to 8 kilometres above Europe, or many hundred miles out to sea in the Pacific.

I do think you are a little harsh on the soviet aircraft (or airforce), it can be argued that in most cases we could imagine other aircraft being equal or even better, still the aircraft that fought were the aircraft that fought. And even if we can't feel confident in accessing the actual effect of aircraft, it is bold to claim the Soviet airforce did not influence the land battle (I am not saying that you make that claim, rather that we lack a big airbattle or great leap in technology as turning point).

Actually i ended up suggesting the Il-2 for the sheer numbers employed, even if we can't find a sharp corner. it seems the Germans were worried enough of the effect of Soviet bombers (or Soviet interceptors) to keep at least some fighters in the east. In that vein, I'd suggest the yak family was important too. No doubt overclaiming of tanks destroyed by IL-2's were wildly exaggerated, but so seem also to be the case for Tempests or any other 'tankbuster'. I would be little surprized if the _claims_ for tanks destroyed by air amounts to more tanks than Germany fielded, for eastern and western theaters both. I have not even tried to count, though.

Soviet (and Italian) air operations are the ones I most wish I knew more about. To take advantage of the people like you here that have the most profound knowledge of the first, I'll start another thread avoiding the word turning point and instead asking about general importance, though that raises other questions of definitions.

*Indeed the bob was significant, but if we argue that it directly led to the invasion of the Soviet Union, we must acknowledge that would have been of little benefit had Barbarossa succeeded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Feb 10, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Reverse engineering the mosquito to use metal construction might not be as easy as you think, certainly not impossible however.
> 
> It is not just changing the structural components, it is changing the wing and fuselage skinning. On the Mosquito much of the fuselage strength was in the 'skin". You need to design a whole new fuselage with frames, longerons and stringers to be covered in metal. I am not sure of the wings but again just sticking in metal spars and ribs isn't going to do the trick.



Obviously wing/fuselage skin were structural components.
IL-2 was fabricated both with wooden and all-metal tail sections (behind the steel shell) and wings.
It is possible that British engineers could not have done that so quickly.
Lazy sods they were.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 10, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> The turning point in Europe was November 1942. November '42 was a global Waterloo. Torch, El Alamein, Stalingrad, and Guadalcanal. After November '42, the Germans and Japanese never had a strategic victory.
> 
> Overlord wasn't a turning point, it was the final step to victory in the West.
> 
> I agree the C-47 was critical, Eisenhower called it one of the most important weapons of the War.


The list of weapons that Eisenhower supposedly called the most important weapon of the war is endless. Oddly enough they are all American.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The list of weapons that Eisenhower supposedly called the most important weapon of the war is endless. Oddly enough they are all American.


Is that the guy who became US president?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 10, 2019)

Hmm, Spit and hurricane major contributors to 'stopping' LW control of air over UK - eliminating invasion prior to Barbarossa; IL-2 major contributor to stopping German advance in Ukraine and Russia; SBD major contributor to neutralizing Japan's carrier fleet and subsequent high-water mark in Pacific; P-51B major contributor to achieving air supremacy over Germany and neutralizing LW prospects to disrupt Overlord.. and so on. In the meantime GM vehicles and Douglas transports and Allied naval forces leverage logistics for rapid force movement.. which won the war? Mostly the grunts that lived and died on the ground to recapture lost ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 10, 2019)

Fighterguy said:


> Well, wars are won through logistics. With that, I'll go with the C-46 Commando and C-47 Skytrain.


If wars are won by logistics all aircraft are irrelevant. The amount of cargo carried by aircraft in WWII was insignificant compared to ships, railways and trucks. 
It is a very American concept to believe that wars are won by material alone. History give many examples where the materially weaker side won. The French knights at Crecy and Agincourt were lavishly equipped compared to the peasants on the English side. More recently Vietnam would have been over quickly if materiel and logistics were all that matters, but war is more complicated than that.
The US may have supplied many of the tools of war, but war is a very human endeavor and is not won without the sacrifice of flesh and blood. The Russians contributed far more in human lives than the western allies and without that contribution the Germans would not have been defeated..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Is that the guy who became US president?



Oh dear


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 10, 2019)

I initially jumped on the C-47 as a major tide-turner but the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that it merits inclusion. Until 1944, the C-47's major contribution was resupplying Guadalcanal Canal and supporting operations in New Guinea which, although the start of the Pacific island-hopping campaign of 1943-44, weren't exactly key to the Allied overall success. 

By the time the C-47 truly made an impact on global warfare (to include the massive reinforcement of the resupply effort over The Hump), the writing was already on the wall for the Axis partners. Rather than "turning the tide", perhaps the C-47 simply enabled the coup de grace to be delivered more rapidly?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2019)

Glider said:


> Oh dear


Not a bad idea, if you want to become president to be complimentary about the nations industry.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 10, 2019)

Lots of great picks and insight into planes and other equipment that contributed alot or possibly the most to win the war like the p51, F6F, or B29. Not so sure they did anything to turn the tide however. My impression though I could be wrong( its been known to happen) was the tide had been turned before any of these types or some of the other mid to late war picks had been in combat in any significant numbers if at all.
Just a friendly reminder from your thread sponsor to prevent thead drift.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....................carry on


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 10, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Lots of great picks and insight into planes and other equipment that contributed alot or possibly the most to win the war like the p51, F6F, or B29. Not so sure they did anything to turn the tide however. My impression though I could be wrong( its been known to happen) was the tide had been turned before any of these types or some of the other mid to late war picks had been in combat in any significant numbers if at all.
> Just a friendly reminder from your thread sponsor to prevent thead drift.
> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....................carry on



You are right, the tide was turned in Nov 42. After Nov 42 the Axis never had a strategic victory, the initiative was lost.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The list of weapons that Eisenhower supposedly called the most important weapon of the war is endless. Oddly enough they are all American.


General Eisenhower's "Four Tools for Victory" were: the Bazooka, the Jeep, the C-47 and the Atomic Bomb.
General Patton stated that "the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised".

All five listed, American or not, were valuable contributors to the war effort and shouldn't be surprising to anyone that these Generals would point out their value.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 10, 2019)

I think one could put any reasonably successful combat aircraft into an answer and make a case supporting it, but I also believe that the question is not well-posed, in that it's one in which there is no sensible answer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I think one could put any reasonably successful combat aircraft into an answer and make a case supporting it, but I also believe that the question is not well-posed, in that it's one in which there is no sensible answer.


Agreed.

Considering the war started with biplanes and ended with jets and was waged in nearly every weather condition known to man, there simply isn't a constant where any single aircraft could possibly occupy.

Like while the SBD was the scourge of the Japanese fleet, it saw only limited action in Europe and the MTO. While the Bf109 was a constant threat in Europe and the MTO, there were only 5 in the entire PTO and CBI, none of which ever saw combat.

So perhaps figure out which type was the champion of a particular theater or mission profile?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 10, 2019)

And perhaps come up with a commonly accepted timeframe when the "tide of war" was changed. This may differ from theatre to theatre but there's no point recommending an aircraft that simply put the cherry ontop of a cake that had already been baked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 10, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I think one could put any reasonably successful combat aircraft into an answer and make a case supporting it, but I also believe that the question is not well-posed, in that it's one in which there is no sensible answer.


Well perhaps it was not. Let me see if I can clarify the topic ( and I mean that sincerely I'm not being sarcastic). To turn the tide, at least to my understanding, would be one side is loosing pretty much consistently, then there is a decisive engagement or battle after which the side that was loosing for the most part is now winning for the most part. The most starc example I can think of is perhaps the battles of Coral Sea/ Midway. Although I'm sure cases could be made for other turning points which is kinda the idea I had when starting the thread, that is read everyones different picks on what they felt the turning points were and the planes that played the largest role in it.
Perhaps the commonly held notion that the turning point of the war in pretty much all theaters was fall of 42 is not held by all.
That would certainly be an interesting discussion unto itself..............hmmmmm..........another thread maybe?


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 10, 2019)

I should have included the BOB was pre fall of 42 and at least in my mind was certainly a turning point or turning of the tide.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I should have included the BOB was pre fall of 42 and at least in my mind was certainly a turning point or turning of the tide.


The BoB could be seen as a set back or a draw, as could Malta, then Moscow, then Stalingrad. In the key battles the allies managed to halt or thwart Germany until the setbacks and reversals became and avalanche on all fronts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2019)

In the Pacific Midway was pretty much the turning point or "change of the tide". Now the tide may have been slack for while after Midway but the Japanese were no longer in position to make any significant gains. Guadalcanal/Solomons and New Guinea would still be hard fought but the Japanese tide had ceased to rise and would only ebb from that point on. 

Can we imagine the Guadalcanal/Solomons campaign if the Japanese had only lost two carriers at Midway?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 10, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> In the Pacific Midway was pretty much the turning point or "change of the tide". Now the tide may have been slack for while after Midway but the Japanese were no longer in position to make any significant gains. Guadalcanal/Solomons and New Guinea would still be hard fought but the Japanese tide had ceased to rise and would only ebb from that point on.
> 
> Can we imagine the Guadalcanal/Solomons campaign if the Japanese had only lost two carriers at Midway?



I think ADM King would have pressed ahead with Watchtower if the IJN had only lost 2 carriers. But with only two carriers lost, the IJN may have pressed the Midway invasion. Midway was a crushing defeat, but the Japanese still
were making strategic advances after. The construction of the airfield on Guadalcanal started in July. After the defeats in November 42 at Guadalcanal the Japanese did not advance in the Pacific. That was the turning point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2019)

It took both sides a while to realize that Midway had been the turning point. 
The US in the middle of 1942 had no idea what the Japanese aircraft production rate and more importantly, at what rate the Japanese could produce trained aircrew. Japanese carrier construction was also somewhat unknown. 

ADM King might well have pressed forward with Watchtower but if the Japanese had two additional carriers in late August or early Sept to support their surface ships in trying to stop the flow of supplies to the area the results could have been quite different, The US lost 2 carriers to submarines and the Enterprise was hit by bombs from Japanese carrier planes on two different occasions in the fighting between Aug and Oct 1942. If the Japanese had had tow more carriers with another 120-130 aircraft in some of those battles? Especially 120-130 veteran aircrews from the early war battles? 

At times the US had one operational carrier in the Pacific as damage was repaired on the Enterprise and Saratoga. The Japanese were unable to capitalize on these times because they too were short of carriers (or perhaps more importantly deck space) as some of their remaining carriers were "light" carriers. 

The Japanese too, may have underestimated the importance of their losses at Midway, bad as they were, at least for a time, and continued on with their plans despite the losses. 

Guadalcanal was an important point in the blockage of supplies from America to Australia. It might have added days to the shipping time to detour further away from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 11, 2019)

Just Schmidt said:


> And even if we can't feel confident in accessing the actual effect of aircraft, it is bold to claim the Soviet airforce did not influence the land battle (I am not saying that you make that claim, rather that we lack a big airbattle or great leap in technology as turning point).



Yes, I probably should make myself more clear. VVS did influence the land battles, many of them, starting from the end of June 1941. No doubt of that. And I agree absolutely about importance of inter-relatedness you have mentioned. 
I just do not see those "turning points" made by single aircraft type or even by VVS as whole service. But that does not "diminish" importance of VVS contribution. It's just a nature of air war in the East.
IMHO, of course.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 11, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> So perhaps figure out which type was the champion of a particular theater or mission profile?



Good idea.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 11, 2019)

Gents,

I don’t know that any one plane turned the tides of war. Even if we came up with a list of one that we would agree unanimously. Nature of the beast in our discussions.

Instead of saying turn the tide, I’m going with biggest contribution. With that in mind, I nominate the T-6 and the DC-3 / C-47. The former trained nearly all the Allied pilots in WW2. It was a pilot maker. Second is the aerial tractor trailer, or DC-3 / C-47. Literally delivered the goods, day or night. Not bad.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 12, 2019)

Another possible pick for a tide turner if we separate out by theater might be the p40 in north Africa( including but not limited to the Palm Sunday Massacre) Not a theater I know a huge amount about so certainly interested in hearing other posible picks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 12, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Another possible pick for a tide turner if we separate out by theater might be the p40 in north Africa( including but not limited to the Palm Sunday Massacre) Not a theater I know a huge amount about so certainly interested in hearing other posible picks.



Yes, I would agree with that in North Africa at least, once Tomahawk's arrived, the tide began to turn, although it took higher flying Spitfires to complete the turn. At sea, the Fulmar held its own against the Axis bombers and the Sea Hurricanes were able to successfully counter any Me 110's escorting them, but a game changer, a plane that turned the tide I can't see one plane to mention. Maybe we should just say the game changer was the torpedo bombers that the RAF used to disrupt and destroy the axis convoys that crossed the Med and there were a lot of different types in service. Even the Blenheim could be used to toss their bombs into the sides of merchant ships. So I shall go for Bristol aircraft's offering of Blenheims, Beauforts and Beaufighters.
In the PTO, after the arrival of P-40's, the tide began to turn, but higher flying longer ranging Lightning's were needed to complete the turn in the air, but lower down, then it must be Mitchell's and Beaufighters for disrupting and destroying IJN convoys. At sea in the PTO it just has to be the Dauntless followed by the Corsair and Hellcat to make the turn of the tide complete.
In the CBI, it was the P-40 in all of its many variants that turned the tide and kept control of the skies until the arrival of more advanced types in 1944.
On the Eastern Front, it has to be the arrival of La-5's and Yak-9's that turned the tide at Stalingrad, although really the tide first turned at Leningrad and Moscow before the Soviets lost the initiative. In which case the Hurricane and P-40 should be mentioned as well as any one of a myriad of Soviet types although none of them springs to mind as a war winner or game changer other than the IL-2, maybe even the Pe-2.
Over Western Europe its a bit more complex with Spitfire's turning the tide over Dunkirk and in the BoB only to lose it to the Bf 109F and Fw 190A shortly afterwards. It took both the Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt in 1942/43 to wrest control of the skies back from the Luftwaffe. Flying Fortresses acting as bomber bait with Mustangs riding shotgun merely ensured the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Over the Atlantic and most forget that the longest campaign in the war was fought here, my thoughts are the Hurricat in 1941 as the game changer preventing Condors from locating convoys and radar equipped Swordfish in 1943 escorting the convoys either driving off or sinking U boats. Also the Liberator for closing the mid Atlantic gap.
So no one particular type in any theatre.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 13, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> On the Eastern Front, it has to be the arrival of La-5's and Yak-9's that turned the tide at Stalingrad, although really the tide first turned at Leningrad and Moscow before the Soviets lost the initiative.



Tide at Stalingrad was turned by infantry, artillery, tanks. And if to speak about the air war only, La-5 and Yak-9 were in numbers too small (especially the latter) to be included in the "tide turner" category, whatever definition we give to this "turning the tide".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 14, 2019)

I believe there were two "WWIIs", Europe and the Pacific.

In the Pacific my vote would be the F4F Wildcat. Although I can't stand this plane from a performance standpoint (like the P-40), it was the Navy's only fighter through Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal. The turning point in the Pacific was certainly during this period. The F4F was slow with a poor climb rate but in the hands of the well trained naval aviators (600hours training vs. 200hours training for army pilots) was able to more than hold it's own. All three of those battles could/would have gone the other way without the F4F.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Feb 14, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The F4F was slow with a poor climb rate but in the hands of the well trained naval aviators (600hours training vs. 200hours training for army pilots) was able to more than hold it's own. All three of those battles could/would have gone the other way without the F4F.



F2A-1 with beefed up landing gear could have done even better with its superior climb and turn performance.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Over Western Europe its a bit more complex with Spitfire's turning the tide over Dunkirk and in the BoB only to lose it to the Bf 109F and Fw 190A shortly afterwards. It took both the Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt in 1942/43 to wrest control of the skies back from the Luftwaffe. Flying Fortresses acting as bomber bait with Mustangs riding shotgun merely ensured the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
> .


The Spit IX was useless in battle over Germany, simply not 'wresting anything' back from the Luftwaffe until it had land bases on the Continent - when the air battle was long decided.

The VIII FC with P-47s did not have the capability in 1943 to 'wrest' control of the skies from the Luftwaffe. Perhaps researching Schweinfurt-Regensburg, then Schweinfurt again, then note 8th AF shutting down mid to deep strikes to Germany until three long-range escort groups were in place (20th, 55th and 354th). The P-47 was excellent within the combat radius it operated within when the WI/Paddle blade kits arrived, but until the D-25 after D-Day, it was relegated to mid range sweeps and Penetration/Withdrawal escort. Only after the wing rack mod kits and arrival of the D-15/-16 with factory racks and plumbing in March/April 1944 could the Jug extend as far as Hannover/Brunswick/Stuttgart. Between January and March 90% of German skies were 'unavailable' to wrest control from LW. After April it could go deeper but by that time the P-51B was basically the point of the spear all the way to Posnan and Prague and SE of Munich. Even the P-38 was relegated to mid-long range Penetration escort but not target escort.

The P-38 was useful as a 'scarecrow', with teeth, but the aftercooler and turbo issues handicapped performance potential and it was easy to spot and avoid.

The P-51B/C was the most critical weapon for ARGUMENT task to grind the LW prior to D-Day. That said, it 'didn't win the war'. But probably did save 10-20000 more KIA in VIII BC during that period.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 14, 2019)

drgondog said:


> The Spit IX was useless in battle over Germany, simply not 'wresting anything' back from the Luftwaffe until it had land bases on the Continent - when the air battle was long decided.
> 
> The VIII FC with P-47s did not have the capability in 1943 to 'wrest' control of the skies from the Luftwaffe. Perhaps researching Schweinfurt-Regensburg, then Schweinfurt again, then note 8th AF shutting down mid to deep strikes to Germany until three long-range escort groups were in place (20th, 55th and 354th). The P-47 was excellent within the combat radius it operated within when the WI/Paddle blade kits arrived, but until the D-25 after D-Day, it was relegated to mid range sweeps and Penetration/Withdrawal escort. Only after the wing rack mod kits and arrival of the D-15/-16 with factory racks and plumbing in March/April 1944 could the Jug extend as far as Hannover/Brunswick/Stuttgart. Between January and March 90% of German skies were 'unavailable' to wrest control from LW. After April it could go deeper but by that time the P-51B was basically the point of the spear all the way to Posnan and Prague and SE of Munich. Even the P-38 was relegated to mid-long range Penetration escort but not target escort.
> 
> ...



I never said 'over Germany', so don't misquote me. Spitfires and Thunderbolts did the heavy work wearing down the Luftwaffe over France and Benelux, the Mustangs simply cleaned up.


----------



## Fighterguy (Feb 14, 2019)

Another candidate, if we're considering combat aircraft, is the P-47 Thunderbolt.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
> Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
> Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
> So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.


Resp:
I am glad you specified both major Theaters. Europe was going under (mainly by Germany) before the US got into the war, so a British aircraft would be a likely choice, but I would limit it to through 1941. The choices I believe are easier.
For the Pacific/CBI theaters, the choices are greater . . .and perhaps more difficult. I would have to consider the B-25 flown by Doolittle and other units (including the USMC/Navy as PBJs), the P-40 because it seemed to be everywhere ( to include all Allies). For the USN the SBD for its part in destroying 3 Japanese aircraft carriers in less than 6 minutes . . .certainly shifted the power in the Pacific.
Many times we are told that the Allies won WWII, but in the early years, the prospect looked very doubtful. So aircraft, and the men who flew them, were VERY important. Just my two cents worth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

parsifal said:


> I have two nominees.
> 
> firstly, the C-47. In my opinion it probably did more to influence the outcome of the war on so many theatres of operation.....Burma, Manchuria, new guinea, Italy, NW Europe, to name just a few.
> 
> ...



This is a good point, I don't agree with the analysis 100% but there is certainly truth in it - the Japanese were counting on their large infantry Army in Manchuria to somehow get them out of trouble. In the early parts of the war their Army divisions had done extremely well. They hadn't really grasped how far land armies had advanced in the four years since their smashing victories in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, etc. 

In 1945 the Japanese still had 700,000 men in 25 divisions in Manchuria or on the Chinese mainland in their "Kwantung Army". That army had a reputation for being hard and ruthless fighters. This was in a way their forlorn hope of somehow getting out of the bind they were in. When the Soviets finally committed to joining the war against Japan, they taught the world (and especially the Japanese) a harsh lesson with the swiftness of their victory. The near total destruction of this vast and formidable army in barely two weeks by Soviet forces toughened to a tungsten edge by their years of fighting the Germans was a major shock.

It also proposed the very real prospect of Japan being occupied by the Soviets and forced into Communism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Not a bad idea, if you want to become president to be complimentary about the nations industry.



To be fair he was also the one who issued the starkest warning of any of them over the US "Military Industrial Complex"


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I never said 'over Germany', so don't misquote me. Spitfires and Thunderbolts did the heavy work wearing down the Luftwaffe over France and Benelux, the Mustangs simply cleaned up.



Not much airwar being won over France when the LW was killing VIII BC over Germany. 

Maybe you missed the memo about the LW leaving LF3 as primary resource to battle over France and Benelux while the LW high command built a ring defense to take advantage of P-47s having to turn back just past the German border - and continuously transferred re-enforcements from Ost and Sud fronts to central and eastern Germany. During the six months before D-Day, the Mustangs in less than 1/3 of the sorties, shot down more LW day fighters in the air than all the 8th and 9th AF P-47 FG's combined from day 1 Ops in April 1943. Oh, and twice as many on the ground.

Maybe your definition of 'heavy work' and 'simply cleaned' up are different from mine...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 14, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Not much airwar being won over France when the LW was killing VIII BC over Germany.
> 
> Maybe you missed the memo about the LW leaving LF3 as primary resource to battle over France and Benelux while the LW high command built a ring defense to take advantage of P-47s having to turn back just past the German border - and continuously transferred re-enforcements from Ost and Sud fronts to central and eastern Germany. During the six months before D-Day, the Mustangs in less than 1/3 of the sorties, shot down more LW day fighters in the air than all the 8th and 9th AF P-47 FG's combined from day 1 Ops in April 1943. Oh, and twice as many on the ground.
> 
> Maybe your definition of 'heavy work' and 'simply cleaned' up are different from mine...



So Spitfires and Thunderbolts pushed the LW defensive lines back to the borders of Germany. That sounds like a success story to me and that these two fighters wore down the LW and enabled the invasion at Normandy to take place.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

Maybe it helps if we define some of the turning points or tide changes in the war.

*First Blitzkrieg 1938 -40 -* Early War, the initial "Blitzkrieg", the division of Poland and the Baltic states by the Germans and Soviets together, the German invasions and conquest of Belgium, Norway, Holland, and France, and the rapid domination of Manchuria and the Pacific Rim by the Japanese. *The world is shocked by Axis successes*.

*The First High Water Mark 1940-41*- the Battle of Britain, basically. At this point the Axis are still winning but they have hit their first check. The myth of invulnerability is pierced.

*Second Blitzkrieg -* *1941-42 *rebounding from England, the German invasion of Russia, Japanese rapid conquest and destruction of US and British Colonial assets in the Pacific. The Axis are winning all over.

*The Second High Water Mark Mid to late 1942-* After the German / Italian and Japanese expansions reach their limits, defense stiffens and they finally start to lose some major battles. This starts with Coral Sea and Midway in the Pacific, the failure of the siege of Moscow, the failure of the German air offensive against the Baltic fleet near Leningrad and a general stiffening of the Soviet lines presaged Stalingrad. Mersa Matruh, though an Axis victory, showed the Desert Rats were learning how to fight. The War is reaching stalemate.

*Allied Resurgence - Late 1942 to early 1943 *- Stalingrad, Milne Bay, Guadalcanal, El Alamein. Now the Allies are winning.

*Allied Juggernaut - Mid 1943 onward* - Kursk, Kharkov, New Guinea, and Buna Goa, Solomons, Marshals, invasions of Sicily and Italy, and the beginning of the Strategic Bombing Campaigns. *Allies are wreaking havoc and taking back the world.*


My picks for the various phases:

*First Blitzkrieg*
Here I would say the *Ju-87* was decisive for the Germans, it was such an important part of the German war machine and especially the early success of their offensives (but also defensive actions like stopping counter-attacks). I think the long range and effective hitting power of Japanese air forces was a shock and played a devastating role against Allied forces. I think the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse is a major milestone for Japanese air power - with more than twice the expected range and far greater lethality than anticipated. For that probably the lethal *G4M *"Betty" is the main hero for the Japanese, though they also used the G3M in that action. Elsewhere the Ki-21 and others were also showing these same capabilities of range and offensive lethality .... though they all had the same Achilles heel too this wasn't apparent until later.

*First High Water Mark / BoB *
I give equal credit to the *Hurricane* and the *Spitfire* for reasons already stated, but I think the Spitfire was more important in the BoB because it gave the British, and the Allies more generally, their first antidote to the notion of German superiority. On the other hand the Hurricane was not only crucial in the BoB it was also very important in this same time period and shortly after in action in France, Greece, North Africa, and the Far East. For the Allies the Hawk 75 did have some secondary importance as it was the most successful fighter for the French. The Bf 109 was a key aircraft for the Germans and kept the fight very close. Most of their bombers didn't perform that well in this role, partly due to the lethality of the Hurricane as a bomber killer and partly due to the highly effective British defensive organization, and radar.

*Second Blitzkrieg *
Here once again the Ju 87 did a lot of damage to Allied forces both in the Med and on the Russian Front. I think the Ju-87 is still very important, though the Ju 88 started to prove it's value such as in the anti-shipping role. The Italian SM 79 also caused Allied shipping a lot of harm in the Med. In Russia and the Med though where most of the action was the *Bf 109* was really dominant in this period. In the Pacific it was the time of the *A6M *and the naval bombers - *D3A *and* B5N *- to shock the world once again with Japanese might at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines etc., as well as the less famous but apparently most lethal Ki-43. I give the A6M the nod here though because of it's utility as a carrier aircraft.

*Second High Water Mark*
In Russia I would say the *Yak-1* and Yak-7 - even though some people don't like it, was a native design which was at least competitive with the Bf 109 in the hands of a good pilot, and it allowed the horrific bloodletting to slacken slightly. Some good Soviet pilots started figuring out how to beat the Luftwaffe. The Il-2s were there but they were suffering bad teething problems (most still had no defensive gunners) and horrific casualties, and some Lend-lease types like the A-20 probably mattered more. In the Pacific more than anything it was indeed the *F4F Wildcat* I think, that really stopped the Japanese, and started inflicting crippling attrition losses against Japanese aircrew. As the Martlet it also played an important role for the Royal Navy. However the* SBD* is the one that sunk the Japanese carriers and I agree with others that it was probably the single most important aircraft in the Pacific and certainly turned the tide directly with the sinking of all those ships. It also had the really important trait of high survivability and comparatively _low_ attrition losses. The P-40 played a role too, especially defensively such as at Milne Bay, and was probably a bit better as a fighter than the Wildcat but the F4F could go where the CV's were sent, and this just made it matter more. In the CBI P-40s also won an important propaganda victory with the AVG as did the B-25 in the Doolittle Raid.

*Allied Resurgence *
This is when the *Il-2* comes into it's own, with the help of a raft of Soviet and American fighter types especially Yak-9, La 5, and P-39 providing cover. Pe-2 is also quite lethal and survives better, delivering accurate dive bombing attacks. In the Pacific the P-38s were arriving on scene as well and despite their problems, in the Pacific anyway they gave the Allies a badly needed sense of superiority like the Spit did during the BoB. In the Med at Malta and in North Africa, it was the arrival of the *Spitfire* which helped turn the tide and hold the line crucially at Malta and helped break the Luftwaffe in North Africa and crush the Italian Air Force. P-40 was significant there too of course and both in Russia, the Pacific as well. In the CBI it was achieving dominance over the Japanese Army Air Force. The Beaufighter probably deserves honorable mention as it seems to have really done a lot of damage in both the Pacific and the Med.

*Allied Juggernaut *
Here the *F6F*, which destroyed more Japanese aircraft than any other type, the Corsair and P-38 were really mopping up on Japanese forces. The P-47 showed it's teeth, and the P-51 came into it's own as an escort fighter. The La-5FN and later La 7 arrived on the Russian front, as well as later model Yak -9s and Yak-3s, but it was the* Il-2* that was really wreaking havoc on the German armored columns. The B-17 did have value mainly as an attrition weapon against the Luftwaffe. I'm less convinced that the bombing did much good except against oil assets and that wasn't until quite late in the game. The Lancaster proved to be useful for versatility, and the Mosquito was probably the single best Allied bomber of the war though I can't say where it played a tide turning role.


I think the idea of the C-47 is an interesting point, it probably helped a lot with airborne insertions and bringing supplies over the Hump. I don't know enough to evaluate it though.

I'd love to give the P-40 more credit because it was pretty important in _a lot_ of places during the crucial middle part of the war but it never really quite rose to the level of Strategic asset. The Hurricane did do so during the BoB and around the same time in many other parts of the world, though it had faded in importance and usefulness. rapidly by the end of 1941. The P-39 does seem to be important for the Russians though I still don't have a sense precisely how important.

The Spitfire, aside from crucial roles in the BoB and the Med, provided highly valuable point defense / interceptor duties helping secure Allied airbases against attack and blunting German efforts to use their bombers effectively.

As for the four-engined bombers I'm definitely in the "Mosquitoes are better" camp. The B-29 was an amazing machine but I don't see how it had that much impact on the tide of the war until long after the ultimate outcome was no longer in doubt.

The Japanese planes were fantastic at 'blitzkrieg' (to make overly broad use of the term) but proved bad for attrition warfare. I still think the Zero tends to be underrated.

I also think the 'wine dark sea' warfare was important, ASW, convoy protection and so on - this is maybe where the B-24 was most useful, the PBY for it's effective rescue of Allied airmen being so valuable for the attrition side of air warfare, the Ju-88 and SM 79 as ship killers, the Fw 200 of course, and the Ar 196 more exotic planes like the He 115. The Sunderland and the Wellington helped hold the line. I just don't know how to quantify it all in terms of significance or key turning points.

That might be worth a thread all it's own.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

I should add Fw 190 was important particularly in the "Second Blitzkrieg" era, it caused major problems for the British and eclipsed the Spitfire Mk V for a while, and continued to be a valuable asset for the Germans through the war but ultimately I don't think it rose to the level of a game changer, except temporarily and locally over the Channel for a while.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 14, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So Spitfires and Thunderbolts pushed the LW defensive lines back to the borders of Germany. That sounds like a success story to me and that these two fighters wore down the LW and enabled the invasion at Normandy to take place.



Generals Arnold, Spaatz, Doolittle, Eisenhower and Kuter disagreed strongly with your point of view. Read the autobiographies of Arnold and Spaatz and Doolittle for a refreshing difference of opinion that they held in October-December 1943. Read Schmid's recount of the LW air war in the USAF Studies. Simply stated, without a.) the arrival of the Mustang, and as a result of that 'no show', b.) stripping every P-38 FG from every theatre by November 1943 in time for ARGUMENT, the losses during Big Week and beyond would probably been so disastrous that nobody would have been 'confused' about the threat from the LW to D-Day prospects. 

Eaker believed that the VIII BC was shooting down far more German fighters than actually happened (despite the Spitfire and P-47 wearing the LW down) and Allied/AAF intelligence warned in December and January that the LW was getting stronger daily. 

One of the reasons that Eaker was 'promoted' out of USSTAFE and Hunter fired is because they mistakenly believed that VIII BC would win the war of attrition by trading B-17s for Fw 190s on a ludicrous scale.

But what do I know? Howza bout you telling us how P-47 groups were going to make a difference over the critical targets of Merseberg, Munich, Berlin, Regensburg, Leipzig, Posnan, Stettin, Magdeburg, Oschersleben, etc from Jan 11 through June 5th. Maybe I missed the memo.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

Thinking about the list above a bit, I had a few more thoughts.

Up until the BoB, the 1930's maxim that "the bomber will always get through" did in fact hold true, at least for the most effective bombers. The faster and more maneuverable ones basically.

But bombers in that period proved wildly uneven in terms of effectiveness. The ones which could actually sink ships, wreck tanks and breakup attacking army columns stood out. The Japanese bombers like the G4M and D3A could sink ships at a fairly high rate. So could a Ju 87 though at much shorter range. Many other bombers proved far less effective. The TBD Devastator didn't devastate much, partly due to defective torpedoes. The Blenheim was a notorious disaster both in terms of attrition rates and Tactical impact. The Swordfish could sink an enemy ship if it was safe from fighters but was dead meat against a Bf 109 or even an MC 200.

BoB established that with a sufficiently well organized defense and good fighters, bombers of that day (1940) were in serious trouble. Some of them might still get through but at heavy loss, and when the targets were Operational or Strategic - factories, railheads, radars or airfields (which required repeated strikes) instead of aircraft carriers or tank columns (which could be destroyed decisively much more quickly), the results were not substantial enough to make a sustained bombing campaign cost effective. Operational and Strategic bombing switches to night time, and becomes in effect terror bombing.

In the "Second Blizkrieg" period Axis fighters provided the cover needed for the bombers of the day to get through in daylight. The Bf 109 and the A6M (and MC 202 and Ki 43) were dominant enough in the early days to establish Air Superiority in many regions and enable Tactical bombers like the Ju 87, Ju 88, G4M and D3A to get through and damage the key enemy assets they needed to. This enabled the Axis advances around the world. Some bombers at least in some Theaters were able to operate more on their own - the Ju 88 to some extent and especially the Mosquito proved to have this knack.

The next phase "Second High Water Mark" saw the stiffening of Allied resistance and their ability to challenge if not break the Air Superiority dominance of the elite Axis fighter units - if not totally, enough that Allied bombers could get through and Allied Tactical assets could survive. The F4F, P-40, P-39. Yak-1 and Spitfire, with the right training and tactics, could defeat Bf 109s and A6Ms, allowing the bombers of the day to do increasing damage. Japanese bombers in particular proved vulnerable in attrition warfare.

After that we begin to see (Anglo-American) Allied fighters that can out-reach the Axis fighters in Europe, and which could reliably hit and run against the A6M. Again in this era fighters really matter, Allied fighters are enabling bombers to get through.

Only in the last two phases of the war, from 1943, do Strategic and Operational bombers return to daylight bombing on a large scale, and the wisdom of this strategy is still debated. There is no doubt however that these big bombers became increasingly the focus of Axis Air Forces, soon reaching desperation levels. 

On the Russian Front it's more attritional - the Il2 can wreak havoc if Air Superiority can be achieved, even for a few minutes. The Stuka, conversely, can no longer enable breakthroughs and break up counter-attacks because it's vulnerable to Yaks and La-5s. The Fw 190 Jabo is a more dangerous and survivable tool but it's not effective enough to reverse the accelerating trends.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 14, 2019)

As soon as you fit a radio to an aeroplane it becomes part of something bigger. Whatever the merits of (for example) the Hurricane and Spitfire in the BoB were they would have been much worse without RADAR the ROC, telephones Dowdings control system and radios.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

No argument there.


----------



## Phil Froom (Feb 14, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job. I mean if necessary the Americans could have always borrowed a Lancaster and modified it since Little Boy was under the Lancaster's bomb load capacity and the British had been dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys from Lancasters for years, both of whom were bigger than the atomic bomb.


But no matter where you come from, the fundamental point remains. IF the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain, there would have been No D-Day, so no defeat of the Nazis. As there would have been nowhere for the USAAF 8th Army Air Force to land and mount the bombing campaign over Germany, alongside Bomber Command, and nowhere for the thousands of GIs to land, to prepare for D-Day...

The upshot would have then gone one of two ways. The US would have sued for peace with Germany, or Germany would have continued to develop a nuclear weapon, and used their vastly superior delivery systems (V2, VX) to deliver them to Washington or New York...before the US had a means to deliver their certainly advanced bomb to Germany...

Bottom line. If the Hurricane (and to some extent) the Spitfire had not stopped the German invasion of England, anything beyond 1940 would have been Vastly different. So no other aircraft can be said to have more contribution...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 14, 2019)

After reading through this thread, if you HAD TO PICK ONE type that turned the tide, I keep going back to the SBD. The Battle of Midway is about as clear a "turn of the tide" battle as you are going to get. Although the Dauntless was just part of a carrier air wing including TBDs and F4Fs, the fact is, the American victory was only possible because of the high rate of hits scored by the experienced aviators from the Yorktown and Enterprise. In the carrier battles of 1942, the experienced American dive bomber pilots in the SBDs who made it to the target weren't any more accurate than the experienced Japanese dive bomber pilots in their D3A "Val"s, but the American pilots turned the tide, and that's what we're talking about in this thread. The F4F barely had an effect on the war up through the Battle of Midway, the F4F proved itself to be competitive when well-flown, but it did not dominate in any fashion. The SBDs were able to get through not because the F4Fs fought to get them through, but because they simply were missed thanks to Japan's poor air search capability, with no effective radar. The F4Fs couldn't save the Yorktown, and the other two US carriers were lucky not to get attacked. 

As to the other theaters of the war, I am not diminishing their importance, but I haven't read any compelling arguments of a single aircaft type turning the tide in those theaters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

I agree with that for the most part though I would say that the severe losses suffered by IJN aircraft (both fighters and bombers) mostly at the hands of the F4F, and in part thanks to the nature of the planes (lacking armor etc.) and lack of an effective (any?) Japanese air sea rescue program, were possibly even more important in terms of impact on the war than the loss of the Carriers. I.e. due to the loss of their _highly_ trained and as it turned out, almost irreplacable aircrew.

Also, while the Wildcats were unable to prevent IJN strike aircraft from sinking ships, they were capable (with some help) of protecting Henderson field well enough from IJN and IJA bombers to keep the Cactus Air Force (and _their _SBD's) flying and that too was pretty crucial to the 'turning of the tide' in the Pacific.

Henderson Field being much harder to 'sink' required repeated sorties / strikes to put out of action so it meant the Japanese air armada was more vulnerable to attrition losses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 14, 2019)

Phil Froom said:


> Germany would have continued to develop a nuclear weapon, and used their vastly superior delivery systems (V2, VX) to deliver them to Washington or New York...before the US had a means to deliver their certainly advanced bomb to Germany...
> .



Wow there is a chilling scenario to think about right there. I wonder how many devices the Germans could have produced assuming they could pull it off ... and could they create something that could fit on a V-2 (or V-3?) that could make it across the Atlantic sooner than the US could put a B-29 raid together.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 14, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.
> 
> I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.


If you're going to take that tac, then it would've been a _device_ that turned the tide of the war, not so much any aircraft.
As good as the Spitfires and Hurricanes were at turning back the German opposition, they would've been sitting ducks had *RADAR* not been in use on the east coast of England.
It was the warnings from the Radar sites of the impending raids, that gave the fighters enough time to get up and take the fight to the enemy, rather than waiting for the enemy to bring it to the island.


Elvis


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 14, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Generals Arnold, Spaatz, Doolittle, Eisenhower and Kuter disagreed strongly with your point of view. Read the autobiographies of Arnold and Spaatz and Doolittle for a refreshing difference of opinion that they held in October-December 1943. Read Schmid's recount of the LW air war in the USAF Studies. Simply stated, without a.) the arrival of the Mustang, and as a result of that 'no show', b.) stripping every P-38 FG from every theatre by November 1943 in time for ARGUMENT, the losses during Big Week and beyond would probably been so disastrous that nobody would have been 'confused' about the threat from the LW to D-Day prospects.
> 
> Eaker believed that the VIII BC was shooting down far more German fighters than actually happened (despite the Spitfire and P-47 wearing the LW down) and Allied/AAF intelligence warned in December and January that the LW was getting stronger daily.
> 
> ...


Resp:
You are correct about Eaker and Hunter. Hunter was in command of fighters, but gave no thought or support in their use as a major player in assisting Bomber Command's mission. Gen Hap Arnold knew that early theories about air warfare were evolving and that commanders in the various Theaters needed to make adjustments. This he did not see in either Eaker or Hunter; hence, their firing. Eaker was an old friend, likely interfered with his discision in firing him later rather than sooner. If you read anything regarding Eaker's mission planner, you will see that Eaker offered no assistance in this area as well. When the then LTC approached Eaker for advice, he was basically told, "you handle it!" 
Eaker met with British officials in mid 1943 to get them to produce drop tanks for his fighters, but failed to follow-up on the order/process . . . only to learn that the British thought the meeting was only to see 'If' they could produce them. By the time Eaker realized his mistake, it was too late. He had cancelled a US production request for drop tanks, shortly after meeting with British authorities. A lot of men paid for this mistake.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FSG43 (Feb 15, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
> Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
> Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
> So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.



Many years ago I had the distinct pleasure to meet and work with Corky Meyers, Grumman Aircraft Corp’s outstanding test pilot. We developed a friendship as a result of him helping me understand the finite characteristics of one of Grumman’s fighter airplanes that made it into civilian hands. 

During one of our chat sessions about our favorite subject (airplanes) I asked him what was the best airplane that was used during WWII. He told me the F6F Hellcat because they designed it so a 200-hour Pilot could safely fly it and survive. I’ll take his word since he was the primary developmental test pilot on the airplane. He told me it had a 20:1 kill/loss ratio... pretty good. So, based on my conversations with the guy who was a major player I’d go with the F6F for the Pacific Theater of Operations.

European war zone? P-51 and the Yak-3 (?).


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

Elvis said:


> If you're going to take that tac, then it would've been a _device_ that turned the tide of the war, not so much any aircraft.
> As good as the Spitfires and Hurricanes were at turning back the German opposition, they would've been sitting ducks had *RADAR* not been in use on the east coast of England.
> It was the warnings from the Radar sites of the impending raids, that gave the fighters enough time to get up and take the fight to the enemy, rather than waiting for the enemy to bring it to the island.
> Elvis



Whilst Hitler was grabbing countries in the West, Stalin was busy gobbling up the East, and looking hungrily at the Balkans, especially Hungary and Roumania. With the oilfields in these countries gone, it would have been all over the Master Race and their Third Reich.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 15, 2019)

The thread title isn't worded particularly well but I do think "turn the tide" basically means the winner has to be the Spitfire and/or Hurricane because had the British lost the Battle of Britain then Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union like they did. The invasion of the Soviet Union only happened because the British won the Battle of Britain, and I think most people would agree that the invasion of the Soviet Union was the point where Germany losing WW2 began, a decision that would not have happened if not for the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Feb 15, 2019)

Spitfires and Hurricanes were magnificent along with the RADAR that directed them, but even had they lost the air portion of the Battle of Britain there is no way the Germans were getting past the Royal Navy to actually invade.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Spitfires and Hurricanes were magnificent along with the RADAR that directed them, but even had they lost the air portion of the Battle of Britain there is no way the Germans were getting past the Royal Navy to actually invade.


Agreed, the RN would have made Operation Sea Lion, make attempting to take Leningrad, being driven back at Odessa, or eventually taking Sevastopol after 9 months, look like 'a walk in the park'.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 15, 2019)

I'm a bit late to the party, but never the less:



Husky said:


> Let's get to the major issue. Could WWII be won without the US?
> 
> NO!
> 
> ...



Major issue here is 'the airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war', the war being ww2 here. In 1940 RAF handled the 1st major defeat to the German war machine after the later delivered a string of defeats to anyone going agains. RAF did it without US industrial might and logistical train.

BTW - stating that one's opinion is 'end of story' on public forum is kinda arrogant, don'tyathink?



FSG43 said:


> Many years ago I had the distinct pleasure to meet and work with Corky Meyers, Grumman Aircraft Corp’s outstanding test pilot. We developed a friendship as a result of him helping me understand the finite characteristics of one of Grumman’s fighter airplanes that made it into civilian hands.
> 
> hour Pilot could safely fly it and survive. I’ll take his word since he was the primary developmental test pilot on the airplane. He told me it had a 20:1 kill/loss ratio... pretty good. So, based on my conversations with the guy who was a major player I’d go with the F6F for the Pacific Theater of Operations.
> 
> European war zone? P-51 and the Yak-3 (?).



Tide of Pacific war was turned a full year before Hellcat became operative.
Nor P-51 nor Yak-3 didn't turned ww2 tides, even if we just look at Europe, Germany suffered a host of defeats on ground already in 1942 and by late 1942/early 1943 it was retreating on two major theaters.
Neither of the listed A/C was turning the tides on 3rd major theatre involving Germany, namely the Battle of Atlantic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 15, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> The thread title isn't worded particularly well but I do think "turn the tide" basically means the winner has to be the Spitfire and/or Hurricane because *had the British lost the Battle of Britain then Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union like they did. The invasion of the Soviet Union only happened because the British won the Battle of Britain*, and I think most people would agree that the invasion of the Soviet Union was the point where Germany losing WW2 began, a decision that would not have happened if not for the Spitfire and Hurricane.



I'm sorry but the bolded section is flat out incorrect. Hitler's primary objective all along (ie from the early 1930s onwards) was the conquest of the Soviet Union. He viewed Communism as the antithesis of National Socialist ideology and determined early on to wipe it out. His policies demanded autarky for Germany, and "lebensraum" (living space) for the "superior" Aryan race at the expense of the Slavic races which he viewed as subhuman. 

Essentially, there was a domino effect of various treaties in the run-up to WW2: the 1904 Entente Cordiale which ensured Britain and France would come to each others' aid in case of war; the 1920-21 "Little Entente" which linked France and Czechoslovakia defensively, and; the 1935 Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance which sought to curb German rearmament and expansionism. The latter 2 ensured that France would be dragged into any war involving Germany against Czechoslovakia or Russia, while the Entente Cordiale guaranteed that Britain would come to France's aid. 

The invasion of France, while partly motivated by revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, was necessitated by the 1935 Mutual Assistance treaty: Hitler was trying to avoid a 2-front war with the Soviet Union on one front and the Anglo-French alliance on the other. After defeating France, Hitler tried to persuade Britain to drop out of the fight (the whole "we are not natural enemies" routine). 




P-39 Expert said:


> Spitfires and Hurricanes were magnificent along with the RADAR that directed them, but even had they lost the air portion of the Battle of Britain there is no way the Germans were getting past the Royal Navy to actually invade.



I'm going to repeat this one more time for all those who missed it the first 100 times I've said it. HITLER DIDN'T NEED TO INVADE BRITAIN! All he needed was Britain out of the war. That goal could easily have been achieved if 11 Group had pulled back, leaving no aerial defences between London and the Luftwaffe. Such an eventuality would almost certainly have resulted in a Parliamentary vote of confidence in Churchill's government. A no-confidence vote would have toppled Churchill, with any likely replacement being more likely to seek a negotiated settlement with Hitler. With a negotiated settlement, Britain is effectively out of the war but with the Empire intact (at least that's what Hitler was offering).


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm a bit late to the party, but never the less:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, the tide of the War in Europe was turned when the Soviets counter attacked at Moscow with their Siberian divisions and threw the Nazi's back an average of 100 km.; all their aircraft were inferior to the German ones deployed, but their tanks were World beaters and their troops like Asiatics in Caucasian skins with a kamikaze attitude to warfare. The tide of war in the Pacific was turned at the battle of Midway when the IJN lost 4 aircraft carriers to the Douglas Dauntless. Of course, the Australians had defeated them first at Milne Bay after wearing them down on the Kokoda Trail. The tide of war was turned in the Atlantic when radar could be slung beneath Swordfish in early 1943 operating off jeep carriers. The German onslaught in the West was defeated by our RAF and their Commonwealth and European allies in the BoB. In the Med it was a joint Anglo-American effort with the French changing sides again and the Italians finally realising that Mussolini was a dangerous fool and removing him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Agreed, the RN would have made Operation Sea Lion, make attempting to take Leningrad, being driven back at Odessa, or eventually taking Sevastopol after 9 months, look like 'a walk in the park'.


Not only RADAR, the whole system including the ROC and filter system sector stations. The actual RADAR was primitive by 1940 standards but was in use all around the south and east facing coasts and manned with trained personnel connected by telephones. That is a large civil engineering project that takes time to do. Many had more advanced systems, but in a lab with researchers operating them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Not only RADAR, the whole system including the ROC and filter system sector stations. The actual RADAR was primitive by 1940 standards but was in use all around the south and east facing coasts and manned with trained personnel connected by telephones. That is a large civil engineering project that takes time to do. Many had more advanced systems, but in a lab with researchers operating them.



You've got to wonder why we built this system facing France not Germany.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You've got to wonder why we built this system facing France not Germany.


It wasn't completed in 1939 and the Chain Home low was very quickly installed and extended.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Not comprehensive but some good background here Chain Home Low - Wikipedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

It does take a while for a "system" to be put into place so a system with several dozen installations will always be behind what the 'state of the art' is. 
The "system" worked well enough to do the job even if a number of improvements could be (and were ) added later.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You've got to wonder why we built this system facing France not Germany.


Look at a map. 
Any Chain Home station north of Southend (north side of the Thames) was facing Germany. 

And if WW II had repeated WW I, Germany stopped at the Muese for example. Germany would have had bases where the shortest distance between the bases and London was over Dover.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It does take a while for a "system" to be put into place so a system with several dozen installations will always be behind what the 'state of the art' is.
> The "system" worked well enough to do the job even if a number of improvements could be (and were ) added later.


Setting up a system on the south coast wasn't so much of a problem there are cliffs that give useful elevation and few places are far from a town or road. Up here in the north the best location was on to of one of the bleakest moors in the country. Getting the station and the people and the power there was an issue.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

The whole thing about "turning the tide" needs a good looking at.

The "first defeat" isn't turning the tide. It isn't until the defeats outnumber the wins that the tide has turned. 
The Germans suffered several defeats in the attack on Poland, however they only lasted for a few days and victories in other battles canceled them out. Germans were able to gain better positions/out flank the units that had defeated them. 

Everything did not go 100% for the Japanese in Dec/Jan of 1941/42 either. However the vast bulk of the battles did. 

Only in the Pacific with Midway can you point to a specific day/battle and say that the balance of power shifted. Even then it took a number of months for the effect to really show itself. All that was known at the time on the Allied side was that they had hurt the Japanese badly. 

The war against Germany was much more of a grind, battles/campaigns lasted longer (in general, there were long campaigns in the Pacific, New Guinea being one but the forces were usually much smaller). 

as an example in the west. 



Kevin J said:


> The tide of war was turned in the Atlantic when radar could be slung beneath Swordfish in early 1943 operating off jeep carriers.


This is rather simplistic as it ignores the fact that the US started deploying the MK 24 mine (air dropped homing torpedo) in the late spring of 1943.
It ignores the fact that the hedgehog anti-sub weapon made it's first kill in Nov 1942 (although follow up kills were slow in coming) 
It ignores the fact that the Leigh lite began to be used in the summer of of 1942 
and it ignores the increasing number of escorts per convoy, with increasing numbers of depth charges and depth charge throwers per ship. 
And it ignores the increase use of B-24s (and other land based aircraft).

The Battle for the Atlantic was a long struggle with many improvements in anti sub gear and improvements in numbers and types of both ships and aircraft. 
giving the majority of the credit to a single aircraft (even with an assist from the Jeep carriers), it also rather ignores the Grumman Avenger which also perfromed a lot of anti sub work in the Atlantic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FSG43 (Feb 15, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm a bit late to the party, but never the less:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, okay. With all the facets of the air war it’s a bit hard to determine the one, or two, pieces of equipment that did thus and such.

I’m not the historical expert on the numerous details. However, seems to me that what turned the tide of the war in Eurooe was Hitler taking the reins of military planning and execution. This, combined with how the Nazi’s were occupied (and ultimately defeated) in the East by Russia, is a pretty good-sized reason the Allies were successful (?). Am I wrong to note that if Hitler’s nurderous horde were not occupied there that the Allies in the West would have been in deep Pooh?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

Once the US was in the war the end was not really in doubt, (this is said with a great deal of hindsight). The timing was certainly in Doubt and yes Hitler did attack Russian before the US got in the war.

The Germans made about 3-4 times as much steel per year as the Russians ever did. Germany made more steel than the British commonwealth did and in their best year perhaps as much as the British commonwealth and Russia put together. The US made more steel than _everybody _put together and a fair margin in addition (over 3 times German annual production) 

This is using steel as a somewhat arbitrary indicator of industrial might. 
Oil is another indicator of a country's ability to make war and here Germany is not quite as well placed. Granted they don't have to use as much oil just keeping themselves supplied but fuel shortages affected a lot of German planning.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 15, 2019)

FSG43 said:


> Many years ago I had the distinct pleasure to meet and work with Corky Meyers, Grumman Aircraft Corp’s outstanding test pilot. We developed a friendship as a result of him helping me understand the finite characteristics of one of Grumman’s fighter airplanes that made it into civilian hands.
> 
> During one of our chat sessions about our favorite subject (airplanes) I asked him what was the best airplane that was used during WWII. He told me the F6F Hellcat because they designed it so a 200-hour Pilot could safely fly it and survive. I’ll take his word since he was the primary developmental test pilot on the airplane. He told me it had a 20:1 kill/loss ratio... pretty good. So, based on my conversations with the guy who was a major player I’d go with the F6F for the Pacific Theater of Operations.
> 
> European war zone? P-51 and the Yak-3 (?).


Resp: I thought about the F6F's high kill rate . . .and it's hard to compete with Corky Meyers assessment, but if we are talking about 'turning the tide', those kills came when Japan's pilots had less training and little experience. I think the F6F gets little mention compared to other well known fighters, both axis and allied. I am glad you nominated the F6F, as it did take the war to the Japanese. It is sad that so few Hellcats survive today. I think at present two are airworthy, with a third soon to be.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

The question is was that a turning point or a 'changing of the tide' - I would say it was but perhaps not the major one. Japan was already losing when Hellcats were introduced. Bringing in the Hellcats made them lose at a more precipitous rate. So that aircraft did decisively accelerate victory but I'm not sure it changed the trajectory from defeat to victory.

I'm sure I overstated it upthread but I think it's clear there were several major turning points in the war, starting with the explosive expansion of the Axis powers to begin with, the gradual stiffening of resistance and slowdown of their expansion, the brief stalemate or tipping point (which I think most people agree was in mid to late 1942), and the first slow, then fast rollback of their conquests leading ultimately to their catastrophic defeat.

For me, after 1943 the outcome of the War was already decided. What major victories did the Germans win after 1943 on the Russian Front? What victories did the Japanese win in 1944 or 1945? The Strategic initiative had shifted permanently in the middle of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This is using steel as a somewhat arbitrary indicator of industrial might.
> .


As part of my job in Mannesmann Dusseldorf(Rath) I had to have a "safety tour" and had to accompany any new colleague when they had one. After a while I noticed the old uy had a wry smile when he said "Mannesmann Rath was built to satisfy an upturn in demand for seamless pipes". Well the seamless pipes in demand were WW1 gun barrels, in that era steel production was a fair gauge to a nations ability to make war, most weapons were made of it.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

How much oil, if any, did the Germans ever get from the Middle East?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

Zip after 1939. 

How much they got before then is questionable but probably not much. 

see; https://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB24.pdf

Getting any large quantities of oil from the middle east to Germany is going to require a lot of tankers *and* the British/American willingness (they controlled most of the oil in the area) to sell large quantities. 
One can never rule out a few ship loads before the war started but a war economy (or military campaign) needs thousands of tons per week if not per day.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 15, 2019)

Like Tomo, I'm late (even later) to the show, but can't sit on the sidelines any longer.
Most posters here seem to elect to break their choice down by theatres, but wasn't the challenge THE most important a/c in turning the tide in WWII? Not to belittle my homeland, but I see America's contribution being more her role as "arsenal of democracy" than the decisiveness of any particular aircraft or weapon she produced or wielded.
First of all: theatres. The war against Germany and Italy far outstripped that against Japan in terms of numbers and intensity, so the clear Pacific winner, the Douglas SBD, is disqualified on the global scale.
That leaves us with ETO, N Africa/Med, Atlantic, and Soviet fronts. Again, numbers and intensity, plus effect on Germany's ultimate war making capacity, point to the Soviet Front. And here, I'm out of my depth, not being a scholar of the eastern front, but I would suggest that German success or failure pretty much hinged around Stalingrad, and that in that arena, the aircraft that did the most damage to their primary weapons, tanks and artillery, was the IL2 Stormavik. Note; all "second generation" post-1942 aircraft types are disqualified as being post decisive.
Now there are contenders to the title, that by their ubiquity and longevity challenge this theatre by theatre breakdown. Spitfire, Hurricane, B24, P40, Catalina come to mind here. My chauvinist prejudice here favors the Liberator, whose phenomenal range allowed it to do damage in areas where it was least expected in PTO, Atlantic, CBI, N Africa/Med, and even ETO, especially on less well defended targets.
So what'll it be? Most decisive aircraft in most decisive campaign in most decisive theatre, or the one that had the most strategic effects on a global scale during the decisive period of the war (May 1942 - May 1943)?
I confess to *indecisiveness *on my part, and thus after all this verbiage, to have failed the challenge put forth by the OP.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 15, 2019)

Middle eastern oil sources had not been fully developed by 1940 (and wouldn't be for another ten years), so it wouldn't have been worth the expense to seize a middle eastern area based on an existing oil source alone.
Unless they were willing to try and grab Iran, which was the largest oil producer in the region at the time.

Here is a fantastic report (in both French and English) that sources global raw material production between 1931 and 1940. Look to Table 58 for Crude Oil production by nation.
http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Look at a map.
> Any Chain Home station north of Southend (north side of the Thames) was facing Germany.
> 
> And if WW II had repeated WW I, Germany stopped at the Muese for example. Germany would have had bases where the shortest distance between the bases and London was over Dover.



Wow, I grew up in Southend and never knew that it faced Germany, which it doesn't. Are you American or something? This is the biggest pile of crap that I've ever read on this site.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 15, 2019)

Map of wartime Chain Home Radar Stations in England, Scotland and Wales

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Wow, I grew up in Southend and never knew that it faced Germany, which it doesn't. Are you American or something? This is the biggest pile of crap that I've ever read on this site.


A basic grasp of geography would reveal that Germany is due east of England.
Even this stupid American knows that Berlin is further north than London...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

You do have a direct path to Germany due East of Yorkshire, not to Berlin but to Bremen / Bremerhaven, Hamburg etc. Ironically for centuries these being towns (Free Cities) with close economic and cultural ties to England, whose civilian populations were reluctant to go to war with the English, which unfortunately ended up being the first places to get incinerated in retribution for the German Blitz.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> A basic grasp of geography would reveal that Germany is due east of England.
> Even this stupid American knows that Berlin is further north than London...


 I guess he could be referring to the Netherlands, i.e. the Dutch as opposed to the Deutsch, but that would be like calling a Canadian, an American.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

Well lets be fair, German aircraft weren't flying from Germany to fly their raids during the BoB were they?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I guess he could be referring to the Netherlands, i.e. the Dutch as opposed to the Deutsch, but that would be like calling a Canadian, an American.


If you set off from Calais and head exactly due east you will go right though the German industrial area then to Hanover and then Berlin, you are wrong, I suggest you apologise.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

This is turning into another of those wars of half-truths...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Wow, I grew up in Southend and never knew that it faced Germany, which it doesn't. Are you American or something? This is the biggest pile of crap that I've ever read on this site.




Let me see if I can clarify this "_pile of crap_". 

A, I never said that southend faced Germany, please quote where I did.
B, I said "Any Chain Home station *north of Southend* (north side of the Thames) *was facing Germany*. 
C, Yes, the German planes would have overfly Belgium and Holland (mostly Holland). 
D, Southend is just slightly higher in latitude than Essen Germany (and roughly in line with the rather twisty border between Belgium and Holland. 
E, Essen is about 150 miles from the North Coast of Germany 
F, I may be an American but even I know that a radar station built in Bamburgh England is not Facing France.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If you set off from Calais and head exactly due east you will go right though the German industrial area then to Hanover and then Berlin, you are wrong, I suggest you apologise.
> View attachment 529175


No chance mate, as you can see Southend is opposite the Netherlands. If you're going a bombing to Berlin you're going to come down from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire. If you're going to bomb Southend you're going to come across from Belgium or the Netherlands. You've shown a map of the route their tanks would have had to take. East Anglia has never been opposite Germany in all its geographical history, its always been opposite the Netherlands.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 15, 2019)

I generally agreed with Wes' perspectives about parsing major turning points in WWII - but would favor the failure to take Moscow in 1941 as my personal 'fav'' Capturing Moscow was far more than symbolic - it was THE rail network from all points east, north and south and most importantly from major industrial centers to east and oil to south west. USSR logistics to fight, and supply armies fighting Germany would have been an impossible task.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Let me see if I can clarify this "_pile of crap_".
> 
> A, I never said that southend faced Germany, please quote where I did.
> B, I said "Any Chain Home station *north of Southend* (north side of the Thames) *was facing Germany*.
> ...


Its still a pile of crap. You should have said north of The Wash. Both Belgium and the Netherlands were neutrals at the beginning of WW2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

And the Germans scrupulously held to the Hollands neutrality in the first WW I was and never, ever flew Zeppelins or Gothas over or from Belgium Holland?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No chance mate, as you can see Southend is opposite the Netherlands. If you're going a bombing to Berlin you're going to come down from Lincolnshire or Yorkshire. If you're going to bomb Southend you're going to come across from Belgium or the Netherlands. You've shown a map of the route their tanks would have had to take. East Anglia has never been opposite Germany in all its geographical history, its always been opposite the Netherlands.


 In an aeroplane you can fly over things, I do admit you cant sail a ship across the Netherlands. The UK had already been hit from the air by raids launched from Germany in WW1 and a 1940s German bomber can easily reach London from Duisburg. The line on the map is there to call it up from google maps.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2019)

In 1936 the British did not have a single bomber that could fly from British soil, drop a 500lb on Germany (they might have been able to drop smaller ones) and return. That is NOT Berlin, that is just crossing the German border, they sure weren't planning on making detours. The Germans weren't in any better shape at the time. Plan you air defense accordingly, not what kind of aircraft would be available in 1943.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

Lets give each other the benefit of the doubt on basic understanding of geography ... you can look at it different ways obviously, right?

Where were the German airbases for BoB? I always assumed France, Benelux, Norway etc. no?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And the Germans scrupulously held to the Hollands neutrality in the first WW I was and never, ever flew Zeppelins or Gothas over or from Belgium Holland?



facing*Dictionary result for facing*
/ˈfeɪsɪŋ/
_noun_
noun: *facing*; plural noun: *facings*

1.
a piece of material sewn on the inside of a garment, especially at the neck and armholes, to strengthen it.
the cuffs, collar, and lapels of a military jacket, contrasting in colour with the rest of the garment.
"the regiment's uniforms had orange facings"
synonyms:covering, trimming, lining, interfacing, reinforcement, backing
"a tartan smoking jacket with green velvet facings"

2.
an outer layer covering the surface of a wall.
"the bricks were used as a facing on a concrete core"
synonyms:cladding, veneer, skin, protective/decorative layer, surface, facade, front, fronting, false front, coating, covering, dressing, overlay, revetment, paving, lamination, inlay, plating;
siding
"the bricks were used as a facing on a concrete core"
_adjective_
adjective: *facing*

1.
positioned so as to face.
"two facing pages"

I HOPE THIS CLEARS EVERYTHING UP ABOUT THE WORD 'FACING'!!!!!!!


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> In 1936 the British did not have a single bomber that could fly from British soil, drop a 500lb on Germany (they might have been able to drop smaller ones) and return. That is NOT Berlin, that is just crossing the German border, they sure weren't planning on making detours. The Germans weren't in any better shape at the time. Plan you air defense accordingly, not what kind of aircraft would be available in 1943.


When I put 1940s I meant 1940, the Germans bombed N Ireland and the north of Scotland in 1940.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lets give each other the benefit of the doubt on basic understanding of geography ... you can look at it different ways obviously, right?
> 
> Where were the German airbases for BoB? I always assumed France, Benelux, Norway etc. no?



If I was in Southend and the World was flat then the next piece of high ground that I would be FACING would be the Ural Mountains in Russia.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 15, 2019)

Come on guys, lets get back to the planes. I declare the Blackburn Roc the most important aircraft of the war! Because nothing could escape it's deadly turret

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 15, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm sorry but the bolded section is flat out incorrect. Hitler's primary objective all along (ie from the early 1930s onwards) was the conquest of the Soviet Union. He viewed Communism as the antithesis of National Socialist ideology and determined early on to wipe it out. His policies demanded autarky for Germany, and "lebensraum" (living space) for the "superior" Aryan race at the expense of the Slavic races which he viewed as subhuman.
> 
> Essentially, there was a domino effect of various treaties in the run-up to WW2: the 1904 Entente Cordiale which ensured Britain and France would come to each others' aid in case of war; the 1920-21 "Little Entente" which linked France and Czechoslovakia defensively, and; the 1935 Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance which sought to curb German rearmament and expansionism. The latter 2 ensured that France would be dragged into any war involving Germany against Czechoslovakia or Russia, while the Entente Cordiale guaranteed that Britain would come to France's aid.
> 
> The invasion of France, while partly motivated by revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, was necessitated by the 1935 Mutual Assistance treaty: Hitler was trying to avoid a 2-front war with the Soviet Union on one front and the Anglo-French alliance on the other. After defeating France, Hitler tried to persuade Britain to drop out of the fight (the whole "we are not natural enemies" routine).



Yes Hitler's overall goal was to invade and beat the Soviet Union, but he also did not want to get into a two front war since he was well aware that is why Germany lost in WW1. Hitler was always going to make an attempt to invade the Soviet Union but the main reason he decided to do it in 1941, before beating the British was his belief that the only reason the British were holding out and not suing for peace was because the British were holding out for/expecting the Soviets to join the war on their side. Of course this was false but Hitler convinced himself of that, and decided an invasion as soon as possible was necessary. 

Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then Hitler would have likely taken more time to get the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union right, or he could have turned his attention on Sweden for a little while. Either way though, without the British in the war the Germans would have had a much greater chance of beating the Soviet Union.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If I was in Southend and the World was flat then the next piece of high ground that I would be FACING would be the Ural Mountains in Russia.


The traditional name for the North sea is "The German Sea" or "German Ocean" from wiki...…... Before the adoption of "North Sea," the names used in English were "German Sea" or "German Ocean", referred to the Latin names "Mare Gemanicum" and "Oceanus Germanicus",[103] and these persisted in use until the First World War

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2019)

The U.S.A. DID have another bomber that could have carried the A-bomb.

We had the B-32 Dominator. Had it not come along as a "back-up" in case the B-29 failed, we also had the much slower but capable B-19.

There was always another aircraft if something had failed.

As a "game changer," I'd submit the IL-2 and the La / Yak series of fighters that turned the tide on the Luftwaffe. The MiG-3 was relatively unimportant other than as a stepping stone for the Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau to better things. The Soviet Union was a real game changer. Without them ,we'd have fought twice or more as many Germans. Not sure we'd have won that at the time with the real-life situation, without any missing aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Feb 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Whilst Hitler was grabbing countries in the West, Stalin was busy gobbling up the East, and looking hungrily at the Balkans, especially Hungary and Roumania. With the oilfields in these countries gone, it would have been all over the Master Race and their Third Reich.


While your post is quite informative, I fail to see how it relates to my post on Radar's role in how The Battle of Britain turned out....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 16, 2019)

Elvis said:


> While your post is quite informative, I fail to see how it relates to my post on Radar's role in how The Battle of Britain turned out....



I'm just changing the topic of discussion, its quite common here.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm just changing the topic of discussion, its quite common here.



No it's not! Most discussions on this forum stay rigorously on topic and never deviate into realms of...ooohhh SQUIRREL!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> Yes Hitler's overall goal was to invade and beat the Soviet Union, but he also did not want to get into a two front war since he was well aware that is why Germany lost in WW1. Hitler was always going to make an attempt to invade the Soviet Union but the main reason he decided to do it in 1941, before beating the British was his belief that the only reason the British were holding out and not suing for peace was because the British were holding out for/expecting the Soviets to join the war on their side. Of course this was false but Hitler convinced himself of that, and decided an invasion as soon as possible was necessary.
> 
> Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then Hitler would have likely taken more time to get the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union right, or he could have turned his attention on Sweden for a little while. Either way though, without the British in the war the Germans would have had a much greater chance of beating the Soviet Union.



Not sure I agree. The more Hitler waited, the more time he allowed Stalin to rebuild his military (which had been decimated of good leadership in the previous decade). Hitler had a window of opportunity in 1941 that was closing as Britain, the Soviet Union and America re-armed. I suspect he'd have gone ahead with Barbarossa even if Britain had sued for peace in 1940.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 16, 2019)

Are we so certain Germany couldn't have invaded if they had achieved air superiority? The channel isn't wide. Stukas and Ju 88s were pretty good at sinking ships. Did He 111's carry torpedoes by then? British battleships didn't fare well against Japanese air power early in the war. The combination of swarms of Stukas and Germany's own small but very tough navy might have been sufficient to control the waterway long enough for an invasion.

I know the Germans had a shortage of transport ships but maybe they could have borrowed some from Italy and taken over the French merchant fleet. The invasion of Crete shows that they could pull off a pretty impressive paratroop drop to help control a beach-head. It's an interesting scenario to consider.

To me assuming they could have controlled the airspace over the Channel I suspect they could have invaded, it may have been too thin of a pipe to get enough troops over fast enough though perhaps to actually win the resulting land battle. Could falschirmjaeger have held out long enough to let them bring tanks and big guns over ?

Significance to the thread is if there was a realistic possibility of a conquest of England in 1940 or 41 then perhaps the Hurricane or the Spitfire really is the single most important aircraft of the war. Otherwise I think we'd have to look at something from 1942, perhaps the Yak-1, Il2 or the SBD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are we so certain Germany couldn't have invaded if they had achieved air superiority? The channel isn't wide. Stukas and Ju 88s were pretty good at sinking ships. Did He 111's carry torpedoes by then? British battleships didn't fare well against Japanese air power early in the war. The combination of swarms of Stukas and Germany's own small but very tough navy might have been sufficient to control the waterway long enough for an invasion.
> 
> I know the Germans had a shortage of transport ships but maybe they could have borrowed some from Italy and taken over the French merchant fleet. The invasion of Crete shows that they could pull off a pretty impressive paratroop drop to help control a beach-head. It's an interesting scenario to consider.
> 
> ...


Interesting possibilities to consider. I've always been of the opinion that Germany lacked the means to invade England air superiority or not but who knows for sure. 
Thankfully we will never know.
I think one certainly couldn't go wrong picking the Hurricane/ Spitfire for doing the most to turn the tide of war and the possibilities you list are just that many more reasons why.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are we so certain Germany couldn't have invaded if they had achieved air superiority? The channel isn't wide. Stukas and Ju 88s were pretty good at sinking ships. Did He 111's carry torpedoes by then? British battleships didn't fare well against Japanese air power early in the war. The combination of swarms of Stukas and Germany's own small but very tough navy might have been sufficient to control the waterway long enough for an invasion.



We have several rather long threads on this subject. but to answer a few of of questions, the Germans had 0.0% chance of pulling off a successful invasion in 1940. 
The He 111s were not carrying torpedoes in service at this time, even the Italian SM 79 was only carrying in small numbers (like 5-6 aircraft). Germany's _small but very tough navy _was down to a couple of heavy cruisers, perhaps 3 light cruisers and about 8 destroyers in the fall of 1940 after the damage inflicted in the Norwegian campaign. Some of the other big units were repaired in the fall/winter but not in time for use in a cross channel invasion. 



> I know the Germans had a shortage of transport ships but maybe they could have borrowed some from Italy and taken over the French merchant fleet. The invasion of Crete shows that they could pull off a pretty impressive paratroop drop to help control a beach-head. It's an interesting scenario to consider.


 There was darn little french merchant fleet to grab, most had already fled if possible, a lost of the small stuff in the channel was either already gone or sunk at the docks. The Italians have to get by Gibraltar, not impossible but the losses will be pretty bad. 



> To me assuming they could have controlled the airspace over the Channel I suspect they could have invaded, it may have been too thin of a pipe to get enough troops over fast enough though perhaps to actually win the resulting land battle. Could falschirmjaeger have held out long enough to let them bring tanks and big guns over ?



Again, look it up, they is no way they could have moved several thousand tons of supplies across the channel every day. 



> Significance to the thread is if there was a realistic possibility of a conquest of England in 1940 or 41 then perhaps the Hurricane or the Spitfire really is the single most important aircraft of the war. Otherwise I think we'd have to look at something from 1942, perhaps the Yak-1, Il2 or the SBD.



The SBD is the only contender at that is as much due to being in the right place at the right time as any intrinsic qualities of plane itself. 
The Yak-1 and IL-2 only come into play because they didn't suck as bad the I-16 and SU-2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I know the Germans had a shortage of transport ships but maybe they could have borrowed some from Italy and taken over the French merchant fleet. The invasion of Crete shows that they could pull off a pretty impressive paratroop drop to help control a beach-head. It's an interesting scenario to consider.


What about landing craft? Without them, offloading could be disastrously slow. And what about embarkation? In the channel ports under British air and naval attack, or around the bend in the Bay of Biscay with a lengthy sea run under air and naval assault to deliver shiploads of seasick soldiers against determined defense?
And is it worth the cost in blood and treasure when the ultimate goal is elimination of the Red Menace? I doubt the Brits would have been so complaisant as the Vichy French were.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2019)

If you want to discuss the hypothetical invasion of England by germany in 1940/41 this is the thread.

If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2019)

Without propper landing craft the Germans would never have been able to get the troops and equipment necessary onto the land.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If you want to discuss the hypothetical invasion of England by germany in 1940/41 this is the thread.
> 
> If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain



That thread came up with 350 reasons why an invasion would fail. It also branched out into the (inevitable?) discussion of how the Fw187 could have solved all the Luftwaffe's problems. Finally, there was a bizarre discussion about a Do17 being able to outrun and outmanoeuvre a Hurricane. 

What it really didn't do was define what "defeat in the Battle of Britain" might have looked like, nor what the knock-on consequences would have been. To-date, aside from my own (oft-repeated) pet theory, I've seen no substantive suggestions for what might have happened.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are we so certain Germany couldn't have invaded if they had achieved air superiority? The channel isn't wide. Stukas and Ju 88s were pretty good at sinking ships. Did He 111's carry torpedoes by then? British battleships didn't fare well against Japanese air power early in the war. The combination of swarms of Stukas and Germany's own small but very tough navy might have been sufficient to control the waterway long enough for an invasion.
> 
> I know the Germans had a shortage of transport ships but maybe they could have borrowed some from Italy and taken over the French merchant fleet. The invasion of Crete shows that they could pull off a pretty impressive paratroop drop to help control a beach-head. It's an interesting scenario to consider.
> 
> ...



My take on Operation Sea Lion is that its like having a customer who wants you to do something but you don't want the business. So the German Navy came up with Sea Lion, an invasion on a broad front. I've read it, what a laugh, its the ultimate suicide mission. In which case, we can scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My take on Operation Sea Lion is that its like having a customer who wants you to do something but you don't want the business. So the German Navy came up with Sea Lion, an invasion on a broad front. I've read it, what a laugh, its the ultimate suicide mission. In which case, we can scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB.



Why can we scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB? Is an invasion of the British Isles the only way Hitler could have achieved his objectives?


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 16, 2019)

In With Wings Like Eagles, Michael Korda speculates that during the chaos of Dunkirk, if the Germans had pushed an airborne landing immediately, and secured a field and port, perhaps it could have been followed by reinforcements by sea. But its all speculation, dangerous for a historian to do.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 16, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> In With Wings Like Eagles, Michael Korda speculates that during the chaos of Dunkirk, if the Germans had pushed an airborne landing immediately, and secured a field and port, perhaps it could have been followed by reinforcements by sea. But its all speculation, dangerous for a historian to do.



Agree speculation is dangerous for a historian but we absolutely have to do it on this thread, otherwise how can we determine whether an event truly was a turning point? Surely, we have to look at the likely results of an unchanged trajectory in order to satisfactorily determine that something was, indeed, a turning point? 

In the intelligence world, such "speculation" is called "Course of Action development" and results from analyzing the known facts and then determining at least 2 COAs: most likely and most dangerous. If we wanted to examine the full spectrum of possibilities, we could add a "least dangerous" COA to the list...but typically that does little to aid decision-making.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 16, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> during the chaos of Dunkirk, if the Germans had pushed an airborne landing immediately, and secured a field and port, perhaps it could have been followed by reinforcements by sea.


That would have required a massive operation put together "on the fly", something that probably would not have appealed to the methodical German military mind.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Feb 16, 2019)

If Leigh Mallory was in charge of 11 group the RAF could have been lost in weeks. I don't see any way the UK could have carried on if the LF could hit Kent and London unopposed., at times Churchill had enough trouble as it was when the BoB was going well.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 16, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Why can we scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB? Is an invasion of the British Isles the only way Hitler could have achieved his objectives?



I'd say so, yes. Boots on the ground, which wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> In With Wings Like Eagles, Michael Korda speculates that during the chaos of Dunkirk, if the Germans had pushed an airborne landing immediately, and secured a field and port, perhaps it could have been followed by reinforcements by sea. But its all speculation, dangerous for a historian to do.



Me thinks he was smoking a bit of the wacky weed.

Hundreds of Ju 52s were lying wrecked in Holland, plus a fair percentage of the assault gliders (plus the 150 or so Ju 52s lost in Norway) The Germans had no large amount of air lift capacity to either move the paratroops/air assault troops they did have or to keep them supplied until sea communications can be established.

The RAF was far from smashed after Dunkirk meaning that whatever air field/s or port/s the Germans try to seize under this scenario are going to come under heavy air attack (the British did NOT lose very many medium bombers in France).

And as usual, the scenario requires the Royal Navy to sit in port drinking rum and taking no active part in stopping the invasion or transportation of supplies.
The Comparison is often made to Crete but the number of days the RN operated in the waters around Crete is glossed over. What is also ignored is the fact that Crete is around 370 miles from Alexandria which is the supply point for the RN for things like fuel and anti aircraft ammunition. It is only around 200 miles from Crete to Athens and perhaps 100 miles or so to parts of the Peloponnesian Peninsula (Crete is 160 miles long and 37 miles wide at the widest point) so operating ships for several days at a time in waters around Crete is rather different than operating ships in the English channel where they can be resupplied ever night or every other night.

It also assumes the German Navy (or Army) can organize even a small supply operation in early to mid June (late June???) of 1940. Most of the German navy is in Germany being repaired after Norway. They don't even have the small steam torpedo boats, trawlers/minesweepers available in Dutch, Belgian, French ports that they would have in Sept (they didn't even try to bring in anything the size of a destroyer during those summer months.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My take on Operation Sea Lion is that its like having a customer who wants you to do something but you don't want the business. So the German Navy came up with Sea Lion, an invasion on a broad front. I've read it, what a laugh, its the ultimate suicide mission. In which case, we can scrub the Hurricane and Spitfire off the list in the BoB.


Resp:
An asset of the German ground forces is that it could move so fast, particularly in France. This same asset, as in Dunkirk is that it out ran its own resources. Yes, England could have been invaded by various forces shortly after Dunkirk . . . but how long could it hold out w/o proper ground forces and air support? Yes they had the momentum . . . but did Hitler really have a plan at that time, other than a 'thought of an invasion? I believe that the German leadership realized that they would loose precious men and equipment if they did not achieve 'air supremacy' first. Wasn't it the Romans that over extended themselves into defeat. Great fighters, but actually couldn't get men and equipment resupplied/reinforced?
Take the 'Battle of the Bulge' for an example. There they deployed the Tiger tank. A tank that was very hard to defeat when it went toe to toe with allied armor. However, Hitler needed speed to achieve his objective, but the Tiger's attribute wasn't speed. It also required firm roads or extremely hard ground to operate. Neither was widely available in the Ardennes. 
The window for an invasion after Dunkirk that could be held just wasn't there. Just my 'two cents.'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 16, 2019)

If the Germans were actually serious abut Operation Sealion, they would not have allowed the bulk of the BEF escape the beaches of Dunkirk...


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> If the Germans were actually serious abut Operation Sealion, they would not have allowed the bulk of the BEF escape the beaches of Dunkirk...



If the Germans had been serious, which I doubt, about Operation Sea Lion, they would have needed all the ships of the French Navy to cover the landings, and Churchill made sure that they didn't get them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2019)

Going to be brutally honest here: the Germans allowed well over a quarter million British and Allied troops to escape Dunkirk - if they were serious about invading Britain, they would have started by sacking over 10 divisions of infantry sitting on a French beach waiting to be plucked like a ripe fruit.

Capturing or killing the BEF and Allies at Dunkirk would have put Britain in a precarious position because of their manpower numbers and given them (the Germans) an upper leg...in spite of whatever anecdotes everyone comes up with.

The fact remains, that 340,000+ is a considerable amount of manpower and they were all transported to safety in Britain and would be available to assist in repulsing any invasion attempts.

Had they been sacked on the beach of Dunkirk, that would be 340,000+ less to help repulse an invasion, no matter how the Germans intended to invade...


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'd say so, yes. Boots on the ground, which wasn't going to happen.



I'd strongly recommend you read John Lukacs' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years. 

The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Going to be brutally honest here: the Germans allowed well over a quarter million British and Allied troops to escape Dunkirk - if they were serious about invading Britain, they would have started by sacking over 10 divisions of infantry sitting on a French beach waiting to be plucked like a ripe fruit.
> 
> Capturing or killing the BEF and Allies at Dunkirk would have put Britain in a precarious position because of their manpower numbers and given them (the Germans) an upper leg...in spite of whatever anecdotes everyone comes up with.
> 
> ...



True enough but that was 340,000+ without artillery or any heavy equipment, and re-equipping would take time. 

The reasons for the German pause on 21 and 23 May 1940 remain a contentious topic for historians. It seems the halt was caused, in part, due to a robust counter-attack by British tanks and infantry on 21 May, followed by complaints on the German side that the tanks were outstripping both their logistic chain and their own infantry, leading to the second pause on 23 May. Those 2 key pauses allowed the BEF to shore up the defences around Dunkirk.

The above actions took place after Churchill had been in power for less than 2 weeks. His position was vulnerable (see my other post and John Lukacs' book). In 1945, Hitler is reported to have said that he did Churchill a favour in May 1940 but Churchill never reciprocated. It seems pretty clear that Hitler never really wanted to invade Britain. He just wanted Britain out of the war, hence his overtures to preserve the British Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I'd strongly recommend you read John Lucaks' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years.
> 
> The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.



Hmm, well I guess if you can't successfully invade, get a change of leader, or decisively beat the Brits then there is the fourth option, send Hess over to negotiate a sort of truce, whereby we send bombers over Germany to maybe not even get close to their targets, say 5% within 5 miles will do chaps, plus a France Air Offensive where you kill off the cream of your skilled fighter pilots. Sorry, I'm just being cynical here. Maybe even delay the invasion of Europe for as long as possible.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Hmm, well I guess if you can't successfully invade, get a change of leader, or decisively beat the Brits then there is the fourth option, send Hess over to negotiate a sort of truce, whereby we send bombers over Germany to maybe not even get close to their targets, say 5% within 5 miles will do chaps, plus a France Air Offensive where you kill off the cream of your skilled fighter pilots. Sorry, I'm just being cynical here. Maybe even delay the invasion of Europe for as long as possible.



Sorry, Kevin, but you lost me there. I can't understand the point you're trying to make. Not being snarky...I genuinely can't follow the thought train.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry, Kevin, but you lost me there. I can't understand the point you're trying to make. Not being snarky...I genuinely can't follow the thought train.


Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
> Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
> Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
> Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
> Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.



Point 1: Agree on the first point but I don't think the Kriegsmarine was out of action after Norway. That said, it was still insufficient to undertake Sealion without some dramatic change to the balance of power (eg massive attacks on the RN, preferably while in port, as a precursor).

Point 2: Concur that Sealion was highly unlikely to succeed...but maybe it was drawn up to add pressure to the British Government? Again, there are more ways to exert influence than at the end of a bayonet. It's always preferable to persuade your enemy to quit before you attack.

Point 3: Hitler absolutely believed that Britain and Germany should see the USSR as a common foe. Whether Hess's abortive mission was part of that is very much open to debate.

Point 4: You really lost me here. If Britain sued for peace in 1940, why go on the offensive after Germany subdues the USSR? After all, Britain would get to keep its Empire, could rebuild its armed forces and was relatively secure given the problems of a cross-Channel invasion.

Your last part really confuses me. The Americans were drawn into the war some 18 months after the fall of France. Not sure how relevant that is to whether Churchill's government could have been toppled in `1940....unless you're saying that Churchill was somehow immune from internal political strifes? If so, I again refer you to the Lukacs book.


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Point 3: Hitler absolutely believed that Britain and Germany should see the USSR as a common foe. Whether Hess's abortive mission was part of that is very much open to debate.



Agreed. I think Hitler very much wanted Britain to be an ally against the Soviet Union and was probably convinced that he could make Britain see his way of thinking about the thread of the Soviets. Of course we know that Britain did not like the Soviets at all, but they liked Hitler even less. Had a moderate been in charge of Germany then perhaps Germany could have even got the British on side.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Point 1. The Germans can't invade without a navy to support them. The RN has put out of action the German Navy in Norway, later the French in Oran.
> Point 2. Operation Sea Lion is no more than a suicide mission drawn up to put everyone off from carrying it out.
> Point 3. Nobody likes the Bolsheviks so why not get the Brits to let the Germans give the Soviets a drubbing. So you send Hess across to negotiate.
> Point 4. After the Germans attack Russia, the RAF engages in an offensive in which its bombers fail to hit their targets at night and where the lives of its fighter pilots are wasted by day. Everyone is happy as its looks like something is being done. Also, no invasion of France in the near future.
> Like I said, I'm being cynical. Unfortunately, the IJN attacks Pearl Harbour and the Americans are drawn into the war and they really want to get on with the invasion of France, like asap. Without that attack, maybe a successful invasion of Russia then, and only then would Churchill be replaced and a peace deal struck.


An interesting tidbit in your post. I have also read that the U.S. wanted to retake France almost imediatly upon entering the war but it was the Brits that convinced them to wait.
If this is true I think the British really did the allies a favor. As costly as D- day was can you image if we had tried to pull that off in say the fall of 42.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 17, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I'd strongly recommend you read John Lukacs' book "Ten Days in London: May 1940" to illustrate the deep divisions among political leaders of the wisdom of pursuing the fight against Germany. We need to be very careful of accepting Churchillian rhetoric as being representative of all of the UK, least of all the entirety of Parliament, indeed there were many serious, and well-regarded, politicians who believed that continuance of the fight was foolish and would lead to the ruination of Britain and loss of its Empire. Also, consider that Hitler only invaded places he needed to invade in order to achieve his strategic objects. Take Vichy France, for example. Although France writ large surrendered in June 1940, German troops did not "invade" Vichy France for another 2.5 years.
> 
> The potential for Churchill to be replaced by a more appeasement-minded leader coupled with the established precedent of Vichy France convinces me that Hitler didn't need to invade Britain. The window for such action was small and the opening narrowed over time as the Battle of Britain proceeded into August and September of 1940. However, the opportunity was there if Hitler and Goering had taken their chance. The Luftwaffe needed to hammer 11 Group and the supporting radar and fighter control assets. The fact that Hitler didn't prosecute such a campaign is, in part, due to sheer dumb luck (or Providence if you prefer), but also due to the robust defence put up by Fighter Command.


Resp:
I believe the effects of WWI hindered a clear decision by the leadership on whether to fight another War. Fortunately for much of the world, they did decide to fight . . . and fight they did.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 17, 2019)

First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans _allowed_ the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.

Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.

Yes they still face a _severe_ disadvantage in naval forces but my question is really how effectively could the Royal Navy fight without air power in a narrow channel dominated by German air power? I brought up the Prince of Wales and the Repulse disaster in the Pacific. I'd also point out the dismal results of many convoy battles in the Med, Atlantic, North Sea etc., and that usually included some friendly air support. I'd also point out the relative success of the "Kanalkampf" operations within the English Channel by the Luftwaffe (sinking 35 British merchant ships and 4 destroyers in spite of fairly heavy British air opposition).

The Germans may have had a tiny fighting navy but I'm not convinced all the (French etc.) merchant ships were gone. And they still had the U-boat fleet and mines to help control the Channel if it came down to it. They certainly demonstrated the capability and willingness to win a bloody invasion with air power alone in Crete, defeating 40,000+ troops just with their paratroopers. That might be sufficient to secure a bridgehead.

Still, if the Germans didn't have any torpedo planes functional yet (what about Ju 88s? when did the A-17 come out?) I would say that could make it harder to sink British Capitol ships. Which would have made it an interesting battle!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans _allowed_ the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.
> 
> Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.
> 
> Still, if the Germans didn't have any torpedo planes functional yet (what about Ju 88s? when did the A-17 come out?) I would say that could make it harder to sink British Capitol ships. Which would have made it an interesting battle!



Please read or skim the other thread so we don't have to repost every thing here. 

Some people seem to think that the Luftwaffe defeating the RAF in the BoB means the British are able to fly two Tiger Moths somewhere south of the The Forth and Clyde canal and east of the Isle of Man. All other British aircraft having retreated to Northern Ireland and the Shetland Islands, pulled their propellers off and never to fly over England again. 

Somewhat sarcastic.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> First of all, I've got to say - the notion that the Germans _allowed_ the British to retreat from Dunkirque is absurd and really creepy and conspiratorial in it's implications. I don't buy that at all - I'll stop there.
> 
> Second, some of the discussion above presumes the English is making substantial air attacks - what I was asking is what would have happened if the Germans had defeated the RAF as it seemed they came close to doing on a couple of occasions.
> 
> ...



First, you're only talking about defeating Fighter Command in the day time, not any other of the RAF commands or the RN at night. In appalling conditions with virtually the entire Soviet fighter force inferior in quality the Soviets threw the Germans back an average of 100 km at Moscow, so who needs superior fighters. We also had about 224 Curtis Mohawks at our disposal in the event of an invasion in maintenance units, and I'm sure that at the time, all grammar school boys like me, had we been in the RAF would have been able to master a plane using French instruments because we were all taught French in those days. The invasion barges would have taken an average of 20 hours to cross the channel so there would have been plenty of time to launch night attacks on them by bomb and machine gun equipped Lysanders. At sea there would have been RN Swordfish crews trained in night attacks. Our submarine bases were at Portland and Chatham would be ready to take on German destroyers and cruisers, and there were fleet bases at Plymouth and Portsmouth for our cruisers and destroyers to sortie out from. Then there were the naval guns along our South Coast. Of course for a suicide attack the Germans could have attacked Dover or Folkestone on a much shorter crossing. If the Germans had really wanted to get ashore, might I suggest either Slapton Sands or Weymouth bay or perhaps a parachute assault on the Isle of Wight, so you're looking at a 15 hour overnight crossing. The problem next is resupply. They can land but I don't think they would have got resupplied and by then most of their capital ships would have been sunk, not that they had many, any way.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I don’t know that any one plane turned the tides of war. Even if we came up with a list of one that we would agree unanimously. Nature of the beast in our discussions.
> 
> ...


In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.


Resp:
Duly noted. 
Tell that to the French people/the Germans on June 5/6 1944 when paratroopers landed at Normandy, and in Burma 1944 when the Chindits needed supplies. l believe we were speaking of significant aircraft contributions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.


Resp:
I was thinking the same thing; many, many aircraft played a vital role. Many were discussed at length.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I was thinking the same thing; many, many aircraft played a vital role. Many were discussed at length.


As much as I love airplanes war usually boils down to boots on the ground. Even today in the nuclear age.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 18, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Duly noted.
> Tell that to the French people/the Germans on June 5/6 1944 when paratroopers landed at Normandy, and in Burma 1944 when the Chindits needed supplies. l believe we were speaking of significant aircraft contributions.



I think by 5/6 June 1944, the tide had already definitely turned for Germany. The case for the Chindits might be stronger on the Burma front but not from a wider Japanese strategic perspective.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> In terms of logistics the Liberty Ship was by far more important cargo carrier of WWII. For that matter the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck dwarfed the contributions of the C-47.


Research into the problems of the liberty ship gave birth to the UK Welding Institute and a massive leap forward in understanding of the weldability of steels and SAW welding.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 18, 2019)

As far as we are wandering off topic with Liberty Ships, part of the issue was solved in the Victory Ships by increasing the frame spacing, making for a more flexible structure and reducing localized stresses. Welding is a very specialized skill and welding of ships and submarines particularly in need of skilled tradesman and excellent QC. Additionally thins was a fairly new technology at the time, still maturing, and with the rush of a "War ON" it's amazing that it worked as well as it did!

Back to the original topic? Maybe the F6F Hellcat, tough, reliable, versatile and good enough at what it was called upon to do. A little hard to bifurcate the theaters, but unless we had been able to achieve air superiority in the Pacific, it would have affected the contributions to the "Euro" theater. Had the Japanese not felt the pressure, they might have give the USSR a two front war.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 18, 2019)

In Europe, I think one can argue for the P-51, not just because it was a world-beater (it was very good, but not that good), but because the Luftwaffe knew that a dangerous, high-performance fighter, as good as anything they had with pistons, would be guarding insane numbers of bombers on every raid into Germany. Handwriting, meet wall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 18, 2019)

How did the P-51 change the tide? Were the Germans winning when it was introduced?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> How did the P-51 change the tide? Were the Germans winning when it was introduced?



They may not have been winning -- that ended when they were beaten at Stalingrad -- but they weren't losing fast enough.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (Feb 18, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> In Europe, I think one can argue for the P-51, not just because it was a world-beater (it was very good, but not that good), but because the Luftwaffe knew that a dangerous, high-performance fighter, as good as anything they had with pistons, would be guarding insane numbers of bombers on every raid into Germany. Handwriting, meet wall.



Defeat for the Germans was essentially inevitable by the time the P-51 was introduced.

I generally speaking think that whatever the answer to the thread title is, the plane (at least in Europe) had to have been fighting and making a big impact by 1943 at the latest. If it was introduced in 1944 then it should be eliminated from the discussion straight away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This is mostly true, however the bit about _massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters before the USAF turned up in force with the B-17's _needs a little clarification. The British only built 693 Lancasters in 1942. They used Lancasters in large number of raids in 1942 but the large numbers of aircraft per raid were made up of other bombers than the Lancaster.
> 
> The Americans don't show up to bomb Germany until Jan of 1943 (they did bomb targets in france and low countries in late 1942) so the British do beat them on that score no matter how many or how few Lancasters were used.
> 
> ...



The Lancaster had become Bomber Commands most numerous bomber by the beginning of 1943. On Jan 16/17 190 of them went to Berlin, on the following night 170 went there. It was certainly out numbering the Wellington by the beginning of the Battle of the Ruhr. On March 11/12 314 of them went to Stuttgart. The B-17 didn't exceed 300 until the beginning of Blitz week when 309 bombed Norway, a pace they were unable to maintain. At the same time as Blitz Week the RAF was destroying a large part of Hamburg sending about 350 Lancasters on each of the 4 raids.
There is a misconception that the 8th Air Force was conducting a significant bombing campaign against Germany in 1943. They weren't. In 1943 the 8th AF dropped 27,598 tons of bombs on Germany in 1944 they dropped 296,839 tons, an order of magnitude greater.
Furthermore the Americans were only nibbling at the edges. The number of deep penetrations into German airspace before Big Week can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. The attached graph from "A History of the VIII USAAF Fighter Command" illustrates this. I have taken the liberty of annotating the raids on Germany and France in different colors as well as adding the start dates for the P-38 and P-51.. It can be clearly seen that the USAAF did not start a serious bombing campaign against Germany until February 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Lancaster had become Bomber Commands most numerous bomber by the beginning of 1943. On Jan 16/17 190 of them went to Berlin, on the following night 170 went there. It was certainly out numbering the Wellington by the beginning of the Battle of the Ruhr. On March 11/12 314 of them went to Stuttgart. The B-17 didn't exceed 300 until the beginning of Blitz week when 309 bombed Norway, a pace they were unable to maintain. At the same time as Blitz Week the RAF was destroying a large part of Hamburg sending about 350 Lancasters on each of the 4 raids.
> There is a misconception that the 8th Air Force was conducting a significant bombing campaign against Germany in 1943. They weren't. In 1943 the 8th AF dropped 27,598 tons of bombs on Germany in 1944 they dropped 296,839 tons, an order of magnitude greater.
> Furthermore the Americans were only nibbling at the edges. The number of deep penetrations into German airspace before Big Week can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. The attached graph from "A History of the VIII USAAF Fighter Command" illustrates this. I have taken the liberty of annotating the raids on Germany and France in different colors as well as adding the start dates for the P-38 and P-51.. It can be clearly seen that the USAAF did not start a serious bombing campaign against Germany until February 1944.



RP,

Do you have the equivalent Bomber Command chart for a comparison?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> On Jan 16/17 190 of them went to Berlin, on the following night 170 went there. It was certainly out numbering the Wellington by the beginning of the Battle of the Ruhr



From Wiki so take it for what you think it is worth. 

12/13 March...................Essen




......................... Raid by 457 aircraft - 158 Wellingtons, 156 Lancasters, 91 Halifaxes, 42 Stirlings, 10 Mosquitos on Krupp factory in Essen. 23 aircraft were lost.


granted this is just one raid and granted the Lancaster carried more bombs on average than even the Halifax and Stirling let alone the Wellington. 

It took a while for the Lancaster to become the majority of bombers in bomber command. Due to it's range and payload it was doing more than the others on a per plane basis but that is not what we are talking about. 

What I was trying to clarify was "_massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters before the USAF turned up in force with the B-17's"_

Now the words "_massive bombing campaigns" _and _ "_ _USAF turned up in force" _are certainly subject to interpretation as neither phrase has any numbers. 

The British were certainly conducting massive raids (1000 bomber) as parts of a massive campaign well before the US showed up at all. And while they were feeding Lancasters into the MIX as fast as they could these massive campaigns were not using Lancasters in the numbers suggested by the words "_massive bombing campaigns using Lancasters" _even if those words are technically correct. 
17 squadrons had received Lancasters by the end of 1942 and I am not sure if all of those had been declared operational at that time. This is certainly a commendable achievement given that the first operational use of the Lancaster was just over 9 months before. and 7 squadrons had been equipped by some point in June of 1942. 

I am not trying to deny the British were first, or were not conducting massive raids (and suffering high casualties from all commonwealth nations) before the US showed up. 

The British also showed a large increase in bombs dropped over the years 






The RAF certainly did drop more bombs the the USAAF, but giving the bulk of the credit to the Lancaster in 1942/43 rather ignores the Wellington, Halifax and Stirling.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 18, 2019)

Judging by tons of bombs sprinkled somewhat at random across the darkened German countryside may not be a profitable use of statistics. The evaluation of true contribution towards ending the war (Allied Victory) is quite complex and perhaps not completely possible with many intangibles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Feb 19, 2019)

From the Strategic air war against Germany, 1939-1945: Report of British Bombing Survey Unit -

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 19, 2019)

Does available mean flying? I hope they weren't flying missions with Blenheims, Hampdens and Stirlings in mid 1942 

There seem to have been a fair number of Fortresses and Liberators operating in The Med in most of 1943 though I'm not sure the precise numbers, I can check after work.


----------



## Airframes (Feb 19, 2019)

Yes, they were operational, with the Blenheim by then mainly on maritime duties, and the Hampden mine laying. The Stirling continued with main force until late 1943, and then on glider towing, para dropping and special duties until war's end.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 19, 2019)

I see so a chunk of these 670 bombers weren't really being used as such by then, or at least not on raids into Germany


----------



## Greyman (Feb 19, 2019)

Looking up the exploits of 2 Group will give a reasonable picture of the what the non-heavies of Bomber Command were up to.

No. 2 Group RAF - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> As far as we are wandering off topic with Liberty Ships, part of the issue was solved in the Victory Ships by increasing the frame spacing, making for a more flexible structure and reducing localized stresses. Welding is a very specialized skill and welding of ships and submarines particularly in need of skilled tradesman and excellent QC. Additionally thins was a fairly new technology at the time, still maturing, and with the rush of a "War ON" it's amazing that it worked as well as it did!
> 
> .


There were design issues but massive metallurgy issues too. The quality of steels as regards crack propagation, ductile brittle fracture, heat affected zone cracking, through thickness tensile values, temperature transition curves and a huge leap in testing, the Charpy test went from being a little known university research tool to a routine means or testing of welds and parent material while the "Battelle" DWTT test for steel was developed in USA for steel plate. It would be churlish to suggest that the advances in metallurgy were on par with those in jet engines, but they involve the production of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 20, 2019)

Excellent table that shows the Allied bombers, however, I am left wondering why the B-25, B-26, A-26 and A-20 aren't listed.
Also notice that the 9th AF isn't represented, which relocated to England in late 1943.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 20, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think the Spitfire and especially the Hurricane are great pics here. I almost couldn't decide between them and the Dauntless. I decided on the SBD but must admit to a little personal bias as my Grandfather worked at Douglas durring the war and helped build SDBs.


Resp:
Galland told Goering he would take "a squadron of Spitfires" in response to Goering's question, "what do you need to accomplish your mission." So from one German who was there point of view, he named the aircraft that he thought most significant.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> How did the P-51 change the tide? Were the Germans winning when it was introduced?


Resp:
If I remember correctly, USAAF Gen Arnold put out a directive in June 1943 to find an existing fighter to modify, or build a new model to gain 'air supremacy' before the Allies attempt Operation Overlord, which was in the works for 1944. He specified a fight to go all the way to the heart of Germany. The Merlin (British designed engine) P-51 Mustang (also a British name) was the result.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

I think everyone is well aware of all that but I still just don't think 1944 was a turning point, at least not in the sense of one side winning and then the other side winning. Germany was already doomed by the time the P-51 got into action in significant numbers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Excellent table that shows the Allied bombers, however, I am left wondering why the B-25, B-26, A-26 and A-20 aren't listed.
> Also notice that the 9th AF isn't represented, which relocated to England in late 1943.



B-25 and A-20 are listed as "Mitchel" and "Boston" respectively on the UK side, but maybe you mean USAAF?

I'm wondering why they include the Ventura but not the Hudson...?


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 20, 2019)

From "The First and the Last" by Adolf Galland

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Galland told Goering he would take "a squadron of Spitfires" in response to Goering's question, "what do you need to accomplish your mission." So from one German who was there point of view, he named the aircraft that he thought most significant.



Actually not quite. That is a myth caused by people taking his words out of context.

You really have to read the entire quote from Galland. It is from his book “The First And The Last”, and he even says that he preferred the Bf 109 over the Spitfire, but said it out of frustration with Göring.

_”Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. *'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame.* Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."_


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2019)

Haven't read all 17 pages of this thread yet, and perhaps someone has already said it, but the C-47 gets my vote.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The SBD is the only contender at that is as much due to being in the right place at the right time as any intrinsic qualities of plane itself.
> The Yak-1 and IL-2 only come into play because they didn't suck as bad the I-16 and SU-2.



This has been mentioned a few times before, but I am not sure I agree.

The SBD may not have stood out in any obvious specific merits by which WW2 aircraft are typically rated - it didn't fly 400 mph like the Mosquito and it didn't carry 10,000 lbs of bombs like the Lancaster, didn't carry 8 x .50 cals like the P-47 or 4 x 20mm cannon like the Fw 190, and it didn't fly 2,550 miles like a Wellington. But for it's era, it was close enough to excellence in many different measurable criteria and others which are harder to define that I would say it _was_ actually an excellent design with intrinsic qualities that made it a war winner.

The primary characteristics needed by a bomber are bomb accuracy, bomb load, and _Survivability_. Of secondary but still significant value were versatility, lethality, and viability.

*Bomb accuracy* means how likely are bombs to hit the target.
*Bomb load *is obvious, how many bombs and of what size can be carried to the target.
*Survivability* means the intrinsic qualities of the aircraft the contribute to it's survival as a machine and the survival of it's aircrew.

Secondary traits - versatility meaning how adaptable was it to various intended and unforseen missions besides the original design specs.; lethality meaning how much damage did it cause to enemy aircrew and ground targets aside from the effects of dropping ordinance, and viability meaning how often was the aircraft actually working and available for combat. Could it operate in difficult conditions, was it subject to chronic maintenance problems, was it hard or easy to repair.

A lot of people emphasize bomb load over all other traits in a bomber but I think it's actually the least important for most missions, beyond a certain critical point. For a naval bomber like a Dauntless there is a minimum weapon size needed to damage a large warship, i.e. by the time the Dauntless was in action roughly a 500 or 1,000 lb armor piercing bomb. But beyond that minimum, accuracy was _far_ more important. Dropping 10,000 lbs of bombs in the ocean is basically useless at damaging a ship (unless you get a near miss). The mentality of a bomber as a 'bomb truck' is really what cost us the War in Vietnam. During WW II, bombers were notoriously inaccurate. It was not at all unusual for medium and high altitude level bombers to bomb the wrong city. Bombing at night made it even worse.

Tactical bombers required accuracy more than anything. Relatively small ordnance could knock out a tank or gun position, but _in_accuracy could mean killing your own troops at worst, and having no effect at all at best. More than one battle in WW2 saw bombers causing massive casualties among their own troops.

In naval combat the Strategic and Tactical are combined. The target, a ship, is tactical, but the results (i.e. sinking Carriers, Transports, or Battleships) are potentially Strategic.

So a single day's action can be decisive. This means accuracy and bomb load are more important than all other factors for a given action. In this respect the Japanese D3A and B5N bombers were equivalent to the SBD. Both were lethal ship killers. For comparison here are all the single engined bombers I can think of from the early part of the war:

*D3A1* - range 800 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.7mm and 1 x 1.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 551 lb and 2 x 132 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes
*B5N2 *- range 1,200 miles, speed 235 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 1760 lb torpedo
*SBD3* - range 1,115 miles, speed 255 mph, guns 2 x 12.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.62mm (later 2 x) defensive, bombs 2,250 (usually one 1,000 lb AP bomb). Dive bomber = Yes
*JU-87B *- range 311 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.92 (offensive), 1 x 7.92 (defensive), bombs 550 lbs bomb plus 4 x 110 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes
*TBD Devastator* - range 435 miles, speed 206 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 or 12.7mm mg (offensive), 1 x 7.62 mph, bombs 1,000 or 1 x torpedo
*TBF Avenger* - range 1,000 miles, speed 275 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 (offensive), 1 x 12.7 and 1 x 7.62 (defensive), 1 x 2,000 lb torpedo
*Swordfish I *- range 522 miles, speed 143 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 1,670 lb torpedo
*Albacore *- range 930 miles, speed 161 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 or 2 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 1,670 lb torpedo
*Skua Mk II *- range 760 miles, speed 225 mph, guns 4 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1 x 500 lb AP bomb
*SU-2 *- range 685 miles, speed 300 mph, guns 4 x 7.62mm (offensive), 2 x 7.62mm (defensive), 1,320 lbs of bombs.
*Fairy Battle *- range 1,000 miles, speed 257 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.7mm (defensive), 1,000 lbs of bombs

If you compare the SBD with it's contemporary single engined bombers, it's not the top in all categories (the SU 2 and TBF are faster, theoretically, and the B5N has longer range) but near the top in all of them. Plus armor, ruggedness / heavy construction, dive bombing ability and relatively heavy offensive armament make it stand out.

Naval war was a combination of attrition and Strategic warfare. Carrier duels could be decisive with Capital ships sinking in one day, meaning victory or defeat for the fleet. Here is where accuracy matters. For naval combat there were basically just two types of ship killers - dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Level bombers were essentially useless so that leaves out most of the planes above. Whereas maybe 1 out of 10 sorties from a D3A or SBD might get a hit, and perhaps 1 out of 6 from a B5N, with the torpedo hits also doing much more damage, for a level-bomber the rate of success was more like 1 out of 100. Additionally, in part because of problems with US torpedoes, in the early years of the war US Torpedo bombers were all but useless so they are pretty much out of the running too.

So this leaves the D3A, B5N, SBD, Swordfish and Ju 87 as the top (potential) naval bombers of the war.

Next factor is range - the Ju 87 never operated from carriers and had a limited range of 311 miles. That puts it out of the running even in any _theoretical_ carrier duel. Swordfish were used and with success but their range was a very limited 522 miles. The Albacore is a bit better on range at 930 miles but still painfully slow and defenseless. In a carrier duel against the Japanese ala Midway or Coral Sea the Royal Navy would be in serious trouble on the basis of range alone, not even taking into consideration their vulnerability issues. For that matter torpedo bombers were statistically just more vulnerable than dive bombers. Dive bombers seemed to be harder to hit by flak, than the low and slow-flying torpedo carriers, and their high maneuverability and structural strength meant that they could maneuver well against fighters.

So we are left with the D3A, B5N and SBD as the best carrier bombers in the world in 1941 or 1942. All three have good range, good bomb load, but the SBD manages this with armor, self sealing fuel tanks, and a pair of .50 cal machine guns. The B5N in particular was very vulnerable to destruction as a big, slow torpedo carrier.

And carrier duels were not always decisive on the first encounter. It turned out that a steady pressure was _also_ important to maintain. Even in a carrier duel, it might take several strikes before the outcome was decided, and here is where I think the SBD really stood out. The Japanese naval bombers, D3A and B5N in the beginning of the war, were excellent in terms of range and lethality, but _bad_ in terms of survivability. In two days of action in the Solomons for example (24-25 Aug 1942) the IJN lost 70 aircraft, including almost all of their bombers, while damaging the CV Enterprise, whereas the US lost 20 (mostly fighters) and sunk the CVL _Ryūjō_. In a single strike on Aug 24 the Japanese lost 24 out of 37 aircraft. By comparison the US Navy lost 6 out of 31 Dauntlesses that attacked _without fighter escort_ (due to the long range) when they sunk the _Ryūjō_. This emphasizes an important fact: *The SBD had a remarkably low loss rate for an active bomber.*

Carriers didn't always duel each other of course, they were also needed to attack land bases - taking islands was a major point of Pacific naval warfare after all. The SBD could be used in this way - (as could the TBF which was less helpful in Carrier vs. Carrier action) but the Japanese naval bombers were basically too fragile. In theory you could try to use something like a Swordish, Skua, or Fairey Battle this way but I would predict prohibitive casualties. This emphasizes both survivabiliy and versatility.

SBD's were also useful for scouting, ASW and sea rescue (the spotting part obviously not for picking up crews). They could be (and were) used for tactical CAS as well as Operational and Strategic Naval strikes. It was even useful in air to air combat. It was in a disadvantage against a Zero but was more than a match for a D3A or B5N, or say E-13 or F1M scout planes... with it's heavier guns, armor and self sealing tanks. Even against Zeros they sometimes scored kills (see Swede Vejtasa).

Finally in general serviceability and maintenance issues, the SBD excelled. It was highly _available_, even in the wretched conditions on Henderson Field. The best aircraft in the world is useless if it is a "hangar queen".


So *TL : DR* I would say the humble SBD _was_ unusual. To fly 1,000 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb load and armed with heavy machine guns, armor and self sealing tanks - even if you could only manage 250 mph, _and make it back again_, was a rare trait especially for a naval / carrier bomber. As a true dive bomber it had accuracy an order of magnitude better than almost all other types of bombers except torpedo carriers, and it was far more survivable than the latter which meant it could be counted on to deliver more strikes. If you could manage 10 strikes with 10% accuracy that is better than 3 strikes with 15% accuracy.

So yeah, I think it stood out due to it's intrinsic qualities. I would argue that if for example the Royal Navy had large numbers of SBD's (I know I know - production difficulties would have made that very hard to achieve) the Bismarck would have been sunk much more quickly and maybe before it wacked the Hood!

I'll argue the points about the Yak-1 and Il2 some other time, this was long enough already.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 20, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually not quite. That is a myth caused by people taking his words out of context.
> 
> You really have to read the entire quote from Galland. It is from his book “The First And The Last”, and he even says that he preferred the Bf 109 over the Spitfire, but said it out of frustration with Göring.
> 
> _”Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. *'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame.* Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."_


Reps:
'I should like an outfit of Spitfire for my group!' Sure looks like it was said.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 20, 2019)

....and then he went on to say, "......for it was not really meant to be that way.....I preferred our Me109...."

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Of course, fighter bombers and multi-engined bombers also competed with naval bombers. This became more and more true as the war progressed.

Carrier aircraft of course gave extra capabilities in that they could strike from a moving base, thus they were far less predictable and more useful in particular in the Pacific War.

Just for fun, here is a list of early land-based (unless otherwise stated torpedo capable) bombers of at least _some_ proven lethality in naval combat:

*G3M "Nell"** - range 2,734 miles
*G4M2 "Betty"** - range 3,700 miles one way, ~ 1,500 miles strike
*Ju-88 *- range 1,429 miles, torpedo or dive bomber
*He -111* - range 1,429 miles
*He-115* - range 1,305 miles (float plane)
*SM 79* - range 1,615 miles
*CANT Z. 1007* - range 1,115 miles
*CANT Z. 506* - range 1,200 miles (float plane)
*A-20 Boston / Havoc* - range 945 miles, torpedo or skip-bomber
*B-25 Mitchell *- range 1,174 miles - strafer and skip-bomber
*B-26 Marauder *- range 1,150 miles
*Wellington *- range 2,550 miles
*Beaufort *- range 1,600 miles

Of that list, the G3M, G4M, Ju 88, SM 79, Wellington, A-20 and B-25 had reputations as ship killers in terms of naval battles. The others sunk mostly merchant ships or had the potential in theory to sink ships but weren't used too much that way. Many of the above list were highly vulnerable to fighters and flak. The best in all categories combined were probably the Ju-88, G4M, A-20 Wellington and B-25 roughly in that order. But I don't think any of them had the impact on Naval war as the carrier based bombers.

Early on the Wildcat wasn't too useful in a ship killing role or as a fighter bomber. Some of the land based fighters like P-40s (notably at Milne Bay) and Hurricanes were dangerous as bombers but limited by range and training. The A-36 was a good dive bomber of course but I don't know that it was used much against ships, maybe a little in Italy? Have to look that up.

Later in the war fighters became much more important, especially with rockets and in use as partial dive bombers. The carrier fighters such as the Hellcat and Corsair probably mattered most in that role, followed by longer ranged land-based fighters like the P-38 and P-51.

But I would still say the SBD made more of an impact.

* see HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Haven't read all 17 pages of this thread yet, and perhaps someone has already said it, but the C-47 gets my vote.



Some A hole was yabbering about that in post 190...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ....and then he went on to say, "......for it was not really meant to be that way.....I preferred our Me109...."



The issue about more maneuverable planes being better at escort, and hard to deal with as escorts, came up in Luftwaffe pilot interviews a lot in the Med as well specifically vis a vis P-40s. I'll transcribe one long quote in particular when I have a minute.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 20, 2019)

And what does that have to do with Galland's quote being taken out of context?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 20, 2019)

I thought the context of Gallands quote was that to do what Goering wanted them to do the Spitfire was the better plane, they were using the 109 in the wrong way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Reps:
> 'I should like an outfit of Spitfire for my group!' Sure looks like it was said.



Sure looks like you are ignoring the rest of what he said...


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> And what does that have to do with Galland's quote being taken out of context?



The actual context of Gallands quote is a bit more subtle than even you guys are acknowledging. He likes the 109 better overall sure, but the argument he's having with Goering has to do with the different combat roles each plane is good for or unsuited for. Bf 109s are great for hit and run attacks, for attacks in general - fast, good climb rate, well armed. But when escorting or engaging with bomber escorts - when you _have _to fight in other words and can't pick the ideal moment or ambush, a Spitfire is actually better. 

Gallands main point is that he wants to choose his tactics (and do hit and run), Goering is insisting on a close escort because he is worried his bombers will take too many casualties in a looser escort. They are both right. What Galland really does need is another aircraft which can stay and fight on a more even basis. Something more suited for escort in general. But the Germans never developed anything really like that, maybe the Bf 110 was supposed to fit that role but of course it was a failure as a day fighter.

The Fw 190 was more capable of staying in a fight with Spitfires but it was doing hit and run attacks and probably wasn't a perfect escort either due to range and altitude capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I thought the context of Gallands quote was that to do what Goering wanted them to do the Spitfire was the better plane, they were using the 109 in the wrong way.



Thats pretty much it.

The quote still gets taken out of context, misquoted and falsly interpreted all the time, as we can clearly see in this thread...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The actual context of Gallands quote is a bit more subtle than even you guys are acknowledging. He likes the 109 better overall sure, but the argument he's having with Goering has to do with the different combat roles each plane is good for or unsuited for. Bf 109s are great for hit and run attacks, for attacks in general - fast, good climb rate, well armed. But when escorting or engaging with bomber escorts - when you _have _to fight in other words and can't pick the ideal moment or ambush, a Spitfire is actually better.
> 
> Gallands main point is that he wants to choose his tactics (and do hit and run), Goering is insisting on a close escort because he is worried his bombers will take too many casualties in a looser escort. They are both right. What Galland really does need is another aircraft which can stay and fight on a more even basis. Something more suited for escort in general. But the Germans never developed anything really like that, maybe the Bf 110 was supposed to fit that role but of course it was a failure as a day fighter.
> 
> The Fw 190 was more capable of staying in a fight with Spitfires but it was doing hit and run attacks and probably wasn't a perfect escort either due to range and altitude capabilities.



Pretty much this...


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2019)

I am afraid some of your data is incorrect.



Schweik said:


> *SBD3* - range 1,115 miles, speed 255 mph, guns 2 x 12.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.62mm (later 2 x) defensive, bombs 2,250 (usually one 1,000 lb AP bomb). Dive bomber = Yes



You seem to have quoted the specs from wikipedia for the SBD-5 which didn't start showing up until 1943? 

there are 3 (2?) things of importance here:

1. they changed the engine from 1000hp for take-off to 1200hp for take-off.
2. they changed the take-off weight. SBD-5 per wiki was.

*Empty weight:* 6,404 lb (2,905 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 9,359 lb (4,245 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 10,700 lb (4,853 kg)
The manual (1942) for the SBD-3 lists a max take-off weight of
9031lbs with a 1000lb bomb/100 gals fuel in combat condition (self sealing tanks and armor) 
Empty weights with armor and SS tanks was within 20lbs so I am not going to worry about it. 

This makes rather a hash out of the 2200lb bomb load (achieved by carrying a 1600lb AP bomb and two 300lb class under wing stores?) 

3, I am not sure when they added the underwing bomb racks.

Now as to regards to range, 100 gallons is certainly NOT going to get you 1000 miles even with no bomb let alone a 1000lb bomb. (plane burned around 37 gallons of fuel per hour at 50% power/ lean condition). 

The Manual calls for 140 gallons with a 500lb bomb at a somewhat lower weight than the 1000lb/100 gallon load and for scouting up to 260 gallons could be carried with no bomb(all internal) so yes. the SBD could certainly fly 1100 miles if not further in scout mode. They may have flown the planes with bombs a bit overloaded (added 20-40 gallons of fuel ?) , I don't know. 

Manual for the SBD-3 is available from this thread. upload pilots handbook for sbd-3 dauntless


Information on some of the others may also be hard to come by.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Pretty much this...



Are you saying I'm taking it out of context, misquoting or falsely interpreting it? For the record I was not agreeing with Navalwarriors interpretation that Galland was suggesting the Spitfire was better _in general_. I *am* asserting that he believed (like many other Luftwaffe pilots and _experten_) that the Bf 109 was not particularly well-suited for escort / bomber defense duties or to a lesser extent for sustained dogfighting with enemy bomber escorts. 

It was very good at hit and run and that is what they liked to do with it, but that imposed certain Tactical and Operational limitations.

Unlike Galland *I *do think the Spitfire very generally speaking was a better fighter, depending on the subtypes being compared, than the Bf 109. But that is _my _opinion I don't claim any German pilot felt that way.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The actual context of Gallands quote is a bit more subtle than even you guys are acknowledging. He likes the 109 better overall sure, but the argument he's having with Goering has to do with the different combat roles each plane is good for or unsuited for. Bf 109s are great for hit and run attacks, for attacks in general - fast, good climb rate, well armed. But when escorting or engaging with bomber escorts - when you _have _to fight in other words and can't pick the ideal moment or ambush, a Spitfire is actually better.
> 
> Gallands main point is that he wants to choose his tactics (and do hit and run), Goering is insisting on a close escort because he is worried his bombers will take too many casualties in a looser escort. They are both right. What Galland really does need is another aircraft which can stay and fight on a more even basis. Something more suited for escort in general. But the Germans never developed anything really like that, maybe the Bf 110 was supposed to fit that role but of course it was a failure as a day fighter.
> 
> The Fw 190 was more capable of staying in a fight with Spitfires but it was doing hit and run attacks and probably wasn't a perfect escort either due to range and altitude capabilities.


Resp:
Agreed. But I think Galland had a lot of respect on how the RAF used the Spitfire (and Hurricane) against them. I believe he had great respect for the pilots who flew them. I suppose some will think I am reading this into what Galland said, and you would be correct.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am afraid some of your data is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did quote Wikipedia ranges for all the aircraft, which as I said were comparable - but I have books on the SBD and we could delve deeper into it. My point still stands. SBD was basically equivalent to the D3A (and vastly superior to the German, Italian, Russian or British single engined bombers) in combat range. But the SBD was armored, armed with HMG and had protected fuel systems.

If you read my post I did not assert the 2200 lb bomb load as typical for naval strikes, from reading through a mission history recently for naval strikes it was typically a single 500 or 1000 lb bomb, sometimes two small wing bombs if it was at shorter range. 1,000 lb was most typical for anti-shipping strikes. If they had to hit a very far away target they might carry a smaller (500 lb bomb load). The heavier (2,200 lb) bomb load would be against ground targets at close range, like when the Cactus Air Force planes were hitting targets less than a mile away on Guadalcanal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are you saying I'm taking it out of context, misquoting or falsely interpreting it? For the record I was not agreeing with Navalwarriors interpretation that Galland was suggesting the Spitfire was better _in general_. I *am* asserting that he believed (like many other Luftwaffe pilots and _experten_) that the Bf 109 was not particularly well-suited for escort / bomber defense duties or to a lesser extent for sustained dogfighting with enemy bomber escorts.
> 
> It was very good at hit and run and that is what they liked to do with it, but that imposed certain Tactical and Operational limitations.
> 
> Unlike Galland *I *do think the Spitfire very generally speaking was a better fighter, depending on the subtypes being compared, than the Bf 109. But that is _my _opinion I don't claim any German pilot felt that way.



No I am saying you are pretty much correct. Galland was upset about how things were being used and done.

Calm down Nancy...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Agreed. But I think Galland had a lot of respect on how the RAF used the Spitfire (and Hurricane) against them. I believe he had great respect for the pilots who flew them. I suppose some will think I am reading this into what Galland said, and you would be correct.



Of course Galland did. I think all pilots felt the same about their adversary’s, but that still doesn’t change the context of hos words, and how they are misused.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I am saying you are pretty much correct. Galland was upset about how things were being used and done.
> 
> Calm down Nancy...



Just checking and clarifying, I didn't go off the deep end Alice.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Some A hole was yabbering about that in post 190...
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Ah Geez, not THAT guy...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Ah Geez, not THAT guy...



I thought I was THAT guy...I'm confused!


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I thought I was THAT guy...I'm confused!


I'm pretty sure you're THIS guy, he's THAT guy.

...

I think...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm pretty sure you're THIS guy, he's THAT guy.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think...



Nah...I've figured it out. I'm "HIM!!!" (As in "Oh...HIM!!!!" etc). And, yes, I'm also


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Just checking and clarifying, I didn't go off the deep end Alice.



Time to drop it and move in Fiona.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Nah...I've figured it out. I'm "HIM!!!" (As in "Oh...HIM!!!!" etc). And, yes, I'm also


Here's a big cup of "Duh" for the  part...

Har de har... I crack the wise no?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Time to drop it and move in Fiona.


Does this mean you two are getting a room?


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Does this mean you two are getting a room?



THANK YOU (NOT!!!!) for that mental image!! Time to break out the wire brush and Clorox to purge my cranial cavity!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Does this mean you two are getting a room?





Not my cup of tea...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> THANK YOU (NOT!!!!) for that mental image!! Time to break out the wire brush and Clorox to purge my cranial cavity!!!



As long as it is only your cranial cavity that needs cleaning...


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This has been mentioned a few times before, but I am not sure I agree.
> 
> The SBD may not have stood out in any obvious specific merits by which WW2 aircraft are typically rated - it didn't fly 400 mph like the Mosquito and it didn't carry 10,000 lbs of bombs like the Lancaster, didn't carry 8 x .50 cals like the P-47 or 4 x 20mm cannon like the Fw 190, and it didn't fly 2,550 miles like a Wellington. But for it's era, it was close enough to excellence in many different measurable criteria and others which are harder to define that I would say it _was_ actually an excellent design with intrinsic qualities that made it a war winner.
> 
> ...



I like most of what you said, but you still need a torpedo bomber to disable the Bismarck and battleships to destroy it. Bombs from an SBD would simply have bounced off it. You omit the fact that both the Swordfish and Albacore could both dive bomb, the Swordfish being the better torpedo bomber. The Albacore was used in the Sahara as a bomber and I don't recall them enduring the same crippling losses as the Battle even though it was 100 mph slower.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Dauntlesses seem to have been able to sink quite a few heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers (some converted battleships). I know it was a tough boat but I'm not sure I buy that the Bismarck was immune to bombs, or that a 1000 lb armor piercing bomb is going to "bounce off" off of a battleship. I'm sure it would be harder to sink with bombs than torpedoes, every large ship was, but I think you'd still be better off with SBD's than Swordfish due to range and speed.

Maybe that's another thread idea: Could you sink the Bismarck with bombs?

As for dive bombing, I had read that the Swordfish and Albacore were designed to dive bomb and did so in tests, but didn't know quite what to make of that. How 'real' is that capability? Did they ever sink any ships that way?

I read the Wiki on the Albacore and it sounds like it didn't actually hit let alone sink many (if any) enemy ships with either torpedoes or bombs, do you know of any?

The Swordfish certainly did some damage at Taranto and did eventually jam the rudder of the Bismarck, other than that it seems like they were mostly used against submarines. I'd hate to see one trying to contend with an A6M or a Ki-43!

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2019)

The bombs will not bounce off, but getting them into the ship where vital systems are located is quite different. The 50mm deck might not stop even a 500lb bomb but it will trigger the fuse and the 20/30mm deck below may catch most of the splinters. A 1000lb bomb might not make it through the main deck armor (main deck being the 80mm deck right over the turbine rooms, not the top deck the crew would walk on outside. 

Quite a bit of damage could be done by 250=500lb GP bombs but not flooding or sinking the ship without a huge number of hits.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Dauntlesses seem to have been able to sink quite a few heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers (some converted battleships). I know it was a tough boat but I'm not sure I buy that the Bismarck was immune to bombs, or that a 1000 lb armor piercing bomb is going to "bounce off" off of a battleship. I'm sure it would be harder to sink with bombs than torpedoes, every large ship was, but I think you'd still be better off with SBD's than Swordfish due to range and speed.
> 
> Maybe that's another thread idea: Could you sink the Bismarck with bombs?
> 
> ...



IIRC, the Albacore:-

1. Could detect surface vessels with radar. Had a good range.
2. Was a lousy torpedo bomber. They missed the Tirpitz.
3. Okay for night attacks on invasion barges in 1940.
4. Used for close support including dive bombing in Operation Torch.
5. Did good work in the Western Desert at night in bombing raids.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 529753
> 
> 
> The bombs will not bounce off, but getting them into the ship where vital systems are located is quite different. The 50mm deck might not stop even a 500lb bomb but it will trigger the fuse and the 20/30mm deck below may catch most of the splinters. A 1000lb bomb might not make it through the main deck armor (main deck being the 80mm deck right over the turbine rooms, not the top deck the crew would walk on outside.
> ...



I think this is the source of confusion. There is a _big_ difference between this






and this*






An armor piercing bomb coming down nose first and have an armored shell. They did punch through the armored decks of many ships and by simply detonating immediately destroyed turrets. Quite often just a few AP bomb hits were enough to sink fairly heavy warships. Consider for example the HMS Dorsetshire heavy cruiser sunk by D3A 'Val" dive bombers in the Indian Ocean. It was hit with eight 250 and 550 lb bombs and sank ten minutes later.

Like I said, a 1,000 AP bomb as carried by the SBD while not quite as formidable as a torpedo, can wreak a great deal of havoc. An unlike a torpedo doesn't have to contend with the main armor of a battleship ( the belts). The dive bomber will also hit with far more precision than any level bombs.

*I know that's from a video game it's the most accurate image I could google.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC, the Albacore:-
> 
> 1. Could detect surface vessels with radar. Had a good range.
> 2. Was a lousy torpedo bomber. They missed the Tirpitz.
> ...




So compare that to the combat history of the Stuka, D3A, B5N, SBD, Pe 2, A-20, Wellington, or even the TBF... or even the Swordish. It isn't much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 20, 2019)

Cruisers were relatively lightly armored in comparison to modern Battleships and were quite vulnerable to dive bombing. Whether or not a 1000 Lb AP bomb would penetrate to machinery spaces or magazines considerable damage to AA, fire control, can easily result. Magazines and ready ammunition for secondary battery's would still be vulnerable. Dive bombers were certainly important, if not totally responsible for loss of Musashi and Yamato.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I would argue that if for example the Royal Navy had large numbers of SBD's ... the Bismarck would have been sunk much more quickly



A point worth mentioning is that the cloud base in the North Atlantic is usually very low (500 m / 1500 ft, according to this paper). I'm not sure a dive bomber would be very useful from that height, especially up in the Denmark Strait, where the weather is especially filthy.


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 20, 2019)

The data in the above report was collected in the Trade Wind latitudes and not the sub arctic and Northern Atlantic. In the Denmark Straits fog was more of an issue. Surprisingly though surface visibility can be poor, vertical visibility (down) from an aircraft can be useable. My dad was with the fleet off Okinawa and they made smoke, which might have deterred torpedo planes, was ineffective against the Kamikazi threat as it affected the response of the AA battery but the planes could easily see the ships in the vertical plane, and a forest of masts sticking up. 

Dark, low clouds, high seas, fog, all friends of the raider.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think this is the source of confusion. There is a _big_ difference between this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is quite a bit more complicated than that. The bombs that are dropped horizontal, like the first picture will turn/tip until they are nose down if dropped from sufficient height. Even in that photo you can see the bombs starting to tip. A low altitude release does complicate things. 
The next question/factor is the the fuse and the delay being used. And how fast the bomb is going at impact. You don't want the bomb to go off instantaneously on impact (before it has penetrated at least one deck) but it takes longer (bomb is moving slower) after going thought 1-2 inches of armor vs 3/8-1/2 of soft steel. 

The 1600lb AP bomb that is so famous in American circles was actually not used very much. It was only introduced in May of 1942 and I have no idea how long it took to replace all the existing AP bombs of which there were five. there were the 600lb M62, the 800lb M61, the 900lb M60, the 1000lb M52 and the 1400lb M63. These were all converted naval shells and carried about 5% ammonium picrate busting charges. The 1600lb AP MK I used a 209lb bursting charge of ammonium picrate (13%) but the older planes couldn't lift it. 
It was supposed to defeat 7 in of class B armor (release conditions not stated) and go through a 5in deck when dropped from 7500ft or when released from 4500ft in a 300kt, 60 degree dive. 
Now we run into the problems of actual use,
#1 when dropped as described above the chances of hitting are reduced compared to hitting with "normal" bombs dropped from lower altitudes.
#2 they are only needed against the mostly heavily armored battleships. Most of the rebuilt WW I battleships didn't have anywhere near that kind of of deck armor. As a result most carriers seldom carried more than 20 such bombs at a time. I tend to doubt that any showed up at Henderson field as it is an incredibly crappy bomb for use against ground targets or unarmored ships. 

The 1000lb MK 33 AP bomb came into use in October 1942 and had a 15% bursting charge and could penetrate the same 5in deck when dropped from 10,000ft or from 6500ft in a 300kt/60 degree dive. 

There was a 1000lb MK 59 Semi Armor Piercing bomb with a 30% busting charge. These compare to the more standard US GP bombs with 50-52% TNT bursting charges although the 1000lb MK 44 was just under 60%. 

Cruisers varied considerably when it came to armor and while the HMS Dorchester was not quite in the same catagory as some French and Italian cruisers (eggshells armed with hammers) it wasn't particularly well armored either. Being built in the late 20s and of the first generation of treaty cruisers she was early on the learning curve, didn't have as light weight machinery as some later cruisers and devoted a bit more weight to sea keeping (higher free board) than many later cruisers, the British didn't cheat as bad as some later cruisers either. This basically meant the counties had 4-1in box armor around the magazines, 1in armor on the hull sides (small patch over the machinery) and 1in turrets/ring bulkheads/babettes/ammo hoists as built, I don't know if she was up armoured later, one book claims here HA (4in ) magazine exploded after one of the bomb hits. 

I would also note that most torpedoes didn't have to contend with the belt armor, they hit under it if they were running properly. The belt armor only extend down about 6 ft (give or take) at normal load on most battleships. See diagram in previous post. What they did have to contend with was a series of void spaces and fuel tanks that separated the outer hull from a water tight (hopefully) bulkhead a number of feet inside the ship, it is the vertical red line next to turbine rooms marked 45 in the diagram. This armoured bulkhead was supposed to stop any high velocity fragments blown inwards by the torpedo explosion. The fuel oil and void spaces were supposed to absorb the explosion and dissipate the energy. You still had a huge hole in the side of the ship but hopefully the flooding was contained and could be dealt with by pumps and counter flooding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2019)

From another web site.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Bombs

*General-purpose* or demolition bombs had thin metal walls, a large explosive charge, and a contact fuse that was triggered by a relatively light impact. Such weapons were effective against soft targets, which included unarmored ships, infantry in the open, and most civilian installations. 

The Japanese D3A "Val" usually carried the Type 99 Number 25 Model 1 Ordinary general-purpose bomb, which was designed for attacks on unarmored or lightly armored ships. This bomb weighed 250kg (551 lbs) of which about 62 kg (136 lbs) was high explosive. Its fuse was initiated by impact on ordinary steel plating and had a 0.2 second delay. This allowed the bomb to penetrate 20 to 40 feet (6 to 12 meters) before detonating. However, it had a somewhat high dud rate, with perhaps 27% of those used at Pearl Harbor either failing to detonate or giving low-order detonations. Australian troops at Rabaul in January 1942 also reported a high dud rate. Its American counterparts were fused to detonate after just 0.1 seconds in order to tear up carrier flight decks. The Americans estimated that three hits with 500 lb (227 kg) GP bombs would almost certainly sink a 1630-ton destroyer and had a 70% chance of sinking a 2100-ton destroyer. Three hits with 1000 lb (454 kg) GP bombs had a 95% chance of sinking a relatively lightly protected _Atlanta_-class light cruiser and a 30% chance of sinking a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser. Six hits with the 1000-lb bomb gave a 80% chance of sinking a heavy cruiser"

"
*Armor-piercing* bombs had thick steel cases, a relatively small explosive charge, and a delayed fuse that did not detonate the explosive until a few tenths of a second or more after the bomb hit a substantial solid surface. This gave time for the bomb to penetrate before detonating. AP bombs were useful against armored ships, bunkers, concrete runways, and other hardened targets.

The Japanese apparently did not develop an armor-piercing bomb until 1941. The Type 99 Number 80 Mark 5, used at Pearl Harbor, was remanufactured from obsolete 16" battleship shells. Out of a total weight of 800 kg (1760 lbs), the bomb had a charge of just 23 kg (50 pounds) of Type 91 explosive. The Type 99 had two base fuzes with 0.2 second delay that were insensitive enough to require impact on armor plate for fuze initiation. One such bomb went clear through _Vestal_ at Pearl Harbor to explode on the harbor floor under the ship. The Type 99 was judged capable of penetrating 5.75" (146mm) of deck armor when dropped from a height of 10,000 feet (3000m). Unfortunately for the Japanese, the Type 99 had a high dud rate, due to weaknesses in the bomb case introduced during the remanufacturing process and poor quality control with the explosive fill. Of those that scored hits at Pearl Harbor, 20% failed to explode and another 40% yielded only low order explosions. The Japanese never developed an armor-piercing bomb light enough to be carried by a dive bomber, probably because they did not believe it was possible to develop a lighter AP bomb capable of penetrating battleship deck armor, and possibly also because of the shortage of the high-quality steel required for such weapons. "

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 20, 2019)

The standard bomb used by the Japanese was a 550 lb bomb and the one most often mentioned as used by the SBD was a 1,000 lb bomb. Neither your 1600 lb bomb nor your 1,760 / 800kg bomb are known to me. It is sometimes referred to as a 'semi-armor piercing' bomb.

Looking at this list of Japanese bombs on Wikipedia it mentions their Type 99 No.25 550 lb bomb (132 lbs of special high explosive) which can penetrate 50mm of armor and their Type 98 No.25 bomb (211 lbs of explosives) which can penetrate 400 inches of reinforced concrete. These were both I assume 'semi-armor piercing'

List of Japanese World War II navy bombs - Wikipedia

However, a bomb did not have to penetrate all the way down to engineering spaces, fuel cells or engine room to cripple or sink a ship. Once ammunition, fuel, or various flammable fluids get burning well enough in a ship, the steel itself will catch fire. If you have read books like Neptune's Inferno you'll know a bit about what that is like. Many large ships were destroyed when their scout / float plane fuel caught fire (the Japanese used to jettison it before battle to prevent this).

Superstructures and the bridge etc. were typically vulnerable to bomb hits as well.

The website you were quoting from has some interesting and helpful estimates as to the effectiveness of bombs:

_"The Americans estimated that three hits with 500 lb (227 kg) GP bombs would almost certainly sink a 1630-ton destroyer and had a 70% chance of sinking a 2100-ton destroyer. Three hits with 1000 lb (454 kg) GP bombs had a 95% chance of sinking a relatively lightly protected Atlanta-class light cruiser and a 30% chance of sinking a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser. Six hits with the 1000-lb bomb gave a 80% chance of sinking a heavy cruiser.

Nine Allied cruisers were sunk by general-purpose bombs during the Second World War. A single bomb hit required an average of six to seven weeks in a shipyard to repair, and a particularly damaging hit (such as the 500kg or 1100 lb hit on British cruiser Suffolk that forced her to beach) could take up to eight months to repair."_

So by that math, if it took three hits for a 30% chance sink a heavy cruiser of 10,000 tons, and 6 hits for an 80% chance, the 50,000 ton Bismarck was probably going to require about 12-15 bomb hits to sink or be sufficiently crippled so as to no longer fight back. This wouldn't be hard for a large formation of SBD's given that it was a single large target with no escorting ships and no air support.

Anyway that website you linked mentions two types of bombs probably carried by the SBD.

"Much more widely used was the Mark 33, introduced in October 1942, which weighed 1000 lbs (454kg) of which 150 lbs (68 kg) was high explosive. *The Mark 33 could penetrate a 5" deck from 10,000' (3050m) or from 6500' (1980m) when dropped from a dive bomber in a 300 knot 60 degree dive*. "

Then they give us more helpful estimates:

_"The Americans estimated that seven penetrating bomb hits would be enough to sink a battleship, while the Japanese estimated that 12 to 16 penetrating hits were required. American operational analysts later revised their estimates, concluding that the Mark 33 could sink a battleship only if it hit a magazine, which worked out to a 79% chance of sinking a battleship with six penetrating hits.

*Semi-armor-piercing bombs* were a compromise between the penetrating ability of an armor-piercing bomb and the large explosive charge of a general purpose bomb. They were useful against lightly armored ships and reinforced concrete structures."_

So my estimate was a bit over-conservative, it sounds like 6 good hits with true AP bombs (Mark 33) would probably sink the Bismarck, maybe 12-15 hits with the more common 'semi-armor piercing" bombs.

As a bonus, I found a diagram of the Mk 33








*TL : DR *Yes the Dauntless could have sunk the Bismarck. Probably in one strike, maybe 2 or 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 20, 2019)

There has been a lot of talk about the relative inability of divebombers to destroy battleships. I submit that it was not necessary for divebombers to destroy battleships to turn the tide of the war. It was necessary for dive bombers to destroy - or at least put out of action - aircraft carriers. Both the D3A and the SBD were good at it when flown by experienced aviators. In addition to sinking the 4 aircraft carriers in the Midway battle, SBDs also sunk the Mikuma and put the Mogami out of action for two years. These two heavy cruisers could have been enough to tip the balance at Guadalcanal later in the year. 

Success at Midway allowed the Americans to take Guadalcanal in a defensive offensive action. It was defensive because failure to take Guadalcanal would have allowed Japan to control the direct supply lines to Australia if Japan had gotten the airfield operational. The F4F defended the air around Guadalcanal, but it was primarily the SBD that defended the sea approaches to Guadalcanal and made sure the Japanese could not conduct day operations for a couple hundred miles up the slot. The repeated failure of the Japanese to neutralize Henderson Field and the SBDs flying from it doomed the Japanese effort to retake the island. The Wildcats would not have been able to defend the island if the Tokyo Express would have been able to approach the island and bombard the airstrips with impunity. As it was, the Toyko express came close to bombarding the island out of service. Had these ships been able to arrive earlier and stay later, it might have made the crucial difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So compare that to the combat history of the Stuka, D3A, B5N, SBD, Pe 2, A-20, Wellington, or even the TBF... or even the Swordish. It isn't much.


So the Albacore is like a Fairey Battle, but a biplane, which you only use at night or in bad weather that can operate off carriers and doesn't get shot down so often. Slower but better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Feb 21, 2019)

Let's consider that the whole Earth is a geoid that can be approximated by an ellissoid that can be approximated by a sphere.
So there'a difference between a lossodromic and an orthodromic navigation and a look on a planisphere will show places in a different way than in a map made with a Mercator's projection.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The standard bomb used by the Japanese was a 550 lb bomb and the one most often mentioned as used by the SBD was a 1,000 lb bomb. Neither your 1600 lb bomb nor your 1,760 / 800kg bomb are known to me. It is sometimes referred to as a 'semi-armor piercing' bomb.



Not_ my_ 1600lb bomb. I rather dislike the thing because it is used to distort the capabilities of many american aircraft. Like a late model P-61 had a 6400lb bomb load turns out it is four 1600lb armour piercing bombs which many never have been dropped from P-61 in action. Using radar equipped night fighters as bombers means you really control the air. The 1600lb bomb was actually smaller than the 1000lb GP (HE) bomb and would fit either the same racks or in some cases (like the B-17) you could stuff in eight where only six of the fatter bombs would fit. Given the low amount of explosive it was no better at attacking soft targets (or moving dirt) than a 500lb GP bomb. 

There were at least four US 1000lb bombs, All four were only in service for short period of time. The MK 33 AP bomb replacing the earlier M52. 




Schweik said:


> Looking at this list of Japanese bombs on Wikipedia it mentions their Type 99 No.25 550 lb bomb (132 lbs of special high explosive) which can penetrate 50mm of armor and their Type 98 No.25 bomb (211 lbs of explosives) which can penetrate 400 inches of reinforced concrete. These were both I assume 'semi-armor piercing'



Sort of semi AP bombs, the Type 99 No.25 certainly was, construction being "One piece of machine forged 3/4 inch steel " while the Type 98 No.25 bomb was "Welded and riveted 1/2 inch steel " seems a bit dubious for getting through armor without the bomb breaking up. I guess it depends on the thickness and quality of the armor. 



Schweik said:


> However, a bomb did not have to penetrate all the way down to engineering spaces, fuel cells or engine room to cripple or sink a ship. Once ammunition, fuel, or various flammable fluids get burning well enough in a ship, the steel itself will catch fire. If you have read books like Neptune's Inferno you'll know a bit about what that is like. Many large ships were destroyed when their scout / float plane fuel caught fire (the Japanese used to jettison it before battle to prevent this).



The chances of setting ship steel on fire is pretty slim. It has to do with the surface area exposed to air, the rate of combustion and the path/s for heat to be conducted away from the area buring. You can get iron (steel) to burn if the particles are small enough, like thermite but getting a steel plate to burn is like trying to set fire to a 12in log with a paper match. 

Aluminum will burn but even it is a bitch unless real thin (yes they found that aluminum superstructures will burn in the Falklands and a few other places) . Dried paint on hot steel burns real well though. 


Schweik said:


> Yes the Dauntless could have sunk the Bismarck. Probably in one strike, maybe 2 or 3.



This is a bit dubious, it may depend on how long after the raids stop. The Bismark "survived" dozens of major caliber shell hits, she was essentially non functional but it took several torpedo hits (accounts vary) and scuttling charges? (depending on account) to put her under water in the time the British had available (they didn't want to hang around for hours or a day or two to see if the damage already done would sink her)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 21, 2019)

A single 250 kg bomb hit to #1 turret of battleship South Dakota in the Battle of Santa Cruz may have caused undetected electrical system damage that rendered the battleship ineffective in the early stages of the second naval battle of Guadalcanal shortly thereafter.


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 21, 2019)

I haven't heard about the bomb hit on the turret of SODAK causing any subsequent electrical issues, though the Captain, Thomas Gatch was wounded by fragments.

Earlier Bismarck was discussed. Tripitz, which had a very marginally thicker armored deck did absorb a number of dive bombing attacks. The lighter bombs generally did not penetrate the main armored deck but caused great havoc. Several hits were made by 750 KG bombs, one of which did penetrate the main armored deck, but did not explode. Had this bomb exploded it was considered that it would have put the ship out of action for a lengthy period. Many of the bombs were dropped from too low of an altitude so as to ensure hits. 

One must remember that all of the ships offensive power is above the armored deck and outside the turrets and conning tower, is if armored at all, plated to a much reduced thickness. The deck armor scheme is probably only marginally resistant to 2000 LB AP bombs. 

As a raider, it wouldn't have taken too many hits, even from smaller bombs to effect a mission kill.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2019)

Things changed over the years, Midway was almost 3 years after the war started in Poland. The early (1939//40) aircraft let alone 1930s aircraft could not carry big enough bombs and drop them from high enough altitudes to get the penetration required on *modern *battleships, which were still the primary target. Only the Japanese and Americans had enough planes on carriers to peck large modern ships to death (you weren't going to get 50-60 dive bombers together from a British carrier group unless you had 3-4 carriers their air groups were too small). 
So torpedoes were the only way to seriously threaten large ships with limited amounts of airplanes. 
Older battleships and Cruisers (even modern ones) were susceptible to smaller bombs and/or ones dropped from lower altitudes as were carriers. 

The US was introducing the Avenger in the summer of 1942 and it's 1700hp engine changed the game. The Helldiver _should _have been coming into service at that time (it was ordered before the Avenger) but development problems delayed it's combat debut until Nov 1942 and it's widespread use was months after that. What the American, British and Japanese Navies could do (or not do) later in the war in regards to size of bombs or numbers of bombs dropped (number of aircraft in a strike) should be very carefully considered when being used to critique early war policies/practices.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2019)

The South Dakota electrical system was famously shorting out all through the "Second Naval battle of Guadalcanal" of 14-15 November, crippling the ship, but at least in part due to an engineer taping down a breaker, and ended up basically half-crippled, and the Washington did most of the damage to Japanese ships and won all the glory in one of the wars very very rare battleship duels. What was causing the original short was never clear as far as I know.

As for steel burning, I don't know the physics, if it's due to high temperature ammunition burning or aviation fuel or what, but according to Neptune's Inferno survivors from the Atlanta, Juneau, Portland, San Fransisco etc. reported the structure of their ships itself burning in various horrific anecdotes.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2019)

I don't think the TBF Avenger was as useful as it probably should have been. It didn't do particularly well (even accounting for bad torpedoes) in the early years of the war (there were 6 at Midway). It did better when the torpedoes were fixed and some of the teething problems ironed out, and it was never the dud that the Helldiver was, but it was really too big for carrier operations, too big of a target, too vulnerable, too slow, took up too much room on the boat, used too much fuel, spent too much time in the hangar and didn't have particularly good range for it's enormous size. If you ever look at one in real life it's like a bus, not an elegant design.

I think the SBD was hands down, vastly more useful as an aircraft than the TBF. It could kill at a long distance, it was a precise attacker with a high damage-to-sortie ratio, it could survive combat (with a low loss ratio), shoot down enemy planes, and it could operate from small carriers.

Part of that is the problem with US torpedoes, if you had put Italian 'motobomba' torpedoes on them in mid 1942 or even Japanese or British torpedoes they might have been a much more lethal package, but that is not what happened historically. Torpedoes weren't any good until nearly the end of 42 and as a bomber, the TBF was ungainly and inaccurate. Putting rockets on them later in the war made them more useful but they were still overly vulnerable to flak due to size and clumsy handling.

To me the TBF is one of those cases of wasting a nice powerful (if very big) engine in an airplane that was probably crippled by committee with too many contradictory requirements.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *D3A1* - range 800 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.7mm and 1 x 1.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 551 lb and 2 x 132 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes



1000hp engine, loaded weight 8,047lbs range 795 Nautical miles, 915 stature miles 



Schweik said:


> *B5N2 *- range 1,200 miles, speed 235 mph, guns 1 x 7.7mm defensive, bomb load 1 x 1760 lb torpedo



1000hp engine, max weight 9,039 lbs range 528 nautical miles (608 statute) normal 1075 nautical (1275 statute ) max range. 



Schweik said:


> *SBD3* - range 1,115 miles, speed 255 mph, guns 2 x 12.7mm (offensive), 1 x 7.62mm (later 2 x) defensive, bombs 2,250 (usually one 1,000 lb AP bomb). Dive bomber = Yes



1000hp engine, max weight 9,031lbs, max range with 1000lb bomb is under nautical miles,book speed at 16,000ft is 190 kts at 65% power and the fuel burn at 65% power is around 52 gallons an hour, at 5,000ft the speed at 65% power is 173 kts and the fuel burn is about 47 gallons an hour. 
to compare to the Japanese aircraft the self sealing tanks and armor were over 600lbs so an additional 100 gallons could be put another 2 hours of of flight time ) without going over weight if you wanted to run without protection. 




Schweik said:


> *JU-87B *- range 311 miles, speed 242 mph, guns 2 x 7.92 (offensive), 1 x 7.92 (defensive), bombs 550 lbs bomb plus 4 x 110 lb bombs. Dive bomber = Yes



1200hp engine, can easiley carry at least an 1100lb bomb if the wing bombs are not carried, The R model had extra 33 imp gallon tanks added inside the outer wings (a 62% increase internal fuel plus the already mentioned 66imp gallon drop tanks but bomb load with full fuel may have been restricted to 551lbs, People with the manuals may differ on this. but range is substantially increased. the R started going into service in 1940 in time for at least a few to be used in Norway.



Schweik said:


> *TBD Devastator* - range 435 miles, speed 206 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 or 12.7mm mg (offensive), 1 x 7.62 mph, bombs 1,000 or 1 x torpedo


looking for more info, 900 hp engine. 


Schweik said:


> *TBF Avenger* - range 1,000 miles, speed 275 mph, guns 1 x 7.62 (offensive), 1 x 12.7 and 1 x 7.62 (defensive), 1 x 2,000 lb torpedo


The plane could carry the torpedo the full 1000 miles (no fuel alloted to starting, take-off, climb or reserve) the bomb bay could also handle a single 2000lb bomb, the 1600lb AP bomb two 1000lbs, four 500 lb bombs or twelve 100lb bombs. amazing what 1700hp and 15-16,000lbs of airplane can do. 

more later


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't think the TBF Avenger was as useful as it probably should have been. It didn't do particularly well (even accounting for bad torpedoes) in the early years of the war (there were 6 at Midway). It did better when the torpedoes were fixed and some of the teething problems ironed out, and it was never the dud that the Helldiver was, but it was really too big for carrier operations, too big of a target, too vulnerable, too slow, took up too much room on the boat, used too much fuel, spent too much time in the hangar and didn't have particularly good range for it's enormous size. If you ever look at one in real life it's like a bus, not an elegant design.



Just what could out range it in 1942-43 as far as load carrying carrier aircraft? 



> I think the SBD was hands down, vastly more useful as an aircraft than the TBF. *It could kill at a long distance*, it was a precise attacker with a high damage-to-sortie ratio, it could survive combat (with a low loss ratio), shoot down enemy planes, and* it could operate from small carriers*.



They operated Avengers from jeep carriers. The SBD had nowhere near the range, at least until they fitted more powerful engines to the SBD in the -5 and -6 models. 
Sure you could put 260 gallons into the tanks of the SPD-3 and fly 1000 miles, you just didn't do it with a bomb under the plane. which puts the Kill at long distance back on the shelf. 




> To me the TBF is one of those cases of wasting a nice powerful (if very big) engine in an airplane that was probably crippled by committee with too many contradictory requirements.



Since the TBD lasted until well into the 50s as an operational aircraft it must have been of some use. There were a lot of contradictory requirements but at the time it was one of the best carrier borne strike aircraft in the world. the failure of the torpedo should not be blamed on the Avenger. And unfortunately the "fix" was always just a few weeks (or months) away and not the well over one year if finally took.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 21, 2019)

You seem to judge a bomber with how much ordinance they could carry - I judge them on the basis of how much they damaged the enemy. The SBD sunk a lot of enemy ships and at the critical phase of the war. The TBF / TBM didn't have the same kind of service record in terms of sinking enemy ships, let alone without fighter cover.

Like I said before, the notion of bombers as 'bomb trucks' or measuring bomb tonnage 'delivered' as some kind of indicator of success is oneof the reasons why the US lost the Vietnam War. Bombs do a lot of damage, even small ones, _if they hit their target_. You can drop 100,000 tons of bombs in the water and it's completely useless against the enemy fleet. See the US B-17 in action in an anti-shipping capacity. And it's basically the same on land it's just harder to tell if you hit your target or not when you unload an avalanche of ordninance on the side of a wooded hill, so we tend to assume we did, give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. To do any less would be unpatriotic, right?

As for range, typically the ranges quoted for bombers and most aircraft are optimal range with light ordinance, or with extra fuel. Actual strike ranges for all the aircraft in the list I posted was usually a lot less, probably 1/3 of the posted range when carrying heavy ordinance. My understanding is that the TBF had a real world strike range of about 300 nautical miles or ~350 statute miles.

As for which aircraft outranged it, how about the B5N and the B6N? Even the SB2C for all it's many faults.


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 21, 2019)

drgondog said:


> I generally agreed with Wes' perspectives about parsing major turning points in WWII - but would favor the failure to take Moscow in 1941 as my personal 'fav'' Capturing Moscow was far more than symbolic - it was THE rail network from all points east, north and south and most importantly from major industrial centers to east and oil to south west. USSR logistics to fight, and supply armies fighting Germany would have been an impossible task.



Frankly, I don't consider Battle of Moscow to be major turning point (rather one of major stumbling blocks for Germany) but I fully support the reminder about importance of Moscow as very important rail hub - the most important for USSR rail network at that time.


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 21, 2019)

I don't know why we are discussing the theoretical capability of various aircraft in this thread. this thread is which airplane DID the most to turn the tide, not which aircraft COULD HAVE. the SBD DID turn the tide at Midway. Now if the question is which is the aircraft that outperformed expectations the most, my vote would be the Swordfish which performed valuable roles at Taranto, the hunt for the Bismark, and in antisubmarine operations in the Atlantic. Even with those successes, it falls behind the SBD in my book as a tide-turner.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 21, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Frankly, I don't consider Battle of Moscow to be major turning point (rather one of major stumbling blocks for Germany) but I fully support the reminder about importance of Moscow as very important rail hub - the most important for USSR rail network at that time.


Stalin not getting captured was important too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Yak-1 and IL-2 only come into play because they didn't suck as bad the I-16 and SU-2.



I should not steer away off the topic... but can't resist to note that neither Su-2 "sucked bad" (all factors taken into account) nor Il-2 proved to be better aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2019)

How much it can carry is one attribute. 

The "box score" of how much damage a type did to the enemy needs an awful lot of research. For the British they built 800 Albacores and 2391 Swordfish. Just the law of averages tells you the Swordfish _should _have caused 3 times the damage (it did far more than average). 

I also prefer actual ranges rather than rough estimates if we can find them.

Wiki is a terrible source in this regard as it tends to list the maximum of everything, max speed when clean, max range with max fuel (often without bombs) max bomb load (even if the range is absurdly short) like for the B-17.

*Short range missions (<400 mi):* 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
*Long range missions (≈800 mi):* 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
*Overload:* 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)
That 17,600lbs is technically correct but it took six of the already mentioned 1600 AP bombs in the bomb bay and two 4000lb bombs under the wings on external racks to get to that weight of bombs. An almost useless payload as the range of the B-17 so loaded was barely enough to cross the channel and the two bombs have different trajectories so they can't be dropped at the same time in the same target (unless it is an area target but then why are you using AP bombs?) 

A good _useful _bomb load does beat a lighter useful bomb load. Useless bomb loads just to reach a high number mean nothing (B-26 Marauder 5200lbs, made up of one 2000lb topedo and two 16000lb AP bombs) nice number but you have to drop the torpedo first (preferably from under 200 feet) and the climb to altitude where the 1600lb will actually penetrate armor. 

perhaps the SBC2 did out range the Avenger at times but it takes a certain set of circumstances. Both planes used essentially the same engine and Wiki seems to list the last models, the 1942/43 versions of both planes used 1700hp engines (Wright had only built about 175 of the 1900hp versions by the end of Sept 1943).
The Avenger had 335 gallons of internal fuel and while the Helldiver could hold 330 (on early versions). Both could use drop tanks, at least after a while and both were also rigged to use fuel tanks mounted in the bomb bay, so total fuel load an vary considerably. 
The Japanese B5N didn't have a prayer of out ranging the Avenger. 
For the B6N we get back into the "it depends" arena. 

The later Avengers (-3) had the 1900hp engine, it was possible to fit them with a pair of 100 gallon underwing drop tanks leaving the bomb bay clear. for "scouting" use it was possible to fit a 275 gallon tank in the bombay. Providing the proper tanks were available (and they may not have been a number of times) the Grumman wins hands down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Feb 21, 2019)

The Grumman was on occasion fitted with RADAR. As for scouting this was a great aid in two ways, finding an enemy fleet, and as far as the crew was concerned, finding your own.


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 21, 2019)

fliger747 said:


> The Grumman was on occasion fitted with RADAR. As for scouting this was a great aid in two ways, finding an enemy fleet, and as far as the crew was concerned, finding your own.



SBDs in the -4 and -5 series were also generally equipped with radar. The difference is these later SBDs (despite makng up the majority of units produced) found very little service with front line units. The Swordfish first got radar in 1940, two years earlier than American naval attack planes.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2019)

The airborne radar on the Swordfish is pretty impressive. On one level, a lot of these odd-duck type of British planes seemed to have one quality in spades - versatility. And in war that is a really important one.

An Albacore may have been a bit better than a Battle in theory, but that is a pretty low bar isn't it? The Swordfish was really a fantastic, advanced aircraft for the previous war, and would have been a world beater _in 1917_. In 1940 it was a bit of an embarrassment in my opinion. A lot of the pilots who flew it seem to have felt that way. The problems with the Fleet Air Arm's procurement policies are perhaps worthy of another thread. But I personally find it baffling that the nation which produced the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the Wellington, the Lancaster, the Sunderland, the Whirlwind, the Gloster Meteor and so on - was also designing and fielding weapons like the Blackburn Roc and the Fairey Fulmar which seem to be so generally unsuitable for combat, and even to the end of the war didn't seem to be able to get viable designs into action, with the marginal success of the Firefly (even though it remained in use into the 50's) and the Barracuda.

And speaking of the 50's, what the hell is this?

The Royal Navy pilots nevertheless persevered and figured out innovative ways to make their gear work, sometimes with incredible bravery, but they were struggling with a handicap. In my opinion the triumphs of Taranto and against the Bismarck had more to do with the pluck of the men in action than the kit they had to use.

It's a bit like the nightmare with the "unlucky" American Mk 13 torpedo and the Mark 14, and Mk 15 torpedoes. How could such a massively important weapon have been so miserably botched for so long. The disadvantage to US forces in the Pacific, not only with their bombers, and once again thank God for the SBD, but in ship to ship and submarine to ship combat was incredibly tragic. Ship to ship combat when only one side could use torpedoes was not fun (thank god for radar, eventually) and submarine warfare with dud torpedoes was a nightmare.

The American navy had it's own problems with aircraft procurement too look at the SB2C, the SO3C Seamew etc.

It's fascinating to me how some bureaucratic problems are so intractable, even with the existential threats faced by every major nation in World War II. And every nation had their own problems of this type.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 22, 2019)

The SOC3 was a scouting aircraft - not an attack aircraft.
The SB2C had it's issues, but by the last half of the war, it was more than proving itself.

And again, the SBD, despite the scrutiny, did turn the tide of the Pacific war through it's efforts at Midway. There is literally no other aircraft that can hold that title.
I know it's been mentioned that it wasn't the SBD but other "factors" that turned the tide of that battle, but in all honesty, when divebombers cripple and sink a fleet's compliment of carriers by themselves, "themselves" meaning no other aircraft or surface ship was involved in the sinking, then that carries weight in the SBD's favor.

In addition, the SBD was one of the only dedicated divebombers to have a positive enemy aircraft kill ratio, ending up downing 136 enemy aircraft in combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 22, 2019)

It takes time to implement changes on assembly lines that are in full production. B-24s that came out of Willow Run were sent to modification centers before being issued.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> 1200hp engine, can easiley carry at least an 1100lb bomb if the wing bombs are not carried, The R model had extra 33 imp gallon tanks added inside the outer wings (a 62% increase internal fuel plus the already mentioned 66imp gallon drop tanks but bomb load with full fuel may have been restricted to 551lbs, People with the manuals may differ on this. but range is substantially increased. the R started going into service in 1940 in time for at least a few to be used in Norway.



Ju-87R-1, 1000 HP engine, can carry armor + 2200 lb bomb + 2x66 US gal drop tanks all in the same time:





:


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2019)

Thank you, information on the "R"s is spotty and often contradictory. Some sources claiming for example that the R-1s used the Jumo 211a engine, the R-2s used 211 b (or d) and the R-4s used the 211J. Some mention internal wing tanks, some don't.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And speaking of the 50's, what the hell is this?



Basically a turbo prop Avenger replacement.

Which must be a mistake as the Avenger was near useless, right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, information on the "R"s is spotty and often contradictory. Some sources claiming for example that the R-1s used the Jumo 211a engine, the R-2s used 211 b (or d) and the R-4s used the 211J. Some mention internal wing tanks, some don't.



The Ju-87R-1 was a LR version of the B-1 (1000 HP for TO both with Jumo 211A), R-2 was a version of B-2 (1200 HP for TO with Jumo 211B, probably D was also used). R-4 was probably based on Ju-87D, though the manual for the later D's (D-5 of 1944) list drop tanks facility as standard equipment.
The D-5 went at 6.5 tons max for take off, so it might be that extra internal fuel tankage was added.

added: seems like tanks of 150 L each were installed, outboard of the wing guns & ammo on the Ds, already from D-1s.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2019)

So what is the real strike range for various main versions of the Ju 87?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2019)

We're looking at probably 300-350 km for the 87B-1/B-2, 500-600 km for the R-1/R-2, and a little bit more for R-4 and 87Ds with drop tanks. Meaning, for the 'Imperial' guys, between ~200 and ~450 miles worth of radius.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Basically a turbo prop Avenger replacement.
> 
> Which must be a mistake as the Avenger was near useless, right?


In 1958 it replaced the Skyraider in the AEW role too, another of those obsolete piston engine planes.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The SOC3 was a scouting aircraft - not an attack aircraft.
> The SB2C had it's issues, but by the last half of the war, it was more than proving itself.



I'm well aware the SO3C was a scout plane (and rescue, ASW etc.) but scout planes were pretty important in WW2 naval combat. Especially for the Americans who really needed their heavy gun-ships (BB's, BC's, CA's and CL's) since their torpedoes didn't work in the first year or two of the war, rendering Destroyers severely weakened in terms of effectiveness.

Also lets be real, scouting, maritime patrol and ASW were a big part of what some of the other planes we are discussing - Swordfish, Albacore, and postwar Gannett - actually _did _in the war. The TBF sunk some enemy ships but it too spent a lot of time in this kind of role. Certainly that's all it was good for in the 50's, I wouldn't want to see one squaring off with a Mig 15.



> And again, the SBD, despite the scrutiny, did turn the tide of the Pacific war through it's efforts at Midway. There is literally no other aircraft that can hold that title.
> I know it's been mentioned that it wasn't the SBD but other "factors" that turned the tide of that battle, but in all honesty, when divebombers cripple and sink a fleet's compliment of carriers by themselves, "themselves" meaning no other aircraft or surface ship was involved in the sinking, then that carries weight in the SBD's favor.



I would say Coral Sea, Midway, and the Solomons campaign, not just Midway.



> In addition, the SBD was one of the only dedicated divebombers to have a positive enemy aircraft kill ratio, ending up downing 136 enemy aircraft in combat.



Lethal and versatile.

SBD was one of those planes that was kind of thought of as stop-gap. In a way, similar to the Ju 87. I don't think it was ever realized in the 30's what an important role the Ju 87 was still going to play in the mid 40's.

Being reliable, lethal and versatile - and a good dive bomber, meant that it was a lot more effective than most other bombers around.

Torpedo planes were only as lethal as the torpedoes they carried, but they never had a particularly good survivability ratio and usually weren't that good at much else.

TBFs and their ilk weren't very good at attacking land targets. Fighters ended up being more useful for that... for the Americans the F4U, the F6F, the P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 began taking over a lot of the Tactical bombing of ground targets in the second half of the war, and only medium bombers reconfigured as strafers and skip-bombers continued in their intended role.

SBD was a limited exception, as the A-24 and particularly in Marine hands as the SBD they proved useful in ground attack, because they could hit targets better than fighters and survive sorties about as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 22, 2019)

I would amend the above to note that larger, 2-3 engine land based bombers which could carry torpedoes were often quite versatile and generally useful. Ju 88, SM 79, Wellington, A-20 and G4M come to mind.

I also don't mean to denigrate ASW patrolling etc, it was a critical part of WW2, I just think generally speaking and once again, the larger multi engined aircraft were better at it.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 22, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Of course Galland did. I think all pilots felt the same about their adversary’s, but that still doesn’t change the context of hos words, and how they are misused.


Resp:
I respect your view. Not all adversaries were skilled, as I believe the RAF pilots (to include those nations that fly for England) were during the BoB. Galland also wrote of his statement many years after the fact, giving him time to review what was said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I respect your view. Not all adversaries were skilled, as I believe the RAF pilots (to include those nations that fly for England) were during the BoB. Galland also wrote of his statement many years after the fact, giving him time to review what was said.



Underestimating your adversary will get you killed...


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 22, 2019)

I nominate the Civil Air Patrol.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm well aware the SO3C was a scout plane (and rescue, ASW etc.) but scout planes were pretty important in WW2 naval combat. Especially for the Americans who really needed their heavy gun-ships (BB's, BC's, CA's and CL's) since their torpedoes didn't work in the first year or two of the war, rendering Destroyers severely weakened in terms of effectiveness.
> 
> Also lets be real, scouting, maritime patrol and ASW were a big part of what some of the other planes we are discussing - Swordfish, Albacore, and postwar Gannett - actually _did _in the war. The TBF sunk some enemy ships but it too spent a lot of time in this kind of role. Certainly that's all it was good for in the 50's, I wouldn't want to see one squaring off with a Mig 15.


The SBD was a "Scouting Bomber" and there were several instances where an SBD on patrol spotted and reported crucial enemy positions.


Schweik said:


> I would say Coral Sea, Midway, and the Solomons campaign, not just Midway.


The Battle of Coral Sea saw the SBD not only inflict damage to IJN elements, but actively repulsed Japanese attacks in the role of interim fighter. However, Coral Sea was not a decisive battle in the sense that the IJN wasn't hurt and would soon be knocking at Midway's door.

The Solomons was a protracted series of battles that saw a considerable spectrum of factors, from ground fighting the full surface fleet engagements. The SBD did contribute, but it's contributions were only one of dozens of factors.

The Battle of Midway, however, is where the SBD alone was the deciding factor. As no opposing surface engaged, it was a pure aerial battle that dictated the next action of opposing fleets. Had the SBD not carried the day and/or the IJN caught the other two U.S. carriers, the Japanese would have been free to continue their invasion of Midway Atoll.
There were layers of USN and USAAF actions against the Japanese fleet including level bombing and torpedo attacks by land-based bombers, there were Torpedo attacks by carrier-based aircraft, but in the end, it was the Dauntless alone that delivered the lethal blows to the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu and Kaga - which were all fist line fleet carriers that the IJN relied on and simply could not replace.

In all honesty, I feel that Midway is perhaps one of the very few instances where a single weapon actually effected the outcome of the battle and add to that, a pivotal battle that shifted the enemy from the offensive to the defensive for the duration.



Schweik said:


> Lethal and versatile.


Agreed.



Schweik said:


> SBD was one of those planes that was kind of thought of as stop-gap. In a way, similar to the Ju 87. I don't think it was ever realized in the 30's what an important role the Ju 87 was still going to play in the mid 40's.


The SBD originated from the Northrop BT-1, which had many of the characteristics of the later Dauntless, but was always intended to be a multi-role type (Scouting, Divebombing) - the fact that it could stand and fight was a plus.



Schweik said:


> TBFs and their ilk weren't very good at attacking land targets. Fighters ended up being more useful for that... for the Americans the F4U, the F6F, the P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 began taking over a lot of the Tactical bombing of ground targets in the second half of the war, and only medium bombers reconfigured as strafers and skip-bombers continued in their intended role.


Actually, the TBF/M were fantastic at bombing enemy positions with bombs and saw a great deal of use later in the war, as enemy shipping became scarce.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm well aware the SO3C was a scout plane (and rescue, ASW etc.) but scout planes were pretty important in WW2 naval combat. Especially for the Americans who really needed their heavy gun-ships (BB's, BC's, CA's and CL's) since their torpedoes didn't work in the first year or two of the war, rendering Destroyers severely weakened in terms of effectiveness.
> 
> Also lets be real, scouting, maritime patrol and ASW were a big part of what some of the other planes we are discussing - Swordfish, Albacore, and postwar Gannett - actually _did _in the war. The TBF sunk some enemy ships but it too spent a lot of time in this kind of role. Certainly that's all it was good for in the 50's, I wouldn't want to see one squaring off with a Mig 15.
> 
> ...




The SBD was thought of as such a stop gap plane that they never bothered to make a version with folding wings. They figured it soon would be replaced by the SB2C - ha, little did they know . . .


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 23, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> The SBD was thought of as such a stop gap plane that they never bothered to make a version with folding wings. They figured it soon would be replaced by the SB2C - ha, little did they know . . .


The SBD didn't have folding wings on purpose - it was to maintain structural integrity.
The Douglas TBD, a torpedo bomber a bit older than the SBD was the first aircraft to have hydraulic-actuated folding wings, so Douglas was very aware of the need and the technology...


----------



## Dimlee (Feb 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> In all honesty, I feel that Midway is perhaps one of the very few instances where a single weapon actually effected the outcome of the battle and add to that, a pivotal battle that shifted the enemy from the offensive to the defensive for the duration.



I feel the same.
So far I can not find examples in this thread (or in my memory) of other instances - at least so vivid and undisputable.
Hence my doubts I expressed earlier in my post #160. It was about the Eastern Front but could relate to other theatres as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The Battle of Midway, however, is where the SBD alone was the deciding factor. As no opposing surface engaged, it was a pure aerial battle that dictated the next action of opposing fleets. Had the SBD not carried the day and/or the IJN caught the other two U.S. carriers, the Japanese would have been free to continue their invasion of Midway Atoll.
> There were layers of USN and USAAF actions against the Japanese fleet including level bombing and torpedo attacks by land-based bombers, there were Torpedo attacks by carrier-based aircraft, but in the end, it was the Dauntless alone that delivered the lethal blows to the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu and Kaga - which were all fist line fleet carriers that the IJN relied on and simply could not replace.
> 
> In all honesty, I feel that Midway is perhaps one of the very few instances where a single weapon actually effected the outcome of the battle and add to that, a pivotal battle that shifted the enemy from the offensive to the defensive for the duration.


As you indicated, while the SBDs did carry the day and performed heroically, the battle of Midway was a very complex battle with many factors that set up the Japanese for the SBDs to perform the coup de grace. Too often the earlier attacks are dismissed as ineffectual in the battle whereas in reality they were instrumental in setting up the Japanese for defeat. From 0700-on multiple and heroic attacks by Midway based aircraft, TBFs, B-26s, and B-17s kept the Japanese bobbing and weaving which significantly affecting the Japanese ability to launch, land, rearm, and refuel aircraft. And then the fortuitous, for the SBDs but not so much for TBDs, attack that kept the Japanese fighters from reforming to address a high altitude dive bomber attack. The SBDs were great aircraft and performed well in the war but lets not forget all the heroic and sacrificial attacks that set the stage for the SBDs at Midway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> RP,
> 
> Do you have the equivalent Bomber Command chart for a comparison?
> 
> ...


I wish I did


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 23, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> There has been a lot of talk about the relative inability of divebombers to destroy battleships. I submit that it was not necessary for divebombers to destroy battleships to turn the tide of the war. It was necessary for dive bombers to destroy - or at least put out of action - aircraft carriers. Both the D3A and the SBD were good at it when flown by experienced aviators. In addition to sinking the 4 aircraft carriers in the Midway battle, SBDs also sunk the Mikuma and put the Mogami out of action for two years. These two heavy cruisers could have been enough to tip the balance at Guadalcanal later in the year.
> 
> Success at Midway allowed the Americans to take Guadalcanal in a defensive offensive action. It was defensive because failure to take Guadalcanal would have allowed Japan to control the direct supply lines to Australia if Japan had gotten the airfield operational. The F4F defended the air around Guadalcanal, but it was primarily the SBD that defended the sea approaches to Guadalcanal and made sure the Japanese could not conduct day operations for a couple hundred miles up the slot. The repeated failure of the Japanese to neutralize Henderson Field and the SBDs flying from it doomed the Japanese effort to retake the island. The Wildcats would not have been able to defend the island if the Tokyo Express would have been able to approach the island and bombard the airstrips with impunity. As it was, the Toyko express came close to bombarding the island out of service. Had these ships been able to arrive earlier and stay later, it might have made the crucial difference.


Resp:
The Fairey Swordfish didn't sink the German Battleship, the Bismarck. But it did disable it long enough to allow it to be destroyed(?) by British warships. It did its intended job.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The SBD was a "Scouting Bomber" and there were several instances where an SBD on patrol spotted and reported crucial enemy positions.
> 
> The Battle of Coral Sea saw the SBD not only inflict damage to IJN elements, but actively repulsed Japanese attacks in the role of interim fighter. However, Coral Sea was not a decisive battle in the sense that the IJN wasn't hurt and would soon be knocking at Midway's door.
> 
> ...


According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey the USN attacks on Japanese factories were more effective than the B29 attacks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> How much it can carry is one attribute.
> 
> The "box score" of how much damage a type did to the enemy needs an awful lot of research. For the British they built 800 Albacores and 2391 Swordfish. Just the law of averages tells you the Swordfish _should _have caused 3 times the damage (it did far more than average).
> 
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> Just what could out range it in 1942-43 as far as load carrying carrier aircraft?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Admiralty conducted an appraisal (Report No.9/44 “Achievements of British and American Escort Carriers in the Anti Submarine Role 1943” reproduced in The Fleet Air A in World War II Vol 2) of the merits of the Avenger and the Swordfish and came down firmly on the side of the Avenger.

The Advantages of the Avenger:
1. Most surprising to me, the wastages rate was 1/7(!) of that of the Swordfish. Apparently the Avenger undercarriage was more robust. Some of this wastage was due to the fact that the British operated in the main convoy routes in the rougher northern latitudes while the US operated mostly south of 40 N.
2. The Avenger had 1 ½ time the endurance.
3. The Avenger could be catapulted; an advantage in low wind and allowing heavier loads to be carried.
4. The Avenger had a much higher speed (230 vs. 120 knots) allowing it to catch U-boats on the surface and reducing the danger from flak. Avenger converted 78% of its sightings into attacks while the Swordfish only did 35%. Sighting to kills was 38% to 17%. Higher speed also meant more follow up attacks

Disadvantages of the Avenger

Not as good look out positions.
Heavier and more difficult to deck handle
More maintenance
It was considered that the advantages greatly out weighed the disadvantages

At night the Avenger had a more visible exhaust, inferior radar and was less maneuverable in the radar approach. The first 2 items were in the process of being corrected and at that point the recommendation was to adopt the Avenger as the standard type.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## alsaad (Feb 24, 2019)

Anyone mentioned Swordfish? Or Sturmovik?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 24, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey the USN attacks on Japanese factories were more effective than the B29 attacks.


Resp:
I would like to know more about the USN attacks on Japanese factories. Do you have a good source? Thanks.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The standard bomb used by the Japanese was a 550 lb bomb and the one most often mentioned as used by the SBD was a 1,000 lb bomb. Neither your 1600 lb bomb nor your 1,760 / 800kg bomb are known to me. It is sometimes referred to as a 'semi-armor piercing' bomb.
> 
> Looking at this list of Japanese bombs on Wikipedia it mentions their Type 99 No.25 550 lb bomb (132 lbs of special high explosive) which can penetrate 50mm of armor and their Type 98 No.25 bomb (211 lbs of explosives) which can penetrate 400 inches of reinforced concrete. These were both I assume 'semi-armor piercing'
> 
> ...


You can't sink the Bismark in May 1941 with a weapon that didn't appear until Oct 1942. 
The reality is that dive bombers never sunk a battleship or even came close. The 6 PENETRATING hits you mention would be extremely difficult to obtain on a ship at sea. Bombs that hit are not guaranteed to penetrate. Note that the Yamato and Musashi were sunk by the water taken on board from the many torpedo hits. The bomb damage was instrumental in destroying the ships ability to fight back but never threatening to the survival of the ships. SAP bombs would have no chance of sinking a battleship they could never penetrate a maganzine. Lastly the Swordfish attacks took place in near darkness conditions that would make it near impossible for a successful dive bomber strike.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey the USN attacks on Japanese factories were more effective than the B29 attacks.


This may be a bit contentious as I am not sure what metric/s we are using and even if the statistical sample is big enough. 

For instance:

"_Three-quarters_ of the 6,740 tons of bombs dropped by carrier planes on the Japanese home islands were directed against airfields, warships, and miscellaneous military targets, and_ one-quarter against merchant shipping and other economic targets_. Most of the warships sunk in home ports had already been immobilized for lack of fuel. The accuracy of low-level carrier plane attack was high, being at least 50 percent hits within 250 feet of the aiming point. The attack against the Hakodate-Aomori rail ferries in July 1945 sank or damaged all twelve of the ferries, 17 steel ships, and 149 smaller ships. "

Italics by me. 

The argument of the accuracy of low level bombing is indeed hard to counter and I am not trying to. However what is not mentioned is the losses. In just a few days (July 24-28 and they did not fly attack missions on all of those days) The Americans and British lost 133 aircraft and 102 crewmen attacking targets in the Japanese homeland. Granted a very large part of those casualties were taken on the attacks on the Naval Base at Kure and the air base and port at Osaka which would be much more heavily defended than industrial and economic targets in general. 

Compared to the fire raids 

"In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated. "

Granted the loss of 22 B-29s might have cost more money and certainly more crew lives but the destructive effect was certainly much higher.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 24, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I would like to know more about the USN attacks on Japanese factories. Do you have a good source? Thanks.


I put down Swordfish a while back for its work in the war against the U Boats in the North Atlantic.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Compared to the fire raids
> 
> "In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated. "
> 
> Granted the loss of 22 B-29s might have cost more money and certainly more crew lives but *the destructive effect was certainly much higher.*



Against civilians. If your goal is to incinerate people and 'dehouse' the population or whatever the euphemism is, fire raids are very effective.

But four engine bombers didn't sink a lot of ships - they did sink a few and help sink some more. But the ratio is very high for low level attackers to four engined heavies. Probably 50 or 100 to 1. For the Anglo-Americans combined together the SBD did the most real damage compared to all the four engine heavies combined. The only other one that comes close would be the Beaufighter.

Four engine bombers also had a pretty dismal record against Tactical and Operational targets, (enemy tanks, troops, gun positions, and supply columns etc.) quite often being involved in "friendly fire" incidents and on many other occasions just being useless.

From Shores Mediterranean Air War I'll admit though I was surprised at how useful the American four-engined bombers were at wrecking airfields (with heavy air cover) but those were relatively low altitude strikes, and the medium (B-25) seemed to do just as well.

And they were good for maritime patrol. But I think it's highly debatable how useful they were in the overall war effort. I notice there were precious few if any nominations for the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster as a war-winner in the thread so far. I think maybe one or two for the B-24?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## alsaad (Feb 24, 2019)

> _"The Americans estimated that three hits with 500 lb (227 kg) GP bombs would almost certainly sink a 1630-ton destroyer and had a 70% chance of sinking a 2100-ton destroyer. Three hits with 1000 lb (454 kg) GP bombs had a 95% chance of sinking a relatively lightly protected Atlanta-class light cruiser and a 30% chance of sinking a 10,000-ton heavy cruiser. Six hits with the 1000-lb bomb gave a 80% chance of sinking a heavy cruiser._



These estimations were given for so called skip bombing and GP bombs hitting the ship sides near the waterline after bouncing off the water surface upon being released from the extreme low level flight. I doubt that 3 500 lbs GPs would sink a destroyer when dropped from dive bombing and hitting armored decks. Crippling yes, but sinking hardly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Against civilians. If your goal is to incinerate people and 'dehouse' the population or whatever the euphemism is, fire raids are very effective.
> 
> But four engine bombers didn't sink a lot of ships - they did sink a few and help sink some more. But the ratio is very high for low level attackers to four engined heavies. Probably 50 or 100 to 1. For the Anglo-Americans combined together the SBD did the most real damage compared to all the four engine heavies combined. The only other one that comes close would be the Beaufighter.
> 
> ...




The comment was made that that navy aircraft were noted as being more effective in a "*Strategic Bombing Survey*" which has darn little to do with sinking ships or blowing up tanks on the battlefield.


----------



## alsaad (Feb 24, 2019)

> ...quite often being involved in "friendly fire" incidents ...



Got that right...highest officer killed by friendly fire was Lesley McNair killed by th B17 in Operation Cobra.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You can't sink the Bismark in May 1941 with a weapon that didn't appear until Oct 1942.
> The reality is that dive bombers never sunk a battleship or even came close. The 6 PENETRATING hits you mention would be extremely difficult to obtain on a ship at sea. Bombs that hit are not guaranteed to penetrate. Note that the Yamato and Musashi were sunk by the water taken on board from the many torpedo hits. The bomb damage was instrumental in destroying the ships ability to fight back but never threatening to the survival of the ships. SAP bombs would have no chance of sinking a battleship they could never penetrate a maganzine. Lastly the Swordfish attacks took place in near darkness conditions that would make it near impossible for a successful dive bomber strike.



Ok lets be real:

Semi-Armor Piercing bombs would have been sufficient. The superstructure on battleships is not armored sufficiently to protect against 1,000 lb bomb hits. Nor was all of the deck. Nor were the AA guns. Nor were, necessarily, the turrets.
The attack didn't have to be at night - it really shouldn't have been. As it was they would have sunk the Sheffield by accident if the magnetic detonators had worked. Swordfish took advantage of having radar. Attacking at night was safer in airplanes doing 100 mph 200 feet over the water. But SBD's could have attacked that ship in relative safety. Certainly SBD strikes were made against much more heavy AAA defenses without suffering heavy casualties. SBD also had much greater range, and was roughly twice as fast getting to the target, meaning it was more likely to spot the enemy ship more quickly.
Yamato was wrecked and became unable to defend itself due to bomb hits. In the first attack, quoting from the wiki: _"the Yamato was hit by two armor piercing bombs and one torpedo. One of the bombs started a fire aft of the superstructure that was not extinguished." _ Fires that "are not extinguisehd" aren't good for warships. It was then hit by 8 torpedoes and 15 more bombs. Again quoting the wiki: "_The bombs did extensive damage to the topside of the ship, including knocking out power to the gun directors and forcing the anti-aircraft guns to be individually and manually aimed and fired, greatly reducing their effectiveness_ " Clearly the bombs had an impact, pun intended. No mention of any of them 'bouncing off'.
They didn't need to blow up the magazine of the Bismarck, all they had to do was make it incapable of defending itself, then the ships could have finished it off. As it was in the real event, they only hit with one torpedo right? But jamming the rudder and causing a list was sufficient to cripple the mighty Battleship so that it's lesser rivals could finish it.
A battleship like the Bismarck, with no air cover and no flak screen from friendly warships, would have been _dead meat _from a squadron or two of SBD's. The Swordfish was a versatile old biplane, but it wasn't in the same league as a ship killer. Not even close.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

alsaad said:


> These estimations were given for so called skip bombing and GP bombs hitting the ship sides near the waterline after bouncing off the water surface upon being released from the extreme low level flight. I doubt that 3 500 lbs GPs would sink a destroyer when dropped from dive bombing and hitting armored decks. Crippling yes, but sinking hardly.



Au contraire mon frere

SBD's carried *1,000 lb* SAP and later fully AP bombs. They had no problem inflicting damage on well armored Japanese heavy cruisers and ships like the Battleship Hiei (which was also hit with torpedoes). The Battleship Haruna appears to have been sunk by bombs at Kure Naval Base in 1945 - it survived one bomb hit on 24 July, but on 28 July it was hit by 8 bombs from Task force 38 and sank at 16:15. There are no mention of any torpedo hits.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The comment was made that that navy aircraft were noted as being more effective in a "*Strategic Bombing Survey*" which has darn little to do with sinking ships or blowing up tanks on the battlefield.



I've pointed this out before, in a naval context individual ships can indeed be Strategic targets. That is the whole point of Midway.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 24, 2019)

Imho the debate on whether dive bombers alone could sink a battleship is somewhat academic. For two reasons, first if they can sink aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, merchant ships, etc, but only leave the battle ships as floating wreckage then seems like mission accomplished all the same. Secondly verry seldom would they be the lone asset being used. Once a battleship was floating listlessly in the water there would be plenty of time for subs, torpedo bombers, or perhaps surface ships to finish the job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

alsaad said:


> These estimations were given for so called skip bombing and GP bombs hitting the ship sides near the waterline after bouncing off the water surface upon being released from the extreme low level flight. I doubt that 3 500 lbs GPs would sink a destroyer when dropped from dive bombing and hitting armored decks. Crippling yes, but sinking hardly.



It would make no difference. Very few destroyers had much for armor, certainly not armored decks that keep out even small bombs. The mentioned Atlanta class cruisers had a 1.25 in deck and they went around 6,700 tons.

Destroyer armor, such as it was, was more confined to Bridges and gun positions as anti-splinter protection (or protection against machine gun fire).

There is quite a bit if debate as to whether the US Fletcher class was "armored". The US may have used slightly thicker steel of better quality than some other navies for hull construction
(the STS family of steels) but I am not certain that qualifies as "armor" as it is usually understood. Like 0.5 in STS steel on the hull sides over the engine rooms vs 3/8-7/16ths lower grade steel on a foreign ship? 
The STS was stronger than normal construction steels but still ductile (flexible) enough to be used as construction steel in hull sides and decks, true armor is more brittle and might tend to crack after years at sea if used as construction steel. Most navies added the steel armor to the construction steel and didn't try to make the armor carry any of the load. 

The gun "shields" on destroyers where there as much to protect the gun crews from the effects of weather as they were to protect the gun and crew from enemy gunfire.


----------



## alsaad (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Au contraire mon frere
> 
> SBD's carried *1,000 lb* SAP and later fully AP bombs. They had no problem inflicting damage on well armored Japanese heavy cruisers and ships like the Battleship Hiei (which was also hit with torpedoes). The Battleship Haruna appears to have been sunk by bombs at Kure Naval Base in 1945 - it survived one bomb hit on 24 July, but on 28 July it was hit by 8 bombs from Task force 38 and sank at 16:15. There are no mention of any torpedo hits.



yes 1000lbs SAP and AP, but I was referring to 500 lbs GP.

*
S
 Shortround6
*
With proper fuse setting like rear M112 or M115 series with longer delay US GP might penetrate destroyer's deck, but still more probably would sink it by exploding near the waterline on the side.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 24, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Admiralty conducted an appraisal (Report No.9/44 “Achievements of British and American Escort Carriers in the Anti Submarine Role 1943” reproduced in The Fleet Air A in World War II Vol 2) of the merits of the Avenger and the Swordfish and came down firmly on the side of the Avenger.



I've come across a similar March 1944 report comparing the Swordfish performance on HMS Fencer and HMS Biter with that of the Avengers on HMS Tracker. The findings seem to be similar in regard to 'Time unservicable due to Deck Landing Damage' -- but it seems the flip side was the Avenger's radio:

_Per 100 hours flying_
_Swordfish electrical & radio troubles cost -- 6.7 hours
Avenger electrical & radio troubles cost -- 90.4 hours 
_
_The cause of this would seem to be the design of the American radio and electrical equipment which is not easily repairable on board and the defective item must be replaced by a new one. A further relevant point is that servicing suffers from lack of proper equipment and data. Tracker only had theoretical circuit diagrams for some of her aircraft radio sets._

On the point of weather:

_While there was no definite evidence to show that one type of aircraft may operate when another can not, indications are that low wind speeds will prevent an Avenger from taking off before they ground a Swordfish._


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The STS was stronger than normal construction steels but still ductile (flexible) enough to be used as construction steel in hull sides and decks, true armor is more brittle and might tend to crack after years at sea if used as construction steel. Most navies added the steel armor to the construction steel and didn't try to make the armor carry any of the load.



Now you just dipped into my wheelhouse.

Let me be clear (and fair) up front, I agree belt armor on warships _was _effectively brittle. I want to correct the idea about armor in general being brittle. So I'm not picking on you but I want to explain this a bit more, since even on ships armor was used in different ways and on a different scale.

The best quality steel armor actually was _not _brittle and in fact was flexible or springy. The metallurgy is complex but briefly the heat treatment process of medium carbon steel transformed harder more brittle steel into slightly less hard but far 'tougher' material, due mainly to flexibility. Toughness or fracture toughness (resistance to fracture) is the desired quality for steel armor, which is flexibility balanced with hardness. Toughness can be measured by something called a 'Charpy impact test' developed in the 19th Century but the processes to create highly flexible spring steel armor go back to the late middle ages.

To make tempered steel, after a steel object with the right carbon content has been forged and shaped to it's ultimate form (like a gun barrel, a helmet or an armor plate) and then quenched, it must be gradually reheated a second time and then quenched again after it has reached a certain temperature range for a specific length of time. This allows a specific type of iron carbon compound (for armor usually between 0.3 and 0.6% carbon) called martensite to diffuse gradually through the pearlite which forms a type of molecular structure now called Bainite. The correct amount of diffusion can be seen by the color of the metal.






For armor you want something over in the blue range.

Very hard steel by contrast becomes brittle and will crack when hit with ballistic objects. Iron carbide steel hard enough for industrial drill bits etc. is mostly made up of a carbon / iron compound cementite which is technically a ceramic.

Naval armor tended to be made in large and very thick pieces which is one of the reasons it could crack. To make properly tempered steel it can't be cast or rolled it has to be forged, and the giant plates used for belt armor on battleships etc. were far too big for that. So to make it more resistant it was typically rolled steel that was annealed to create a quasi-tempering effect and then face hardened.

However armor to protect other vital / internal parts of a ship from bomb fragments etc. _could _be properly tempered, and armored pieces, including the armor used in aircraft was often tempered and sometimes on tanks were tempered too.

The main reason was weight saving. Tempered medium carbon steel of 3mm has the same ballistic protection as non tempered medium carbon steel of 6mm or low carbon steel of 10mm. Which is a big deal for example for ballistic plates in body armor and armor on modern fighting vehicles.

In theory, if you had a big enough Haephestus style giants forge, you could have made 10 cm armor that was as effective as 20cm armor. That would have made battleships a bit more viable. But that is a science fiction type scale.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I've come across a similar March 1944 report comparing the Swordfish performance on HMS Fencer and HMS Biter with that of the Avengers on HMS Tracker. The findings seem to be similar in regard to 'Time unservicable due to Deck Landing Damage' -- but it seems the flip side was the Avenger's radio:
> 
> On the point of weather:
> 
> _While there was no definite evidence to show that one type of aircraft may operate when another can not, indications are that low wind speeds will prevent an Avenger from taking off before they ground a Swordfish._



The radio problems may in part have to do with operating a foreign aircraft, with different supply chains and training etc. However I do think the TBF / Avenger was too big for those small carriers. As I stated upthread I'm not a fan of the Avenger.

The SBD is the one I believe outmatched the Swordfish in every respect by an order of magnitude and also did better on smaller carriers in spite of not having folding wings.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

A little more on the Haruna:

Interestingly, the entire (Kongo) class of battleship was designed by a British naval architect named George Thurston
Though originally designed (as fast battlecruisers) around the time of WW1, they were upgraded and up-armored during the war.
The Haruna at the time of it's sinking had 80-120mm deck armor, roughly the same as the Bismarck which had 100 - 120mm deck armor. They also had equivalent turret armor (13.5 vs. 14 inches) though the Bismarck had significantly thicker belt armor (8 for Haruna vs 12.6 for Bismarck).
In it's final days it seems to have suffered a total of 13 bomb hits and 10 near misses before being sunk. As far as I've been able to determine, the damage appears to have been exclusively inflicted by US Navy SB2C Helldivers. 
At one point during the same 4 day period it was attacked by no less than 70 B-24s, and in spite of the fact that Haruna was tied up on a dock, they did not hit with a single bomb.
The Haruna sunk in the harbor and remained half submerged for a long time after the war.
Here is some video footage of it, which I found rather fascinating.



The fate of the Haruna, sunk by dive bombers, and done -in by 13 bomb hits- in my opinion proves that the SBD could have sunk battleships in general and could have specifically sunk the Bismarck. Like I said without additional AAA support or air cover, it would have been a sitting dunk for the Dauntless.






It also appears that the Japanese Battleship _Hyūga_ was sunk by dive bombers, suffering 3 bomb hits on 19 March which damaged her, and then then suffering an additional 10 bomb hits on 24 July which "blew off part of her stern, destroyed her bridge and started major fires."

The Hyuga had 80mm armored decks and 254mm armored turrets initially, wikipedia claims 152mm armored decks after refit but that seems off.

Like the Haruna, the Hyuga survived an attack by B-24s, 24 of which bombed it but missed the now sunk but still visible ship on 29 July


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

The wikipedia on the Dauntless states that "The Dauntless was one of the most important aircraft in the Pacific War, *sinking more enemy shipping in the War in the Pacific than any other Allied bomber*. "

Though I believe that is plausible, the source being Wikipedia and with no citation, take it with a grain of salt.



I will say this though, the ability of the Swordfish to carry a functional radar, and operate at night and in bad weather, would confer an interesting extra option for an early war navy. Even with a small carrier that only carried 30 planes, you might be tempted to carry 5 or 6 Swordfish just to have that night time / bad weather attack and search capability.

Round that out with 18 Dauntlesses and 12 Wildcats, and you have a fairly dangerous light carrier.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A little more on the Haruna:
> 
> Interestingly, the entire (Kongo) class of battleship was designed by a British naval architect named George Thurston
> Though originally designed (as fast battlecruisers) around the time of WW1, they were upgraded and up-armored during the war.
> ...




If you're going to use the Dauntless to attack the Bismarck then you need the carriers that can operate them. Only the Victorious and Ark Royal were available for the battle, IIRC. Neither could have operated the Dauntless as neither had lifts wide enough to strike them down below. If you want a dive bomber to do it then you need the Skua and that only carries 500 lb bombs, the same as the Dauntless at that time. Better still a crippling night attack by torpedo equipped Swordfish followed by a pounding by a Nelson class battleship firing 16-in inch shells weighing over 2000 lbs each. That's the way to do it and that's the way it was done.

Later in the war we used Barracudas with 3600 lb bombs in dive bombing attacks against the Bismarck's sister ship, the Tirpitz and they didn't sink her. It took Lancasters with 12000 lb tallboy bombs to do the job properly. 

The suggestion that the Dauntless could sink the Bismarck is a fantasy.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok lets be real:



yes lets be real.



> Semi-Armor Piercing bombs would have been sufficient. The superstructure on battleships is not armored sufficiently to protect against 1,000 lb bomb hits. Nor was all of the deck. Nor were the AA guns. Nor were, necessarily, the turrets.



The superstructure of a battleship (or cruisers) was not armoured well enough to protected against GP bomb hits, On most battleships. let alone cruisers, the horizontal armor didn't start until the weather deck (and many battleships it was a deck or two below that). Battleships in WWII varied tremendously as not only did you have the WW I leftovers (upgraded to a greater or lesser extent) but even the naval architects of the 1930s couldn't agree on protection plans given that most of them were trying to work within the 35,000 ton treaty limit. Armor placed high up in a ship (weather deck or superstructure) affects the stability and needs wider hulls (or ballast or.....) 
Turret armor thicknesses are likewise all over the place, the really thick numbers are on the face of the turret facing the enemy (or most likely enemy) with thinner sides and rear (unless thick rear armor was needed to balance the turret). Roof armor varied with age and design. WW I battleships with elevation limits of 15 degrees or under on the guns didn't expect plunging fire coming in at steep angles and had thin armor on top. refitted battleships with elevations increase also had thicker armor added to the turret roofs. Modern Battleships (and few modernized old ones) had 40 degrees or more of elevation and plunging fire could be coming down at angles over 50 degrees. 

The idea of using multiple armoured decks was that the upper decks (above the main armored deck, not superstructure decks) would act as "exploders" on shells or bombs causing their fuses to function before the bomb/shell made contact with the main armored deck. Or would cause the bomb/shell to tip and reduce it's penetration. 




> The attack didn't have to be at night - it really shouldn't have been. As it was they would have sunk the Sheffield by accident if the magnetic detonators had worked. Swordfish took advantage of having radar. Attacking at night was safer in airplanes doing 100 mph 200 feet over the water. But SBD's could have attacked that ship in relative safety. Certainly SBD strikes were made against much more heavy AAA defenses without suffering heavy casualties. SBD also had much greater range, and was roughly twice as fast getting to the target, meaning it was more likely to spot the enemy ship more quickly.



a lot depends on the cloud cover, Visibility was hardly unlimited during most of the Bismark chase/engagement. truing to dive bomb when the clouds only open up below 1000ftor so doesn't work real well. 





> They didn't need to blow up the magazine of the Bismarck, all they had to do was make it incapable of defending itself, then the ships could have finished it off. As it was in the real event, they only hit with one torpedo right? But jamming the rudder and causing a list was sufficient to cripple the mighty Battleship so that it's lesser rivals could finish it.






> A battleship like the Bismarck, with no air cover and no flak screen from friendly warships, would have been _dead meat _from a squadron or two of SBD's. The Swordfish was a versatile old biplane, but it wasn't in the same league as a ship killer. Not even close.



Accounts differ, some say there was more than one hit. It was the hit in the rudder area that spelled the end of the Bismark. The other (if it did hit) was into the torpedo protection area and caused minor flooding and the loss of some fuel oil, some accounts credit this damage to a shell hit or perhaps there were both? 

However the idea that 12-24 dive bombers could sink the Bismark in a single raid seems a bit optimistic, I would note that the two ships that pummeled the Bismark where hardly light weights. The Rodney may have been slow but she packed a pretty good punch. Rodney alone fired around 340 16 in shells (Wiki) or up to 382 shells ( Campbell's) sometimes from as close as 3,000yds. these were 2375lb projectiles with 54-55lb bursters of TNT. Rodney also tried to torpedo the Bismarck accounts differ at if there was hit. 

One account gives these totals for shell _fired _not hits.

380 of 40.6 cm from _Rodney_
339 of 35.6 cm from _King George V_
527 of 20.3 cm from _Norfolk_
254 of 20.3 cm from _Dorsetshire_
716 of 15.2 cm from _Rodney_
660 of 13.3 cm from _King George V_
even with several underwater examinations of the wreckage the total number of torpedo hits doesn't seem to be known. 

While bombs from the Dauntless would hardly bounce off they would need to be extremely lucky to inflict fatal or near fatal damage to the ship below the armoured deck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok lets be real:
> 
> Semi-Armor Piercing bombs would have been sufficient. The superstructure on battleships is not armored sufficiently to protect against 1,000 lb bomb hits. Nor was all of the deck. Nor were the AA guns. Nor were, necessarily, the turrets.
> The attack didn't have to be at night - it really shouldn't have been. As it was they would have sunk the Sheffield by accident if the magnetic detonators had worked. Swordfish took advantage of having radar. Attacking at night was safer in airplanes doing 100 mph 200 feet over the water. But SBD's could have attacked that ship in relative safety. Certainly SBD strikes were made against much more heavy AAA defenses without suffering heavy casualties. SBD also had much greater range, and was roughly twice as fast getting to the target, meaning it was more likely to spot the enemy ship more quickly.
> ...



Of course, the SBD couldn't have attacked the _Bismarck_ without the US _seriously_ violating neutrality; the RN didn't operate them at this time.


A related question is, though, whether the SBD could have operated onto and off of carriers in the weather conditions prevailing during the chase and destruction of the _Bismarck_. The weather was, by all accounts, hellish, and it's not impossible that the SBD or an equivalent aircraft could not have operated from the RN's carriers in those weather conditions at that time.

Reportedly (iirc, in an article by Friedman on the genesis of the _Forrestal_s), _Essex_-class carriers were damaged by weather after transfers to the Atlantic.

(According to the Haze Gray site (World Aircraft Carriers List: US Fleet Carriers, Pre-WWII), the only pre-war USN carrier to serve more than a few months in the Atlantic after Pearl Harbor was _USS Ranger_, which could not operate its aircraft in heavy weather. _Yorktown _and _Hornet_ were in the Atlantic, but transferred to Pacific after Pearl Harbor. _Wasp_ went to Pacific in mid-1942. No _Essex_ class ships served in the Atlantic during WW2)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Feb 24, 2019)

The Swordfish did a pretty good job on the Italian fleet at Taranto.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The suggestion that the Dauntless could sink the Bismarck is a fantasy.


 
Please see :


*The Haruna at the time of it's sinking had 80-120mm deck armor, roughly the same as the Bismarck which had 100 - 120mm deck armor. *They also had equivalent turret armor (13.5 vs. 14 inches) though the Bismarck had significantly thicker belt armor (8 for Haruna vs 12.6 for Bismarck).
In it's final days it seems to have suffered a total of 13 bomb hits and 10 near misses before being sunk. As far as I've been able to determine, the damage appears to have been exclusively inflicted by US Navy SB2C Helldivers.
At one point during the same 4 day period it was attacked by no less than 70 B-24s, and in spite of the fact that Haruna was tied up on a dock, they did not hit with a single bomb.
The Haruna sunk in the harbor and remained half submerged for a long time after the war.
Here is some video footage of it, which I found rather fascinating.
At least two Japanese battleships were sunk with bombs, the exact same kind of bombs carried by the SBD. Your claim to the contrary is the fantasy.


----------



## Airframes (Feb 24, 2019)

Bur first, you'd have to get the Bismark to a convenient location for a SBD to sink it - rather difficult, as it was already gone by the time the USA entered the war and, to the best of my knowledge, the SBD didn't serve with the RN Fleet Air Arm.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

No, as usual here we are getting in trouble by toying with imaginary scenarios. If the carrier elevator was too small for an SBD then they could not have operated an SBD to sink it. My only point is that the canard that dive bombers couldn't sink battleships is just that - a myth. Thank god for the US dive bombers, in particular the SBD, turned out to be so good at sinking enemy warships in general that they were able to make up for the fact that they lacked reliable torpedoes until well past the tipping point of the war.

Pre-war doctrine suggested that torpedo bombers were the only real way to sink ships, with dive bombers as kind of a backup. But the reality thank god was that our better quality dive bombers were more than up to the task. Wartime experience also showed that torpedo bombers were very vulnerable to defensive efforts and tended to suffer high loss rates especially against well protected military targets, whereas dive bombers could attack very difficult targets and survive sorties much better.

As for the Swordifsh, I'm sorry I know some people like them, and sometimes you just do the best you can with what you got, I certainly respect that. And I'll even concede with the early radar functionality, they provided some interesting all-weather capability. But I still think they were kind of an embarrassment and not a very good warplane by WW2 standards.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 24, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The Swordfish did a pretty good job on the Italian fleet at Taranto.




The fact that the RN had working aircraft torpedoes doubtless helped.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Feb 24, 2019)

SBDs, and dive bombers in general, were great at sinking warships in the clear skies of the Central Pacific, and probably would have been in the Mediterranean. But in the continual low overcast and generally filthy weather of the North Atlantic, you are going to find it very difficult to drop from the optimum altitude of 8000 - 10000 ft. I don't doubt that if Dauntlesses were able to sink heavy battleships; I just doubt that they would have been able to see, let alone bomb, the Bismarck in the North Atlantic or Denmark Strait.


----------



## Schweik (Feb 24, 2019)

Deck armor on the Bismarck was about 120mm - US dive bombers sunk at least two battleships with bombs alone that had the same thickness of deck armor. So I call bullshit on that claim. Even the mighty Yamato, which far outclassed any ship that sailed in the North Atlantic, did not prove to be immune to bombs per the Trope.

Weather may have been typically bad in the North Atlantic but it wasn't always great in the Tropical Pacific either, ever heard of a Typhoon? (I don't mean the plane) Or read about the weather around New Guinea? Or for that matter Alaska? Or Japan?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

To inject a little reality 

another armor diagram for the Bismark.






Quoting the turret face armor thickness (part facing enemy battleships in gun dual) is useless for figuring out resistance to bombs. 

The Haruna was extensively upgraded between the wars but started out as a battlecruiser very similar to one that blew up at Jutland. 
The Japanese cheated on the treaty restrictions and modified her more than they were supposed to but they were starting with a 27,400 ton ship that was 92ft wide. it had 36 coal fired boilers and 64,000hp. Deck was originally 1 in thick the lengthened her, changed the boilers and turbines added armor and increase the elevation of the guns from 20 degrees to 33 degrees, anti torpedo bulges increased the beam to 108 ft (?), and they added around 4000 tons of armor. this was the first rebuild. 
2nd rebuild changed the turbines and boilers again, lengthed the ship, increased the elevation of the main guns to 43 degrees and redid the armor some more
but you still wound up with a 32,200 ship compared to the 35-37,000ton treaty ships and and the 42,000 (or higher) Bismarck.

On a lot of these old rebuilds while deck armor was added most everywhere it was often rather "patchy" with large increases over the magazines/shell handling rooms and bit less over the propulsion and a lot less fore and aft of the citadel (space between A turret and Y turret) 

Now when it comes to adding deck armor it gets heavy real quick. If it was 450 ft from the front of the A turret barbette to the back of Y turret barbette and we average 75 ftof width (or allow for openings, like the barbettes and funnels ) just ONE inch of deck armor over that space is about 675 short tons. Adjust as you see fit but adding an uniform layer of 2.5 to 3 inches was probably not happening. There was often an armored box around the steering gear so they wouldn't have to armor the whole stern of the ship. 

The Haruna was old, rebuilt twice, had suffered previous bomb damage (including 2 500lb AP bombs), she had also been run aground and repaired. Maybe here crew was first class in July of 1945 when it came to damage control, maybe not.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

We are alos getting a bit ahead of ourselves and ignoring the actual capability of the planes of the time. 





This plane was ordered in August 1936 and first deliveries made in July 1937 it is a "-3" model with an 825hp engine and a max bomb load of as single 500lb bomb. 
So in 1936-37 is it any wonder that the powers that be in charge of ordering aircraft and weapons thought that torpedoes were the way to go?

things got better with the SBC-4




with a 950hp engine the max bomb size went to 1000lbs. ordered Jan 1938 deliveries went from March of 1939 to April of 1941. 
They served along side the Vought Vindicator 




Also with an 825hp engine, it started serving in late 1937. the claimed max bomb load was 1500lb but you weren't going very far with such a load. 
max take off weight was 7,332 lb and normal was 6,379 lb 

also entering service in 1938 was the Northrop BT-1 which equiped a squadron on both the Yorktown and the Enterprise 




Once again the P & W 825 hp twin wasp junior was the engine of choice. 
Empty weight 4,606 lb loaded weight 7,197 lb claimed max bomb load 1000lbs.
with just under 1600lbs available for crew, guns, ammo, radios, oil and fuel you figure out what the real range was. 

this was the plane that turned into the SBD




with a 1000hp engine, Marines got the SBD-1 in late 1940 and the Navy got SBD-2s (with extra fuel capacity) in early 1941. 
Armor and self sealing tanks don't show up until the SBD-3 and it is unclear if all had them or if early production was refitted. 

Then we are back to the bombs that were available, either general purpose bombs or converted naval shells for AP bombs with extremely small bursters. 
Claiming that "they" should have known the dive bomber was a better weapon for ship attack than the torpedo bomber requires an awful lot of hindsight. 
The SBD-6 with 450 made went out of production in 1944, it used a 1350hp engine. think of what some other planes could do with 35% more power over the early models. 
2700hp Corsair anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Deck armor on the Bismarck was about 120mm - US dive bombers sunk at least two battleships with bombs alone that had the same thickness of deck armor. So I call bullshit on that claim. Even the mighty Yamato, which far outclassed any ship that sailed in the North Atlantic, did not prove to be immune to bombs per the Trope.
> 
> Weather may have been typically bad in the North Atlantic but it wasn't always great in the Tropical Pacific either, ever heard of a Typhoon? (I don't mean the plane) Or read about the weather around New Guinea? Or for that matter Alaska? Or Japan?


Did you actually read what I wrote? I DON'T doubt that SBDs can sink battleships. I just don't think they would be much use in an environment with a generally low cloud base. At dive-bomber release height, there would generally be a couple of thousand feet of clag between the bomber and its target.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Now you just dipped into my wheelhouse.
> 
> Let me be clear (and fair) up front, I agree belt armor on warships _was _effectively brittle. I want to correct the idea about armor in general being brittle. So I'm not picking on you but I want to explain this a bit more, since even on ships armor was used in different ways and on a different scale.
> 
> ...


Verry interesting read. Haven't thought about most of that much since my last metallurgy class about 35 years ago. Wait a minute................. 35 years ........where did that go?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2019)

Most armor steel also had varying amount of alloys, usually nickel and chrome. Vanadium was used in the early years of STS steel. 

A lot of older battleships used hardened steel faces on the armor. Case hardening carried to extremes. The steel plates were "baked" in large ovens with hundreds of pounds of charcoal against the "face" of the armor which carburized the surface and made it much harder than the rear which remained softer and prevented cracking.

There was always a race between the armor makers and the projectile makers trying to get hard yet not brittle steel as the hard steel projectile could more easily "cut" the armor if it was softer. however too brittle and the nose of the projectile shattered leaving a blunt stump trying to punch it's way through. 
Same with the armor, you didn't want this happening with repeated impacts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 24, 2019)

The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor. Each plane can take its place in history. 1942 the P39 fought well enough against the Zero in New Guinea. Eventually better planes, logistics and processes were put in place to fight a war in the Pacific where we did not have maps for most of the islands in the Pacific. What was a useful tool were our floating islands called Carriers and their supporting warships that could get war material to the hundreds of land base and chase Japanese Navy. 

As for air campaigns...our early combat aircraft were equal to the generation of the Axis powers. In fact through out WW2. The US was a late player in WW2 and I Fact a bit Player when you consider our involvement. We lost a lot of men but the British lost 3 times what we lost..the Europeans and Asians together 100 million. 
When our pilots began entering combat much of what we were training in a peace time environment did not work out so well. Hence the judicious use of higher boost levels and fuels to increase HP and learning team work. 

Our real impact was our uninterrupted manufacturing ability and consistent quality of our war material and training programs... FWIW the US Army and Navy became the largest Public Education schools in the world. One interesting fact was all our pilots were college educated and were lieutenants. Where Axis / Japan were Sargent level pilots. The US was way behind in public education compared to Japan and Europe. 

Revolutionary aircraft that made a leap in the current generation of fighters was the P51 and Jets. Mustang Was the most efficient, competitive performance, cost effective, easy to maintain, versatile, less expensive to build than any fighter. Required no special flight training like a P38 would require. Had any of our other fighters had the range. They had the performance and they would have been right there too.

But what was more important was our logistics, education, system, training people to maintain worn out aircraft. And none of WW2 was fought on our continent. Here German manufacturing is more impressive considering the bombing campaign against their manufacturing facilities. 

The really sad thing was that the Axis Dictatorship Leaderships were bent on war...!
They sure got it!


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 25, 2019)

Might I suggest the humble PBY Catalina as the aircraft that turned the tide in 1941 by finding the Bismarck. So maritime patrol, air sea rescue and night attack at slow speeds and ludicrous ranges. Where would we all have been without this war winner? Have any of you ever looked at List of seaplane carriers by country - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 25, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor. Each plane can take its place in history. 1942 the P39 fought well enough against the Zero in New Guinea. Eventually better planes, logistics and processes were put in place to fight a war in the Pacific where we did not have maps for most of the islands in the Pacific. What was a useful tool were our floating islands called Carriers and their supporting warships that could get war material to the hundreds of land base and chase Japanese Navy.
> 
> As for air campaigns...our early combat aircraft were equal to the generation of the Axis powers. In fact through out WW2. The US was a late player in WW2 and I Fact a bit Player when you consider our involvement. We lost a lot of men but the British lost 3 times what we lost..the Europeans and Asians together 100 million.
> When our pilots began entering combat much of what we were training in a peace time environment did not work out so well. Hence the judicious use of higher boost levels and fuels to increase HP and learning team work.
> ...




I know for a fact not all USAAF pilots were college-educated: one of my uncles was a USAAF pilot and a high school dropout.

Also, in 1940, there was not a “US” education system; there was some 12,000 independent local systems varying from very good to just about worthless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 25, 2019)

I thought of the PBY it was an extremely useful aircraft. I'm not sure you could credit it with any turning point in the U-boat war or anything though, it was more incremental than that. For the latter I also thought of the B-24.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Feb 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We are alos getting a bit ahead of ourselves and ignoring the actual capability of the planes of the time.
> 
> View attachment 530147
> 
> ...




The movie dive bomber was filmed early in 1941 in San Diego. It featured the USS Enterprise. This is what the US Navy looked like at the time the RN was sinking the Bismark. 
Dive Bomber - The Internet Movie Plane Database
A beautifully shot movie in technicolor
The SBD is not in sight because it wasn't in front line service at that time. The Lexington was converting to the SBD-2 (not 3) but every other aircraft carrier was equipped with SB2Us.
So we have the mighty USN sinking the Bismark with weapons that aren't available in May 1941 using an aircraft that isn't operational.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 25, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I know for a fact not all USAAF pilots were college-educated: one of my uncles was a USAAF pilot and a high school dropout.
> 
> Also, in 1940, there was not a “US” education system; there was some 12,000 independent local systems varying from very good to just about worthless.




YEAH most were college educated but those that were agile were given a chance. 
That is why the FDR organized a Public School system. Russia and other countries did the same on the 50's and 60's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2019)

2576 non college graduates served as enlisted pilots in the USAAF during WW2. 18 of them became aces.

1941-1945: World War II Sergeant Pilots > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 25, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 2576 non college graduates served as enlisted pilots in the USAAF during WW2. 18 of them became aces.
> 
> 1941-1945: World War II Sergeant Pilots > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display



Good information but we trained many thousands more.
How many became fighter, Transport, Bomber, hack pilots?
You have a breakdown?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Good information but we trained many thousands more.
> How many became fighter, Transport, Bomber, hack pilots?
> You have a breakdown?



No I don’t have a breakdown. I was only pointing out that there were a lot of enlisted, non college educated pilots serving. Take the information how you wish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2019)

There may have been quite a number of pilots who had one or more years of college and had not finished their degree. Many of them went back to college in 1946-47. 

Now does one or two years out of four qualify you being college educated? 

Friend of mine's father was in this catagory, dropped out of college to enlist in the Marine corp, served in VMF-124 (late war) went back to college after getting out. 

Granted that is the Maines and not the USAAC (or USAAF)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There may have been quite a number of pilots who had one or more years of college and had not finished their degree. Many of them went back to college in 1946-47.
> 
> Now does one or two years out of four qualify you being college educated?
> 
> ...



If I recall all that was typically required then was 2 years of college. At least that is what the USAF Museum link I provided states.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 26, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The SDB dive bomber was a helpful tool..but no where a deciding factor.


Never mind the accrued tonnage sunk by the SBD during the Pacific war or the concerted attacks on strategic IJN ships during the Battle of the Coral Sea or the Solomons campaign.

Let's discuss what other aircraft besides the Dauntless delivered fatal blows to the four IJN carriers during the Battle of Midway?

Take you time, we'll wait for your answer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 26, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Never mind the accrued tonnage sunk by the SBD during the Pacific war or the concerted attacks on strategic IJN ships during the Battle of the Coral Sea or the Solomons campaign.
> 
> Let's discuss what other aircraft besides the Dauntless delivered fatal blows to the four IJN carriers during the Battle of Midway?
> 
> Take you time, we'll wait for your answer.



And the reason they were able to do it was, in large part, down to sheer dumb luck plus a gutsy decision by McClusky to continue searching for the Japanese fleet when peacetime norms suggested he should turn back to the US carriers. Yes, the SBDs delivered a telling attack against the Japanese carrier force but the timing of that attack relative to the TBD attacks which drew away the Japanese CAP was simply serendipitous. Had the Japanese CAP maintained better discipline (or had it been better controlled), or had the SBDs arrived at a slightly different time, it's likely they would have faced the Japanese CAP and, as capable as the SBD was, I think the conclusion of such an engagement would be inevitably bad for the SBDs. 

Yes, the SBD attack turned the tide of the battle which was a tipping point in the Pacific war. However, to say that the SBD did it alone or because of some innate capabilities which the SBD alone possessed exaggerates the reality and, frankly, does a disservice to the other members of the USN, USMC and USAAF teams who all played their part on that day to keep the IJN fleet on its toes, reacting to the changing situation rather than driving the agenda.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 26, 2019)

No, it doesn't.

Midway wasn't the only engagement in which the SBD played a key role, it's just the most definitive. All the other American aircraft types involved in the battle were used in other battles and the outcomes were similar. Nobody is saying that a machine trumped the individual courage or sacrifice of everyone else involved in the battle. That is just some kind of guilt trip which could basically be used to derail discussion of any aircraft in every battle in the war. Weapons and machines like military aircraft are just tools, levers with which very hard jobs are done. When it comes to things like carrier battles, it's extremely difficult to keep up without very good tools, including the aircraft, the aircraft carriers and everything that went into them.

It's just how good of a lever were these brave men using to move the earth in this particular case. The SBD turned out to be an excellent tool for this particular job. It most certainly was decisive at Midway and that doesn't take away any courage from anybody or dishonor anyone.

There is by the way certainly no guarantee they would have been slaughtered by Zeroes either because they clashed with Zeros many times, including without fighter escort, and sunk ships (including carriers) anyway. Read the thread for details.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Feb 26, 2019)

If all we had had was TBD's and TBF's and B-17s and B-26's we'd probably be typing Japanese right now...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 26, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> And the reason they were able to do it was, in large part, down to sheer dumb luck plus a gutsy decision by McClusky to continue searching for the Japanese fleet when peacetime norms suggested he should turn back to the US carriers. Yes, the SBDs delivered a telling attack against the Japanese carrier force but the timing of that attack relative to the TBD attacks which drew away the Japanese CAP was simply serendipitous. Had the Japanese CAP maintained better discipline (or had it been better controlled), or had the SBDs arrived at a slightly different time, it's likely they would have faced the Japanese CAP and, as capable as the SBD was, I think the conclusion of such an engagement would be inevitably bad for the SBDs.
> 
> Yes, the SBD attack turned the tide of the battle which was a tipping point in the Pacific war. However, to say that the SBD did it alone or because of some innate capabilities which the SBD alone possessed exaggerates the reality and, frankly, does a disservice to the other members of the USN, USMC and USAAF teams who all played their part on that day to keep the IJN fleet on its toes, reacting to the changing situation rather than driving the agenda.


Have to disagree a bit. If the SBDs had been intercepted at Midway would they have had a tougher time of it? Of course, always tougher to be intercepted than not but the SBD was able to fight its way through fighter screens in a way other bombers/ torpedo bombers didn't have the same success doing.
Yes there was some luck involved with Midway as there is with almost all successful military engagements but to say the SBD possessed no inherent qualities that made it so successful, not just at Midway but multiple engagements.........well that would have to be quite a bit of luck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If all we had had was TBD's and TBF's and B-17s and B-26's we'd probably be typing Japanese right now...



A totally ridiculous statement. The war might have gone on longer and been more costly but the Japanese had 0.0 chance of winning the war unless the US simply quit. The US could out build tha Japanese by over a factor of 10 to 1.




Schweik said:


> There is by the way certainly no guarantee they would have been slaughtered by Zeroes either because they clashed with Zeros many times, including without fighter escort, and sunk ships (including carriers) anyway. Read the thread for details.







michael rauls said:


> Have to disagree a bit. If the SBDs had been intercepted at Midway would they have had a tougher time of it? Of course, always tougher to be intercepted than not but the SBD was able to fight its way through fighter screens in a way other bombers/ torpedo bombers didn't have the same success doing.
> Yes there was some luck involved with Midway as there is with almost all successful military engagements but to say the SBD possessed no inherent qualities that made it so successful, not just at Midway but multiple engagements.........well that would have to be quite a bit of luck.



A lot of this depends on how good or numerous the Japanese CAP is. Four Zeros (or eight) against several squadrons of any dive bomber could not shoot them all down.

people here are getting into the black and white type argument.
_Only the SBD _could have sunk four Japanese carriers, _no other dive bomber would have sunk any_.
_Only the SBD _could fight it's way through defending fighters. _no other dive bomber would have a chance._

Except in the case at Midway the dive bombers didn't fight their way through the Japanese CAP or at least not much of one. Out of position, few planes and those that were there were short on ammo. If you are playing air to air games you are not dive bombing. The SBDs air to air capabilities may have kept losses low *after *the bombs were dropped and the planes were getting out of the area.

There is absolutely no question that the SBDs were there, that they did the job or that it was a major turing point in the war.

my post #76 back on page 4



Shortround6 said:


> The SBD was a very good airplane but it was simply in the right place at the right time at Midway. There was no outstanding characteristic of the SBD that the results of the battle hinged on. The SBDs had NOT fought off interceptors to get to the bombing positions. It had not required a radius of action that other planes did not have, it didn't even require anything out of the ordinary in regards to bomb load.
> Yes it delivered the mortal blow to Japanese carrier aviation and so turned the tide of the war in the Pacific.



Now let us imagine that instead of all those squadrons of Dauntless you had the same number of Vought SB2U (or an updated version) aircraft attacking from the same positions with the Japanese aircraft and ships in their same positions and conditions. 
What difference was there in the Dauntless that would enable it to score such a success while while the Vindicator would have failed? 

The Vindicator may well have suffered higher losses to AA fire and/or higher losses to the Japanese fighters once they pulled out of their dives but what would have prevented the Vindicator from getting pretty much the same number of hits? 

Now there may have been other attributes (range/endurance or cruising speed/altitude) that would have prevented the Vindicators from being in the right place at the right time but that is a somewhat different discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If all we had had was TBD's and TBF's and B-17s and B-26's we'd probably be typing Japanese right now...





How were the Japanese going to mount a successful invasion, and occupy the United States?


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 26, 2019)

I think Schweiks" we'd all be typing Japanese" statement was meant as a bit of hyperbole.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think Schweiks" we'd all be typing Japanese" statement was meant as a bit of hyperbole.



I hope so, but I’m not so sure...


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 26, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> YEAH most were college educated but those that were agile were given a chance.
> That is why the FDR organized a Public School system. Russia and other countries did the same on the 50's and 60's.



Public schools, at least in New England, predated the Revolutionary War. Boston Latin was founded in 1635


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 26, 2019)

Maybe so but it does nothing to settle the argument and the statement also puts forward the idea the the SBD was the only dive bomber that existed at the time (at least in the US service) which is equally as ridiculous. 
Had Douglas failed to turn the Northrop BT-1 into an acceptable carrier plane in 1938/39 (the BT-1 being rather dangerous to fly off carriers) then the US had 3 years or more to develop another dive bomber, Vought did build 1 prototype Vindicator with a P & W R-1830 instead of the 825hp R-1535. The SB2C was initially ordered in 1939 but Curtiss made a hash of it. 
The Avenger development started months later and yet 6 were in service by Midway. Had the SBD not existed in 1938/39 the US would have come up with something to fill the dive bomber role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 26, 2019)

The US Navy was very interested in dive bombing, when the transition from biplanes to monoplanes happened the Navy had 3 different monoplane dive bombers while still buying Curtiss biplane dive bombers, The Brewster monoplane wasn't very good and 30 were built, the Northrop BT-1 had some severe problems but as Douglas was turned into a seperate company the design was reworked and saved. The Vindicator also dates from this time. The navy tried to jump the next stage of development and wanted big engines, much larger bomb load, longer range and inclosed bombays. This lead to the Curtiss SB2C, the Vultee Vengeance and Brewster Bermuda (and perhaps a few others on paper). The Navy may not have selected some of those for even prototype construction but the designs were there to sell to the French and British when they came shopping.
The reworked SBD allowed the navy time to sort out the SB2C and wrights ability to build ever more powerful versions of the R-1820 allowed for the newer models to have increased capabilities with very little weight penalties.
Please note that many of these later versions had next to no interchangeable parts with older models or even sometimes with other new models (the 1350hp engine was totally different than the 1200hp engine and the 1200hp engine was totally different than the 1100hp engine (not used in the SBD ) which was different than the 1000hp engine. it was NOT a case of pour 100/130 into the fuel tanks and screw with the boost control.
Had the SBD not been there in 1939/40 to fill the gap perhaps some other non 1600-1700hp non bomb bay plane would have been built to tide them over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 26, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> And the reason they were able to do it was, in large part, down to sheer dumb luck plus a gutsy decision by McClusky to continue searching for the Japanese fleet when peacetime norms suggested he should turn back to the US carriers. Yes, the SBDs delivered a telling attack against the Japanese carrier force but the timing of that attack relative to the TBD attacks which drew away the Japanese CAP was simply serendipitous. Had the Japanese CAP maintained better discipline (or had it been better controlled), or had the SBDs arrived at a slightly different time, it's likely they would have faced the Japanese CAP and, as capable as the SBD was, I think the conclusion of such an engagement would be inevitably bad for the SBDs.
> 
> Yes, the SBD attack turned the tide of the battle which was a tipping point in the Pacific war. However, to say that the SBD did it alone or because of some innate capabilities which the SBD alone possessed exaggerates the reality and, frankly, does a disservice to the other members of the USN, USMC and USAAF teams who all played their part on that day to keep the IJN fleet on its toes, reacting to the changing situation rather than driving the agenda.


Resp:
There is a very good article in Flight Journal, Dec 2018, "Which Way Did They Go?" and also refers to Robert Mrazek's book 'A Dawn Like Thunder.' In the article, carrier Hornet's planes played no part in the success of the attack of the Japanese Fleet heading for Midway. However, the initial focus of the Japanese on Midway, did take forces away from the US Fleet, if for only a brief period. While I don't believe that the Torpedo and TBDS drew all of Japan's air cover down from altitude, I do believe it helped the SBD Bomber squadrons to catch the enemy off guard . . . enough to get into position for a proper attack.
Also, once an SBD entered a dive I believe the light A6M would have had a hard time closing the distance. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 26, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I don’t have a breakdown. I was only pointing out that there were a lot of enlisted, non college educated pilots serving. Take the information how you wish.


Resp:
American P-51 Ace Chuck Yeager was not college educated at the time of his service in WWII England. By all accounts he was a natural pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> American P-51 Ace Chuck Yeager was not college educated at the time of his service in WWII England. By all accounts he was a natural pilot.



Absolutely. There is no need to require a college education to fly a plane.


----------



## motogp (Feb 26, 2019)

its the engine not the plane the merlin ruled ww2


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 26, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Never mind the accrued tonnage sunk by the SBD during the Pacific war or the concerted attacks on strategic IJN ships during the Battle of the Coral Sea or the Solomons campaign.
> 
> Let's discuss what other aircraft besides the Dauntless delivered fatal blows to the four IJN carriers during the Battle of Midway?
> 
> Take you time, we'll wait for your answer.



No doubt the SDB had its place...
Never would have got near the Carriers without a fighter escort.
Or could escort bombers at 30000 ft.
Or possess the flexibility of the B25 in New Guinea
Or the P40 which flew in every theater of war.
Potentially shooting down as many planes as the mustang if we were to gather Russian records.
SDB was a bit Player and played a narrow but useful role.

The closest plane that made a difference was the Mustang..
Escorting bombers into Germany where the thirsty P47 couldn’t.
P38 Which was not sorted out until the L model.
Both twice as expensive to build and maintain.

Mustang was used successfully in Korea...and later conflicts.
Think the last one was retired in 1984 much longer than the Corsair.
The Corsair another highly valued prop fighter.
The Mustang and Corsair were the two most valued US planes after WW2.

What happened to the SDB?
Not buying your argument!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 26, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I don’t have a breakdown. I was only pointing out that there were a lot of enlisted, non college educated pilots serving. Take the information how you wish.



What I take out of it that the more sophisticated jobs were taken by educated people. 
People who can triangulate position, make maps which many were non existent.
The army and navy struggled to get people trained to make and assemble things. 
The ramp up was daunting. 

Except for the few natural or near geniuses found that could be brought up to speed.
College educated got the more sophisticated jobs..like flying planes!

I know part of this story well..
My grandfather Joseph Fahey was the scientist that selected Los Alamos for the Manhattan project.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> What I take out of it that the more sophisticated jobs were taken by educated people.
> People who can triangulate position, make maps which many were non existent.
> The army and navy struggled to get people trained to make and assemble things.
> The ramp up was daunting.
> ...



And no where does it actually require a college education to be a great pilot.


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No doubt the SDB had its place...
> Never would have got near the Carriers without a fighter escort.
> Or could escort bombers at 30000 ft.
> Or possess the flexibility of the B25 in New Guinea
> ...


The SDBs did not have a fighter escort at Midway( at least not with them when it counted) and not only got near the Japanese carriers but seem to have annihilated them. They were also successful on other ocassions with minimal or no fighter escort in a way other bombers didn't seem to be able to pull off.
As a matter of fact they were somewhat successful acting in the fighter role themselves( CAP) on several occasions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No doubt the SDB had its place...
> Never would have got near the Carriers without a fighter escort.
> Or could escort bombers at 30000 ft.
> Or possess the flexibility of the B25 in New Guinea
> ...


What fighter escort?
Do you even know what happened at Midway?
Apparently not, because the majority of the IJN CAP was drawn down and tearing into VT-3 when VB-6, VS-3 and VB-3 arrived. Most of the Wildcats NEVER even made it to the battle!
All 10 of VF-8's Wildcats got lost, ran out of fuel and had to ditch. VF-6 lost contact with VT-6, ran low on fuel and turned back to the Enterprise. Matter of fact, the only F4Fs that made contact with IJN elements, were from from Midway's compliment.
The Dauntlesses drove home the attack on the Japanese carriers, did so alone.

During the Battle of Coral Sea, the SBDs not only clawed their way through savage Japanese defenses to deliver lethal bows, but they also battled against Japanese attackers in defense of the US fleet as fighters with considerable success.

The Battle of Midway is and was the turning point of the Pacific war. The Imperial Japanese Navy could not afford the loss of 4 Fleet carriers and the loss of the front-line pilots and aircraft lost that day. From that point onward, Japan was on the defensive for the duration of the war.

Now, this was in 1942...so where were the Mustang s and Corsairs you were going on about?
Why didn't the Mustangs and Corsairs help at the Battle of Midway?

Oh...because they weren't there.

It doesn't matter if the P-40 was all over the world, or the Bf109 and Spitfire fought in the Arab-Israeli war ten years later or the A6M was still fighting in Asia during the 1950's - it was the SBD, in 1942, that made the difference during a pivotal battle in the Pacific war in 1942.

Not the Stuka, not the B-29, not whatever other random aircraft you want to toss out there. 

It was the Douglas Dauntless that made the difference that day

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2019)

SBDs were critical to the victory at midway and coral sea, and played very significant roles at Eastern Solomons and Santa cruz. At the two latter battles some of the centre stage accolades need to be placed at the feet of the F4F.

What I baulk at is the claim that midway was the battle that turned the tide in the war. It was a very important battle, an incredible victory, but the cold analysis just doesn't support the claim that it single handedly turned things around. The Japanese did not alter their operational plans very much right after Midway. They did admittedly cancel the Midway operation, but their plans to capture Moresby, to advance to Noumea and Fiji to isolate Australia remained very much at the forefront. It would take the more important defeats at Guadacanal and all the hard fighting around and over that island to force the Japanese into altering what they intended to do. The other element to the allies wresting the initiative was what happened in the Owen Stanleys. Midway was part of the equation, but it was not THE cause of the change in fortune in the Pacific.

Think of it this way.....if Midway was the only victory in 1942, the US would still have not been able to turn the Pacific War around in 1942. Looking even further afield, the Midway battle in the context of the whole war was small potatoes really in a TO that was a strategic blind alley in the first place. Even though it might be politically unpalatable, a full scale retreat by the US from the entire Pacific would not have altered things much. Japan was in a no win situation no matter what she did, and no matter how good her war machine was


I just cant see how midway can be seen as the turning point battle of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2019)

Considering that the Imperial Japanese Navy lost 4 of their Fleet Carriers at Midway out of 6 that were present - the two other carriers were light carriers, held in reserve. This was 4 of the 6 fleet carriers that the IJN possessed at the time - add to that the experienced pilots and aircraft that the IJN were hard-pressed to replace.

The two remaining fleet carriers, Shokaku and Zuikaku both would be sunk 2 years later during the Battle of Philippine Sea without any real contribution during that battle. 

So in the end, the loss at Midway was a tremendous setback for their force projection and they hobbled along with light carriers from that point onward.

Now when I say "turning point" of the Pacific War, I am not tossing that out there on my own accord, I am simply going by the word of historians, both civil and military, who have made that determination long before I was even born.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 27, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> What fighter escort?
> Do you even know what happened at Midway?
> Apparently not, because the majority of the IJN CAP was drawn down and tearing into VT-3 when VB-6, VS-3 and VB-3 arrived. Most of the Wildcats NEVER even made it to the battle!
> All 10 of VF-8's Wildcats got lost, ran out of fuel and had to ditch. VF-6 lost contact with VT-6, ran low on fuel and turned back to the Enterprise. Matter of fact, the only F4Fs that made contact with IJN elements, were from from Midway's compliment.
> ...



Yes just that day..
Ignoring all the other battles, individual efforts, other major campaigns that also made the day..
War is a battle of attrition. It is simple...who can sustain the most resources into battle.

One of the major reasons Japan failured was because their army and navy leadership were at odds with each other.
Germany had a siimilar problem
The US had a similar issue with our army and navy until FDR forced them to work together.

Also it is hard to get facts about fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
Most of the books up until the last 20 years how we shot down all their planes.
Our history ignores our losses and overstates how many we shot down.

Midway is the same...our win...bravado..!
A lot of people were killed on both sides...there is no romance in that!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the Imperial Japanese Navy lost 4 of their Fleet Carriers at Midway out of 6 that were present - the two other carriers were light carriers, held in reserve. This was 4 of the 6 fleet carriers that the IJN possessed at the time - add to that the experienced pilots and aircraft that the IJN were hard-pressed to replace.
> 
> The two remaining fleet carriers, Shokaku and Zuikaku both would be sunk 2 years later during the Battle of Philippine Sea without any real contribution during that battle.
> 
> ...




The problems facing the Japanese at that time was not deckspace, it was trained aircrew. It was not the loss of 4 out of 6 carriers, either, it was 4 out of 8. The loss of 250 aircraft at Midway was a serious blow, but the numbers of aircrew that survived was substantial. It was unrealistic to expect that the big fleet carriers of the USN could be engaged with few or no losses....what was needed was that the US carriers be engaged and written off whatever the cost to the Japanese. this the IJN failed to do at Midway. ,The IJN expended some of its precious elite aircrews but did not achieve the victory it was looking for. In reality even this was unrealistic as an objective by June. 

Aircrew losses for the IJN were within the normal or expected range. The numbers of carriers lost were much higher than expected, Even with the normal or expected losses Japan was unable to bring the CAGs of the carriers up to full strength. After Santa Cruz, the last of the Pearl Harbor veterans had been expended with no decisive result inflicted on the USN. The Japanese Carrier fleets did not know it yet, but after Santa Cruz their bolt was shot. 


So, Midway was an important attritional battle, but far from a pivotal battle. It was part of a larger strategy, brilliantly delivered by the USN leadership. Midway was part of that wider strategy, and a massive propaganda and morale coup, but not decisive for the reasons relating to carrier losses. It was more a missed opportunity for the Japanese, and a pattern of survival for the US aircrews and carriers. They had not been subjected to a one sided crushing defeat. They had suffered some losses, and this would continue until the end of the year, but the losses sufferd by both sides were closer than is often portrayed. The "victory" at Midway was firstly that the US carriers had survived, and secondly the diminishing asset of Japanese airpower had failed to achieve the decisive victory that they desperately needed

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2019)

parsifal said:


> The problems facing the Japanese at that time was not deckspace, it was trained aircrew. It was not the loss of 4 out of 6 carriers, either, it was 4 out of 8. The loss of 250 aircraft at Midway was a serious blow, but the numbers of aircrew that survived was substantial. It was unrealistic to expect that the big fleet carriers of the USN could be engaged with few or no losses....what was needed was that the US carriers be engaged and written off whatever the cost to the Japanese. this the IJN failed to do at Midway. ,The IJN expended some of its precious elite aircrews but did not achieve the victory it was looking for. In reality even this was unrealistic as an objective by June.
> 
> Aircrew losses for the IJN were within the normal or expected range. The numbers of carriers lost were much higher than expected, Even with the normal or expected losses Japan was unable to bring the CAGs of the carriers up to full strength. After Santa Cruz, the last of the Pearl Harbor veterans had been expended with no decisive result inflicted on the USN. The Japanese Carrier fleets did not know it yet, but after Santa Cruz their bolt was shot.
> 
> ...


FWIIW - I agree Parsifal. The "turning point" was a series of actions that in the whole, comprised the "turning Period". Coral Sea put a temporary hold on invading New Guinea and taking it easily, followed by rapid development of Port Moresby. Midway stripped IJN of a lot of airpower to support and defend New Guinea and Guadalcanal. The Aussies blunted the Japanese thrust to Port Moresby from the North - Had they penetrated it would have made Port Moresby untenable, making the assault on Guadalcanal even more difficult.

It makes my head hurt to try to define the 'aircraft that turned the tide of WWII' - It is hard enough to nominate five 'most important aircraft' . It is easy to define a series of 'influencers'.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 27, 2019)

drgondog said:


> FWIIW - I agree Parsifal. The "turning point" was a series of actions that in the whole, comprised the "turning Period". Coral Sea put a temporary hold on invading New Guinea and taking it easily, followed by rapid development of Port Moresby. Midway stripped IJN of a lot of airpower to support and defend New Guinea and Guadalcanal. The Aussies blunted the Japanese thrust to Port Moresby from the North - Had they penetrated it would have made Port Moresby untenable, making the assault on Guadalcanal even more difficult.
> 
> It makes my head hurt to try to define the 'aircraft that turned the tide of WWII' - It is hard enough to nominate five 'most important aircraft' . It is easy to define a series of 'influencers'.


Absolutely agree that no one aircraft or any type of equipment alone turned the tide of the war. That's why the thread titled is frased as a comparative" the airplane that did the MOST to turn the tide of the war".


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

Ok, lets try thinking about Santa Cruz, the Japanese had gotten "lucky" and taken out two US carriers with submarines.

What would the expected results of Santa Cruz have been if the Japanese had two of the carriers from Midway there plus planes and proportional air crew?
I am trying to split the difference between no Japanese losses at Midway and what historically happened. Aside form that I have no basis for picking the number 2. 
I know that the Japanese didn't lose aircrew at Midway in proportion to the ship losses. But lets say the Japanese start Santa Cruz with 40-50 more veteran aircrew (110 lost at Midway?)

At Santa Cruz would the Enterprise have been lost too? Or would Santa Cruz have even happened if the Japanese had 5 fleet carriers at the time? Would even Halsey have pushed 2 US carriers to fight 5-6 Japanese carriers? Or would the US have waited until their carrier strength was better? 

I am not claiming the Japanese could have ever won the war but Midway does mark a turning point. Had Midway not happened as it did the turning point would have been later. 

The Essex doesn't show up until May of 1943 and the lIght carrier Independence doesn't show up until July/Aug 1943. Their classmates start showing up pretty quick after that but even the summer of 1943 doesn't see a 2nd Essex until late July or Aug after training cruises are completed. 


The change over for the allies also took some time. As noted by others the real loss of Japanese air crew was at Santa Cruz. 
Some Historians have said that Santa Cruz was victory for the Japanese, but it was a victory they could not afford. 
Had the Japanese gone into Santa Cruz with two additional carriers and 40-50 more trained aircrew would the losses suffered, bad as they were for the Japanese, have been as bad in proportion? Or could the Japanese have had enough left for several more battles?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Absolutely agree that no one aircraft or any type of equipment alone turned the tide of the war. That's why the thread titled is frased as a comparative" the airplane that did the MOST to turn the tide of the war".



Well, My vote would be the HurriFire in 1940. It isn't certain what the outcome of losing air supremacy over Great Britain would have been to knocking the Brits into suing for peace, but to me they were the Most important at any time during the war. Far more than SBD at Midway.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 27, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Well, My vote would be the HurriFire in 1940. It isn't certain what the outcome of losing air supremacy over Great Britain would have been to knocking the Brits into suing for peace, but to me they were the Most important at any time during the war. Far more than SBD at Midway.


Certainly great pics. Don't know if I could see my way to " far more" than the SBD" but they are certainly the other two most pivotal aircraft of the war in ny opinion.. Certainly couldn't blame anybody for picking them as tied for number one.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2019)

I will have to go to shattered Sword and tally up the list given for Japanese aircrew losses. But more than half the aircrews were saved from midway and these were used to rebuild the shattered CAGs and put balnced CAGs on the Hiyo, Zuiho, Junyo and Zuikaku. None of these carriers ever had anything like a full complement in the latter half of 1942. .


Having an extra carrier or two would have been handy, but the fundamental issue eating away at IJN force projection was its pilot availability, and more specifically, trained and experienced pilot availability that determined the levels of Japanese success. They were never seriously constrained by the lift capacity of their carrier fleet. they just didn't have enough pilots and that's the end of it. But they also needed to expend pilots to win the decisive battle they were seeking. Every time they fought a battle and didn't sweep the USN carriers from the field the Japanese were losing.

American problems were the reverse of the Japanese. They had plenty of pilots and not enough sea billets. Evry time a pilot was lost they could replace him pretty quickly. Every time they lost a carrier, there was one more hole in their force projection capability. The first Essex class were not ready for active opeerations until the middle of 1943, If the Japanese could remove the USN cxarrier forces from the equation and retain a credible seaborne structure of their own, they had a chance of disrupting allied counteroffensives. They wwere never going to win outright, and frankly that was not thir aim. They needed to knock the USN ofbalance, to give their forces time to consolidate fortify and reinforce their positions. They had no answer however to the merchant shipping losses being inflicted on them month after month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

parsifal said:


> I will have to go to shattered Sword and tally up the list given for Japanese aircrew losses. But more than half the aircrews were saved from midway and these were used to rebuild the shattered CAGs and put balnced CAGs on the Hiyo, Zuiho, Junyo and Zuikaku. None of these carriers ever had anything like a full complement in the latter half of 1942.
> Having an extra carrier or two would have been handy, but the fundamental issue eating away at IJN force projection was its pilot availability, and more specifically, trained and experienced pilot availability that determined the levels of Japanese success. They were never seriously constrained by the lift capacity of their carrier fleet. they just didn't have enough pilots and that's the end of it.



I am assuming (and it could be a bad assumption) that had more Japanese carriers survived more aircrew would have also, even though The Japaneses didn't lose aircrew in proportion to the carriers lost. Having a higher percentage of veterans may have helped the replacement process, at least for a little while. Veterans can only shepard newbies to a certain extent. 




parsifal said:


> They had no answer however to the merchant shipping losses being inflicted on them month after month.



I'm not sure how bad the Shipping losses were in 1942 what with the crappy US torpedoes, once that got fixed shipping losses sky rocketed.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> The SDBs did not have a fighter escort at Midway( at least not with them when it counted) and not only got near the Japanese carriers but seem to have annihilated them. They were also successful on other ocassions with minimal or no fighter escort in a way other bombers didn't seem to be able to pull off.
> As a matter of fact they were somewhat successful acting in the fighter role themselves( CAP) on several occasions.


Resp:
According to what I've read, the fighters (F4Fs) had to turn back as their fuel reserves would not allow them to make it back to the Fleet at Midway, forcing them to ditch. One point that escapes logic, is why didn't one carrier launched Fighters while the nearby carrier launched torpedo aircraft/bombers? (Two of the US carriers were within sight of each other). Instead, the initial aircraft launched had to burn fuel while the other launched! This used up precious fuel. It escapes all logic.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2019)

motogp said:


> its the engine not the plane the merlin ruled ww2


Resp:
? ? There were plenty of fighters using the Merlin. So why couldn't they provide long range escort? Because it required a better platform that housed the Merlin! Merlin engine fighters had been around before 1940, so why couldn't any of them fly long distance at high altitude and take on the enemy over Germany?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> (Two of the US carriers were within sight of each other). Instead, the initial aircraft launched had to burn fuel while the other launched! This used up precious fuel. It escapes all logic.




You are assuming the various groups from the different carriers had practised working together. Losing your shipmates in clouds/bad weather is one thing, losing a bunch of strangers from another ship is another. It also means altering the deck spotting of the aircraft, something that needs to planned out ahead of time. The US _planned _(not always achieved in practice) to fly off large groups of planes in quick succession. 





You can't launch any Dauntlesses until the all the planes forward of them are launched or they are taken below by elevator, at least one of which is either under or in the middle of the Dauntlesses. To land a plane ALL of the planes would have to moved forward. 
A lot depended on when the first location reports of the enemy fleet are received. DO you go with what's line up on the deck or do you take 20-30 minutes to reshuffle things. ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> ? ? There were plenty of fighters using the Merlin. So why couldn't they provide long range escort? Because it required a better platform that housed the Merlin! Merlin engine fighters had been around before 1940, so why couldn't any of them fly long distance at high altitude and take on the enemy over Germany?



The 1000hp Merlin or the 1500hp Merlin????


----------



## davparlr (Feb 27, 2019)

Per Shattered Sword, 110 aircrews were lost, probably about 25% of the force at Midway. By the end of the Battle of Santa Cruz, 409 of the 765 aircrews at Pearl Harbor were dead.

The Navy was accepting non-graduate applicants to the Naval Aviation Cadet program as late a 1992. They were called Navcads, and the Marines, Marcads. They received their commission when they got their wings. Believe me, all the high school girls graduating in Pensacola in the mid sixties knew all the terminology and what they meant.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You are assuming the various groups from the different carriers had practised working together. Losing your shipmates in clouds/bad weather is one thing, losing a bunch of strangers from another ship is another. It also means altering the deck spotting of the aircraft, something that needs to planned out ahead of time. The US _planned _(not always achieved in practice) to fly off large groups of planes in quick succession.
> View attachment 530322
> 
> You can't launch any Dauntlesses until the all the planes forward of them are launched or they are taken below by elevator, at least one of which is either under or in the middle of the Dauntlesses. To land a plane ALL of the planes would have to moved forward.
> A lot depended on when the first location reports of the enemy fleet are received. DO you go with what's line up on the deck or do you take 20-30 minutes to reshuffle things. ?





Shortround6 said:


> You are assuming the various groups from the different carriers had practised working together. Losing your shipmates in clouds/bad weather is one thing, losing a bunch of strangers from another ship is another. It also means altering the deck spotting of the aircraft, something that needs to planned out ahead of time. The US _planned _(not always achieved in practice) to fly off large groups of planes in quick succession.
> View attachment 530322
> 
> You can't launch any Dauntlesses until the all the planes forward of them are launched or they are taken below by elevator, at least one of which is either under or in the middle of the Dauntlesses. To land a plane ALL of the planes would have to moved forward.
> A lot depended on when the first location reports of the enemy fleet are received. DO you go with what's line up on the deck or do you take 20-30 minutes to reshuffle things. ?





michael rauls said:


> The SDBs did not have a fighter escort at Midway( at least not with them when it counted) and not only got near the Japanese carriers but seem to have annihilated them. They were also successful on other ocassions with minimal or no fighter escort in a way other bombers didn't seem to be able to pull off.
> As a matter of fact they were somewhat successful acting in the fighter role themselves( CAP) on several occasions.


Resp:
All good points. Carrier tactics would evolve, with larger carriers enabling more flexibily in tactics, etc.. Glad we didn't have to sail with Battleships.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

I would like to bring up another _possible _explanation for the US flying the planes off in the order they did. 

It maybe that the F4Fs required less flight deck to get airborne and the loaded strike aircraft needed more flight deck. 
once arranged in that fashion it takes a while to change.

Later on with more war experience (and more carriers ) certain carriers were tasked with CAP or fighter escort while other carriers were assigned strike missions. This might change form day to day so one carrier's air group wasn't worn out while others didn't do much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2019)

It is a myth that the IJN lost crushing losses to its aircrews at Midway. A comparison between midway, where four carriers were lost and Santa Cruz where no carriers were lost is very revealing actually.

Barrett Tillman’s article “The Seeds of Victory Are Sown” (August 2017) is typical of the post war fiction that has come to pass as accurate in most post war accounts. . He states, “the Imperial Japanese Navy suffered a crushing defeat at Midway, losing... four precious carriers and most of their aircrews.” The problem with this statement is that the Japanese did not lose most of their aircrews at the Battle of Midway. Parshall and Tully, in Shattered Sword examine this issue in detail. The book documents that the Kaga suffered 21 aircrew deaths, Soryu lost 10, and the Akagi 7. Only the Hiryu’s air group suffered casualties in excess of 50 percent, losing 72. This is a total of 110—compared to a Japanese loss of aircrew at the battle of Santa Cruz of 145, where the Japanese did not lose any of their four carriers that participated in the battle.

The myth of Midway is that the Japanese carriers’ flight decks were covered with armed and fueled aircraft ready to launch to destroy the U.S. carriers when the U.S. SBDs hit. The resulting image is that a majority of the flight crews were killed in explosions from dropping bombs while sitting in their fully fueled and armed aircraft. The reality is that the strike aircraft were actually in the hangar decks being rearmed, and only a few CAP Zeros were on the flight decks when the SBDs from the Enterprise and Yorktown hit. As the ships went down it may be that priority was given to saving the aircrew, in particular the pilots, because the proportion of pilots lost compared to the overall percentage of losses aboard the ships was very low.

This is why so many Japanese flight crews survived the battle: They were not in their aircraft.

Note that the big loss in irreplaceable personnel was maintenance crews at the Battle of Midway, Parshall and Tully make a lot of this, but I just don’t see it. I cannot find much loss of efficiency amongst the ersatz carriers that fought the remaining battles of 1942. There was however a visible and measurable loss of efficiciency amongst maintenance crews at Phil Sea. Perhaps there were some long term effects arising.

One of the reasons that we have the belief that the Japanese decks were covered with strike aircraft ready to take off and annihilate the American fleet comes from Mitsuo Fuchida’s commentary about the battle. Japanese historians have commented that this misinformation may be a result of his desire to uphold the Bushido code. It makes a more heroic image that the killing blow from the SBDs hit an instant before the Japanese were to unleash the blow that would have led to their victory. It just doesn’t sound as good that you got wiped out when you were down in the hangar deck getting your aircraft rearmed. That almost gets to the level that you got wiped out answering the call of nature, and no true warrior would ever admit that.

We don’t know the exact proportions of aircrew losses that occurred on the carrier decks, but it cannot have been high. Perhaps 5-10% of the total. If that guess is anywhere near correct, aircrew losses that can be attributed to the ship losses might amount to 5-10 pilots and gunners combined

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2019)

parsifal said:


> It is a myth that the IJN lost crushing losses to its aircrews at Midway. A comparison between midway, where four carriers were lost and Santa Cruz where no carriers were lost is very revealing actually.
> 
> Barrett Tillman’s article “The Seeds of Victory Are Sown” (August 2017) is typical of the post war fiction that has come to pass as accurate in most post war accounts. . He states, “the Imperial Japanese Navy suffered a crushing defeat at Midway, losing... four precious carriers and most of their aircrews.” The problem with this statement is that the Japanese did not lose most of their aircrews at the Battle of Midway. Parshall and Tully, in Shattered Sword examine this issue in detail. The book documents that the Kaga suffered 21 aircrew deaths, Soryu lost 10, and the Akagi 7. Only the Hiryu’s air group suffered casualties in excess of 50 percent, losing 72. This is a total of 110—compared to a Japanese loss of aircrew at the battle of Santa Cruz of 145, where the Japanese did not lose any of their four carriers that participated in the battle.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Interesting!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 27, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And no where does it actually require a college education to be a great pilot.


Yes it does requires a good education.
Have you ever been to flight school especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
Triangulation, altitude, temperature, air density etc...All require a good bit of arithmetic and math.

It requires a good Education! 

All the time!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 27, 2019)

George Beurling, Canada's top WW2 ace quit school at age 15


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

Hmmm, I understood a compass when I was in the Boy Scouts. 

Most college students wouldn't know a milling machine from a lathe so you can forget machining parts. 

The question is whether you need a college education to fly a plane, not build one. 



Dan Fahey said:


> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.



That can be two to four years of collage all by itself. At which point you are (or could be) a production engineer and might be more valuable to the war effort doing engineering that flying a plane. 

Many liberal arts students have "college" educations and can't do either engineering or navigation. 

Discussing Keats or learning Latin doesn't mean you can tear down an engine (or even change a fuel filter, if they could find it). 

having one or two years of collage did mean (at the time) they may have been higher motivated or better at learning anything than non college students _on average _and when you are setting up training programs for thousands or tens of thousands of students that is what you go on, averages.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes it does requires a good education.
> Have you ever been to flight school especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
> Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
> ...


Resp:
War was brewing. Most countries needed more pilots, and they needed them immediately. Concessions had to be made. Chuck Yeager was one of the many enticed to apply for flight school. How many non-college educated flew for the RAF?


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 27, 2019)

Resp(LMAO): see above


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes it does requires a good education.
> Have you ever been to flight school especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
> Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
> ...



Yes, I have been to flight school. I’m a pilot.

No you don’t have to have a college education to be a pilot. Most of those things you listed, do not require a college education to learn. I wonder why they call it high school to flight school in the Army.

Besides, engineering, machine tooling, blue prints and assy processes have zilch to do with flying a plane.

Get over yourself. It’s getting real tiring.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> George Beurling, Canada's top WW2 ace quit school at age 15



well, it does help if you have 150 hours of flight time by the time most of the fellows your age graduate high school

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2019)

Japanese air ace Saburo Sakae earnt his flying wings whilst a petty officer 2nd class. He was eventually given a special service commission some years later and ended the war as a lieutenant. He left school at age 16, but managed to pass the very challenging gunnery exams in 1936.

Sakae’s close friend nishizawa also received his flight wings as a non-commissioned officer having left school at the age of 15, to elementary secondary school standard.

Nishizawa and Sakae were amongst the highest scoring Japanese aces of the war. Conservatively, nishizawa is credited with 102 victories, but many believe his tally was as high as 150. Sakae is generally credited with 62 victories, but his tally is also considered to be as high as 100.

He was promoted posthumously to Lt 2nd class after his death.

Sqn Ldr Clive ‘Killer” Caldwell, the RAAFs leading air ace, never received his secondary school leaving certificate. He was born in 1911, and left school in 1927 at age 16. He received his flying credentials in 1938, and during the war rose to the rank of group captain before being reduced for disciplinary reasons to sqn leader. He is credited with more than 27 victories

None of these men were college educated

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> George Beurling, Canada's top WW2 ace quit school at age 15


The class system at the time meant that being intelligent didn't guarantee a good education. As for women, well, they were just there to make babies. Ah, the good old days.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Feb 28, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Sakae is generally credited with 62 victories, but his tally is also considered to be as high as 100.



His tally is also considered as being around 25 or maybe less? IIRC, Sakae didn't know how Caidin arrived at the tally of 64?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, I understood a compass when I was in the Boy Scouts.
> 
> Most college students wouldn't know a milling machine from a lathe so you can forget machining parts.
> 
> ...




Another issue is that college education was very difficult for the "lower classes" to get. Requiring college filtered out many people who may have been considered unreliable or unsuitable, and the lower class elements that got through that filter would tend to be highly motivated, very ambitious, and very bright.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Another issue is that college education was very difficult for the "lower classes" to get. Requiring college filtered out many people who may have been considered unreliable or unsuitable, and the lower class elements that got through that filter would tend to be highly motivated, very ambitious, and very bright.


In my days, grammar schools were for those who would be running the Empire. So I got in, my father was a Customs Officer. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. We were the potential officer class.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 28, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> His tally is also considered as being around 25 or maybe less? IIRC, Sakae didn't know how Caidin arrived at the tally of 64?





Thats true that his tally has been downgraded by some to as low as 20. it wasn't just Caidin that figured his victory tally was 64. There were others that Ive seen that suggest around that number. There is no way to be fully certain however.

I chose to believe his tally was 62.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Feb 28, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> even had they lost the air portion of the Battle of Britain there is no way the Germans were getting past the Royal Navy to actually invade.



Not sure I`d agree with that, all subsequent events in WW2 showed that capital ships of any size without full air cover were horribly fragile to both bombing and U-Boats. The only safe space for the British fleet would have been so far away from the channel that their existence would have been a moot point. They could have probably steamed in banzai style and destroyed half the invasion fleet, but would very probably have been mostly sunk in the process - leaving the UK with no air force and no home-fleet. This is of course conjecture, but the point is that any fleet without air-cover is living on borrowed time.

Of the 170 major ships lost by the Royal Navy in WW2 (Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers and Destroyers) only 27 were sunk by "classic" suface engagments or shore batteries. The
rest were bombed from the air or torpedoed by U-Boats (a few exeptions, like scuttling and accidents and a few destroyers fell to mines)

Its worth noting that ALL THREE of the British Battleship losses were due to air attack or U-Boat action. (the hood was a battle-cruiser)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2019)

The trouble here is that the Luftwaffe *has* to sink enough british warships *before *they get to the invasion barge fleet to ensure a minimal disruption. Sinking even a dozen destroyers out of 40-50 isn't going to save the invasion. The British risked (and lost) a number ships at Crete for an Island that wasn't British. And it took a number of days for the Luftwaffe to accomplish that. They don't have days, they don't have the number of bomber crews _trained _in anti-ship work, they have no torpedo bombers and the British don't have to operate in daylight and are not operating 1 1/2 days fast steaming (each way) from bases where they can resupply with ammunition. 

For the RN it is do or die, there is no point to "saving the RN to protect the trade routes" if the trade routes no longer exist because Great Britain is captured. The RN had two main jobs. Protect the British Isles from invasion and protect the trade routes. With 3000 invasion barges lined up which job gets priority?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2019)

The fact is you need a certain level of literacy and numeracy to be a pilot in an air force not only to fly a plane. You also need to be a certain age. All airforces knew what planes they had on the drawing board and they were increasingly complex. The knowledge needed to fly a B-29 is a huge leap from a P-36, I believe the flight engineer on a B-29 was an even more demanding job than the pilot. It seems logical for air forces to recruit people who had a reasonable level of education, you don't need to be a genius to go to university anyway.


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> Not sure I`d agree with that, all subsequent events in WW2 showed that capital ships of any size without full air cover were horribly fragile to both bombing and U-Boats. The only safe space for the British fleet would have been so far away from the channel that their existence would have been a moot point. They could have probably steamed in banzai style and destroyed half the invasion fleet, but would very probably have been mostly sunk in the process - leaving the UK with no air force and no home-fleet. This is of course conjecture, but the point is that any fleet without air-cover is living on borrowed time.
> 
> Of the 170 major ships lost by the Royal Navy in WW2 (Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers and Destroyers) only 27 were sunk by "classic" suface engagments or shore batteries. The
> rest were bombed from the air or torpedoed by U-Boats (a few exeptions, like scuttling and accidents and a few destroyers fell to mines)
> ...



The only place that I would have deployed our heavy units would have been in the North Sea and the Western Approaches to the English Channel and in both cases fighter cover would have been available from 12 Group (Midlands) and 10 Group (South West). I cannot imagine the Luftwaffe being able to do more than eliminate 10 Group (South East) and make a suicidal landing to take a port, perhaps momentarily before being cut off from supplies. So where are you going to land?





Lets forget the Tangmere and Hornchurch sectors because of the presence of either the RN at Portsmouth, Portland and Maidstone or the heavy coastal guns at Dover. It looks to me that any landing would have been a re-run of our disastrous Dieppe raid of 1942 when we attempted to take a port as all I can see in the Kenley and Biggin Hill sectors is the port of Newhaven and Romney Marsh.




I simply don't see any decent beaches or ports here.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 28, 2019)

My two cents is the college degree was a learning aptitude / motivation filter. Flying was probably looked at as being a bit more demanding than most military skill sets / jobs, and therefore needed a filtering out process of some kind to allow a better return on investment. Is it required, nope for the standard guy, but today for a test pilot oh heck yeah.

When I went through pilot training we were told each of us represented a 1 in a hundred who started the process but didn’t finish. My class started with about thirty, graduated 25ish, of which 5 went the fighter track (2 x F15, 1 x F111, 1 x A7 and 1 x OV-10). F4s dried up a few months prior and the F15E was just starting to be handed out when I graduated in July 1989. Fighters ran between two and six per class usually, and that was 1988-89.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 28, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes, I have been to flight school. I’m a pilot.
> 
> No you don’t have to have a college education to be a pilot. Most of those things you listed, do not require a college education to learn. I wonder why they call it high school to flight school in the Army.
> 
> ...



Over myself? What are you in Denial ?

WW2 we did not have a united Public School system. It was piece meal.
City kids military could get Recruits with a 7th grade to HS education.
Farm boys barely a 3rd grade education.

Had this same problem in Vietnam where new recruits could not even read and understand simple instructions.
In 80s DoD developed MIL STD 63000 where pictures were added to help comprehend what was read.
Turned out not to be a bad idea as it sped up fixing things in the field under stress.

WW2 the US Army started the largest public education program ever developed.
In a technical combat environment you needed to know how to read engineering plans were a must.
As an Officer you needed to read maps.
Those without a BS degree were not Officers.

Pilots worked with ground crew to make or repair broken parts.
I know this for a fact because one of my professors fought in METO and Pacific.
He was a motorhead like me.
My Uncle who flew Mustangs for the 7th out of Iwo Jima mentioned doing the same.
Working with ground crew.
They had a lot of boring days between missions and was something to do.

Today you do not need to be college educated to fly civil and because our education system improved a lot over WW2.

You want to fly combat planes today you are going to need a BS degree to fly.

D

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Over myself? What are you in Denial ?
> 
> WW2 we did not have a united Public School system. It was piece meal.
> City kids military could get Recruits with a 7th grade to HS education.
> ...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Feb 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, I understood a compass when I was in the Boy Scouts.
> 
> Most college students wouldn't know a milling machine from a lathe so you can forget machining parts.
> 
> ...



YES it make a huge difference !!
The purpose of a College Education is the practice and habits how to learn complex topics.
A person with a poor education is just not going to catch on fast enough and never learned the tools to do so.

An Educated person will learn a complex process or tool a hell of a lot faster than a kid with a 3rd grade education.
It was not just math but the ability to write !
Not to say they cannot get there just takes a lot more time !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> YES it make a huge difference !!
> The purpose of a College Education is the practice and habits how to learn complex topics.
> A person with a poor education is just not going to catch on fast enough and never learned the tools to do so.
> 
> ...



I am going to humbly suggest you have a very good point here...

The question remains who it is that has the education and who it is that is still trying to figure it out.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> As an Officer you needed to read maps.
> Those without a BS degree were not Officers.
> 
> *As an Air Liaison Officer I went through much Army training circa 1989-90. The Army then did not bother to train everyone in land navigation or map reading. I would guess they thought it was not a worthwhile investment. Does not take an officer to read a map, my Army Ranger Scoutmaster taught us.*
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> WW2 we did not have a united Public School system. It was piece meal.
> City kids military could get Recruits with a 7th grade to HS education.
> Farm boys barely a 3rd grade education.



Gee, My father, from Belfast Maine, population under 5,000 during WW II and the Biggest town in the county, graduated HIgh school (as did my mother), He went to the west coast to an "aviation school" for about a year and then to Stratford CT, where he worked at Sikorsky and Vought on the assembly lines before his deferment ran out and he joined the marines. 
He wasn't a pilot. He also wasn't quite the "farm boy" you portray despite being from a rural area. His local grade school was a two room school house but the town high school was 3 story brick. 
My mother (who graduated a few years after him) went to Bates College for one year after graduating from the same high school. 

I think your perception of what the local education systems were like in the 30s is a bit off. My father went to night school in the 50s while working at WInchester and was only a few credits away form getting his bachelor degree, he had the associates degree, and worked as a production engineer for WInchester and Colt. 

I think that Biff is right, the requirement for "college education" was not what knowledge the person may have acquired, but as a general indicator in the selection process before the army (or navy) spent thousands of dollars per pupil in instruction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 28, 2019)

We were using compasses like this 





in the early 60s in the Boy scouts, partly because you could get military surplus ones cheap. 
Other guys had this type.





If you can teach basic map reading and compass skills (short 3 leg course) to kids under 14 years old then what is need for a college education for such basic skills?

Please show where the requirement for pilots was any particular field of study. A guy with a degree in Art history might be totally useless trying to interpret engineering drawings. 
Couple of teachers living up the road from us in 60s, both with doctorates, could NOT fix a flush toilet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We were using compasses like this
> View attachment 530418
> 
> in the early 60s in the Boy scouts, partly because you could get military surplus ones cheap.
> ...



Nothings changed. LOL.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Over myself? What are you in Denial ?
> 
> WW2 we did not have a united Public School system. It was piece meal.
> City kids military could get Recruits with a 7th grade to HS education.
> ...



And you again are wrong. Have you ever heard of the Army’s High School to Flight School program that is used today?

I have 650 combat hours in Iraq (although only as a Crew Chief), and the majority of the pilots I flew with had a high school diploma. A close friend of mine that used to fly Blackhawks in my unit, had a high school diploma (now an A.S.) and currently flies the A-10 in the US Air Force.

You don’t learn to read maps in college. Anybody can learn to read a map. Stop insulting the intelligance of the backbone of the Military (NCO’s) who actually read the damn maps, and make the college grad officers look competent.

You don’t need to know Assy processes, machine tooling, blue prints etc to fly an airplane. You don’t need to know those to be an officer.

Is it preferred that pilots have a college degree? Sure, but it is not what makes them a good pilot. A person with a HS degree can be as good as a pilot with a Doctorate in Aerospace, who can be as good as a pilot with a BS in Basket Weaving. The instincts cannot be taught, and the necessary skills are learned in the cockpit not in a college classroom. College does not make someone more intelligent than a non college educated person. It makes him or her more educated, not more intelligent.

Its like economics. A college diploma is used as a rationing device to weed out the number of candidates. The piece of paper does not make the pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes it does requires a good education.
> Have you ever been to flight school especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
> Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
> ...


Your 'requirements' to understand navigation, cockpit procedures, control management (Feet, eyes and hand co-ordination), reading a compass and computing a flight plan (over terrain while taking into account windage) are easily grasped by an intelligent high school graduate with algebra and Trig. The USMC makes Bravo 11's masters of map reading and plotting a 'course' with less than the above math.Time and position of Sun are used by astrologers and computing a chart by hand is probably about the same. 

Why in hell would any WWII pilot need to know machining, blueprint reading, airframe design, powerplant, and mechanics of flight? Push stick forward, things get bigger, pull stick back, things get smaller.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan

My advice at this point is that you crank it back a few notches. you are entering dangerous territory here my friend. 

Respectful debate is the way to go. I sense some anger and frustration building. best to take your hands off the wheel and step back until full control is restored. 


Just giving friendly advice.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Dan
> 
> My advice at this point is that you crank it back a few notches. you are entering dangerous territory here my friend.
> 
> ...



Good advice, to all of us actually. I too had to catch myself...


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 28, 2019)

I agree with those who don’t think turning the tide of war can be assigned to a specific type of aircraft, for the very simple reason that the war was much too large and complex for that to happen.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Feb 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Another issue is that college education was very difficult for the "lower classes" to get. Requiring college filtered out many people who may have been considered unreliable or unsuitable, and the lower class elements that got through that filter would tend to be highly motivated, very ambitious, and very bright.


Resp:
My grandfather graduated from the USNA in 1921. However, the Academy did not equal a College degree . . until the 1950s, when he received notification/paperwork giving him a Diploma as a full college graduate. The Academies were considered 'trade schools' at the time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Feb 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I agree with those who don’t think turning the tide of war can be assigned to a specific type of aircraft, for the very simple reason that the war was much too large and complex for that to happen.


Absolutely agree. No one plane or any piece of equipment can be credited with turning the tide of the war. The opening question of the thread however, is posed in relative terms i.e. yes no one aircraft turned the tide but some did more in this respect than others.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Feb 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I agree with those who don’t think turning the tide of war can be assigned to a specific type of aircraft, for the very simple reason that the war was much too large and complex for that to happen.


You just took the wind out of many sails.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok, lets try thinking about Santa Cruz, the Japanese had gotten "lucky" and taken out two US carriers with submarines.
> 
> What would the expected results of Santa Cruz have been if the Japanese had two of the carriers from Midway there plus planes and proportional air crew?
> I am trying to split the difference between no Japanese losses at Midway and what historically happened. Aside form that I have no basis for picking the number 2.
> ...



If the Japanese had not lost four carriers (well, maybe 3) at Midway, I don't think there would have been a Battle of Santa Cruz, because there would have been no American offensive at Guadalcanal. The Guadalcanal offensive was only possible because the shift in naval strength thanks to Midway. In the early summer 1942, The Saratoga came back from repairs in the States and the Wasp transferred from the Atlantic. This gave the Americans 4 carriers with which to conduct the Guadalcanal offensive. (Of these 4 they soon found it difficult to keep more than 2 on station at the same time.) 

If Midway had been a draw or an American defeat in terms of numbers of carriers lost. The USN would likely have kept its remaining carriers busy defending the sea lane to Australia with maybe an occasional raid. Without SBDs taking out flight decks at Midway, the war against Japan would likely have been in a holding pattern for a year or more. 

Ironically, I don't think the ultimate result would have been much different. The new fast carriers of the Essex and Independence class, with their newer aircraft models would still have been able to establish air supremacy wherever they congregated by early 1944. The Marianas would still have been assaulted in mid-1944, and the US would likely have won the war before the end of 1945. 

Probably the biggest change if there had been no Guadalcanal or Solomon Islands campaign is the crucial role of the submarine fleet would come into sharper focus. Japan could assault Midway, but they would have had a hard time taking it, and an impossible time holding it. The submarines would be able to operate from Midway and Australia regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Midway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 1, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> If the Japanese had not lost four carriers (well, maybe 3) at Midway, I don't think there would have been a Battle of Santa Cruz, because there would have been no American offensive at Guadalcanal. The Guadalcanal offensive was only possible because the shift in naval strength thanks to Midway. In the early summer 1942, The Saratoga came back from repairs in the States and the Wasp transferred from the Atlantic. This gave the Americans 4 carriers with which to conduct the Guadalcanal offensive. (Of these 4 they soon found it difficult to keep more than 2 on station at the same time.)
> 
> If Midway had been a draw or an American defeat in terms of numbers of carriers lost. The USN would likely have kept its remaining carriers busy defending the sea lane to Australia with maybe an occasional raid. Without SBDs taking out flight decks at Midway, the war against Japan would likely have been in a holding pattern for a year or more.
> 
> ...



You forget that the RN has armoured carriers, one of which actually served with the USN for a short time. The RN at this time was the largest navy in the World until US naval construction got underway.
HMS Victorious (R38) - Wikipedia


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 1, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> If the Japanese had not lost four carriers (well, maybe 3) at Midway, I don't think there would have been a Battle of Santa Cruz, because there would have been no American offensive at Guadalcanal. The Guadalcanal offensive was only possible because the shift in naval strength thanks to Midway. In the early summer 1942, The Saratoga came back from repairs in the States and the Wasp transferred from the Atlantic. This gave the Americans 4 carriers with which to conduct the Guadalcanal offensive. (Of these 4 they soon found it difficult to keep more than 2 on station at the same time.)
> 
> If Midway had been a draw or an American defeat in terms of numbers of carriers lost. The USN would likely have kept its remaining carriers busy defending the sea lane to Australia with maybe an occasional raid. Without SBDs taking out flight decks at Midway, the war against Japan would likely have been in a holding pattern for a year or more.
> 
> ...


I think your right. Even without an American victory at Midway the war would have ultimately turned out the same way. I kinda doubt it would have only delayed Vj day by a couple months like late 45 though but who knows. 
More importantly,likely alot more guys would have to die to achieve the victory.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 1, 2019)

Interesting thread, my marginal two cents:

It's been a while since I cracked open Shattered Sword ( so I did, damn good read ) but I believe one of the major blows to the IJN was not loss of aircrew but loss of trained aircraft mechanics and technicians. From Shattered Sword:
Aircrew lost = 121
A/C Mech/techs = 721 i.e. 40%

Regarding the mechanics/technicians and quoting Parshall and Tully, "these men were difficult to replace, given Japan's less-mechanized society than that of it's foe, the United States."

Also the bleeding of the Solomon's campaign effectively crippled the IJN with large numbers of both aircrew and mechanics/technicians being lost at Rabaul.

Again with Parshall and Tully, but in essence they say THOSE losses, combined with the support crews lost at Midway had "a direct impact on Japan's ability to field a modern carrier aviation force during the battles of 1944"

I've always felt that while Midway was a good shot to the snot locker for the IJN, the real bleeding however, was the attrition of the Solomon's Campaign, there was no coming back for them after that.

Also, yeah, there was no way Japan was going to win going up against one of, if not the worlds most powerful economy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 1, 2019)

It is probably a combination of everything. However to show how things were stacking up against the Japanese just in the numbers of aircraft slots available on carriers. The Japanese got into service (of some sort) 11 carriers between 1942 and the summer of 1944 (not counting seaplane carriers or converted battleships) that could hold about 465 aircraft, many of these were converted merchantmen and some were actually used as aircraft ferries and not active carriers in part due to shortage of air crew (and support crew?).

The US had at least 16 fast carriers in service by the summer of 1944, granted 9 of the were the Independence class converted cruisers (270 flight deck slots) but 7 of them were Essex class carriers with about 90 planes per carrier for 630 planes or 900 total between the two classes. I am just using a cut off date of commissioning of Dec 31 1943 to give the Americans 5/6 months to train, work up the ships and get them to the Pacific. 3 more Essex class carriers commissioned between Jan 1st and the middle of May 1944. 

Advantage is pretty much 2 to 1 for the Americans counting every flight deck remotely suitable for the Japanese and ignoring the US's 34 escort carriers commissioned before the end of 1943, granted many of them stayed in the Atlantic. 

So even assuming the Japanese had saved or trained sufficient aircrew/support crew to fill every slot on every flight deck they were going to come up short in 1944. 

The allies didn't know (unless revealed by code breakers) the extent of the Japanese crew losses after each battle and strategies/operational plans would be made on a simple flight deck count.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes it does requires a good education.
> *Have you ever been to flight school *especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
> Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
> ...



I worked at a few flight schools.

Hmmmm. I wonder where in the private pilot ground curriculum (or any other advanced flight rating) where it calls for knowing"Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 1, 2019)

Whether WATCHTOWER would be delayed is in no way dependant on how many Japanese carriers were lost. What made WATCHTOWER possible was a combination of several factors, none of which had anything to do with the loss of Japanese flattops

Planning for an offensive operation in the Solomons was well under way well before the victory at midway. It was approved and at an advanced stage of preparation, already having been approved by the Joint Chiefs. Some delays occurred whilst USS Wasp was lent to the Med TO for a spitfire reinforcement of Malta, and the repairs to USS saratoga was made urgent after the loss of the Lexington. Whilst on deployment with the British, the Wasp practised night carrier operations incompany with HMS Eagle.

Initially the plan was to take the island of Tulagi by assault and also occupy the essentially no-mans land of Santa Cruz. However on July 2nd, long range PBYs detected airfield construction on guadacanal and the targets were quickly adjusted 

Enterprise Hornet and Saratoga were assigned as direct support units, and spent 3 weeks normalising and working up replacement air crews for the operation after midway. In this respect the results of Midway were relevant. Losses, or rather the absence of losses from the US carriers, along with the ability to draw in more reinforcements from the atlantic and Mediterranean, gave the US the numbers parity to attempt the operation with a reasonable chance of success. 

After Midway, American intel was temporarily blinded by the Japanese changing their naval ciphers, this led to some minor adjustments to the US force components committed to Watchtower. Hornet was detailed to remain in Hawaiian waters and was replaced by Wasp . Wasp was unique in the USN inventory at the time in that she possessed some limited night strike capability in her air group, and I have no doubt this influenced the decision to insert Wasp in place of Hornet into the operation. Further, Wasps air group was made more effective by the embarkation of TBFs into the CAG, the first USN carrier to be brought up to strength with this new type. She also was considered better value with her F4F-4 fighters over the older more clapped out F4F-3s equipping the hornet. The amphibiouis operation was delayed by severe engine room troubles aboard the Wasp, which had not been fully resolved until the end of July. 

In overall command was adm Frank j Fletcher, a much maligned individual in history but still very cautious in this operation. 

The operation would still likely have failed but for the fact that the air assets based at Rabaul were fully occupied at Milne Bay and supporting the attacks across the owen stanleys. Allied resistance at Moresby in particular was occupying the full attention of the Japanese . If this had not been the case, chances are the Japanese would have inflicted far heavier losses on the invasion fleet

Despite being in excellent shape, TG61.1 under fletcher made the inexplicable decision to withdraw the carriers on the evening of 8th August. I get the impression that his caution was due to the intell blackout afflicting the USN at this time. The UsN had no idea of the whereabout of Combined Fleet, and were still very wary of its potential......the USN were under no illusions at that time that they needed to pay healthy respect to IJM capabilities still. The people who needed to know, knew that the loss of IJN cartriers at midway had virtually no effect on IJN fleet capabilities in August. If the IJN chose to commit, they could do a lot. 


Some acknowledgement ought to be given to the role of the CVEs in WATCHTOWER. Though incapable of affecting the large scale sea battles, the arrival of these small carriers freed the USN fleet carriers from any need to provide ferryinh services to the island in later parts of the operation. 

Regardless of whether the Japanese lost carriers or not at Midway, the operations in the Solomons were locked in to occur. The Japanese, with their dwindling carrier air fleets were simply not in a position to respond by then...…...they could not afford logistically to keep their carriers so far forward for a start. The carriers could be based as far forward as Truk and that was about it really.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Mar 1, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.
> 
> I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.



I agree that the P51 only showed up after Midway after Battle of Britain after Kursk after El Alamein. So the Mustang was a nail in the coffin but other planes flipped the lid closed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MarkinTex (Mar 1, 2019)

I'd have to give it to the C-47 by a longshot. It was the ability to quickly move troops and supplies all around the world that turned the tide of the war, and though the transport was an intermodal effort with vehicles from liberty ships to Deuce and a Halfs being standouts, since we are talking about aircraft, the C-47 stands out. There were aircraft that could carry more (eg C-54) and aircraft that performed better in particular missions and environments (C-46 over The Hump), in terms of sheer numbers employed, throughout all the theaters of operation, and versatility of mission, from cargo (including the spare parts and sometimes fuel to keep fighters and bombers flying), to medevac, to troop transport, to paratrooper deployment (both as a jump craft itself and a glider tug), and used by the US, UK, and USSR, no other aircraft could touch the Skytrain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MarkinTex (Mar 1, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.



A big part of why Barbarossa wasn't going well (and why the Brits had been able to hang on till '42) was Lend-Lease, and if the US hadn't entered the war, the Brits would have never been able to do anything in North Africa which means no Italian invasion, and would not have been able to successfully invade France. The Eastern Front might have ground to a standstill, which would have meant that the Germans and Russians would have come to a separate peace just like they did at Brest-Litovsk in the first war, which would have freed up Germany to go after Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MarkinTex (Mar 1, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> *Americans/Soviets =* Almost impossible since the Americans would not really have any way of attacking the Germans, or supplying the Soviets.



Not necessarily so. The UK had handed over Iceland to the US for just such a contingency, and from there we could have at least retaken the UK, and we could have supplied the Soviets from Alaska.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 1, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> If the Japanese had not lost four carriers (well, maybe 3) at Midway, I don't think there would have been a Battle of Santa Cruz, because there would have been no American offensive at Guadalcanal. The Guadalcanal offensive was only possible because the shift in naval strength thanks to Midway. In the early summer 1942, The Saratoga came back from repairs in the States and the Wasp transferred from the Atlantic. This gave the Americans 4 carriers with which to conduct the Guadalcanal offensive. (Of these 4 they soon found it difficult to keep more than 2 on station at the same time.)
> 
> If Midway had been a draw or an American defeat in terms of numbers of carriers lost. The USN would likely have kept its remaining carriers busy defending the sea lane to Australia with maybe an occasional raid. Without SBDs taking out flight decks at Midway, the war against Japan would likely have been in a holding pattern for a year or more.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Agreed. All good points. Keep in mind that at one point in the Pacific War the USN borrowed a Royal Navy Carrier to operate from. Also, when Adm King flew out to California to converse with Nimitz in Dec '41, he told Nimitz 'we aren't defending anything! I want you to Attack, Attack! This was when California was arming/fortifying the West Coast against attack. So the USN stayed aggressive.
As far as US subs are concerned, initial boat Skippers were bred in the 1930s . . . and weren't aggressive enough, often returning to port with one or two torpedos fired. A lot of these Skippers were immediately replaced with younger, more aggressive men who got results. Warfare changes things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 1, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> A big part of why Barbarossa wasn't going well (and why the Brits had been able to hang on till '42) was Lend-Lease, and if the US hadn't entered the war, the Brits would have never been able to do anything in North Africa which means no Italian invasion, and would not have been able to successfully invade France. The Eastern Front might have ground to a standstill, which would have meant that the Germans and Russians would have come to a separate peace just like they did at Brest-Litovsk in the first war, which would have freed up Germany to go after Britain.



There are SOOOOO many incorrect statements in that post. Firstly, Britain didn't "hang on" until 1942 courtesy of Lend Lease. Lend Lease only started in March 1941 and, frankly, was a pittance compared to the military production occurring in the UK. Britain grew stronger militarily from the low point of May 1940 onwards...so please explain how Britain would have capitulated without Lend Lease.

As to Britain doing nothing in North Africa without Lend Lease, again please explain that comment. British and Commonwealth forces had already effectively defeated the Italians, forcing Germany to engage in early 1941. Tobruk, a vital turning point of the Desert War, took place Apr-Dec 1941 but Lend Lease shipments only really got going towards the end of that period and so had little impact on the battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 1, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> Not necessarily so. The UK had handed over Iceland to the US for just such a contingency, and from there we could have at least retaken the UK, and we could have supplied the Soviets from Alaska.



You're seriously suggesting a naval invasion from Iceland to retake the UK had the latter surrendered? I'd love to know exactly how that would be carried out. Also, the UK didn't "hand over" Iceland. An agreement was reached between the US and Iceland for the US to take over defensive responsibility in return for supporting Icelandic independence after the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 1, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> (C-46 over The Hump)



C-46 suffered from a series of mechanical and design failures. ATC crews referred to it as the "flying coffin". Other names given to it in the CBI by its crews were "The Whale," the "Curtiss Calamity," and the "plumber's nightmare". Until the removal of the electrically controlled pitch mechanism on the propellers, it could not carry full load over the hump and could not remain airborne with anything above 35000lbs payload. It did eventually do well, but a bit rich to call it "outstanding from the getgo. lacement of the


----------



## parsifal (Mar 1, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> A big part of why Barbarossa wasn't going well (and why the Brits had been able to hang on till '42) was Lend-Lease, and if the US hadn't entered the war, the Brits would have never been able to do anything in North Africa which means no Italian invasion, and would not have been able to successfully invade France. The Eastern Front might have ground to a standstill, which would have meant that the Germans and Russians would have come to a separate peace just like they did at Brest-Litovsk in the first war, which would have freed up Germany to go after Britain.



Leand Lease had almost no effect on Barbarossa. Us aid to the SU up to the end of 1941 amounted to less than $20million dollars. Later on it did make a difference.

Youve also omitted from this cosy summation that had it not been for British intervention over US ASW efforts, the US would have been brought to her knees by the U-Boats. Youve forgotten a little known thing called the Tizard mission which provided a vital boost to US efforts in development of radar, or the co-operation to set up and build an engine called the "Packard Merlin" used to drive one of your more sucessful fighter. Little number referred to as the P-51 I believe. 

Best assistance to the desert army was in its tank park. The Americans did provide a lot of assistance to the british in this regard, buts arguable that the british would “not survive”. Looking at Alamein……

The old A9, A10, and A13’s had finally been pulled from front line service. In their place, 216 British built Crusader II tanks stood ready for service at El Alamein. These tanks still mounted the nearly obsolete 2 pdr gun with some mounting a 3 inch howitzer for infantry support.

Crusader III had been uparmored and carried a 6pdr gun in its turret. At this stage of the war, this was the most effective ATG available to the British in quantity and the US tanks did not compare well in their anti armour capability in this respect. This was the end of the line for the Crusader as the turret would not mount any bigger gun. 78 of these were available for the battle.

The cheaper, faster to build, and more reliable Valentine tank had now completely replaced the Matilda in infantry support battalions. 194 Valentines served four infantry support tank regiments at El Alamein, all equipped with the 2 pdr and 6 pdr gun.

The Matilda was now retired as a front line tank but the hulls were used for various conversions. The Matilda CS was still used to support the Valentine tanks which did not have a CS version. The Scorpion was a field modified Matilda with the guns removed and a rotating flail fixed in front of the tank to detonate mines. 25 of these helped clear mines at El Alamein. 

The Churchill made its first appearance in combat since the disastrous Dieppe landing with the new Churchill III with increased armor and a new 6 pdr gun. Six were sent to North Africa for combat evaluation and were sent forward against the Germans during the El Alamein offensive. They proved to be very resistant to damage and performed well enough that more were built and sent into the later Tunisia battle area.

Bishop self propelled artillery was deployed for the battle, and was the first British attempt at self-propelled artillery. A 25pdr gun was mounted in an armored box mounted on a Valentine Tank chassis. Slow and with a restricted elevation which limited its firing range, the Bishop still managed to serve the British cause through the rest of the North African Campaign and into Italy. 100 were deployed for the battle.

The M-3 Light “Honey” tank had debuted during Operation Crusader as a main battle tank and, although it had many pluses, it proved to be too light to stand up well against the heavy German tanks. 119 were still around for this battle and were used mostly in a light tank role. Later versions would continue to serve in this role in British armored formations until the end of the war.

The M-3 Medium “Grant” had also debuted during Operation Crusader and still served as an important battle tank at El Alamein with 170 present for duty. These tanks would serve through and into the Tunisia campaign but would be phased out as more Shermans became available.

After the fall of Tobruk, FDR ordered the 1st U.S. Armored Division to give up its new M-4 Medium tanks and send them immediately to the British in North Africa. The British named them “Sherman” and had 252 of them ready to go at El Alamein. These tanks were spread out to nearly all the tank regiments and performed so well against the German tanks that the Americans decided that they needed no better tank for the rest of the war. This flawed logic led to the Sherman not receiving a main gun upgrade until after D-Day. But at Alamein its ability to fire HE was a big plus.

Priest was the mainstay of British self propelled artillery. British tank buyers ordered several hundred of these self-propelled artillery vehicles as soon as they laid eyes on them. Priests were sent straight to North Africa (making the Bishop obsolete just as it was being deployed) and served the British Army from El Alamein until D-Day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 1, 2019)

And then I have one final question for our newly arrived American. Where were the Americans in 1939 when they were needed? Same place they were in 1914, and that's nowhere.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 1, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Leand Lease had almost no effect on Barbarossa. Us aid to the SU up to the end of 1941 amounted to less than $20million dollars. Later on it did make a difference.



Here we have some confusion. I am not sure what British aid to Russia was called, it tends to get lumped into "Lend Lease" but the British sent a lot of stuff to Russia in 1941 that was not _paid_ for by the US. This rather points out that Britain was hardly just hanging on if it could afford to send Several hundred Hurricanes and several hundred tanks. Delivery of Bell Aircobras also started in 1941 did they not? And I am referring to the ones the British paid for. I will admit I have no idea who paid for the 1390 Canadian built Valentines that went to Russia but that was after 1941. 





parsifal said:


> Youve also omitted from this cosy summation that had it not been for British intervention over US ASW efforts, the US would have been brought to her knees by the U-Boats. Youve forgotten a little known thing called the Tizard mission which provided a vital boost to US efforts in development of radar, or the co-operation to set up and build an engine called the "Packard Merlin" used to drive one of your more sucessful fighter. Little number referred to as the P-51 I believe.



Yes the British did help school the US in anti-sub warfare, something that a few US admirals didn't want to hear. However the US also set up the "neutrality patrol" on Sept 5th 1939 and it was bit more tipped to the British than to the Germans. 

Roosevelts thinking on the Matter certainly pre-dates the German attack on Poland. 
"Roosevelt had been an thinking of such a patrolling operation for several months. On 20 April 1939, for instance, he told the Cabinet that he wished to establish "a patrol from Newfoundland down to South America and if some submarines are laying there and try to interrupt an American flag and our Navy sinks them it's just too bad."7 
Abbazia, Mr. Roosevelt's Navy, p. 62. 
Getting the rest of the US to go along took a bit of doing. The US was transferring ships to implement the patrol in the fall of 1939 and over the next two years the "_neutrality patrol_" became a whole lot less neutral, taking over a fair amount of the escort work in the Western Atlantic which allowed the British to increase the number of escorts per convoy in the eastern Atlantic. 

The Tizard mission did give a lot of good things to the US, but it is not like the US was a bunch of bumpkins sitting around with their thumbs up their butts. 
experimental radar on the Battleship New York in 1938. It could pick up planes at up to 100 miles and ships at 15 miles. Six production sets were delivered in 1940. A bit behind the British to be sure but the Tizard mission did not GIVE radar as a whole or concept to the US. 

The whole Merlin thing is a bit of a red herring. At the time the contract was signed the Allison was hardly a "proven" engine so yes the US got something. However the version that would go in the Mustang wasn't even running on a British test bench at the time. It would take two years before they tried to put a Merlin in a Mustang. US use aside from the Mustang was confined to several thousand P-40s. Packard built 26,759 of the single stage engines and US kept 3000 at most and perhaps several hundred under that. 

The British (and I always mean the commonwealth even if I don't always type it out) did do a lot that the Americans don't give credit for and the US did screw up a lot of early designs of a variety of weapons, we were far from perfect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Here we have some confusion. I am not sure what British aid to Russia was called, it tends to get lumped into "Lend Lease" but the British sent a lot of stuff to Russia in 1941 that was not _paid_ for by the US. This rather points out that Britain was hardly just hanging on if it could afford to send Several hundred Hurricanes and several hundred tanks. Delivery of Bell Aircobras also started in 1941 did they not? And I am referring to the ones the British paid for. I will admit I have no idea who paid for the 1390 Canadian built Valentines that went to Russia but that was after 1941.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
Interesting. Any thoughts on how the war would have progressed if the US just fought in the Pacific Theater, since they were not a major player in Europe? I would like to hear your version of how the conflict would have progressed. Thank you.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 1, 2019)

I didn't say they (the US) weren't a major player did I?
If I did please point it out. 
The war was almost six years long, one could be a 'minor' player as you put it for part of that time and medium player for a while and a major player for several years.

There was an awful lot of grey and shifting shades but a lot of people seem to want a hard edged, black and white answer. The US was either a hero or cowardly villain sitting on the sidelines. The Soviets would have either collapsed like a punctured balloon without aid or rolled over the Germans in 1944/45 with only the vaguest suggestion of help from the British Commonwealth and the US. 
and so on. 

The US sometimes gets too much credit for things it didn't do (supply large amounts of 100 octane fuel to the British in the BoB) and sometimes not enough for things it did do. 

The same goes for other nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 1, 2019)

A bit more on the American "neutrality patrol" Some British warships objected to being shadowed when in the waters the U.S. said were part of the neutral zone (which at times extended hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic but the American ships gave position reports pretty much in the clear in english. 

out of 85 German Merchant ships in the western hemisphere in 1939 only 32 made it back to Germany, of the 126 german merchant ships in the rest of the world nearly 100 made it back.
The Americans would shadow the German ships and give position reports in clear English. What happens when German merchant ship leaves the Neutral zone? British warship waiting for it. 

In one case, the Liner Columbus left Veracruz, Mexico on Dec 13th 1939 under orders to run the blockade and get back to Germany. Two US destroyers, the Lang and the Benham trailed her for several days and then were relieved by the Destroyers Cole and Ellis. The destroyers gave position reports every 4 hours and at night ran with their lights on. After the liner passed through the Florida straits two new Destroyers relieved the Cole and Ellis and the Cruiser Tuscaloosa joined in. Finally 320 miles north west of bermuda on Dec 19th the British destroyer HYperion responded to the position reports, showed up and put two shots across the bow of the Columbus, which stopped, had most of her crew abandon ship and the captain and remaining crew set fore to the ship and scuttled it. The Crew was rescued and brought to the United States. 

I would think that this was about as un-neutral as you could get without actually firing guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 1, 2019)

parsifal said:


> And then I have one final question for our newly arrived American. Where were the Americans in 1939 when they were needed? Same place they were in 1914, and that's nowhere.


I agree that it would have been a whole lot better if the U.S. had entered the war earlier. Perhaps in 39 as you point out but i don't think you can blame the American public for being a bit queezy about entering another multifaceted war with another one so close in the rearview mirror.


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 1, 2019)

Something that goes against alot of popular perceptions is that by 1940 the British alone were outproducing Germany rather handily in most kinds of equipment.
So I have read anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2019)

SR

I don't know the dollar amount of aid to the Russians, but it was substantial.....six convoys worth (I can eventually get it right if I stop for a minute....). However, purely on a technicality, Barbarossa was meant to last 6 weeks.....it was definitely over by the end of November (and really a whole lot earlier than that). After Barbarossa, the main German offensive operation was "taifun". British help started to have an effect from late November, whilst Taifun was in progress. Its a bit of a w*nk really, but not much aid for Barbarossa. Fist British aid convoy left British controlled port end of September arrived mid October as I recall, but it took time to assemble tha equipment and teach the Russians how to use it


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A bit more on the American "neutrality patrol" Some British warships objected to being shadowed when in the waters the U.S. said were part of the neutral zone (which at times extended hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic but the American ships gave position reports pretty much in the clear in english.
> 
> out of 85 German Merchant ships in the western hemisphere in 1939 only 32 made it back to Germany, of the 126 german merchant ships in the rest of the world nearly 100 made it back.
> The Americans would shadow the German ships and give position reports in clear English. What happens when German merchant ship leaves the Neutral zone? British warship waiting for it.
> ...



American warships did indeed provide this sort of assistance, but i would have to check as to when that started. I do know that at the beginning the Pan American neutrality zone, for which these patrols were carried out, did not exist at the bginning but after River Plate the US forced aall the Soth American states to sign up for it .


There was still quyite a bit of blockade running going on the german side until early to mid '41. Even the Italians had a go at that. The closure of the ports to Axis traffic was a fairly spongy affair.....often German flagged merchantmen entered US poprts under flags of convenience.

All those shenanigans ended abruptly but i forget exactly when and for what reason


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You forget that the RN has armoured carriers, one of which actually served with the USN for a short time. The RN at this time was the largest navy in the World until US naval construction got underway.
> HMS Victorious (R38) - Wikipedia



You are absolutely right that the HMS Victorious was sent to the Pacific in 1943 and served alongside the USS Saratoga for a crucial period between the time the Enterprise left for refit and the new fast carriers were ready for duty. The Victorious and Saratoga were mainly held in ready reserve incase the Japanese fleet went on a large offensive, which they did not.


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 2, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Whether WATCHTOWER would be delayed is in no way dependant on how many Japanese carriers were lost. What made WATCHTOWER possible was a combination of several factors, none of which had anything to do with the loss of Japanese flattops
> 
> Planning for an offensive operation in the Solomons was well under way well before the victory at midway. It was approved and at an advanced stage of preparation, already having been approved by the Joint Chiefs. Some delays occurred whilst USS Wasp was lent to the Med TO for a spitfire reinforcement of Malta, and the repairs to USS saratoga was made urgent after the loss of the Lexington. Whilst on deployment with the British, the Wasp practised night carrier operations incompany with HMS Eagle.
> 
> ...



Parsifal, let's take the hypothetical that neither the IJN or the USN lost any carriers at Midway, and plane and aircrew losses were minor, do you think the US would still have undertaken Watchtower in the late summer of 1942 even with the possibility of facing 6 first line Japanese carriers with experienced aircrew? If so, then the battle that was historically the Battle of the Eastern Solomons would have been a real slugfest, with potentially 6 Japanese carriers against 4 or 5 US carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 2, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> My grandfather graduated from the USNA in 1921. However, the Academy did not equal a College degree . . until the 1950s, when he received notification/paperwork giving him a Diploma as a full college graduate. The Academies were considered 'trade schools' at the time.


PS.
I acquired my Grandfather's USNA yearbook, 'Lucky Bag' when he passed away in 1974. However, it wasn't until the early 1990s that I took the time to look through the book in detail. I noticed that above each photo he had written in ink the dates of his classmates promotions. It took some doing for me to understand what the last notations meant. Having resigned his Commission in the late 1920s due to no action (peace time officer), he also followed their WWII history.
These last notations noted posthumously awarded the M of H, died during Bataan Death March, MIA, PoW, KIA, ship sunk, etc. In 1943, he tried to enter the Navy, but was told he was too old at age 43. So he entered the Army as a PFC and was sent to the Pacific, where he worked in supply. My assessment is that he just couldn't sit out the war,

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2019)

Absolutely. . And that's not just me blowing out of certain parts of my anatomy. Planning for a counterstroke had been in the works since the Doolittle Raid. initially Macarthur had wanted an immediate invasion of New Britain, which was supported by his boss, Gen Marshall, but rejected by the Navy, Gradually a plan evolved such that by about the time of Coral Sea it had progressed to a recognizable "WATCHTOWER' like plan to invade Tulagi and Santa Cruz (Gavuto). Later still it was changed again to Guadacal when recon showed an airfield under construction on the island.

The victories at Coral sea and midway brought more of the doubters in the USN on board with the plan, but had little to do with the decision in the first place

The USN was well aware of IJN problems in the supply of aircrew. Even in quiet times they were losing far more naval aviators than were being received from the training schools. Up to june 1942 ive read the IJN had received about 100-150 additional pilots (depending on your source) since the beginning of December 1941, for both land based and carrier based air assets. That wasn't enough to even keep up with normal peacetime wastage let alone a nation at war. Even as early as April, Yammamoto was communicating with IGHQ on a regular basis, complaining about the falling standards in crew training. The Japanese were even at that stage being forced to abandon their desire to replace elite aircrew lost with new ly trained elite aircrews. After June 1942, the numbers of aircrew increased in the IJN, initially roughly doubling in monthly graduations (to about 30 per month), but this still wasn't anywhere near enough. And even at 30 per month the quality of those replacements was far short of the prewar standards.;

You guys would have a better idea of new aircrew arrivals for the USN, than what I do, but it was far greater than 30 per month. From mid 1942, the allies wanted to increase the pressure on the Japanese. Increase the pressure and the attrition rate goes up, increase the attrition rate, and the Japanese go into an even steeper crisis than they already are. 

The other thing that gave the allies confidence, was distance. They knew that the closest that the Combined fleet could be based with supply on hand was Truk. This was at least a weeks sailing time from Guadacanal. If the Combined Fleet tried to base forward of Truk, where her prewar oll stocks were located, massive pressure would be brought to bear on her dwindling tanker fleet. Japan was already short of oil transport capability and needed just about every one she could get her hands on to bring oil home to the Home islands. It was a reasonable assumption to make that the Combined Fleet would not be able to interfere with the invasion for some weeks, which is exactly what happened historically (not counting the response by mikawas locally based cruiser forces at Rabaul).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 2, 2019)

I just don't see the offensive happening in August 1942. It's one thing to meet the Japanese head on in a naval battle (like Midway) but when you are going to be launching a ground campaign, you need to be able to stay on station. That means staying on station with enough force to meet the enemy at the enemy's peak power. In 1942, the US Navy had not mastered the underway replenishment that was the hallmark of the fast carrier force in 1944-45. The on-duty carriers had to rotate on and off station. Under the hypothetical, starting with 5 carriers, including the Yorktown, the US at best would have been able to keep three carriers on station, and again, under the hypothetical, Japan could have thrown six fleet carriers and several light carriers against them. True, the IJN was short of tankers and oil, but the US Navy also had a shortage of tankers. Per Neptune's Inferno, that was the main reason the old reconditioned battleships were not committed to battle at Guadalcanal. Even if the Yorktown had not been touched at Midway, the ship was going to need some substantial yard time to make proper repairs to the damage suffered at the Coral Sea and to generally update the ship. That would make participation in a Solomons campaign in August pretty iffy. Without the Yorktown, the USN would have had exactly the same carrier lineup it had historically, except under this hypothetical, it would be facing up to four (but probably fewer) additional front-line Japanese carriers. Other than the Yorktown, the earliest the USN could get additional carriers to a Solomons battle would be after the Operation Torch carriers finished in the Atlantic, and these ships would have to travel halfway across the world to get there. Historically the Sangamon, Suwanee, and Chenango arrived in theater in Mid-January 1943. These carriers weren't first line, but they were at least as capable as Japan's light carriers. (They were also needed to protect convoys, which was their main job historically.) If the US had taken up the campaign against a Japan with 6 intact fleet carriers, and if the US would suffer additional loss like the torpedoing of the Saratoga and Wasp, the US Navy would be looking at fighting a second Midway-type battle at a worse numerical disadvantage. 

Finally, coming full circle to the original topic, if as you assert the US Navy was looking for a fight to cause attrition against the IJN, the main tool they were counting on to cause that attrition was the good old SBD Dauntless, my #1 pick for "turn the tide".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 2, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> A big part of why Barbarossa wasn't going well (and why the Brits had been able to hang on till '42) was Lend-Lease, and if the US hadn't entered the war, the Brits would have never been able to do anything in North Africa which means no Italian invasion, and would not have been able to successfully invade France. The Eastern Front might have ground to a standstill, which would have meant that the Germans and Russians would have come to a separate peace just like they did at Brest-Litovsk in the first war, which would have freed up Germany to go after Britain.




A bit provocative but I think Markin actually makes some good points. I do not think the British could have taken over control of North Africa without American help - especially in three key areas - tanks, aircraft and general logistics.

*Tanks in North Africa*
Parsifal already outlined the basic situation with the tanks, but let me spell that out a little bit further. British tanks like the Cruiser and Crusader and even the Matilda infantry tank were carrying _either _anti-tank or HE weapons. You had a lot with 2 pounder QF (40mm) medium velocity AP guns, and some designated as 'CS' (close support) tanks with 3 inch (75mm) low velocity HE guns. But it was an 'either / or' thing. Later some had the 6 pounder (57mm high velocity) which was a much better AP weapon, but still not very good against non vehicle targets. Most of the British tanks were fast, but also didn't carry a lot of machine guns (usually just one .30 cal weapon) and with the exception of the Matilda had poor armor protection by the standards of the day and a tendency to catch fire when hit.







Here is the big problem with the British tanks - the 2 pounder and the 6 pounder were both pretty good AP guns for use against tanks - the 2 pounder was roughly equivalent to the American and German 37mm guns, while the 6 pounder was very good at relatively short range - better than the German 50mm. But the 2 pounder had *no *HE shell, neither did the 6 pounder - at least not then during the Desert campaign. Conversely, the 3 inch HE gun on the 'CS' tanks had no AP capacity. German defenses in the North African tank battles tended to be a mix of tanks and AT guns, (including the famous 88 but much more significant were smaller 37mm, 50mm and 75mm guns).






So if a column of Cruiser Mk IV and V or Crusader tanks runs into Panzer Mk III's, they have a reasonable chance of success, but if they are faced at the same time with some well placed German 50mm AT guns, they have really no way to answer back. They can shoot with their 40mm AP gun (2 lber) but AP ammo isn't very effective against enemy gun positions. By the time a CS tank rolls up they are likely to be wiped out. They also don't have any way to silence machine gun positions, mortars, or artillery they encounter.






By contrast the German tanks by the time of Tobruk are made up mainly of Pz III and IV, StuGG III plus some Italian and captured British tanks, but most of the German tanks are armed with 50mm medium velocity, with some 75mm low velocity and the F2 Special armed with 75mm high velocity guns. All dual purpose and effective against both soft targets (infantry, spotters, artillery or AT guns) and hard targets (tanks and other armored vehicles). Plus usually two fast firing machine guns per tank. The German 50mm gun outranged the 2 pounder and the 75mm outranged the 6 pounder. This was one of the reasons why they usually won out in more or less numerically and situationally equal tank battles against the British. The British are highly vulnerable to German AT guns, don't have enough effective radios, and also lose out in tank vs. tank encounters.

You can really see how this plays out in more realistic tabletop or even computer war games simulating tank battles in this era.






Enter the US kit. The M3 / Stuart was roughly equivalent in most significant respects to the older British Cruiser tanks, fast and lightly armored with a small high velocity (37mm gun), but it _did _have AHE ammo for it's small gun which was close in HE effect to a 60mm mortar round (and also very effective cannister shells for short range) and more machine guns and radios. It was never designed to be a medium tank but it was useful for recon and screening etc. But overall no major improvement, incremental at best, over a Cruiser Mk IV and a little less useful than a Crusader.

However the M3 Medium (with both the same 37mm high velocity gun of the Stuart and a 75mm bow gun) was _very _useful because of it's medium velocity 75mm. In spite of limited traverse etc., it's gun had good AP and HE rounds and could knock out both German tanks and gun positions fairly efficiently.






When the M4 (Sherman) showed up, contrary to the tropes it was probably the best tank on the battlefield at the time. It had good and reliable radios. Heavy armor by the standards of the day - more than the German Pz IV. It's medium velocity 75mm gun (a little more powerful than the gun on the M3) had a long range, could kill any German tank of the time except the very rare Tiger, could outrange all the German guns except the 88 and the high velocity 75mm on the (also pretty rare) Pz IV F2 Special and some precious Pak 40 AT guns. could also flatten anti-tank gun positions, spotters and artillery as quickly as they were detected and even had a gyrostabilized gun which could shoot on the move. They also carried multiple machine guns including .50 cal heavy machine guns which were much more effective against light vehicles (including German light tanks and armored cars) and soft targets out to a far greater range than the LMG's.

That also goes for American made self propelled artillery, half-tracks, and even trucks - everything had a .50 caliber machine gun on it. The Germans who fought in the Afrika Korps commented on the .50 cal quite a bit and clearly feared it.

*The planes*
In the early days in North Africa the British were making do with Lysanders and Gladiators, facing mostly Italian Cr 32 and Cr 42 fighters with a mix of obsolete bombers on both sides. The Germans upped the ante by sending some Bf 110s and the Italians sent more capable MC 200 and Fiat G.50 fighters. The British answered with the Hurricane which had it's day and could handle the opposition at first, but when the Germans sent Bf 109s to the Theater, the Hurricane quickly showed it's limits. The main bombers at the time were Blenheims on the British side and a mix of Ju 87, SM. 79, CANT 1007 and Ju 88s on the German side.

Very quickly from Spring of 1941 it became clear that the Hurricane was no longer in the game. The Blenheim was notoriously ineffective as a bomber in this Theater and crews took even worse casualties than the Hurricane squadrons. US made P-40 Tomahawks and later Kittyhawks may not have turned the tide, but they quickly became the main air superiority type and stabilized the disaster. American made bombers, some coming via the French some directly from Lend Lease, quickly formed the backbone of the British bomber force - Martin Marylands and Baltimores were first, then A-20s, and eventually B-25s and B-26's in American hands.

By the time of El Alamein US made P-40s were definitely taking the brunt of the fighting and shooting down the majority of enemy aircraft, as well as dropping the bombs which directly led to the key breakouts, notably by 112, 250 and 260 Squadrons RAF and the US 57th Fighter Group, while US made medium and heavy bombers had the most impact on enemy airfields, supply and communication assets. Not long after El Alamein by the way the Hurricane was basically retired from the front line even for fighter-bomber missions, they taper off you don't see them in action almost at all after the 1st quarter of 1943.

*TL : DR * I don't think the British / Commonwealth forces could have won El Alamein without Sherman tanks, US artillery, ammunition, trucks and food and fuel, and the P-40 fighter and a variety of US made bombers. Furthermore I'm not sure the British could have turned the tide in North Africa alone. I definitely don't think they could have captured Sicily and thus secured their Malta supply line alone.

For Barbarossa, it's a bit trickier to say for sure but I know American and British tanks were important in the Soviet Army by 1942 and I know for a fact that US aircraft were important in the defense of Moscow and Leningrad, and to a lesser extent in Stalingrad as well. All of these were basically 'tipping points' in the War.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think Schweiks" we'd all be typing Japanese" statement was meant as a bit of hyperbole.



Yes I was kidding, though maybe they would have been in Hawaii. I think it's an interesting scenario to consider: what happens if the Japanese had won Midway. The SBD certainly played a major role in that victory, as did radar, and the code breaking and good planning by US leadership and bravery by US flight crews including the fighter pilots and the torpedo bomber pilots who were basically sacrificed for the victory.

But lets be real- there was also a fair amount of luck. Luck is often very significant in warfare in any era. With the split second timing of some of the key moments of that battle, things like spotter planes and the vagaries of clouds, timing etc., it was clearly a major element of the victory.

And if it had gone the other way, well it's interesting to think about isn't it.

My angle on the SBD, is that it was useful in two ways - the 'Blitzkrieg' type victory of all or nothing in a key moment, a few hours condensed down to minutes or seconds where a squadron of dive bombers tries to sink a Strategic naval asset like an aircraft carrier, (or the Battleships such as the Bismark which it's quite clear they could have very easily sunk).

And I would say Pearl Harbor and a few other engagements show us that the Japanese naval bombers were also effective in this sense - they too could sink capital ships like CV's and BB's as well as lesser but still expensive and / or important vessels like CA's and CL's, DD's, fuel tankers and transports. If you sunk all the transports in the invasion fleet, or killed the carrier - it didn't really matter if you lost half your air planes. You won a Strategic victory.

But it was also critical for these aircraft to be useful in a war of attrition. This is where the SBD shined and outperformed the deadly Japanese D3A and B5N - they could get the job done and sink ships, but at too high a cost in machines and aircrew. This is why I point out that Coral Sea, Milne Bay and the Solomon's Campaign were as important in a way, as Midway. You needed both. Midway made it possible for the US to ultimately win in that attrition war because it balanced the scales in terms of available naval assets. As someone noted upthread 2 or 3 posts, Neptune's Inferno explains how the US also did face critical supply and fuel shortages and felt the squeeze of logistics nightmares themselves, and that is why they had so few battleships available to take on the Japanese fleet in those deadly battles and Japanese victories like at Savo Island. Apparently the amount of fuel used by those older BB's especially was so huge that it would have effectively used up all the fuel used by the rest of the fleet.

The SBD really stood out among the kit used on both sides as an asset which could do it's main job (sink important enemy ships) but also survive at a fairly good ratio while doing it, win Strategic carrier duels but also longer attritional campaigns such as the struggle for Guadalcanal... and also effectively do a lot of _other_ jobs like CAS for the Marines and ASW etc.


And no Shortround, the Vought Vindicator could not have done the same job. But I'll get to that in another post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A bit provocative but I think Markin actually makes some good points. I do not think the British could have taken over control of North Africa without American help - especially in three key areas - tanks, aircraft and general logistics.
> 
> *Tanks in North Africa*
> Parsifal already outlined the basic situation with the tanks, but let me spell that out a little bit further. British tanks like the Cruiser and Crusader and even the Matilda infantry tank were carrying _either _anti-tank or HE weapons. You had a lot with 2 pounder QF (40mm) medium velocity AP guns, and some designated as 'CS' (close support) tanks with 3 inch (75mm) low velocity HE guns. But it was an 'either / or' thing. Later some had the 6 pounder (57mm high velocity) which was a much better AP weapon, but still not very good against non vehicle targets. Most of the British tanks were fast, but also didn't carry a lot of machine guns (usually just one .30 cal weapon) and with the exception of the Matilda had poor armor protection by the standards of the day and a tendency to catch fire when hit.
> ...




You need to differentiate between "US made" and "lend lease" in your post. The 2 are not synonymous. The early P-40 Tomahawks that arrived in the spring of 1941 were all bought and paid for using UK gold reserves. Exactly how would Britain have failed in North Africa given that it was out-producing Germany? Exactly what was the proportion of lend-lease equipment in the British front-line in North Africa? I'd be surprised if it was more than 10% overall...and, frankly, given the production totals, that isn't a big enough proportion to have a direct impact in the outcome of the campaign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 2, 2019)

I tend to be of the opinion that even without the U.S. the British win in north Africa and probably the whole shebang as well although it's certainly not nearly the surefire bet as it is with the U.S. Fortunately we'll never know for sure.
I base this opinion on industrial output and resources( manpower and material). 
The Brits had the whole of the Empire to draw from. I think in a prolonged war of attrition(which is what would be probable, I don't see the Germans successfuly crossing the channel and occupying England) eventually the Germans just run out of both man and machine.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 2, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> You need to differentiate between "US made" and "lend lease" in your post. The 2 are not synonymous. The early P-40 Tomahawks that arrived in the spring of 1941 were all bought and paid for using UK gold reserves. Exactly how would Britain have failed in North Africa given that it was out-producing Germany? Exactly what was the proportion of lend-lease equipment in the British front-line in North Africa? I'd be surprised if it was more than 10% overall...and, frankly, given the production totals, that isn't a big enough proportion to have a direct impact in the outcome of the campaign.


At El Alemain it was roughly 50/50 Kittyhawks and Hurricanes plus 3 of Spitfire IIRC. IMO the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk were the right planes for the job in North Africa, in their role of supporting an army in the field. The Hurricane was okay up against the Italians, but the Hawks were better for use against the Germans. The Spitfire not sufficiently developed for that role by the time of El Alemain, the Vc, the VIII far superior, but they came later. So the Hawks were essential for victory in 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 2, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> And someone can say that this just "European" or "pro-Soviet" revisionism.
> Operation Barbarossa did not succeed even before serious lend lease supplies started to arrive, indeed. But Barbarossa brought USSR to the brink of collapse. And there were other German operations later which threatened the very existence of the Soviet Union.
> Regarding US war materials... If we change the topic of this thread to "which *vehicle* did the most to turn the tide of the war", I'd suggest Studebaker trucks (probably US6 should be singled out) and Liberty ship. I see no opportunity for the Red/Soviet Army to conduct its large offensive operations in post Kursk period without this equipment.



Can we please add the 2,000 locomotives and 17,000 railroad cars and just call it "rolling stock"? with the Liberty ship? ('cuz it don't help if you ain't where the fight is gonna be!)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> I just don't see the offensive happening in August 1942. It's one thing to meet the Japanese head on in a naval battle (like Midway) but when you are going to be launching a ground campaign, you need to be able to stay on station. That means staying on station with enough force to meet the enemy at the enemy's peak power. In 1942, the US Navy had not mastered the underway replenishment that was the hallmark of the fast carrier force in 1944-45. The on-duty carriers had to rotate on and off station. Under the hypothetical, starting with 5 carriers, including the Yorktown, the US at best would have been able to keep three carriers on station, and again, under the hypothetical, Japan could have thrown six fleet carriers and several light carriers against them. True, the IJN was short of tankers and oil, but the US Navy also had a shortage of tankers. Per Neptune's Inferno, that was the main reason the old reconditioned battleships were not committed to battle at Guadalcanal. Even if the Yorktown had not been touched at Midway, the ship was going to need some substantial yard time to make proper repairs to the damage suffered at the Coral Sea and to generally update the ship. That would make participation in a Solomons campaign in August pretty iffy. Without the Yorktown, the USN would have had exactly the same carrier lineup it had historically, except under this hypothetical, it would be facing up to four (but probably fewer) additional front-line Japanese carriers. Other than the Yorktown, the earliest the USN could get additional carriers to a Solomons battle would be after the Operation Torch carriers finished in the Atlantic, and these ships would have to travel halfway across the world to get there. Historically the Sangamon, Suwanee, and Chenango arrived in theater in Mid-January 1943. These carriers weren't first line, but they were at least as capable as Japan's light carriers. (They were also needed to protect convoys, which was their main job historically.) If the US had taken up the campaign against a Japan with 6 intact fleet carriers, and if the US would suffer additional loss like the torpedoing of the Saratoga and Wasp, the US Navy would be looking at fighting a second Midway-type battle at a worse numerical disadvantage.
> 
> Finally, coming full circle to the original topic, if as you assert the US Navy was looking for a fight to cause attrition against the IJN, the main tool they were counting on to cause that attrition was the good old SBD Dauntless, my #1 pick for "turn the tide".



Historically, the US carriers were withdrawn 8th August , leaving behind a cruiser force that was thought strong enough to deal with the local IJN forces at hand. Unfortunately for the allies, the socalled Japanese 8th fleet, based at Rabaul had been strengthened somewahat, unknown to the allies (though the allies did receive advance coastwatcher reports of the approach of that fleet down the slot. What the allies failed to appreciate was the night fighting capabilities of the Japanese, which is unforgivable really, since they had already encountered it in a major sea battle (java Sea) 

Guadacanal was initially a "smash and grab" exercise...….get ashore, get the airfield going, wait for the Japanese to react, and start the attrition process. Fletchers decision to clear the area was over the protests of the allied cruiser commander (Adm Turner), but it was consistent with the general concepts worked out in the planning phases behind the operation.

Given that these fundamental principals were worked out before Midway, it follows that the mission was planned to go ahead with or without midway. The only scenario where Guadacanal would not play out from August (in fact the original concept was for the operation to take place in July) was in the situation that the US carriers suffered catastropjic and one sided losses. That scenario would make it impossible to mount effective re-supply operations and place the marines in an exposed and indefensible position.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2019)

A few notes on tank guns if I may.



Schweik said:


> Parsifal already outlined the basic situation with the tanks, but let me spell that out a little bit further. British tanks like the Cruiser and Crusader and even the Matilda infantry tank were carrying _either _anti-tank or HE weapons. You had a lot with 2 pounder QF (40mm) medium velocity AP guns, and some designated as 'CS' (close support) tanks with 3 inch (75mm) low velocity HE guns. But it was an 'either / or' thing. Later some had the 6 pounder (57mm high velocity) which was a much better AP weapon, but still not very good against non vehicle targets. Most of the British tanks were fast, but also didn't carry a lot of machine guns (usually just one .30 cal weapon) and with the exception of the Matilda had poor armor protection by the standards of the day and a tendency to catch fire when hit.






Schweik said:


> Here is the big problem with the British tanks - the 2 pounder and the 6 pounder were both pretty good AP guns for use against tanks - the 2 pounder was roughly equivalent to the American and German 37mm guns, while the 6 pounder was very good at relatively short range. But the 2 pounder had *no *HE shell, neither did the 6 pounder - at least not then during the Desert campaign. Conversely, the 3 inch HE gun on the 'CS' tanks had no AP capacity. German defenses in the North African tank battles tended to be a mix of tanks and AT guns, (including the famous 88 but much more significant were smaller 37mm, 50mm and 75mm guns).



Yes the 2pdr was AP only, but the situation for the British was worse that described as far as HE went. The early 3.7in tank 'gun"(mortar) and the later 3in "howitzer were pretty much smoke throwers not HE throwers. Ammo load outs were heavily biased towards smoke shells. Smoke shells are not a whole lot of fun in a miniatures game though  

I would also note that on the 3in howitzer the velocity was extremely low (600-650*fps*) not meters per second like this web sight claims. 
http://www.wwiitanks.co.uk/tankdata/1940-Britain-Matilda-InfTankMkIIMatildaIIICS.html
Which makes long range gunnery (trying to land an HE shell in gun pit) more than a bit challenging. 

Machine guns are another thing many miniatures rules get wrong. Bow machine guns were pretty much useless much over 200 meters and for the most part they had lousy sights. A lot times they had no sights, the bow gunner observed his fire using a periscope or vision slot using tracers and trying to correct. Yes the Germans did use a small scope. 
The co-ax gun is aimed using the main gun sight. It was mounted pretty solid, it used the same traverse and elevation mechanisms as the main gun and should be just about as accurate, at least out to 600-800 meters. Perhaps further. 

The Germans used the MG 34 as the turret gun and used either the 75 round saddle drum or the 50 round belt in a can or pouch. 
The British besa gun used a 225 round belt in a box. Took a bit longer to change the box but once done you had a fair amount of time before you had to change it again.

More important than the number of machine gun barrels is the amount of MG ammo in the tank. The German MK III (at least the most common versions in NA officially carried 2700 rounds. The Crusader carried well over 4000 rounds, especially after they got rid of the bow machine gun turret. A Matilda carried 2925 rounds. Some Valentines carried 3,150 rounds. 
What the crews could cram in may be a bit different. 

Another thing that minature rules often get wrong is that the 2pdr gun was in different catagory than the German and American 37mm guns. The British 2pdr was actually closer to the German short 50mm gun in performance (armor punching anyway). 
2pdr AP shot weighed 2.375lbs (at least all the early stuff did) while German 37mm AP weighed 1.5lbs and American 37mm AP weighed 1.92lbs. The German 37mm had MV of 2500fps while the early British 2pdr was 2600fps (a supercharge was introduced that boosted velocity to 2800fps) and the American round was 2900fps. 

Now please note that ALL of these guns were better than the short 75mm gun first used in the German MK IV and that "By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> and that is why they had so few battleships available to take on the Japanese fleet in those deadly battles and Japanese victories like at Savo Island. Apparently the amount of fuel used by those older BB's especially was so huge that it would have effectively used up all the fuel used by the rest of the fleet.




Just perhaps many of those battleships were still undergoing repair? 

as far as fuel usage goes. Some of those old battleships were lucky to have 30,000hp engines (many had gotten new boilers in the late 20s or early 30s) and yes while they did hold a fair amount of fuel they were nowhere near the fuel hogs you are making them out to be. A New Orleans class cruiser had engines of around 108,000hp and would hold (standard) 1650 tons of fuel oil. 
The main problem was speed. They weren't fast enough to keep up with either the carriers or the cruisers. Of course this also meant they didn't burn fuel like the cruisers (or carriers) 
As built the West Virginia, for example was supposed to go 5130 N miles at 12 kts, and 2400 N miles at 20kts on 1900-2000 tons of oil (with the bottom fouled, clean she could do much better). The New Orleans/Astoria class needed 1900 tons to go 7,100NM at 15kts bottom condition unknown.

Yes the old battleships would burn oil but not that far out of line with what a cruiser would burn. and once the cruiser went much over 21 kts the fuel burn goes up dramatically. 

There were only about 3-4 of the newer _old _battleships available in the summer of 1942, Anything older than the Nevada probably shouldn't have been sent to face the Japanese at this time anyway. ALL of the old battleships had received refits but the oldest got their refits first, The Colorado missed Pearl Harbor because she was being refitted. But there was a big difference between a ship refitted in the mid 20s and one refitted at the end of the 30s.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Neptune's Inferno makes a very convincing case that the issue was fuel. I highly recommend reading that book.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 3, 2019)

I've never seen a battleship with wings

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2019)

As has been raised by a few other posts by others, both sides were suffering from a shortage of fuel transport capability in 1942. however, of the two, Japans problems were more acute. Continental USA had something like 2 years of military reserves, whilst the home islands were down to about 6 months or less in same time frame. It was possible to increase the overseas reserves of oil, at the forward bases, but not desirable to do so . For the Japanese, the decisive battle was intended to be fought somewhere in the Carolines as far north as the Marianas. There were plenty of fuel stocks at the main fleet base at Truk.....pushing the fuel reserves forward of that point would expose the fuel to destruction by air and naval bombardment (the reserves on truk were held in secure bunkers, moving those reserves to say Rabaul, would require their storage in far less secure storage facility. Just hanging around a bit further with the japanese, many of their ships, particularly their older BBs had limited endurance....about 4000 tonnes of bunker fuel. Somewhere I have the range data that amount of fuel gave them. It was not far enough for them to operate from Truk into the Sth Pacific. So not only would attempting to operate the IJN dreadnoughts in the Sth Pacific be contrary to their strategic battle plan, it would also entail a dangerous and costly transfer of fuel to Rabaul (probably) where the oiler fleet (and the Battleships) would be placed at risk from Allied Subs and a/c. The Japanese wanted to hold that ace, they wanted the Allies to suffer attritional losses to the IJN subs and aircraft (the fact that when this opportunity did arise, it was a monumental failure is another story). 


In the case of the US Pacific Fleet, there were several issues at work. They too suffered from fairly short legs, which again raised the question of the increased logistics needed to keep them at the front. Not applicable to the US fast BBs (or IJN fast BBs either). The USN also still did not have effective older BBs, many were still under repair and/or were being modernised. most would not be ready until 1944 for front line work and by then they were no longer needed as gunline ships. They were instead used very effectively as mobile bombardment platforms.

The other thing that discouraged the deployment of the older BBs was their speed. Like all BBs they required lavish levels of escort, and with an effective fleet speed of just 17 knots, could not operate at the new fleet speed of around 28knots. These ships if deployed in 1942 would have required the fast carrier TFs either slow right down, or accept massive reductions in thir escort numbers.

For similar and also different reasons, neither side was able or willing to use their older battleships in the SWPac. 

.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A few notes on tank guns if I may.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As is typical here you seem to have gone off on a tangent about something I never wrote and then made an assumption & really ran with it.

I never said anything about _miniaitures_ games.

You are right abour the 'smoke thrower' nature of the CS tanks and their 3 inch howitzer. They did carry a lot of smoke shell vs HE. But that doesn't change the point I was making - the CS tanks were insufficient to allow British tank units to cope with AT guns. Why they couldn't put a slightly better howitzer preferably with a HEAT shell I'll never understand. Even the French 75 / 1897 would have been better.

On the machine gun commentaey again I don't see a salient point. Earlier Mk III's actually had two coax guns by the way and the one bow gun. The lack of a second mg on the Cruiser and other British tanks made them more vulnerable to infantry as well as less effective against gun positions.

Its all well and good to have the extra ammo but if you ever shot a machine gun you know they are prone to stoppages, jams, overheating etc. and have to have ammo belts or cans changed. Inconvenient while under fire or being swarmed by infantry needless to say. Especially when you have no HE or cannister rounds.

This is why nearly every tank in the world had 2 or 3 mg's after 1942. Really after 1941, the Beitish were just lagging in this respect. And HMG mgs were much better.

Bottom line is still that the M3 and later M4 Mediums were major improvements which changed the tide for the Desert Rats at the critical moment in 1942. The British tankers knew it, Rommel knew it etc.

As for Logistics alone being enough for victory - if that was true the US would have won Korea and Vietnam. And Afghanistan


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2019)

American armour at Alamein did make a big difference to the survivability of Allied tanks. The biggest tank killers of allied tanks was not German tanks, it was their AT screens. An 88m ATG could take out a Sherman at 3 miles so the number of MGs at those ranges was rather academic. 

US 75mm HE rounds could allow the allied tankers to return fire on Axis ATGs and did not need a direct hit to destroy it. That was a huge morale and material boost, but effect air to ground asupport or artillery support could substitute if necessary. And had US armour not been available in such quantitiy, there would have been a delay, for sure, but I also think the Brits would have prioritised getting HE capability into their 6 pdrs to do the same job. This capability was only months away, so it is plausible that the bris might gave sped things up a bit if they did not have access to the Sherman

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> At El Alemain it was roughly 50/50 Kittyhawks and Hurricanes plus 3 of Spitfire IIRC. IMO the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk were the right planes for the job in North Africa, in their role of supporting an army in the field. The Hurricane was okay up against the Italians, but the Hawks were better for use against the Germans. The Spitfire not sufficiently developed for that role by the time of El Alemain, the Vc, the VIII far superior, but they came later. So the Hawks were essential for victory in 1942.



Agreed ...a while back I crunched all the numbers in anorher thread on here somewhere for Oct 1942 based on Shores MAW and the lions share of victory claims, sorties and air atrikes, as well as losses, were from P 40 units.

The Germans and Italians actually took about the same number of losses overall but they flew far fewer air strikes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

parsifal said:


> American armour at Alamein did make a big difference to the survivability of Allied tanks. The biggest tank killers of allied tanks was not German tanks, it was their AT screens. An 88m ATG could take out a Sherman at 3 miles so the number of MGs at those ranges was rather academic.



True but most kills were actually by 75mm and 50mm AT guns. 88s were notoriously deadly but there werent that many of them and being very big and high they wre dufficult to hide. They also kicked up a lot of dust when firing. They were priority targets for fighter bombers and artillery - in fact one of the key breakouts at El Alamein was proceeded by effective air strikes from 260 RAF Kittyhawks on seversl 88 batteries.

Smaller 50 and 75mm guns while still very effective against Cruiser tanks etc. were much harder to spot from the air.



> US 75mm HE rounds could allow the allied tankers to return fire on Axis ATGs and did not need a direct hit to destroy it. That was a huge morale and material boost, but effect air to ground asupport or artillery support could substitute if necessary. And had US armour not been available in such quantitiy, there would have been a delay, for sure, but I also think the Brits would have prioritised getting HE capability into their 6 pdrs to do the same job. This capability was only months away, so it is plausible that the bris might gave sped things up a bit if they did not have access to the Sherman



Also true but the 6 pounder was a 57mm shell, as HE definitely better than nothing but not exactly superb vs infantry or AT guns, especially compared to the US 75 or more importantly, the German one. The US 75 also has much better range from what I gather.

Its also worth noting that the best planes for knocking out those 88s etc. by late 42 in NA was the P 40. With just Hurricanes, Spit 5 and Blenheims DAF would have been far less effective. Spit VIII and IX would help but werent available in #'s until 43 and still had range issues.

Lets say the British did hold out through the end of 1942 without US kit and get their 6 pounder HE shells for their Crusader tanks. Now they are up against Pz IVG, StuGg IIIF and G, etc. Still a step or two behind in other words.

I think without US tanks, fighters, bombers and Naval suppoer the fight in North Africa could have gone on into 1944 and Italy would have still been in the war.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Another minor point - AT guns killed mist of the Allied tanks _when the Allies were attacking_,_ but when the Germans were attacking, or counterattacking (as they typically did after being hit by doctrine), it was indeed the German tanks, as well as Stukas and artillery, that did most of the damage._


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> At El Alemain it was roughly 50/50 Kittyhawks and Hurricanes plus 3 of Spitfire IIRC. IMO the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk were the right planes for the job in North Africa, in their role of supporting an army in the field. The Hurricane was okay up against the Italians, but the Hawks were better for use against the Germans. The Spitfire not sufficiently developed for that role by the time of El Alemain, the Vc, the VIII far superior, but they came later. So the Hawks were essential for victory in 1942.



Don't disagree the P-40 was the right aircraft but it's a unique case in that theatre. Also your response still doesn't dig into how many of those airframes were direct purchased and how many were lend lease. I just don't know when shipments of the latter started arriving but it probably wasn't until Q3 of 1941 at the absolute earliest. I'm pretty sure all the Tomahawks were direct purchased but I don't know what the situation was for Kittyhawks.

For the Desert War, we also need to consider the tanks which were a major component of victory. Again, I'd be interested in knowing what proportion of British front-line strength was made up of M3 Medium tanks in October 1942 given that they didn't start showing up until May 1942.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 3, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't disagree the P-40 was the right aircraft but it's a unique case in that theatre. Also your response still doesn't dig into how many of those airframes were direct purchased and how many were lend lease. I just don't know when shipments of the latter started arriving but it probably wasn't until Q3 of 1941 at the absolute earliest. I'm pretty sure all the Tomahawks were direct purchased but I don't know what the situation was for Kittyhawks.
> 
> For the Desert War, we also need to consider the tanks which were a major component of victory. Again, I'd be interested in knowing what proportion of British front-line strength was made up of M3 Medium tanks in October 1942 given that they didn't start showing up until May 1942.



Have you ever seen this site?
US Warplanes
Production and delivery details of American combat aircraft in WW2.
The P-40 was a superb aircraft in all theatres except over Western Europe where we needed fast climbing interceptors with a good combat ceiling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

US M3 light, M3 medium and M4 medium tanks were a major part of the British / Commonwealth tank forces at El Alamein, and the M4 in particular was the tip of the spear. Detailed breakdown of the TO & E isn't hard to find.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As is typical here you seem to have gone off on a tangent about something I never wrote and then made an assumption & really ran with it.
> 
> I never said anything about _miniaitures_ games.





Schweik said:


> You can really see how this plays out in more realistic tabletop or even computer war games simulating tank battles in this era.



Well, it seems you are correct. But the distinction between a tabletop game and miniatures game is small one. Just about all of the rules or ratings for machine guns in these games that I have seen very from slightly screwed up to very screwed up. A lot of times in the interest of making things simple for playability.

I will take the rest of the tank gunnery stuff to a different thread.

From the aircraft thread "aircraft that did the most.......... tank guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

The only point I was making was that certain games can give you a sense of what the problem was actually like - I never said nor did I even imply this was the source of my knowledge on this.

The problem in question being very well known, I was not taking an outlier position on the issue - the 2 pounder and 6 pounder guns lack of HE ammo, and the relative paucity of 'CS" tanks and the ineffective short howitzer's lack of HEAT option (very rare in this respect for AFV's of this time period) all meant that the British tank force was severely lacking and were suffering as a result in action against the Germans. The tide changed with the arrival of the US made tanks, whether by lend lease or purchase with gold bars makes no difference to me as I'm not even talking about that side of the discussion. The Americans and British / Commonwealth forces were working together as a common cause and every effective tank or airplane the British got from the US - whether via direct purchase, taken over from France or Russia, or via Lend Lease, was a good thing in my opinion.

As for mounting the 75mm from the Sherman on a cruiser tank - again, this is something I didn't actually say. There is a long way from a 600 fps howitzer with a range of 2,000 yards with no armor piercing capability vs. an 1,800 - 2,000 fps gun still able to penetrate 30mm of armor at 3,000 meters. Even something like the short barreled (75mm x 24) German KwK 37 gun would have been an improvement. A turret redesign wasn't out of the question. In the end of course they did both recognize and solve this problem, they bored put a 6 pounder, put on a new breach and made a 75mm out of it which they put on the Cromwell and the Churchill among other tanks. So it obviously wasn't an unsolvable problem.

Most howitzer armed AFV's by 1942 did have a heat shell or some kind of AP shell by the way. It had become ubiquitous even for towed artillery to have some.

You in my opinion are reflecting your own ignorance here as well as your tendency to start an argument where you don't actually have one to make. I'm not in the least "ignorant" about WW2 or WW2 tanks in particular, especially in North Africa.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A totally ridiculous statement. The war might have gone on longer and been more costly but the Japanese had 0.0 chance of winning the war unless the US simply quit. The US could out build tha Japanese by over a factor of 10 to 1.



冗談を言うことはできませんか。

I was kidding about speaking Japanese. But I do believe that a major defeat at Midway would have been a nightmare for the US. I wouldn't rule out the capture of the Hawaiian Islands.

And there is more to winning a war than production and logistics. How much did we out build Vietnam by?



> A lot of this depends on how good or numerous the Japanese CAP is. Four Zeros (or eight) against several squadrons of any dive bomber could not shoot them all down.
> 
> people here are getting into the black and white type argument.
> _Only the SBD _could have sunk four Japanese carriers, _no other dive bomber would have sunk any_.
> _Only the SBD _could fight it's way through defending fighters. _no other dive bomber would have a chance. _



A more accurate comment would be

_Only the SBD could have sunk four Japanese carriers, no other dive bomber available to the Allies would have sunk all four.
Only the SBD could fight it's way through the defending fighters with sufficient aircraft surviving to sink ships and return with their aircrews (see above)._



> Except in the case at Midway the dive bombers didn't fight their way through the Japanese CAP or at least not much of one. Out of position, few planes and those that were there were short on ammo. If you are playing air to air games you are not dive bombing. The SBDs air to air capabilities may have kept losses low *after *the bombs were dropped and the planes were getting out of the area.



Getting through the CAP is part of it, hitting the target is part, getting back with a living aircrew is another part. Throughout this discussion I have maintained that the reason the SBD was so important was that due to it's high level of surviveability and availability and continued effectiveness in the Solomon Islands and New Guinea campaigns is really what set it apart from it's closest competitors - the D3A and B5N. The D3A and B5N were capable of winning a single Strategic Victory - see Pearl Harbor. But in a sustained naval campaign, with the need to win Strategic and Operational victories by sinking Capital ships and transports, and also do things like bomb airfields, they did not rise to the occasion.



> Now let us imagine that instead of all those squadrons of Dauntless you had the same number of Vought SB2U (or an updated version) aircraft attacking from the same positions with the Japanese aircraft and ships in their same positions and conditions.
> What difference was there in the Dauntless that would enable it to score such a success while while the Vindicator would have failed?
> 
> The Vindicator may well have suffered higher losses to AA fire and/or higher losses to the Japanese fighters once they pulled out of their dives but what would have prevented the Vindicator from getting pretty much the same number of hits?
> ...



The Vindicator looks kind of similar visually, I'll give you that. But it's a superficial comparison. You are showing your ignorance.

The biggest problem is indeed the range - the Vindicator had half of the range of the SBD, that alone would have precluded a Midway victory. But it's not the only problem. The Vidicator had an 850 hp engine vs. 1,000 (later 1,200) on the SBD, and it was widely considered underpowered. It was not well protected by armor etc., apparently had issues with bombing accuracy and was very poorly armed, offensive firepower consisting of one .30 cal mg in the outer wing. This is a major difference from two 12.7mm HMG in the nose.

But the biggest issues were intangible ones, the ones hard to measure - the crews didn't like or trust it. In the few short months it was in service, it earned nicknames like 'Vought Vibrator' (from the US Marines) and in British service where it was designated as the Chesepeake, it was known to crews as the "Cheesecake". This is why it was so quickly rotated out of service by everyone who used it.

What precisely made the SBD such an accurate dive bomber that sank so many enemy ships, and so comparatively effective in Air to Air combat that it came out of the war with the only positive air to air victory claim to loss ratio of any Allied bomber. In part it boils down to maneuverability and handling. To exploit hard turns and wild skids, the pilot has to trust the plane sufficiently to put it through it's paces. The underpowered, short-legged, barely armed Vought 'Vibrator' couldn't survive the brutal environment of Naval combat in the South Pacific in 1942.

Nor could something like a Swordfish for that matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The only point I was making was that certain games can give you a sense of what the problem was actually like - I never said nor did I even imply this was the source of my knowledge on this.


Except often they don't give you sense of what was going on. I will take this to the other thread.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A more accurate comment would be
> 
> _Only the SBD could have sunk four Japanese carriers, no other dive bomber available to the Allies would have sunk all four.
> Only the SBD could fight it's way through the defending fighters with sufficient aircraft surviving to sink ships and return with their aircrews (see above)._
> ...



True but in the context of Midway what mattered was getting those hits on the japanese carriers, anything else was gravy. 





> The Vindicator looks kind of similar visually, I'll give you that. But it's a superficial comparison. You are showing your ignorance.



showing my ignorance............really?????



> The biggest problem is indeed the range - the Vindicator had half of the range of the SBD, that alone would have precluded a Midway victory. But it's not the only problem. The Vidicator had an 850 hp engine vs. 1,000 (later 1,200) on the SBD, and it was widely considered underpowered. It was not well protected by armor etc., apparently had issues with bombing accuracy and was very poorly armed, offensive firepower consisting of one .30 cal mg in the outer wing. This is a major difference from two 12.7mm HMG in the nose.



The Vindicator SB2U-2s (the one Wiki gives data for) was built in 1938 ( 28) and 1939 (40) and entered service before the Northrop BT-1 (which was transformed into the Dauntless )
so one would expect lower performance. The range listed in Wiki is questionable in that it doesn't mention fuel or bomb load. 

Then we have the SB2U-3 which is a bit different. From the Vought Heritage website. 

" To meet this requirement for a long-range capability, Vought offered the Marine Corps a new variant of the SB2U with increased fuel capacity. On September 25, 1939, the proposal was accepted and Vought received a contract for 57 aircraft under the designation SB2U3. "

" The changes included: an increase in the span of the horizontal stabilizers from 13 feet 4 inches to 15 feet 2 1/16 inches, a substantially increased internal fuel supply, provisions for four forward-firing .50-caliber machine guns, and a .50caliber machine gun for the observer. 


The engine was changed from the 825-horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-1535-96 to the 825-horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-1535-02. These changes resulted in an increase of some 921 pounds in the aircraft’s empty weight. The improvements made to the basic airplane did little or nothing to improve its performance; therefore the increased weight of fuel caused the SB2U-3’s performance to suffer."

and
" The increased fuel capacity was achieved by increasing the main fuel tank capacity and adding three additional tanks to the wing center section. These tanks were unprotected and would later prove to be a major problem in combat. The increased tankage plus a 50-gallon external auxiliary centerline tank gave the SB2U-3 a range of 2,640 miles (or a search radius of 1,320 miles) for a search and scout mission. When armed with a 1,000-pound bomb load the SB2U-3 had a combat radius of 560 miles for a dive bomb mission. "

I have my doubts about the four .50 cal guns in the wings. 

for the British
"To meet British requirements the throttle arrangement was returned to the original design (forward to increase power). The Vought bomb displacement gear was reinstalled. The larger fuel tanks of the SB2U-3 were incorporated and armor protection for the crew and fuel tanks was provided. Also, the forward-firing armament was increased to four wing mounted .30-caliber machine guns instead of the single gun used on the SB2U-2. The fence-type wing dive brakes were deleted. Installation of a British tail hook was considered, but this is not known to have actually occurred. It is believed all V-156-B1’s retained the U.S. Navy tail hook. "
and 

"Tests soon revealed that the added weight of fuel, armor and armament made the takeoff run (some 1,700 feet) far too long for carrier operations from British aircraft carriers. "

and finally the "what if" Vought company demonstrator re-engined with a P & W R-1830 engine




According to P & W records the engine was an S3C4-G rated at 1200hp for take-off, 1200hp at 4900ft and 1050hp at 13,100ft. 
Obviously a SB2U-4 (had they decided it was needed) would have much better capabilities than the SB2U-2 and -3. 

Want to remind us again what the radius of an SBD-3 with even a 500lb was (not an SBD-5) ??????



> The underpowered, short-legged, barely armed Vought 'Vibrator' couldn't survive the brutal environment of Naval combat in the South Pacific in 1942.



I am not saying the Vindicator would have been as good as the Dauntless but the Navy did have a path available to a better dive bomber than the 825-850hp Vindicator had they needed it. And that the claim that the navy would have been without any dive bombers needs to looked at very carefully.

Even if the four .50 cal in wings is bogus there is little doubt that the Vindicator could be fitted with four .30 cal guns in the wings, fitted with self-sealing tanks (at a reduction in range) and fitted with armor as the British planes had all that stuff. The V-167 also shows that a more powerful engine could be fitted to help offset the weight weight which was not done and was the main complaint.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Mar 3, 2019)

Hi Shortround,

You're suspicions about the Vought site's explanations for the SB2U-3 are well founded - the company hired a contractor to research and prepare the site, and that contractor used erroneous secondary sources. In fact, the -3 could carry a fixed armament of 2 fifties or 2 thirties on the center section, and 1 thirty on each outer wing panel. (Any combination of weapons could be deleted to increase range as needed.) No Vindicator ever carried a flexible fifty - the gun wouldn't fit the aft cockpit, so only a single thirty was mounted.

The -3 wingspan was 1-3/8th inches shorter than the -1 or -2. This had nothing to do with a shortening of the parts and everything to do with a 2-degree increase in the dihedral of the outer wing panels.

Although the Vindicator is frequently described as old and obsolete by the time of Midway, the -3s were fairly new, with the last aircraft delivered in October 1941. Still, its performance left a great deal to be desired when pitted against the enemy's improved defenses.

Cheers,


Dana

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2019)

Thank you. I would note that trying to use a 1938 engine (design) in 1942 is not going to end well. The R-1535 was never up rated much and most of P & W attention was rightly directed at the larger engines. 
I have no idea how much the SB2U-3 was intended as a 'filler' aircraft, something to equip a few squadrons with while a better aircraft is developed (the SB2C). 57 planes ordered in 1939 is hardly a large amount. Or how much it was intended to keep Vought occupied (workforce intact) while they developed the F4U???


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> US M3 light, M3 medium and M4 medium tanks were a major part of the British / Commonwealth tank forces at El Alamein, and the M4 in particular was the tip of the spear. Detailed breakdown of the TO & E isn't hard to find.



They made up about 25% of the Commonwealth tank force...but the M4 was known as "the Ronson" to Commonwealth forces and "the Tommy Cooker" to the Germans. 'Fraid I'm struggling to understand how the British Commonwealth couldn't have won El Alamein without the M3s and M4s...and before anyone suggests that their tank force would be 25% smaller, I'm not sure that's a valid statement because it implies that the British Commonwealth had no other tanks anywhere that could have been used. 

Bottom line here is that I'm still not seeing how the British Commonwealth would have lost the North African Campaign just because it lacked a few hundred M3s and M4s. 'Fraid that dog doesn't hunt for me.


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 3, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Historically, the US carriers were withdrawn 8th August , leaving behind a cruiser force that was thought strong enough to deal with the local IJN forces at hand. Unfortunately for the allies, the socalled Japanese 8th fleet, based at Rabaul had been strengthened somewahat, unknown to the allies (though the allies did receive advance coastwatcher reports of the approach of that fleet down the slot. What the allies failed to appreciate was the night fighting capabilities of the Japanese, which is unforgivable really, since they had already encountered it in a major sea battle (java Sea)
> 
> Guadacanal was initially a "smash and grab" exercise...….get ashore, get the airfield going, wait for the Japanese to react, and start the attrition process. Fletchers decision to clear the area was over the protests of the allied cruiser commander (Adm Turner), but it was consistent with the general concepts worked out in the planning phases behind the operation.
> 
> Given that these fundamental principals were worked out before Midway, it follows that the mission was planned to go ahead with or without midway. The only scenario where Guadacanal would not play out from August (in fact the original concept was for the operation to take place in July) was in the situation that the US carriers suffered catastropjic and one sided losses. That scenario would make it impossible to mount effective re-supply operations and place the marines in an exposed and indefensible position.



Parsifal, I'm not saying you're wrong regarding American intentions. Assuming it is true, I think that it would have been folly for the Americans to try to take Guadalcanal if the Combined Fleet was intact in its pre-Midway state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> They made up about 25% of the Commonwealth tank force...but the M4 was known as "the Ronson" to Commonwealth forces and "the Tommy Cooker" to the Germans. 'Fraid I'm struggling to understand how the British Commonwealth couldn't have won El Alamein without the M3s and M4s...and before anyone suggests that their tank force would be 25% smaller, I'm not sure that's a valid statement because it implies that the British Commonwealth had no other tanks anywhere that could have been used.
> 
> Bottom line here is that I'm still not seeing how the British Commonwealth would have lost the North African Campaign just because it lacked a few hundred M3s and M4s. 'Fraid that dog doesn't hunt for me.



I'm not sure I buy that it was just 25% if you include M3 Stuart, M3 Lee (medium), M4 Medium, not to even mention the other AFV's like the M7 priest self propelled howitzer etc. I think the percentage is a bit higher.

According to the Wikipedia article of the El Alamein OOB, the front line armored forces broke down as follows:

British 2nd Armored Brigade had 92 x M4 Sherman, 68 x Crusader and 1 x Grant (161 tanks total)
British 8th Armored Brigade had 57 x M3 Grant, 45 x Crusader and 31 x Sherman (133 tanks total)
British 24th Armored Brigade had 93 x Sherman, 45 x Crusader, and 2 x Grant (140 tanks total)
British 4th Light Armored Brigade had 57 x M3 Stuart, 14 x Grant (71 tanks total) plus 9 armored cars
British 22nd Armored Brigade had 57 x M3 Grant, 50 x Crusader and 19 x M3 Stuart (126 tanks total)
British 9th Armored Brigade had 35 x M4 Sherman, 37 x M3 Grant, 46 x Crusader (118 Tanks)

Total is 749 tanks in the main force.

By my count that breaks down to a total of 256 x M4 Sherman, 168 x M3 Medium (Grant), 76 x M3 Stuart and 254 Crusaders. 

Which is 500 American made tanks and 254 British made, or 66% American made tanks, not 25%.

If you add reserves there were also:

British 23rd Armored Brigade (Corps Reserve) had 186 x Valentine tanks (186 tanks) bringing the grand total up to 935

If you add that to the total it's 500 vs. 440 it's still 47% British made tanks, and I think there was a good reason those Valentines were in the reserve (they sucked).

So not only were the M3 and M4 mediums the majority of the tank force, they were by far _the most effective tanks_ because they could knock out most of the German tanks and ground ordinance. The best British tank at the time was the Crusader which wasn't as good as a Sherman.

This is what *Rommel* said about the M3:

*"Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent. "*

And of course the M4 was far more capable. Yes it could brew up if hit by a powerful AP shell, but so could all the Cruiser tanks etc., the M4 had much better armor. The early M4 had 50mm sloped at 56 degrees which was effectively 90mm on the hull, and 76mm on the turret front. 

The British did have other tanks, later they would bring in Churchill's which were pretty good in their own right but also had some limitations due to their very slow speed and infantry tank role. For main operations they would have still been using various types of 'Cruiser' tanks and they would have lost them at a much higher rate - probably too high to win battles like El Alamein which were fairly 'close run things' even with the extra help. 

If you also removed Kittyhawk fighters and A-20, Baltimore, B-25 etc. bombers you would really be running up a steep hill. It's pretty widely acknowledged that the DAF played a major role at El Alamein and many later battles.

Unless you try really hard not to understand, this isn't too difficult to grasp. Almost all of the British and Commonwealth commanders involved right down to the men inside the M4 tanks and Kittyhawks etc., understood their significance to the overall effort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2019)

I'm not suggesting they weren't significant...although I suspect it depends whether we're discussing First or Second El Alamein as the numbers probably changed between the 2 battles (I suspect my 25% is from the First El Alamein). I'm simply suggesting that the world (or, more specifically, the war) wouldn't have stopped had the lend-lease resources not been present. Again, from 1940 onwards Britain was out-producing Germany alone. There might have been a delay in when the Desert War was won but I don't think the outcome was changed significantly overall. 

Again, this entire sub-thread drift points back to the post which claimed that, without lend-lease, the UK would have been dead in 1942 and the North Africa Campaign would have been lost. I simply don't think that's an accurate reflection of reality.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> Parsifal, I'm not saying you're wrong regarding American intentions. Assuming it is true, I think that it would have been folly for the Americans to try to take Guadalcanal if the Combined Fleet was intact in its pre-Midway state.





Genuinely I cant see why you would say it was folly. Aircraft numbers are the primary determinant, followed closely by the logistic support. An extra 100 aircraft saved by not fighting midway is not going to make any difference. Having more carriers will add to the logistic nightmare the Japanese found themselves in. Classic overreach. Unless the Japanese could somehow secondf guess that the Americans were making a run for guadacanal, there is nothing the Japanese could have done. Guadacanal was the 'Bridge too far for the Japanese" occupied as a precursor to a move against Noumea, but failing utterly to appreciate the logisitic bankruptcy they had backed themselves into.


Midway had virtually no impact on the way things played out in the SWPac. . It is often portrayed that it did, but once you peel back the onion layers that position rapidly becomes unsustainable.

Had midway been lost, with heavy and one sided losses to the USN, the USN would not have been able to undertake WATCHTOER. Had the Japanese taken the island with few or no losses to air assetsw to either carrier fleet, , , my opinion is that WATCHTOWER would have been played out in the Central Pacific as the US fought to take bake the island and the Japanese found once again they had overstretched their supply lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2019)

Well you also have the who paid for what argument. I don't know how many of the M3s were paid for with British cash, we know how many they initially ordered but I don't how the contracts were (or were not ) amended.

One source says the 167 Grants at the Battle of Gazala May 27th 1942 were _all *paid* for by the British._
So now we get into sticky arguments as to what was provided lend lease (given to but paid for later) and was produced in US factories but paid for by the British.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not suggesting they weren't significant...although I suspect it depends whether we're discussing First or Second El Alamein as the numbers probably changed between the 2 battles (I suspect my 25% is from the First El Alamein). I'm simply suggesting that the world (or, more specifically, the war) wouldn't have stopped had the lend-lease resources not been present. Again, from 1940 onwards Britain was out-producing Germany alone. There might have been a delay in when the Desert War was won but I don't think the outcome was changed significantly overall.



I think it would have been a significant delay, at least a year maybe two.

Production is important and the British had the advantage of the Empire and the fleet, But Germany also benefitted from Italian resources, labor and technical know how. Could the British have pulled off the invasion of Sicily and Italy alone? I have my doubts.

Then there is also the issue of quality vs. quantity. Britain had parity in the air with the Spitfire from 1940, they lost it for much of 1942 when the Fw 190 arrived but recovered it again by the end of the year with the Spit IX and VIII. They also had the excellent Mosquito bomber for pin point Operational strikes and the Beaufighter for (quite crucial) maritime bombing, key to that war in the Med for sure.

But with tanks they were lagging half a step behind, and the limited range of the Spitfire meant that they were struggling in terms of being able to drop bombs. Without Kittyhawks their best Tactical bomber would have been Hurricane fighter bombers, and they were really becoming quite vulnerable by the end of 1942.



> Again, this entire sub-thread drift points back to the post which claimed that, without lend-lease, the UK would have been dead in 1942 and the North Africa Campaign would have been lost. I simply don't think that's an accurate reflection of reality.



I wouldn't go that far, certainly England wouldn't have been dead and with the Russians taking on the brunt of the German army, England would have survived and ultimately most likely prevailed... but 1942 would not have been the turning point it actually was.

One other thing I do notice though, is that British military kit kept improving at an accelerating rates while the German kit, once so innovative, was starting to plateau in the last couple of years of the war, 'super weapons' notwithstanding. In 1942 they still had an edge in tanks in North Africa and Russia, and in the air with their fighters. They also had things like radio controlled bombs and jets.

But by 1944 the edge is narrowing rapidly with the advent of the 17 pounder, the T-34 / 85, the SU -100 and 100mm D-10 gun, the JS -II and the 122mm D25-T ... and in the air, the Yak-3, the La 7, the Spit XIV and 22, the Tempest etc. (not even counting American made planes). So maybe England and Russia would have pulled ahead.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

As for who paid for what, I really don't care. IMO we should have extended the Marshall Plan to England and not made them pay back any WW2 loans. Every bullet we gave them that went into a Nazi soldier was well worth the investment. After the War we left England in a pretty bad place and it took them a long time to recover. If you count military and civilian deaths they lost more people than we did and they did win the first all-important 'tipping point' battle in 1940 with their Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar and well organized defense networks. I'm very glad we don't live in a world where Nazi Germany won the war. It's dangerous enough as it is.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 3, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Can we please add the 2,000 locomotives and 17,000 railroad cars and just call it "rolling stock"? with the Liberty ship? ('cuz it don't help if you ain't where the fight is gonna be!)



Agree about locomotives. I just rate trucks higher because locomotives were supplied later - from end 1943. And the largest batch of 1944 probably did not start to arrive to Vladivostok before August 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> True but in the context of Midway what mattered was getting those hits on the japanese carriers, anything else was gravy.
> 
> 
> Even if the four .50 cal in wings is bogus there is little doubt that the Vindicator could be fitted with four .30 cal guns in the wings, fitted with self-sealing tanks (at a reduction in range) and fitted with armor as the British planes had all that stuff. The V-167 also shows that a more powerful engine could be fitted to help offset the weight weight which was not done and was the main complaint.



All this says is that in theory they could / might have upgraded the Vindicator with more guns, a bigger engine, more fuel tanks, self sealing fuel tanks, armor and different dive brakes, and maybe ultimately put it all together into some new plane in which all these components worked in sync to create a world beater like the SBD.

But they didn't - adding a bunch of fuel tanks and guns to that plane with an 850 hp engine isn't going to get anywhere and that is still without self sealing tanks. Which is no doubt why it was quickly retired in spite of appearing in epic Hollywood films.

It's also worth pointing out, putting the right amount of horsepower and guns into an airframe is not in and of itself sufficient to make a functional combat aircraft that can do the job - see the Typhoon, the Bf 110, the He 177, the Firefly, and perhaps most pertinent - the SB2C. On paper it looked great. In action, at least for the first year or so it was flying, it was a dog.

The fact that it proved to be so difficult to replace the SBD with a new plane that didn't see it's combat debut until 1943 to me underscores the challenge they would have had making a better or even 'as good' dive bomber that was supposed to be ready in 1941 or 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But by 1944 the edge is narrowing rapidly with the advent of the 17 pounder, the T-34 / 85, the SU -100 and 100mm D-10 gun, the JS -II and the 122mm D25-T ... and in the air, the Yak-3, the La 7, the Spit XIV and 22, the Tempest etc. (not even counting American made planes). So maybe England and Russia would have pulled ahead.



But then we have to try to calculate how many T-34-85 and other armour could be produced without lend lease machinery and materials and how long VVS fighters could stay in the air without US fuel. And Red Army without US trucks... Looks like WWI style trench warfare in the East in 1944...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Yeah another good point. Quantifying the precise level of importance of lend lease (etc.) to Russia, both from the US and from the UK, is a bit trickier for me because I haven't read quite as much about the Russian Front. Certainly their production was ramping up too for everything, and troops could ride on tanks but you needed a way to get fuel to the front line and to produce enough fuel to begin with.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

I do think the P-40 and P-39 were pretty important for Russia in 1942 and 43 (especially the P-39) and a little earlier the Hurricane seems to have been important as well -even if they didn't love it, as did the A-20 for the Baltic campaigns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for who paid for what, I really don't care. IMO we should have extended the Marshall Plan to England and not made them pay back any WW2 loans. Every bullet we gave them that went into a Nazi soldier was well worth the investment. After the War we left England in a pretty bad place and it took them a long time to recover. If you count military and civilian deaths they lost more people than we did and they did win the first all-important 'tipping point' battle in 1940 with their Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar and well organized defense networks. I'm very glad we don't live in a world where Nazi Germany won the war. It's dangerous enough as it is.


I would agree that Britain really got the short end of the stick once the war was over. They did there share and then some.
When it was over they were left holding the bag........a bag of debt. The U.S. should have written off a good portion if not all that debt in my opinion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A bit provocative but I think Markin actually makes some good points. I do not think the British could have taken over control of North Africa without American help - especially in three key areas - tanks, aircraft and general logistics.
> 
> *Tanks in North Africa*
> Parsifal already outlined the basic situation with the tanks, but let me spell that out a little bit further. British tanks like the Cruiser and Crusader and even the Matilda infantry tank were carrying _either _anti-tank or HE weapons. You had a lot with 2 pounder QF (40mm) medium velocity AP guns, and some designated as 'CS' (close support) tanks with 3 inch (75mm) low velocity HE guns. But it was an 'either / or' thing. Later some had the 6 pounder (57mm high velocity) which was a much better AP weapon, but still not very good against non vehicle targets. Most of the British tanks were fast, but also didn't carry a lot of machine guns (usually just one .30 cal weapon) and with the exception of the Matilda had poor armor protection by the standards of the day and a tendency to catch fire when hit.
> ...


Resp:
In the book "A Man Called Intrepid" by arthor Stephenson (or Stevenson), explains why England needed the US . . .their production capabilities and their resources . . . among other things like food, etc.. This was long before America could send troops. Allowing the US to produce the Merlin engines for the RAF's aircraft, such as the Lancaster, etc.. I am sure someone will correct me or can add the number and type of British aircraft which used the Packard built Merlin.
I would like to know which British aircraft these engines were used.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 3, 2019)

Mostly Canadian Lancasters and Hurricanes I think, and some Mosquitoes


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2019)

The Lancaster B Mk III was powered by Packard Merlins but was otherwise identical to the B Mk I. Most of the approx. 3,000 B Mk IIIs were produced at the Avro Newton Heath factory near Manchester. 

Packard Merlins did power some Mosquitos but, I believe, only the B Mk VII (only 25 built) and B Mk XX/25 (approx. 400 built) all of which were built in Canada and, AFAIK, did not see combat overseas.

Some Spitfire Mk XVIs were also, I believe, powered by Packard Merlins.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 3, 2019)

The Mk.XVI designation was specifically for Spitfire IX airframes that had the Packard Merlin 266.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Mar 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But by 1944 the edge is narrowing rapidly with the advent of the 17 pounder, the T-34 / 85, the SU -100 and 100mm D-10 gun, the JS -II and the 122mm D25-T ... and in the air, the Yak-3, the La 7, the *Spit* XIV and *22*, the Tempest etc. (not even counting American made planes). So maybe England and Russia would have pulled ahead.



Spitfire 22s were post WW2 Europe. There was a squadron of Spitfire 21s in Jan '45.
production page 085

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Mar 3, 2019)

MarkinTex said:


> I'd have to give it to the C-47 by a longshot. It was the ability to quickly move troops and supplies all around the world that turned the tide of the war, and though the transport was an intermodal effort with vehicles from liberty ships to Deuce and a Halfs being standouts, since we are talking about aircraft, the C-47 stands out. There were aircraft that could carry more (eg C-54) and aircraft that performed better in particular missions and environments (C-46 over The Hump), in terms of sheer numbers employed, throughout all the theaters of operation, and versatility of mission, from cargo (including the spare parts and sometimes fuel to keep fighters and bombers flying), to medevac, to troop transport, to paratrooper deployment (both as a jump craft itself and a glider tug), and used by the US, UK, and USSR, no other aircraft could touch the Skytrain.


Did not even consider transports. The Germans had way too few and lost there more distant deployments like Africa and Russia. Interesting choice C54 was way too late in the game to make a difference.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 4, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The Lancaster B Mk III was powered by Packard Merlins but was otherwise identical to the B Mk I. Most of the approx. 3,000 B Mk IIIs were produced at the Avro Newton Heath factory near Manchester.
> 
> Packard Merlins did power some Mosquitos but, I believe, only the B Mk VII (only 25 built) and B Mk XX/25 (approx. 400 built) all of which were built in Canada and, AFAIK, did not see combat overseas.
> 
> The Spitfire Mk XVI was also, I believe, powered by Packard Merlins.



In addition to the above British types, there were also the P-51 (obviously) and the P-40K.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 4, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> In addition to the above British types, there were also the P-51 (obviously) and the P-40K.



P-40F and L. The K had a souped up Allison.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 5, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> In the book "A Man Called Intrepid" by arthor Stephenson (or Stevenson), explains why England needed the US . . .their production capabilities and their resources . . . among other things like food, etc.. This was long before America could send troops. Allowing the US to produce the Merlin engines for the RAF's aircraft, such as the Lancaster, etc.. I am sure someone will correct me or can add the number and type of British aircraft which used the Packard built Merlin.
> I would like to know which British aircraft these engines were used.


Resp:
I see where the British carrier 'Illustrious,' that was seriously damaged by German bombers in Feb 1941, close to Malta . . . sailed to the United States for repairs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2019)

HMS Delhi, refitted Brooklyn Navy Yard May 1941 to Dec 1941.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I see where the British carrier 'Illustrious,' that was seriously damaged by German bombers in Feb 1941, close to Malta . . . sailed to the United States for repairs.




Ah so that why she was never fully repaired…..substandard American repairs!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2019)

The repairs were first rate, it was the collision with the HMS Formidable that undid them 






Don't worry Nigel, it'll buff right out

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> HMS Delhi, refitted Brooklyn Navy Yard May 1941 to Dec 1941.
> View attachment 530894


FYI:
I remember when the HMS Birmingham, a Royal Navy destroyer put into Norfolk, VA for repairs to its stern; for damage received during a storm in the Atlantic. I boarded her as a young LT, and was given tour, which ended with a glass of beer. I forget when it was commissioned, but was told it was the oldest destroyer in the fleet at that time.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The repairs were first rate, it was the collision with the HMS Formidable that undid them
> 
> View attachment 530903
> 
> ...


Well if you ram a ship called Formidable what do you expect, it does what it says on the side.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2019)

Its all relative really. This is what was left of the USS Frank E Evans after it tried to get the better of HMA Melbourne in 1969

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Mar 6, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> FYI:
> I remember when the HMS Birmingham, a Royal Navy *destroyer* put into Norfolk, VA for repairs to its stern; for damage received during a storm in the Atlantic. I boarded her as a young LT, and was given tour, which ended with a glass of beer. I forget when it was commissioned, but was told it was the oldest *destroyer* in the fleet at that time.



HMS Birmingham was a Southhampton class *light cruiser*.

Launched: 1 September 1936
Commissioned: 18 November 1937
Fate: Broken up in 1960


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 6, 2019)

Milosh said:


> HMS Birmingham was a Southhampton class *light cruiser*.
> 
> Launched: 1 September 1936
> Commissioned: 18 November 1937
> Fate: Broken up in 1960


The third HMS _Birmingham _was a Type 42 destroyer that served from 1976 to 1999

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 9, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The Lancaster B Mk III was powered by Packard Merlins but was otherwise identical to the B Mk I. Most of the approx. 3,000 B Mk IIIs were produced at the Avro Newton Heath factory near Manchester.
> 
> Packard Merlins did power some Mosquitos but, I believe, only the B Mk VII (only 25 built) and B Mk XX/25 (approx. 400 built) all of which were built in Canada and, AFAIK, did not see combat overseas.
> 
> Some Spitfire Mk XVIs were also, I believe, powered by Packard Merlins.


The Mosquito XXs and 25s most certainly saw combat overseas. Read the following:
The Wartime Diaries of a Mosquito Navigator - Part 1 - The People's Mosquito
Also there were 245 XXs and 400 25s built
1054 Mark XVI Spitfires were built.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 9, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Mosquito XXs and 25s most certainly saw combat overseas. Read the following:
> The Wartime Diaries of a Mosquito Navigator - Part 1 - The People's Mosquito
> Also there were 245 XXs and 400 25s built
> 1054 Mark XVI Spitfires were built.


Resp:
That's a fair number of Packard Merlins.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 9, 2019)

More than 55000 Packard Merlins were built. To get the factory switched to the production of the engine, RR had to come up with more than $130million (US) at the time.

The engine was used to power the P-51 and at at least two marks of the P-40. 

That is an example of Allied co-operation, not british dependence as such


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2019)

I am not sure the factory was "switched" so much as a new factory was equipped to build Merlins managed/run by Packard. 
It may need more research. Packard was still building cars into 1942 and was also expanding production of their V-2500 engine used in motor torpedo boats.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 10, 2019)

parsifal said:


> More than 55000 Packard Merlins were built. To get the factory switched to the production of the engine, RR had to come up with more than $130million (US) at the time.
> 
> The engine was used to power the P-51 and at at least two marks of the P-40.
> 
> That is an example of Allied co-operation, not british dependence as such


I agree about the Allied co-op. However, the second order for Allison engine Mustangs, the MkIA was ordered/paid for by the US Govt, not the British. This is why the US Govt held back the last 55(?) Mustangs after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Just FYI.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure the factory was "switched" so much as a new factory was equipped to build Merlins managed/run by Packard.
> It may need more research. Packard was still building cars into 1942 and was also expanding production of their V-2500 engine used in motor torpedo boats.



Packard built around 55,000 cars in 1942 (hadn't converted to full war production yet) and also built around 14,000 of the marine engines during the war, the Marine engine was a derivative of their old Aircraft engine. Packard was not one of the volume car makers but rather one of (if not *the*) luxury US carmaker of time. 

120 million sounds a little strange.
Ford only got 14.3 million to build a factory to make R-2800s, that did cover the new building on a bare plot of ground and the factory was sized to make 800 engines a month. 
The Initial Packard contract for Merlins was 9000 engines at 800 per month. 
Allison got about 15,000,000 for under 1000 engines in 1939. 
120 million for 6000 Merlins? 

I would note that for Ford I have no idea if the 14.3 million covered the machinery in the factory or if that was a separate contract (or series of contracts). I do know that in many factories built/expanded during WW II the US gov (army or navy) *owned* the machinery and leased it (dollar a year?) to the company building the parts/engines. I worked at a P & W plant for a few years and lots of machinery still had brass tags stating it was property of the US gov and a serial number. 

A lot of times writers get a little sloppy quoting contract prices without giving any details as to what the contract covered. 

120 million just to change a factory over sounds a bit out of line. 120 million to set up a factory and pay for 6000 engines is still expensive but a lot more reasonable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 10, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes it does requires a good education.
> Have you ever been to flight school especially learning all the terms to keep a plane aloft.
> Engineering, designing and machining parts. Reading blueprints understanding assembly processes.
> Then there is the navigation and understanding a compass. Time, Distance, position of Sun and the time of year.
> ...


Horsepucky!! You sound like a "theoretical" aviator. It requires the APTITUDE AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN! I've been there and seen it. The armed forces have some of the best school systems in the country, and an incredible ability to detect the presence of aptitude in the absence of knowledge. I spent my entire hitch in the Navy involved one way or another in training, and have seen educational accomplishments the academic world would be hard put to match. Try turning immature, uncertain high school dropouts into competent, confident, responsible aviation electronics tecnicians in 40 weeks. And helping most of them get their GED in the process. I "fast tracked" that course in 32 weeks and got tapped to help out at night school where the less educated guys got help with their classwork and their GEDs. People who came in somewhat shaky at grade school arithmetic went out able to calculate inductive and capacitive reactance, resonant frequencies, and standing wave ratios. (This last was a great hit, since our class wasn't coed, and the WAVEs classroom was in a separate building.)
In time of war (Vietnam in my case) the service can't be as picky about qualifications, and high school dropouts were welcome in the enlisted ranks, as well as Cadets with some college, but not a Bachelor's degree trickling into flight training and the NFO program.
In my years of flight instructing after the Navy, I helped many an undereducated pilot wannabe teach themselves what they needed to know to be a professional aviator. All it takes is motivation and effort.
You didn't have to bring an education, you could get it along the way. The Navy dental surgeon that extracted my impacted wisdom teeth (a Navy Captain, BTW) enlisted in 1936 as a high school dropout, became an Aviation Ordnanceman, then a tail gunner on the old biplane Helldiver, then to flight school as an AVCAD, then Wildcats on Enterprise and Henderson Field. After the war he took an LOA and went to dental school (on Uncle's dime), and when he did my mouth, he was the most senior Captain in the Dental Corps, and held a PHD in some unrelated field he'd acquired along the way. In 1973, I met one of the last active enlisted pilots in the Navy, another high school dropout, who was flying as captain on a McD C-9 with his commanding officer, a newly frocked Rear Admiral (his son-in-law) in the FO seat. He was trained in WWII, still on active duty, and almost didn't have enough room on the sleeve of his MCPO jacket for all his hashmarks. He had more "fruit salad" on his jacket than the Admiral.
I worked in the world of fighter crew training, and we we had more liberal arts majors come through than math and science. Those techy types tended to get sucked into the nuclear power program. All that college degree does is tell Uncle that MAYBE you have the perseverance to stick with the program all the way, and MAYBE you might develop the couthness to be an officer and a genteman.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 11, 2019)

What was the main competitor to the C-47? If there was a series of misfortunes and the DC-3 was off the table - which aircraft would have stepped up?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2019)

probably not the answer you want, but IMO it would be the DC-2

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Horsepucky!! You sound like a "theoretical" aviator. It requires the APTITUDE AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN! I've been there and seen it. The armed forces have some of the best school systems in the country, and an incredible ability to detect the presence of aptitude in the absence of knowledge. I spent my entire hitch in the Navy involved one way or another in training, and have seen educational accomplishments the academic world would be hard put to match. Try turning immature, uncertain high school dropouts into competent, confident, responsible aviation electronics tecnicians in 40 weeks. And helping most of them get their GED in the process. I "fast tracked" that course in 32 weeks and got tapped to help out at night school where the less educated guys got help with their classwork and their GEDs. People who came in somewhat shaky at grade school arithmetic went out able to calculate inductive and capacitive reactance, resonant frequencies, and standing wave ratios. (This last was a great hit, since our class wasn't coed, and the WAVEs classroom was in a separate building.)
> In time of war (Vietnam in my case) the service can't be as picky about qualifications, and high school dropouts were welcome in the enlisted ranks, as well as Cadets with some college, but not a Bachelor's degree trickling into flight training and the NFO program.
> In my years of flight instructing after the Navy, I helped many an undereducated pilot wannabe teach themselves what they needed to know to be a professional aviator. All it takes is motivation and effort.
> You didn't have to bring an education, you could get it along the way. The Navy dental surgeon that extracted my impacted wisdom teeth (a Navy Captain, BTW) enlisted in 1936 as a high school dropout, became an Aviation Ordnanceman, then a tail gunner on the old biplane Helldiver, then to flight school as an AVCAD, then Wildcats on Enterprise and Henderson Field. After the war he took an LOA and went to dental school (on Uncle's dime), and when he did my mouth, he was the most senior Captain in the Dental Corps, and held a PHD in some unrelated field he'd acquired along the way. In 1973, I met one of the last active enlisted pilots in the Navy, another high school dropout, who was flying as captain on a McD C-9 with his commanding officer, a newly frocked Rear Admiral (his son-in-law) in the FO seat. He was trained in WWII, still on active duty, and almost didn't have enough room on the sleeve of his MCPO jacket for all his hashmarks. He had more "fruit salad" on his jacket than the Admiral.
> ...


I think the answer is how much effort it takes. The RAF were desperate for pilots, so of course people who already were pilots were given priority but not every holder of a private pilots license is a natural fighter pilot or even can be trained to be one. Many of the Polish pilots would not pass any entrance exam to the RAF simply because they couldn't read write or speak English, a problem in a force controlled by radios but ways were found to work around it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2019)

Greyman said:


> What was the main competitor to the C-47? If there was a series of misfortunes and the DC-3 was off the table - which aircraft would have stepped up?





parsifal said:


> probably not the answer you want, but IMO it would be the DC-2



Interesting question. The DC-3 was pretty much a wide body DC-2 with a bit longer wings. SO if the DC-3 is off the table is the DC-2 still on it?

There was no direct competitor to the DC-3 in US (and as seen by the number of licence agreements for the DC-2 and DC-3 there wasn't much else in the rest of the world either).
The closest was the Lockheed 14/18 series and Lockheed, rather than go head to head with Douglas chose to emphasis speed over payload. It did lead to the Hudson and Ventura bombers so it was a pretty good airplane but you sure weren't going to stuff a jeep in it no matter how big a door you put in the side. 
It took Curtiss several years to decide to get back in the airliner game and when they did they tried to go bigger than the DC-3





Design work started in 1937 and it was intended for the larger airplane with pressure cabin market like the original DC-4 (no relation to the common DC-4/C-54 and it over reached the market, too big and expensive for the airlines to gamble on) and Boeing Stratoliner (Fat body B-17). With no DC-3 on the table I am not sure if these would be either as the DC-3 was first airliner that could make money hauling passengers without a government subsidy or mail contract (sort of the same thing). The DC-2 may have been a good airplane but with only one seat on each side of the aisle it could NOT make enough money to pay for the fuel. oil, crew wages (both air and ground), pay back the bank for the purchase loan _and_ pay any stockholders/investors. Would the larger airplanes been built without some good indication that you could make money with them? 

Lockheed may have been trying to sell the faster planes on the idea of more flights per day or week? or the faster plane got the mail contracts? 

DC-2/3 hit a sweet spot with the available engines and the performance, Faster than nearly everything else (transports anyway) with good payload using a pair of 730 hp engines (to start with) and was quite amenable to more powerful engines (of the same general size/weight). The DC-3 used about 900hp engines to start.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2019)

Greyman said:


> What was the main competitor to the C-47? If there was a series of misfortunes and the DC-3 was off the table - which aircraft would have stepped up?



In terms of design class, IMO it would have been the C-46. IIRC the C-46 actually carried more and was a little more robust but was tougher to maintain, a little harder to fly and cost more to operate, a reason why it did not do well in the post-war years..


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2019)

As a cargo plane it did pretty good. As a passenger plane???
The R-2800s were pretty thirsty and if you couldn't fill the extra seats? 

The US also dumped about 500 4 engine C-54/DC-4s on the market which took over the upper end of the airline market for a while.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Getting back to the original discussion - which aircraft did the most to win the war, I had a few thoughts.

First, I think we should again at least acknowledge that we have to consider the merits and significance of the Theaters and time periods which were or weren't significant.


Early war in Europe (German blitz on Poland and the low Countries, Battle of France, Greece and Yugoslavia etc.*)
The BoB (as distinct from the above, because it was on such a large scale and so important)
Mediterranean Theater and Italy
The Pacific (mainly early to mid-war is significant for this discussion, as after 1943 it's a done deal)
The CBI
The Russian Front (early Barbarossa etc.)
The Russian Front (middle - Stalingrad, Moscow)
The Russian Front (late - post Kursk)
The battle of the Atlantic (early, middle and late)
Northwest Europe and the bombing campaign (late)
So this is a separate debate - before we can determine a 'most important' plane we'd have to agree on a Theater and a timeframe, and I don't think we have that agreement. That's why I would say you'd have to have several, SBD for example is only relevant to the Pacific Theater. I suspect we here as (mostly) Anglophones are tending to downplay the importance of the Russian Front way too much. But it is also true that most of us here just don't know enough about the Russian Front to have nearly as detailed and nuanced a discussion as we can about WW2 in Western Europe, the Pacific and the Med. So I'm not sure where that leaves us.

But I thought we should at least recognize that this is the higher level part of the debate, so that we don't confuse it with the technical and etc. discussions about specific Theaters. We need to separate the two arguments to make any sense of it all.

Personally I couldn't pick one Theater and say it mattered the most but I would prioritize them as 1,2,6,4,7,3,9,10,5,8, and I think 7,2,4,3 and maybe 8 were really potential candidates for tipping points in the war, in that order.

* I know BoB happens in the middle of all this so to speak but I see it as distinct

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Ok second, I'd like to drill down a bit more into the Pacific War and play with it a bit on the meta-level.

With regard to the Japanese, you'll notice a distinct contrast between their early, middle and late war

Early war Japanese conquests in the Pacific were characterized by highly effective use of overwhelming force and surprise. The catastrophes at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia showed their ability to dominate by leveraging their assets and advantages, planning well, achieving surprise, achieving and sustaining early momentum, and essentially fighting a type of 'Blitzkrieg*.

In other words not attrition warfare. If the Japanese were able to get enough of their better quality warships and flying machines in action, and had time to plan, they were able to _dominate_ Allied forces. There was a certain degree of panic among Allied forces and legends of Japanese invincibility - such as tales about the Zero climbing at 5,000 ft per minute and so forth. Japanese bombers and torpedo planes seemed to sink ships right and left, and their destroyers were dominating night surface combat.

This started to peter out after they were met with both more comparable equipment and numbers, and far better planning and preparation. I.e. if they had lined up planes on Henderson Field the way they had at Clark Field Guadalcanal would have been quickly lost. That is why Coral Sea and Milne Bay were so important, and even the tiny battle at Wake Island - they were not really major victories, more like draws, but they represented a faltering of the Japanese juggernaught and punctured the veil of their invincibility. It represented a stabilization of the slide into catastrophe for the Allies and a shift of the war from Blitzkrieg* where the Japanese had some hope of victory, toward attrition warfare where the US in particular would ultimately and inevitably have a decisive advantage.

But of course it wasn't settled overnight. Even long after Midway the Japanese were still dealing brutal knockout blows to the Allies such as we saw in surface actions like Savo Island etc.

This is why I think Midway was indeed important however because if the Japanese had fought the campaign in the Solomons with 6 aircraft carriers and an extra 50 or 100 aircrews, they may have been close to that Blitzkrieg level again. It was not enough to have fighters and pilots that could take on their Japanese equivalents with some possibility of success, but they had to be managed well and you needed close enough to parity in numbers - quantity as well as quality - to fight in a more attrition like manner, i.e. not getting bodyslammed by a Japanese Blitzkrieg.

If the Japanese had won Midway they would have still had the Strategic initiative and the ability to concentrate their forces in a decisive manner and probably win some more stunning victories ala the Philippines. That is why I would not rule out Hawaii falling if Midway had been taken.


* I am using this term as shorthand, in the broad or popular sense of the word.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

So the Third question is then, the big what - if.

I know this gets us in trouble sometimes because some folks get too literal minded about it. We know the Japanese lost Midway and lost the war in 1945 etc. But this is just some speculation. What is the Japanese had won Midway and maybe one or two other battles after that, and the Americans had been forced to recoil into a defensive posture.

Well that means the Japanese would have been able to consolidate some of their gains closer to home, places with some Strategic resources and geographical value like Formosa, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. It would have given them some time to build up their forces, maybe even improve training (the feasibility of this is an open question for me maybe someone else knows in detail) But what else could they have done?

One thing that seems likely to me is that they could have gone back into the Indian Ocean and done some real damage.

Reading about their short spring 1942 Indian Ocean / Ceylon raid, it looks like in a very short time they did some very serious 'Blitzkrieg' damage to the (mostly) British forces there, and if they hadn't had their hands so full dealing with the Yanks in the Pacific, I wonder how much Strategic damage they could have done in the Indian Ocean to British supply lines ?

From the way that raid went down, it looks like at that time in 1942 the Royal Navy was not ready to handle the IJN. The surface fleets were about equal, with a slight advantage for the British (5 battleships, 7 cruisers and 15 destroyers for the Royal Navy, plus about 30 frigates, armed merchantmen etc., with 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, and 19 destroyers for the IJN). But the Japanese had enough of an advantage in aircraft (both qualitatively and numerically at about 3-1 in planes) with 5 aircraft carriers vs. 3 for the British.

The results were very lopsided, and reminiscent of the opening Blitzkrieg assault of the IJN - the Royal Navy lost 1 carrier sunk, 2 heavy cruisers, 1 'armed merchant cruiser', 1 corvette, 1 sloop, 23 merchant ships and 40 aircraft. The Japanese lost ~20 aircraft. Certainly no devastating attrition of aircrew.

In the air, the Royal Navy's compliment of Fairey Fulmars, Swordfish, and Albacores, supported by land based Blenheim's and Hurricanes, proved incapable of withstanding the onslaught of Japanese air raids and unable to sink Japanese ships. Some examples -

A flight of Blenheim's makes a strike on the IJN fleet, they lose 5 planes and score zero hits. Would SBD's have been more useful there? I think so. For that matter A-20's might have gotten a couple of hits.

During the infamous Easter Sunday raid, according to the Wiki the RAF and FAA lost 27 aircraft, mostly Hurricanes, while the Japanese lost five. The wiki claims that 90% of the Japanese dive bombers hit their targets. That means they were relatively free of danger because they did not by comparison do quite that well at Midway or in the Solomons.

If the Japanese had been able to continue this kind of action a bit more, and if the Germans had won El Alamein which he have also been discussing, it might have gotten ... dicey for the Allies. Certainly Winston Churchill thought so:

"_The most dangerous moment of the War, and the one which caused me the greatest alarm, was when the Japanese Fleet was heading for Ceylon and the naval base there. The capture of Ceylon, the consequent control of the Indian Ocean, and the possibility at the same time of a German conquest of Egypt would have closed the ring and the future would have been black._ "



So IMO, the *TL : DR *is - if the Japanese had decisively won at Midway, they may very well have won in the Solomons, and bought themselves some time to do real damage to British forces in the Indian Ocean, perhaps capturing Ceylon, thereby causing serious Strategic Injury to the British War Effort. And perhaps affecting the outcome of the War.

A lot of big ifs there of course, and we know this did not actually happen. Just some food for thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So the Third question is then, the big what - if.
> 
> So IMO, the *TL : DR *is - if the Japanese had decisively won at Midway, they may very well have won in the Solomons, and bought themselves some time to do real damage to British forces in the Indian Ocean, perhaps capturing Ceylon, thereby causing serious Strategic Injury to the British War Effort. And perhaps affecting the outcome of the War.
> 
> A lot of big ifs there of course, and we know this did not actually happen. Just some food for thought.



If the IJN had managed a crushing defeat of the USN at Midway, and had gone on to invade Midway, and had IJN landings had succeeded, I think it would have delayed the outcome but not changed it. 

See the carrier production data here: Grim Economic Realities

In a year the USN would have had parity with the IJN, the economics simply did not favor the IJN. As long as Lend Lease kept moving to Russia, and Russia stayed in the war, the outcome was envitable when the US entered.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> As a cargo plane it did pretty good. As a passenger plane???
> The R-2800s were pretty thirsty and if you couldn't fill the extra seats?
> 
> The US also dumped about 500 4 engine C-54/DC-4s on the market which took over the upper end of the airline market for a while.


Passenger but eventually both. For the extra it could carry it still wasn't as cost effective as the C-47/DC-3. I've also read somewhere that Douglas had better product support and a better supply chain.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Perhaps, but it would have cost some time. If the US had lost, it's probably not until late 43 that they can challenge Japan again. By then, some better Japanese hardware might be available t contend with new US ships and planes.

I think the biggest error the Japanese made was not giving a clear warning before Pearl Harbor. If they had done that, say declared war one day beforehand, they might have lost a few more planes but I suspect they would have still pulled off the victory. And the US might not have been so determined to crush them and might have made some kind of settlement if they had lost Midway which easily could have happened if fickle luck had gone the other way. Because of the surprise attack nature of Pearl Harbor though due to the effect on US public opinion (magnified by US government propaganda of course) there was no way the US were going to settle anything less than total victory and occupation of Japan so yes I do think the outcome of the war was inevitable. But it may not have ended in 1945. And the US may have taken far heavier casualties.

Big what if, but IF the US had been knocked back to a defensive posture for say 6 months or a year starting in mid 1942, Strategic bombing of Japan would have been delayed. Pressure on Japanese merchant fleets would have eased substantially. Perhaps the Japanese could have got some of their much newer and better kit into action a bit sooner, including new carrier designs like the _Taihō_ class Carrier which could accommodate the impressive 350 mile per hour, 20mm cannon armed, 1800 mile range Aichi B7A. The Akagi probably could have carried them too if it hadn't been sunk at Midway, it's elevators were big enough. And perhaps, who knows, with bigger carriers they might have been able to get N1K1 fighters carrier adapted to help protect them.

I know that is a lot of 'what-ifs' of course. But certainly they could have gotten more of their second generation land based fighters deployed at least.

The big question I guess is, how much of the slow down in Japanese war production (quality and quantity) was due to American military pressure such as Strategic bombing, submarine and commerce raiding and so on.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Horsepucky!! You sound like a "theoretical" aviator. It requires the APTITUDE AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN! I've been there and seen it. The armed forces have some of the best school systems in the country, and an incredible ability to detect the presence of aptitude in the absence of knowledge. I spent my entire hitch in the Navy involved one way or another in training, and have seen educational accomplishments the academic world would be hard put to match. Try turning immature, uncertain high school dropouts into competent, confident, responsible aviation electronics tecnicians in 40 weeks. And helping most of them get their GED in the process. I "fast tracked" that course in 32 weeks and got tapped to help out at night school where the less educated guys got help with their classwork and their GEDs. People who came in somewhat shaky at grade school arithmetic went out able to calculate inductive and capacitive reactance, resonant frequencies, and standing wave ratios. (This last was a great hit, since our class wasn't coed, and the WAVEs classroom was in a separate building.)
> In time of war (Vietnam in my case) the service can't be as picky about qualifications, and high school dropouts were welcome in the enlisted ranks, as well as Cadets with some college, but not a Bachelor's degree trickling into flight training and the NFO program.
> In my years of flight instructing after the Navy, I helped many an undereducated pilot wannabe teach themselves what they needed to know to be a professional aviator. All it takes is motivation and effort.
> You didn't have to bring an education, you could get it along the way. The Navy dental surgeon that extracted my impacted wisdom teeth (a Navy Captain, BTW) enlisted in 1936 as a high school dropout, became an Aviation Ordnanceman, then a tail gunner on the old biplane Helldiver, then to flight school as an AVCAD, then Wildcats on Enterprise and Henderson Field. After the war he took an LOA and went to dental school (on Uncle's dime), and when he did my mouth, he was the most senior Captain in the Dental Corps, and held a PHD in some unrelated field he'd acquired along the way. In 1973, I met one of the last active enlisted pilots in the Navy, another high school dropout, who was flying as captain on a McD C-9 with his commanding officer, a newly frocked Rear Admiral (his son-in-law) in the FO seat. He was trained in WWII, still on active duty, and almost didn't have enough room on the sleeve of his MCPO jacket for all his hashmarks. He had more "fruit salad" on his jacket than the Admiral.
> ...



What is it with you? Think I was born yesterday?.. 
What the Hell is a THEORETICAL AVIATOR? …. Require Aptitude and Motivation to learn.
To advance in any thing requires Aptitude and Motivation.... No S(four letter word). 
I have 45 years of Martial Arts and Soccer Referee Reffing advanced youth leagues. 
At 68 can still chase down a Tournament level U19 team. I train everyday!
Coached and owned Soccer Teams and a League at one time. 
Coached Kindergarten to High School and know about teaching and how to break bad habits.

In any military if you do not know how to write, figure out equation, and able to communicate you were not getting a skilled position. Public Education systems provide the foundation or you are not going to get to the next step...period !! 
Just like learning a second, third or fourth Language you need education and Science has its own language. That is modern society.

My draft number in 1968 was 352 and did not have to join. Yet harassed by US Army and Navy to join because of my Engineering background and a few other attributes. Told I was not going to have to bear a weapon to fight.! HA HA !! I know more than you think and have friends absconded by the police in the south and were forced into the Army..!! Just about anyone with a good Skill or Technical Education was given a non Combat positions. Unless they chose to take field position. I documented about a dozen soldiers after Vietnam including my friends experience. WW2 and Korean War Veteran would not let them enter the front door of a VFW. I know because we were shown the door when we tried entering.

For the last 25 years own a Defense Contracting company, before that worked on Weapon Defense Systems as a Designer and Engineer. I know human resources and training programs. How applicants are evaluated. One of the tests administered for agile thinking was the Wolf Test.. Look it up!! There were a dozen other personality, visual, physical, mental acuity and other tests that improved likelihood of minimal fall out. Training the wrong person for a highly technical skill like flying Fighter plane ends in tragedy or a lot of "just" wrecked equipment. WW2 all the combatants lost about half of their planes to non combat issues. Vast majority to training. One not well documented story was the Germans placed a lot of their damaged planes on fields that would never fly. A whole bunch were Me 109's. The Allies racked up a lot of ground kills further wrecking the wrecks yet caught in AA traps. Which the Vietnamese improved on in Vietnam.

You need an education to operate equipment...you need a Body to wield a sword !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> *What is it with you? Think I was born yesterday?..*
> What the Hell is a THEORETICAL AVIATOR? …. Require Aptitude and Motivation to learn.
> To advance in any thing requires Aptitude and Motivation.... No S(four letter word).
> I have 45 years of Martial Arts and Soccer Referee Reffing advanced youth leagues.
> ...









To answer that based on some of your moronic rants - YES! You're talking to some folks who have more time flying actual aircraft than you have sleeping.

Furthermore your rants don't match your resume.

I suggest you tread lightly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> First, I think we should again at least acknowledge that we have to consider the merits and significance of the Theaters and time periods which were and weren't significant.





Schweik said:


> Early war Japanese conquests in the Pacific were characterized by highly effective use of overwhelming force and surprise.





Schweik said:


> If the Japanese had been able to continue this kind of action a bit more, and if the Germans had won El Alamein which he have also been discussing, it might have gotten ... dicey for the Allies.


More than dicey; disastrous.
Consider that a crushing loss at Midway could have meant the loss of all three of our carriers to no Japanese losses. This makes the Guadalcanal operation untenable, resulting in interdiction of the supply lines to Australia, and potentially the loss of Hawaii. With supplies to Australia cut off, Japanese success in New Guinea is likely, putting the Aussies in a state of siege.
The still undamaged Kido Butai can now concentrate its affections on Ceylon and the Indian Ocean, eventually threatening a linkup with the German controlled middle east. This eliminates the Axis Achilles Heel of petroleum, and puts a whole different tilt to the strategic balance.
At this point, many "neutral" nations, or those philosophically sympathetic to the Allies, but physically removed from the fighting, are going to notice which way the winds are blowing and it's going to become harder for us to obtain the exotic resources needed to make our high tech war machine perform. Tropical wood, natural rubber, exotic minerals to make alloys of steel and aluminum, and myriad other resources from around the globe will no longer be at our beck and call.
So now the Essex class carriers are coming on line with their Hellcats, Helldivers, and Avengers, and it's time to start clawing our way back to Tokyo, Berlin, and Rome starting from our own shores, not some point halfway there.
How does your war of attrition look now?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the extra it could carry it still wasn't as cost effective as the C-47/DC-3. I've also read somewhere that Douglas had better product support and a better supply chain.


And it was stuck with tho$e Cur$ed Electric Prop$!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> What is it with you? Think I was born yesterday?..


You sound that way.



Dan Fahey said:


> What the Hell is a THEORETICAL AVIATOR?


"Theoretical Aviator (noun): A person who has read all the literature, watched all the YouTube videos, and played all the flightsim games and is able to lecture endlessly on flying, but makes himself airsick whenever he touches the controls of an actual airplane. Hasn't been there, hasn't done it, and is clueless as to what it's really like and is unaware of his own cluelessness."

I have been there, I have done it, and that includes the "clueless and unaware of it" part too.
Cool off, chill out, and hang in there, you'll get over it in due course.
BTW, my draft number in that same lottery was 55, so I had to go play Uncle's game, which became a life changing experience and a highly educational one. Never learned so much so fast, not even in four years of college.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> What is it with you? Think I was born yesterday?..
> What the Hell is a THEORETICAL AVIATOR? …. Require Aptitude and Motivation to learn.
> To advance in any thing requires Aptitude and Motivation.... No S(four letter word).
> I have 45 years of Martial Arts and Soccer Referee Reffing advanced youth leagues.
> ...


???


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok second, I'd like to drill down a bit more into the Pacific War and play with it a bit on the meta-level.
> 
> With regard to the Japanese, you'll notice a distinct contrast between their early, middle and late war
> 
> ...


Winning at Midway wouldn't stop the Aussies beating the Japs on the Kokoda Trail or at Milne Bay.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So the Third question is then, the big what - if.
> 
> I know this gets us in trouble sometimes because some folks get too literal minded about it. We know the Japanese lost Midway and lost the war in 1945 etc. But this is just some speculation. What is the Japanese had won Midway and maybe one or two other battles after that, and the Americans had been forced to recoil into a defensive posture.
> 
> ...


At sea, the FAA had Sea Hurricanes and Martlets as well optimised for low altitude unlike the American Wildcats. The Sea Hurricane Ib being superior in performance to the A6M2, their torpedo bombing crews well trained in night attacks. Just because they didn't clash doesn't make the outcome a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Winning at Midway wouldn't stop the Aussies beating the Japs on the Kokoda Trail or at Milne Bay.



Not the first time, but what if they tried again with aircraft carrier support?


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> At sea, the FAA had Sea Hurricanes and Martlets as well optimised for low altitude unlike the American Wildcats. The Sea Hurricane Ib being superior in performance to the A6M2, their torpedo bombing crews well trained in night attacks. Just because they didn't clash doesn't make the outcome a foregone conclusion.




I am not confident a Sea Hurricane could handle a Zero. Martlet as we know is fairly comparable but I'm not sure how many they had in 1942, none seem to be involved in the Ceylon debacle.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> More than dicey; disastrous.
> Consider that a crushing loss at Midway could have meant the loss of all three of our carriers to no Japanese losses. This makes the Guadalcanal operation untenable, resulting in interdiction of the supply lines to Australia, and potentially the loss of Hawaii. With supplies to Australia cut off, Japanese success in New Guinea is likely, putting the Aussies in a state of siege.
> The still undamaged Kido Butai can now concentrate its affections on Ceylon and the Indian Ocean, eventually threatening a linkup with the German controlled middle east. This eliminates the Axis Achilles Heel of petroleum, and puts a whole different tilt to the strategic balance.
> At this point, many "neutral" nations, or those philosophically sympathetic to the Allies, but physically removed from the fighting, are going to notice which way the winds are blowing and it's going to become harder for us to obtain the exotic resources needed to make our high tech war machine perform. Tropical wood, natural rubber, exotic minerals to make alloys of steel and aluminum, and myriad other resources from around the globe will no longer be at our beck and call.
> ...


Admiral Canaris, an old pal of Franco advised him that the Germans would lose WW2 so Franco never went after Gibraltar. Losses in the Pacific still don't save the Axis in the Med. The Brits would simply have deployed their fleet to the Indian Ocean and the 'soft underbelly' of the Axis may not have been in attacked in 1943. The Aussies would still have beaten the Japs in New Guinea.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Not the first time, but what if they tried again with aircraft carrier support?


There was always the British Fleet in the Indian Ocean to contend with. The World doesn't revolve around America.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I am not confident a Sea Hurricane could handle a Zero. Martlet as we know is fairly comparable but I'm not sure how many they had in 1942, none seem to be involved in the Ceylon debacle.


The Wildcat was technically inferior to the A6M2, but the pilots were first class, the Sea Hurricane Ib was superior to the A6M2 at low altitude, and the pilots I'm sure just as good as the USN ones, if not better.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> There was always the British Fleet in the Indian Ocean to contend with. The World doesn't revolve around America.



Needless to say. But the point I was making was that the British Fleet in the Indian Ocean seemed to be melting away like snow under boiling water on contact with the IJN fleet - case in point being the Ceylon raid. Maybe they could have got some Martlets in place and some more modern ships etc. but I'm not so sure.

I also don't think the Aussies could have held on in New Guinea etc. if the Americans had been badly defeated and backed off from the area, allowing the IJN to concentrate their might.

Of course it's all speculation.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Wildcat was technically inferior to the A6M2, but the pilots were first class, the Sea Hurricane Ib was superior to the A6M2 at low altitude, and the pilots I'm sure just as good as the USN ones, if not better.



Like I said, I'd need some serious convincing that the Sea Hurricane could hold it's own with an A6M2, let alone that it was better. Maybe Sea Hurricanes didn't clash with Zeroes but plenty of land based Hurricanes clashed with both Zeroes and Ki 43s and they didn't do well. Hurricanes were also very short ranged, especially compared to an A6M, which would confer a major operational advantage to the Japanese. That and the fact that their bombers were inferior and dead meat if they were caught by fighters (night flying capability notwithstanding)

I would assume that the RN / FAA pilots would be well trained, the USN ones certainly seemed to be among the best available to the US - it was really training, Thach weave etc. which made the F4F a viable weapon against the A6M and Ki 43- that and it's generally better suitability for attrition warfare. 

A lot of that hinged on the USN bomber being very effective, which again puts the emphasis back on the SBD for me.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Needless to say. But the point I was making was that the British Fleet in the Indian Ocean seemed to be melting away like snow under boiling water on contact with the IJN fleet - case in point being the Ceylon raid. Maybe they could have got some Martlets in place and some more modern ships etc. but I'm not so sure.
> 
> I also don't think the Aussies could have held on in New Guinea etc. if the Americans had been badly defeated and backed off from the area, allowing the IJN to concentrate their might.
> 
> Of course it's all speculation.


Our fleet didn't melt away in the snow. They simply weren't stupid enough to engage in a daytime combat where they were outnumbered. Don't underestimate the Aussies, they fought better than the first lot of Americans that arrived in New Guinea, and its not the AIF that I'm talking about, its their Militia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

I'm not comparing manhood size, I agree the Aussies fought very well (in the sky and on the ground), and a lot of US Army units in the Pacific didn't especially early on (USMC seemed to better)

But Milne Bay etc. were a close run thing hinging largely on air superiority and excellent air support by the RAAF. You bring 3 or 4 IJN carriers to the fight air superiority goes away.

As for "melting away" - losing 31 ships and 40 aircraft and only taking out 20 aircraft in response is not a sustainable exchange rate.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Admittedly though the IJN had 3-1 odds in aircraft so that made a big difference. If the odds were more even it may have been less of a catastrophe. But that is kind of the whole point of the Midway defeat scenario, if the USN was pulled back to San Fransisco and Long Beach, the Japanese would have been able to concentrate more forces for those kind of knockout blows.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You sound that way.
> 
> 
> "Theoretical Aviator (noun): A person who has read all the literature, watched all the YouTube videos, and played all the flightsim games and is able to lecture endlessly on flying, but makes himself airsick whenever he touches the controls of an actual airplane. Hasn't been there, hasn't done it, and is clueless as to what it's really like and is unaware of his own cluelessness."
> ...




WOW.. Welcome Home !!
Hired a lot of Vietnam Vets .. and even a few former WW2 and KW Vets too that were all in technical and engineering fields.
Was interesting reading their resumes who worked on the early Curtis.

New guys from Iraq and Afghanistan I never say "thank you for your service. !"
To some that is Cringe Worthy and just want to walk away quietly.

Just better to just say welcome home !

Dan

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 11, 2019)

Welcome home is better.

The rest of that, I would delete, as it's too personal. 

I'm sure you are a nice guy Dan, but if you have spent all that time in rough bar-rooms, studied martial arts etc, you know sometimes it's a good idea to take a couple of steps back. There are several guys on here who are pilots and some active duty or former military pilots. Many other mechanics, air controllers, all kinds of real world experience, aside from the historians amateur and otherwise. A lot to learn.

And amigo, don't over-expose yourself on the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Brits would simply have deployed their fleet to the Indian Ocean


And brought their carriers (only ships that count) full of aircrews used to Atlantic/Med tactical situations to face the Japanese. More snow to melt away. While the Brit carrier fighters might ON PAPER appear superior to their Japanese counterparts, if they're flown the way they were in the west, they're going to be in for a nasty surprise, as Singapore and Ceylon attest. And their huge deficit in range would likely prove decisive.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And brought their carriers (only ships that count) full of aircrews used to Atlantic/Med tactical situations to face the Japanese. More snow to melt away. While the Brit carrier fighters might ON PAPER appear superior to their Japanese counterparts, if they're flown the way they were in the west, they're going to be in for a nasty surprise, as Singapore and Ceylon attest. And their huge deficit in range would likely prove decisive.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Navy fighter pilots are a superior breed, ha ha, like Eric Brown. Lets put it this way, if technical details had anything to do with it then the USN Wildcats should have been shot from the skies by the Jap Zero's. Singapore and Ceylon were an RAF fest.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2019)

Oh lord!!!!!Another thread heading for the toilet because people are too ignorant to have intelligent debate, too obstinate to try and understand other peoples points of view and too stupid to care.

I'm outta here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Navy fighter pilots are a superior breed, ha ha, like Eric Brown.


Fanboyism strikes again! While I hold Naval Aviators in high regard, I've seen too many of their foibles to hold with the mythology of supermen. USN Wildcat drivers got their noses bloodied and their tails waxed when they first met the Zero and discovered they had been trained wrong for that adversary. The survivability of their mount allowed enough of them to live long enough to work out new tactics and teamwork and begin to even the score.
Sea Hurricane pilots, fresh from the Atlantic/Med, despite their superior flying skills and their successes "back home" are likely to discover the tactics they're used to and comfortable with leave them vulnerable to this new opponent. AND, their kite is NOT a product of the Grumman Iron Works, and has the shortest legs on the sea, just about guaranteeing they'll enter most fights at a disadvantage.
Maybe if you bring enough of them to the fight to absorb the losses and still put up a credible force you can slow the melting of the snow. Brit CVs were noted for having large air wings, right?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> WOW.. Welcome Home !!
> Hired a lot of Vietnam Vets .. and even a few former WW2 and KW Vets too that were all in technical and engineering fields.
> Was interesting reading their resumes who worked on the early Curtis.
> 
> ...



You're ranting like a delusional idiot, please stay on topic or go away


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2019)

Getting back to the C-47/C-46 and were there any competitors. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Passenger but eventually both. For the extra it could carry it still wasn't as cost effective as the C-47/DC-3. I've also read somewhere that Douglas had better product support and a better supply chain.




Well, the post war period covers a few years 

Convair delivered their 100th Convair 240 in Jan 1949.
According to one source they could cruise at 291mph at 16,000ft using 67% power (178 gallons an hour)

The ex C-46s were cruising at 215-225mph at 10,000ft using 180-190 gallons an hour (60-67% power).

They could obviously cruise a bit slower and burn less fuel but the Convair was going to go over 25% further on the same fuel.

A converted C-54 or new build DC-4 was supposed to cruise at 239mph (75% power) at 10,000ft using 225 gallons an hour.

A pre war DC-3 with P & W GR-1830 S1CG engines (1200hp for take-off and 1050hp max continuous at 7500ft) was supposed to cruise at 204mph at 7500ft and burn 105 gallons and hour doing it at 75% power.

I would note that Douglas did a lot of refurbishing of the C-54s themselves while it seems independent companies did most of the conversion/recertifying work on the Curtiss aircraft. 


What was available when and what prices could influence things but the C-46 didn't have good operating economics unless fully loaded.

figures are from Joseph Juptner's series "U.S. Civil aircraft and could well disagree with what is in manuals.


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 11, 2019)

Imho, the allies win the war even if they lose at Midway and El Alamein IF they are willing to absorb the loses of an even more costly war and prosecute it to the end.
My reasoning is that as Schweik pointed out the Axis powers were successful in Blitzkrieg type attacks but were conversely at a disadvantage in a war of attrition. I would say due to industrial capacity and raw manpower amongst other things.
This means that unless the Axis powers are able to take and occupy at least one( and I would argue two) of the major allied powers homelands the war will nescesarily evolve into a war of attrition which the allies will certainly win given they are willing to bear the cost and continue to fight until unconditional surrender.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting back to the C-47/C-46 and were there any competitors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At the end of the day, the DC-3 out lasted all of them and I think your numbers solidify that. The DC-3 had it's niche, almost like the way the 737 is today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> At the end of the day, the DC-3 out lasted all of them and I think your number solidify that. The DC-3 had it's niche, almost like the way the 737 is today.


It's really amazing, the lifespan of the C47/Dc3. Still occasionally see one used for transport to this day. I'll be watching a show on something off the beaten path in say Alaska of Africa and there's a C47 moving people and equipment.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're ranting like a delusional idiot, please stay on topic or go away


Really?


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Fanboyism strikes again! While I hold Naval Aviators in high regard, I've seen too many of their foibles to hold with the mythology of supermen. USN Wildcat drivers got their noses bloodied and their tails waxed when they first met the Zero and discovered they had been trained wrong for that adversary. The survivability of their mount allowed enough of them to live long enough to work out new tactics and teamwork and begin to even the score.
> Sea Hurricane pilots, fresh from the Atlantic/Med, despite their superior flying skills and their successes "back home" are likely to discover the tactics they're used to and comfortable with leave them vulnerable to this new opponent. AND, their kite is NOT a product of the Grumman Iron Works, and has the shortest legs on the sea, just about guaranteeing they'll enter most fights at a disadvantage.
> Maybe if you bring enough of them to the fight to absorb the losses and still put up a credible force you can slow the melting of the snow. Brit CVs were noted for having large air wings, right?
> Cheers,
> Wes


Okay, our Admiral Somerville knew that we would be licked in a daytime confrontation, but hey if you're intercepting incoming bombers its firepower and dive speed that matters, even the Fulmar had that. IIRC navy pilots do get a lot more training than their land based contemporaries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Really?



Yes, please listen to the advice people are giving you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Really?


*REALLY!*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> WOW.. Welcome Home !!
> Hired a lot of Vietnam Vets .. and even a few former WW2 and KW Vets too that were all in technical and engineering fields.
> Was interesting reading their resumes who worked on the early Curtis.
> 
> ...



What does any of this have to do with the topic anyhow?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Mar 12, 2019)

I have the utmost respect for the British Royal navy, but the idea of their carriers in mid 1942 being able to repel an attack from Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga and Akagi is fantasy at best. This doesn't even take into account full aircraft strength (the air groups were not at full strength for Midway) much less the repaired Shokakau and Zuikaku with full strength air groups.

Lets assume that there is no secret nighttime ambush by the british, both sides are spotted by recon aircraft at say 400 miles. The Japanese first strike on Midway was about half their strength. 36 Kates, 36 Vals and 36 Zeros. They had about the same number and type of aircraft in reserve for the 2nd strike armed for shipping. It is my belief that had the US carrier force been spotted the night before, that the first strike intended for Midway, rearmed with torpedoes, would have been enough to sink or damage all 3 US carriers, the follow up strike finishing off any cripples. 

Does anyone here actually think that 3-5 British carriers with aircraft compliments of 35-45 aircraft could have repelled an attack of 36 Kates, 36 Vals and 36 Zeros? What about the 2nd wave? What if they all came at once, 72 Kates, 72 Vals and 72 Zeros? 
How many of the 35-45 aircraft on board are fighters? What are they Wildcats? Sea Hurricanes? Fulmars? 

The Japanese had the ability to stand off beyond the range of most allied single engine aircraft and essentially pummel the British until their own magazines were empty of torpedoes and bombs and then retire. The Royal Navy would have been decimated

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Mar 12, 2019)

If the US had been crushed at Midway, how would the war have changed?

Might depend on how bad Midway went. If the Japanese had ambushed the US carriers it might have been 3-0 for Japan. If the air groups had passed each other in the air it might have been 3-3 with only the Hiryu surviving. Shattered Sword lays out a pretty reasonable plan that Japan could not have taken Midway even if they sunk the US carriers, but for arguments sake, lets say they did.

Japan could not have taken Hawaii. They simply didn't have the sealift capacity nor the equipment.

30 days after Pearl Harbor, Hawaii had more planes than before the attack. If I was in charge, Wasp and Saratoga and Ranger would simply turn into aircraft ferries. All they do is run between California and Hawaii ferrying aircraft. All ships larger than destroyers are pulled back to the West Coast. Destroyers and aircraft form a safe corridor from submarines for ships to travel in. Search aircraft such as B17's and Catalinas keep an eye out for the Japanese fleet carriers trying for another raid. With no fleet carriers to supply, all Wildcats and other carrier planes are stockpiled on Hawaii. With several hundred fighters and carrier bombers now on Hawaii, it is impregnable.

Please remember that according to Shattered Sword, the Japanese lost about 20% of the attack force on the first, and only, raid on Midway Island. How many would they lose if they tried a second Pearl Harbor raid against an unsinkable island with 300 or more P40's, Wildcats, P38's and P39's that are in the air at 20,000 feet waiting on them?


The only other thing that matters is keeping the convoy lines open to Britain and Russia. Nothing changes the war of attrition on the eastern front as Soviet forces grind the Germans down.

How ever the war goes in the Pacific is probably irrelevant, even if we didn't sink a single Japanese carrier up until early August 1945 when a B29 flies over the Japanese version of the 3rd fleet and drops a nuke in the middle of the carrier force in the middle of the day, followed a few hours later by a second B29 dropping a 2nd nuke onto the battered Japanese fleet, followed up by the US Navy launching a massive raid to polish off the cripples

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Mar 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What was available when and what prices could influence things but the C-46 didn't have good operating economics unless fully loaded.



A British source from the late 50's lists the typical total operating cost for the DC-3 at £85 per hour and £145 per hour for the C-46.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2019)

Graeme said:


> A British source from the late 50's lists the typical total operating cost for the DC-3 at £85 per hour and £145 per hour for the C-46.


That sounds pretty decisive, even without considering that the Three was a sweetheart to fly and maintain, devoid of quirks and weirdnesses, while the Commando I've heard described, by some who've flown both, as "a cantankerous bastard". 
If you were stuck in South Florida in the early 70s, "Cockroach Corner" at Miami International was a great place to spend the odd afternoon. A veritable museum of air transport history, all converted to marginal, shoestring, airfreight operations. The "collection" was heavily laced with obsolete foreign airliners converted to freighters, especially British and French.
Once they figured out you weren't a cop or a fed, they would fill your head with tales of daring-do and misfortune.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 13, 2019)

In analysing Midway, the important things to remember are the vastly contrasting limitations affecting the USN and the IJN



For the USN the critical constraint affecting their ability for force projection was their carrier fleetin 1942. After 1943, this was no longer a constraint, but in 1942, it was the number of sea billets that affected US capabilities, particularly thir offensive capabilities. They simply did not have enough of them and replacements were some distance away. Moreover the worldwide commitments at the end of 1942 made this situation even more problematic.

Aircraft losses were not really a problem for the US. They could afford to lose aircraft and replace them very quickly. But without carriers the options available to the Allies were very limited. If the US could not launch successful attacks into the Pacific they would give the Japanese time to fortify, and more importantly stockpile resources and war materiel, USN subs held at arms length would be less effective at sinking ships. The Japanese reasoned that keeping the USN off balance would give their forces a fighting chance of blunting the inevitable US counterattack. It was an unrealistic strategy, but may have worked had the germans been able to bring Russia to its knees, thus forcing a greater allocation of resources by the US to the ETO and more importantly a greater diversion of manpower away from US production bases to increased military manpower. A german victory in the east would likely cause more steel allocations and dockyard capacity to merchant shipping and away from naval construction. A greater proportion of new tonnage would have to be diverted to the Atlantic, which would tend to slow and restrict deployments into the PTO. The americans might have their 100000 a/c, but they would not be able to deploy them as easily to foreign fields. Since the shipping demands in the PTO were roughly 10x that per man in the ETO it would be the PTO that would suffer cutbacks well before the ETO.

Ive said this before, and it has proven to be intensely unpopular, but the loss of the four IJN flat tops at Midway was not a critical setback for them. Their main constraint was fully trained air crew, a problem which they were never able to solve. For the Japanese to win at midway, they had to destroy at least two enemy carriers and lose less than 100 aircrew doing that…..and probably less than that even. The Number of IJN carriers that could be lost could be as many as four fleet carriers and still not materially affect their force projection abilities

Midway was a defeat for the Japanese because they lost four flat tops, 107 highly trained aircrew and failed to neutralise the USN carriers . They lost stuff for nothing in other words.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 21, 2019)

parsifal said:


> In analysing Midway, the important things to remember are the vastly contrasting limitations affecting the USN and the IJN
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assuming Japan had more carriers after May 1942, they would have been able to train more aircrew - not enough - but more. I think Midway was in the long run almost irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the war because the US had a critical bath to victory from 1943 to 1945 that didn't depend on the outcome of any previous battles. The US with its submarines, new fast carriers and later B-29s could have strangled Japan in 1945 even if they lost all three carriers at Midway. WIth the new ships and planes that came online in 1943-1944, the Americans could have marched across the central Pacific with overwhelming force., taking the Marshalls and Marianas at pretty much the same time that they actually did. They could havve even sped up things by taking Iwo Jima before or instead of the Phillipines in October 1944. The Americans could have gone to Okinawa next, again bypassing thePhillipines., or they could have gone to the Phillipines at that point. 

The American capture of Ulithi without a fight showed how problematic it was for Japan to attempt to defend the Pacific using static defenses on island strongholds. The strongholds could just be bypassed, and airfields and facilities could be built on undeveloped islands.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 22, 2019)

I'm not sure Japan would have been sitting on their hands for two years if the US had been beaten back during Midway. See my earlier post about raids into the Indian Ocean.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 22, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> The American capture of Ulithi without a fight showed how problematic it was for Japan to attempt to defend the Pacific using static defenses on island strongholds.


No, the defense of island strongholds would depend on fast carrier forces to attack the invading armada.



Schweik said:


> I'm not sure Japan would have been sitting on their hands for two years if the US had been beaten back during Midway.


Of course not, with their carrier forces intact and ours gone, they would be able to interdict supplies to Australia, take New Guinea, neutralize Hawaii, and push our forward bases back to California. A few strategically placed bombs on the Gatun Locks would make interocean transfers into lengthy hazardous endeavors. This makes submarine ops against the Empire's shipping problematical, and where you going to launch your B29s from now? With the Japanese in Dutch Harbor, Alaska is out, and China was always a shaky proposition, especially if the Japanese get themselves established on the Indian subcontinent.
With their empire secure, and their supplies of raw materials unthreatened, the Japanese could concentrate on producing the next generation of ships and aircraft to make our fight back even more of a challenge.
Perhaps, with Yamamoto still alive, they might even recognize the need for the philosophical change from a war of blitzkrieg conquest to a war of attrition, and make the necessary changes in strategy, logistics, and training to bring it about. OTOH, with their cultural affinity for the "single decisive blow" fighting style of the Samurai, that might be too radical a change in a highly conservative society and culture.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 22, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No, the defense of island strongholds would depend on fast carrier forces to attack the invading armada.
> 
> 
> Of course not, with their carrier forces intact and ours gone, they would be able to interdict supplies to Australia, take New Guinea, neutralize Hawaii, and push our forward bases back to California. A few strategically placed bombs on the Gatun Locks would make interocean transfers into lengthy hazardous endeavors. This makes submarine ops against the Empire's shipping problematical, and where you going to launch your B29s from now? With the Japanese in Dutch Harbor, Alaska is out, and China was always a shaky proposition, especially if the Japanese get themselves established on the Indian subcontinent.
> ...



Even after a successful Midway campaign, the Combined Fleet would have needed to go back to the home islands for rest, resupply and rehabilitation. The IJN would not have had the fuel for a full-fleet sortee through the end of summer 1942. Assuming Japan actually successfully invaded and took Midway, Japan would have had to make a choice to reinforce and defend Midway or make a Southern assault toward Australia. They wouldn't have been able to do both at the same time. What part of Australia would Japan try to take? It is a huge country/continent.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> What part of Australia would Japan try to take? It is a huge country/continent.


A part with a city in it?

only part joking

"Distance between Adelaide and Darwin is _2618 kilometers_ (_1626 miles_). Driving distance from Adelaide to Darwin is _3027 kilometers_ (_1881 miles_). "

and the road was not paved all the way until well after the war. There just aren't that many places away from the coast that are inhabitable by large numbers of people (the population cannot retreat into the interior) even if the scrub will support a few people/animals. Of course it works the same for the Japanese, there are only certain parts they can attack and/or move through without having to bring everything they need, including water.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 23, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> Japan would have had to make a choice to reinforce and defend Midway or make a Southern assault toward Australia.


Defend Midway from what? With our PacFleet down to one carrier (if that), what threat is there to Midway? The Aussies are still tied up in New Guinea, and the Japanese don't have to invade and conquer them immediately, just wipe out their air power and then shut off their supply chain from Japan's new bases in Tulagi and Guadalcanal. An isolated Australia isn't an immediate threat.
And what's this talk of fuel shortages? By this time they'd been feasting on Southeast Asia oil for months, and the attrition of their merchant shipping hadn't really set in yet.
With all six of their big carriers still intact, and others on the ways, they should have been able to keep at least one, and most of the time two, formidable task forces at sea all the time.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## parsifal (Mar 23, 2019)

Japan was receiving far less oil from the east Indies than had been anticipated in prewar planning. Sizeable stockpiles had been accumulated at the forward base of
Truk with a much smaller and less secure base at rabaul. If the Japanese had actually succeeded at midway their requirements for domestic consumption coupled with their acute shortages of tankers would have effective sustained force projection into these distant fields impossible. The projected demands for an invasion of the Australian mainland coupled with the troop requirements made this suggestion impractical. There were many in the in that also knew that supply difficulties made any further military advances impossible

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Of course it works the same for the Japanese, there are only certain parts they can attack and/or move through without having to bring everything they need, including water.



As an aside, there is a story about what was coined The Brisbane Line; a defensive line drawn across the continent below which the population would retreat if the Japanese invaded. There are those who claim that it is a fantasy and did not exist. Info here:

https://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/brisbaneline.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 23, 2019)

A Naval victory at Midway would not have meant a successful landing was assured. Midway was very well fortified and ready at high alert. 3000 Marines would have been waiting for the initial 2500 Japanese wave. The total Japanese force was only 5000 men. This is far from the 3-1 odds that Marines had when assaulting islands. I think it would have been a Japanese blood bath, and its unlikely they would have made it to shore and stayed. The IJN didn't have the logistic train to stay in the Midway Area for extended periods, so a failed landing, with the IJN returning for resupply would have allowed Midway to be resupplied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 23, 2019)

It certainly would have been difficult. It is the opinion held in shattered sword. Despite all that weight of opinion stacked against the land operation being a success I still think the balance of probabilities favoured the Japanese force


----------



## pinsog (Mar 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Defend Midway from what? With our PacFleet down to one carrier (if that), what threat is there to Midway? The Aussies are still tied up in New Guinea, and the Japanese don't have to invade and conquer them immediately, just wipe out their air power and then shut off their supply chain from Japan's new bases in Tulagi and Guadalcanal. An isolated Australia isn't an immediate threat.
> And what's this talk of fuel shortages? By this time they'd been feasting on Southeast Asia oil for months, and the attrition of their merchant shipping hadn't really set in yet.
> With all six of their big carriers still intact, and others on the ways, they should have been able to keep at least one, and most of the time two, formidable task forces at sea all the time.
> Cheers,
> Wes



If all 3 US carriers had been lost at Midway, we still had Saratoga (arriving at Hawaii at the end of the Midway battle) Wasp (arrived at San Diego on June 19 after delivering 2 loads of Spitfires to Malta and repairs at Norfolk shipyards) and Ranger (she was ferrying 2 loads of P40's to Africa, 68 on the first load, 72 on the 2nd load).

I would have used these 3 carriers to ferry fighters and single engine bombers to Hawaii until Hawaii couldn't hold any more, B17's and Catalina's from Hawaii patrolling a wide swath to make sure no Japanese carriers show up unannounced. I would not allow them to engage the Japanese fleet, strictly for ferrying aircraft. 

If Midway had been successfully invaded (I have no idea if they could pull that off, Shattered Sword gives a reasonable justification that they couldn't) but if Midway did fall, I would harass a Japanese controlled Midway with night attacks by B17's using hundreds of 20-30 pound bombs and parafrags (if parafrags were available) only concerned with destroying aircraft on the runway, not punching holes in the runway with 500 and 1000 pound bombs as they would just be filled in every day by Japanese soldiers. Night attacks by B17's would neutralize Japanese fighters ability to intercept and should be relatively safe as Japanese flak wasn't that formidable. Flying boats would be the other prime target. 

New US carriers start coming on line in 1943 along with much improved aircraft and then we start working our way back across the pacific. 

If the Japanese cut the supply line through the pacific, could Australia be supplied by sailing around the south end of Africa and through the Indian Ocean? (That is a LONG trip)

In the end, the US has the B29 and 2 nukes, we draw some huge Japanese fleet into a battle and (assuming the concentrate their carriers like the US later did) drop a nuke right in the middle of 6-8 Japanese aircraft carriers in the center of their battle group and follow up with conventional airstrikes to finish them off

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> If all 3 US carriers had been lost at Midway, we still had Saratoga (arriving at Hawaii at the end of the Midway battle) Wasp (arrived at San Diego on June 19 after delivering 2 loads of Spitfires to Malta and repairs at Norfolk shipyards) and Ranger (she was ferrying 2 loads of P40's to Africa, 68 on the first load, 72 on the 2nd load).
> 
> I would have used these 3 carriers to ferry fighters and single engine bombers to Hawaii until Hawaii couldn't hold any more, B17's and Catalina's from Hawaii patrolling a wide swath to make sure no Japanese carriers show up unannounced. I would not allow them to engage the Japanese fleet, strictly for ferrying aircraft.
> 
> ...



I think you'll find that the supply route to Australia would remain open but would have been through Samoa, then New Zealand and over to Sydney, Australia. So maybe the Northern half of Australia gets overrun. Look up the Brisbane line.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> If the Japanese cut the supply line through the pacific, could Australia be supplied by sailing around the south end of Africa and through the Indian Ocean? (That is a LONG trip)


And a shaky one, testing the range limitations of most ships, and requiring supply convoys to stay down in the far south latitudes going by the East Indies to stay out of reach of Japanese long range airpower. Underway replenishment in the great southern ocean is an exceedingly risky business, and Japanese submarines were mostly long range operators. Australia would probably soon have become untenable as a US submarine base.
I do like the idea of nuking a task force rather than a city. Our post war PR issues re nuclear weapons would certainly have turned out differently than they did.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 23, 2019)

There are beginning to be so many what if's to this thread its difficult to follow. I don't think the IJN landing would have succeeded. They lacked the specialized equipment the US Marines had when attacking islands, and no where near the 3-1 ratio that was considered a minimum. 

On the other side if we are talking what ifs, what if Saratoga had arrived back from the West Coast in time to participate in the battle. Yorktown may not have been lost, and the IJN defeat may have been greater.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 23, 2019)

A raid into the indian ocean and invasion and conquest of Ceylon / Sri Lanka just as a base from which to disrupt merchant / naval communications could have had devastating results to the British war effort and they definitely could have done that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A raid into the indian ocean and invasion and conquest of Ceylon / Sri Lanka just as a base from which to disrupt merchant / naval communications could have had devastating results to the British war effort and they definitely could have done that.




They should have done a lot of things, assuming of course they had the oil to fuel the ships, assuming they had the ships (cargo/sealift) in the first place.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They should have done a lot of things, assuming of course they had the oil to fuel the ships, assuming they had the ships (cargo/sealift) in the first place.




I was referring specifically to the scenario where they had defeated the American carriers at Midway. They certainly had enough equipment to invade Guadalcanal and they sent thousands of troops to New Guinea as well (getting them past the Owen Stanley range was another story) so I'm sure they could have taken Sri Lanka. Look how they rolled over the Philippines, Malaysia, etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2019)

You ignored the sea lift capability. It is about 1500 Nautical miles from Singapore to Sri Lanka. Or nearly 8 days with an 8kt freighter. Not all Japanese bases, especially captured ones like SIngapore had the same capabilities. The Attack on Guadalcanal was based out of Truk which was Japans largest (by far) forward base. 

Any ships rounding the Cape of Good Hope heading for Australia aren't going to come within 1000-1500 miles of Sri Lanka. 
Sri Lanka is 20-50 miles from India for about a 50-60 mile stretch of the Sri Lankan coast, It is going to be a whole lot easier for the British and India to resupply/support Sri Lanka than for the Japanese to resupply after the initial attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Mar 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Defend Midway from what? With our PacFleet down to one carrier (if that), what threat is there to Midway? The Aussies are still tied up in New Guinea, and the Japanese don't have to invade and conquer them immediately, just wipe out their air power and then shut off their supply chain from Japan's new bases in Tulagi and Guadalcanal. An isolated Australia isn't an immediate threat.
> And what's this talk of fuel shortages? By this time they'd been feasting on Southeast Asia oil for months, and the attrition of their merchant shipping hadn't really set in yet.
> With all six of their big carriers still intact, and others on the ways, they should have been able to keep at least one, and most of the time two, formidable task forces at sea all the time.
> Cheers,
> Wes




What's the talk of fuel shortages? Fuel supply played a role in Japanese strategy from the attack on Pearl Harbor through the end of the war. 


https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Oil Logistics in the Pacific War=Donovan.pdf
Oil and Japanese Strategy in the Solomons: A Postulate


----------



## Schweik (Mar 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You ignored the sea lift capability. It is about 1500 Nautical miles from Singapore to Sri Lanka. Or nearly 8 days with an 8kt freighter. Not all Japanese bases, especially captured ones like SIngapore had the same capabilities. The Attack on Guadalcanal was based out of Truk which was Japans largest (by far) forward base.
> 
> Any ships rounding the Cape of Good Hope heading for Australia aren't going to come within 1000-1500 miles of Sri Lanka.
> Sri Lanka is 20-50 miles from India for about a 50-60 mile stretch of the Sri Lankan coast, It is going to be a whole lot easier for the British and India to resupply/support Sri Lanka than for the Japanese to resupply after the initial attack.



I didn't ignore anything, and I think we both know that. You are looking for facts to suit your conclusion instead of the other way around.

The Japanese had ports on Sumatra, they had Rangoon (wrecked by the British during the retreat but repairable), they had Kuala Lampur, and yes they had Singapore. The supplies they positioned in Truk and Rabaul weren't there before the war, they had the ability to move logistics. They weren't bereft of shipping either and the situation with US torpedoes meant that it would still be a while after Midway before American submarines were making any kind of real dent in their mercantile fleet, especially considering how far from their supply lines _they _would be forced to operate, with most of the Pacific bases knocked out. I assume they would be relying on British bases in India and / or Australia but that is a pretty long haul.

IJN Operations in the Indian Ocean could probably be maintained with 1 or 2 carrier groups most of the time, they had such a range and quality advantage over the Royal Navy that they didn't need overwhelming odds. The IJA also demonstrated during the conquest of Burma that they could still handle British colonial forces in 1942. If the British made a major effort to challenge them there they could always move more assets in.

So I think if they hadn't been busy with the Yanks, India would have been an inviting and profitable target and Sri Lanka a useful base for Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2019)

If the Japanese had won at midway and continued operations geared toward further territorial gains they would have been making a terrible mistake. By the end of April they had just about reached the limits of their logistics such many othe 
r advances or commitments were simply going to overload their supply network even further than it already suffered from.

A few exceptions to this generalisation can be made most notably moresby and Milne bay. Such advances were more consolidation than offensive in nature

In reality the Japanese offensive capability had reached its limi by midway. A one sided loss of us carrier capacity would curtail American capability but not affect Japanese offensive capability. A survival of Japanese car divs 1 and 2 would improve Japanese reaction capability that in turn could deliver time to firm up their defences

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 24, 2019)

For those who think that the IJN could cut Australia off, think again. These are the South Pacific ferry routes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I didn't ignore anything, and I think we both know that. You are looking for facts to suit your conclusion instead of the other way around.



Why on earth would I look for facts that don't suit my conclusion?
I haven't seen any _facts_ that don't suit my conclusion. I have seen some conjecture or supposition.
What was the oil production of Java in 1942?
enough to support Japan as it was historically or enough to support various expeditions using tens of thousands of tons of fuel per week.?
WHat was the Japanese transport situation in the summer of 1942? enough to keep the home Islands supplied with imports (pretty much the pre-war goal of the Japanese merchant fleet + foreign hired shipping which tended to disappear in 1942) with how much surplus shipping to support some grand adventures?



Schweik said:


> The Japanese had ports on Sumatra, they had Rangoon (wrecked by the British during the retreat but repairable), they had Kuala Lampur, and yes they had Singapore



A port is NOT a base. A port _might_ be a base if it has sufficient supplies and repair facilities for what you are trying to do.



Schweik said:


> The supplies they positioned in Truk and Rabaul weren't there before the war, they had the ability to move logistics.



Well, you may be technically correct in that much of the supplies at Truk and Rabaul were brought there after the war started, depending on exactly when you are talking about

" The Japanese had in fact developed considerable base facilities here before the war, including four separate airfields and storage for 77,200 tons of fuel oil, including a 10,000-ton underground tank and two 33,600-ton above-ground steel tanks (151.883E 7.369N). This was the largest Japanese fuel depot outside the home islands. "
from The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Truk

But your statement gives a rather false impression as how important Truk was to Japanese plans leading up to the war.
The above quote also shows some of the difference between a "port" and a "base"



Schweik said:


> The IJA also demonstrated during the conquest of Burma that they could still handle British colonial forces in 1942. If the British made a major effort to challenge them there they could always move more assets in.



Yes the Japanese did handle the colonial forces fairly well in Burma. But in Sri Lanka/India the numbers would be much more against the Japanese. Some accounts of the fighting in Burma/Singapore have it a fairly narrow race between the British surrendering and the Japanese running out of supplies. Yet you are proposing a bigger operation 1500 miles further away than Singapore?

I would note that the British torpedoes seemed to work fairly well at this point in the war. I would also note that the British submarine service achieved the 2nd highest kill to loss ratio of any submarine service in WW II. (the Americans were 1st) and that while they had only 3 Subs in the Pacific in Jan of 1942 they had 8 T class boats at Alexandria in Jan of 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2019)

If the Japanese had won at midway and continued operations geared toward further territorial gains they would have been making a terrible mistake. By the end of April they had just about reached the limits of their logistics such many othe 
r advances or commitments were simply going to overload their supply network even further than it already suffered from.

A few exceptions to this generalisation can be made most notably moresby and Milne bay. Such advances were more consolidation than offensive in nature

In realot the Japanese offensive capability

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2019)

There are some quite detailed military war games that cover this whole subject quite well
I am still not a great fan of the available computer Sims. I prefer the operational level Sims. My fave is the spi war in the Pacific covering the war at individual ship level 10 plane air point level and Regimemental combat level. Covers the whole Pacific war and Japan wi s by not losing before December 45. There is an updated version put out by another company but I e only played the original. By far the best approach by the Japanese after the initial smash and grab operation is not fight midway. It is important for the i
IJN to pick off one or two US carriers whist building up two reaction fleets and two major airbase one near rabaul and one near mean. If t he IJN can build these two for es they can effe timely deter much from the western allies u til early 44 by which time it all be too late to meet the game deadli rd

How's realistic a y of this is wide open to Debate. But does offer a different way of considering the alternatives

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 24, 2019)

Those old board games are great, and some of the computer games are pretty good too believe it or not) but even an SPI game is made with certain assumptions in mind, I'm not sure it would even let you play out an Indian Ocean strategy for example.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2019)

QUOTE="Schweik, post: 1468346, member: 73921"]Those old board games are great, and some of the computer games are pretty good too believe it or not) but even an SPI game is made with certain assumptions in mind, I'm not sure it would even let you play out an Indian Ocean strategy for example.[/QUOTE]
It does but I'm not sure it's assumptions are all that good. Depending on where and in what strength the Japanese intervene up to 10 CW divs as well as a sizable portion of the RN appear on the western map edgr. Separately the British have some compulsory transfers for Madagascar etc. Overall however the whole CBI is handled in rather averagely

There is older less accurate SIM from a firm called GDW called pearl harbour I think which has options for European axis intervention and variable commitment levels to the Europe first strategy. Makes for interesting outcomes

WITP has some interesting mechanics that can easily absorb house rules. I particularly 
Like giving the US and Japan the choice of how much production they have access to.baseline us allocation to 20percent giving them to the end of 1945 to win. We normally allow the US player the option of varying that percentage in exchange for shortening or lengthening that time limit. A similar but smaller arrangement can be made by the Japanese player. This system is also handy as a handicap system for players of different abilities


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2019)

IF, big if, the Japanese do more than stage one raid into the Indian ocean early in WW II, what else don't they do?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2019)

That's up to the Japanese player. The entire Japanese war potential is on the map whereas only a portion of allied capability is under player control

A bigger conundrum is what to do with the Soviet union. WITP I was researched back in the 70s when our knowledge of Soviet forces was far more limited


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2019)

Just from looking around the internet in the last few hours, The British had a problem with the "Indians" and other local populations/troops who might have believed Japanese propaganda that the Japanese would free them from British rule. This gives something of window for local rebellions/mutinies making it harder for the British to defend. As the war goes on I would imagine that the local populations, much as they may resent the British, might come to see them as the lesser of two evils. 
Many units/locations remained loyal making this a rather hit or miss proposition. 

Some of the later Japanese adventures in the Indian Ocean were hardly up to their earlier standards and begin to resemble a black comedy. 

British subs sink 3 Japanese/axis subs and two light cruisers.
Two 21 kt armed merchant ships (with up to eight 5.5in guns) attack a 14 kt tanker with a 4 in gun and a Bathurst class minesweeper/corvette with a 3in gun. One merchant raider is sunk, the empty tanker is torpedoed, abandoned, reboarded and brought into port. 

3 Large cruisers break into the Indian Ocean in March of 1944, they sink one 6,100 ton merchant before retiring to base under the assumption somebody heard the victims distress call.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2019)

The possibility of an Indian uprising was something mutaguchi was hoping for in his 1944 invasion of India. Certainly the famine in Bengal Fed into that dynamic. And it is arguable either way really. But what disincli es me to agreeing to the possibility is that in the historical model there was little or no evidence of large scale Indian support to support projapanes indepependsnve. The psychology of Indian society was much more closely aligned to obedience and submission than is the case in conventional western society


The game does offer some possobilolities for raising projapanes Indian and Burmese forces but their numbers and capabilities are pretty limotrd

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 25, 2019)

Coming late to the party but...

For many years I speculated on what would have happened at Midway had the Enterprise and Hornet been sunk. After reading Shattered Sword, many of the questions raised here (and in my mind over the years) are pretty much dealt with if not answered outright. If you haven't read Shattered Sword, my advice is to read it, you'll see some exhaustive research with details laid out in full on just about anything related to that battle. See Appendix 5 for their perspective on the Japanese actually trying to invade Midway, their analysis does NOT bode well for the Japanese.

Also, as far as the IJA/IJN "Handling" British colonial forces, they (Parshall and Tully) also point out that many of their success' were flanking or end runs with numerical advantages of rather high ratios. Direct assaults they (the Japanese) rightly had trouble with, see Wake Island for example.

What If's are interesting but in reality, there was no way Japan was going to succeed in the war they purchased for themselves, just consider that the economy of the United States, while running at less than full capacity coming out of the Great Depression, was still five times that of Japan's which was running at full throttle.

Also, fast carrier groups that began appearing in 1943 proved there was no defensive perimeter that would forestall American/Allied thrusts into the Empire. Hell, even small single and twin carrier groups of the USN were bypassing Japanese outer defenses for raids (and the battle of the Coral Sea) in 1942. So the idea of a ring of iron protecting Japan thousands of miles from her home shores is a pure myth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 25, 2019)

parsifal said:


> There are some quite detailed military war games that cover this whole subject quite well
> I am still not a great fan of the available computer Sims. I prefer the operational level Sims. My fave is the spi war in the Pacific covering the war at individual ship level 10 plane air point level and Regimemental combat level. Covers the whole Pacific war and Japan wi s by not losing before December 45. There is an updated version put out by another company but I e only played the original. By far the best approach by the Japanese after the initial smash and grab operation is not fight midway. It is important for the i
> IJN to pick off one or two US carriers whist building up two reaction fleets and two major airbase one near rabaul and one near mean. If t he IJN can build these two for es they can effe timely deter much from the western allies u til early 44 by which time it all be too late to meet the game deadli rd
> 
> How's realistic a y of this is wide open to Debate. But does offer a different way of considering the alternatives



My friends and I were big AH and SPI gamers in high school in the late 70s. If you have started and finished a game of WITP its an achievement. We gamed the Midway Era scenario, and I remember the Japanese player opted to invade Noumea vs Midway. I played the USN side, and I remember because using the intelligence rule I was lucky enough to draw the chit that told me where he was going. The good old days. The monster games were great in high school, you had time, the mental power to read and absorb 50 pages of rule books, and opponents. I finally sold my copy of SPIs War in Europe a couple years ago on Ebay. I thought it was someone else's turn to try it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2019)

I've played the campaign to full conclusion 5 times and refereed maybe as many again. I consider it a flawed masterpiece i have designed and built a commercial prototype for the full global wars.far too big to be considered playable.i would really love to play the modernised version of WITP by decision games cut the cost of the copy can't really be justified.

As the allied player I could generally bring the Japanese to their knees using avoidance strategies. Defensively you hold what you must and attack where he is weakest. Subs are a big part of your offensive strategy.the Japanese have no answer really. As the US you want for nothing but until you have overwhelming carrier strength you pound the Japanese bases mercilessly with those b24s

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Esvees (Mar 27, 2019)

Going back to the original topic, it's very interesting. I've been thinking about it before for some time. Unfortunately, I think the answer is probably the BF 109. I'll explain why. I see WW2 as mainly three theatres, the Western, Eastern and Pacific. Of these three, the Eastern front was by far the biggest. Aircraft such as the Hellcat may have decimated the Japanese carrier air force and the TBF/M sank a staggering amount of Japanese shipping, but their impact was really only limited to one of the 2 smaller fronts.

Also, while the big, famous battles like Midway are important, all the hundreds of smaller battles and skirmishes that slowly wore down the enemy are equally or more important and directly impacted the big battles. Stalingrad is a prime example; it's where the attrition the Germans had suffered finally caught up with them and no amount of tactical superiority could protect them against the vast resources of the Soviet Union.

With that in mind, here are my picks:

*Spitfire*

West:

- Made a major contribution to the Battle of Britain. More kills per aircraft and lower loss rate than the Hurricane.
- Played a major role in the defense of Malta and establishing air superiority over North Africa. This eventually led to the invasion of Italy.
- Ground the Luftwaffe in Northern France down for years, despite a slight pause when the FW 190 appeared. Continued to constantly bleed the Luftwaffe with the mark IX and later marks from mid 1942 onwards.

East:

- The Mark V was used by the Russians, but was not very well liked; it was good at high altitudes, where not much combat took place.

Pacific:

- Played an important role in the defense of Darwin and some other local theatres.

*B 24 Liberator*

West:

- Attacked the Romanian oilfields and contributed to the CBO over Germany from 1944. This would eventually lead to Germany's chronic lack of resources and final collapse.
- Helped close the mid-Atlantic gap.

Pacific:

- Plays a significant role in bombing Japanese bases due to range.

*P 40*

West: 

- Played an important role in North Africa. Less so after D-day.

East: 

- The Russians liked their ruggedness and low altitude performance. Second only to the P39 in popularity for lend-lease aircraft.

Pacific: 

- Important in the early years in the Pacific, especially over China and New Guinea

*Yak fighter family*

East:

- The Yak 1 was about the only decent fighter the Soviets had at the start of the invasion (e.g. it wouldn't rip the wings off if you farted)
- The Yak 9 was the newest and best Soviet fighter over Stalingrad and was produced in larger numbers than any other Soviet fighter.
- From mid 1944, the Yak 3 was the best low-altitude dogfighter in the world; German fighters would do all they could to avoid it rather than risking a dogfight.

*Il 2 Sturmovik*

East: 

- Not very accurate, but built in such vast numbers they destroyed an enormous amount of German tanks and equipment. It didn't hurt that German troops were scared to death of them.
- Forced the Luftwaffe to expend an enormous amount of resources to try and bring the endless waves down. So tough that the Germans called them "the concrete aeroplane".

*BF 109*

West:

- The Germans were smart and lucky when they conquered France. Without the 109 covering the Stuka's and bombers, the outcome could have been very different.
- The only aircraft to do any serious damage to fighter command over Britain.
- Inflicted horrific losses on the Mighty 8th during 1943. Remained a threat right up until the end.
- Was present in every major war Germany fought in the West and was pivotal in Scandinavia, the Balkans, North Africa, Greece etc.

East: 

- Absolutely dominated the skies over Russia right up until 1943. It's doubtful the Germans would have gotten anywhere near Moscow without it.
- History's greatest aces all flew the 109. Their kills range in the hundreds and there were many of them. The best Western allied aces scored below 50.


*Less relevant than people think: B 29*

- Based on discussions among the Japanese high command during the final days of the war, there is significant evidence that Japan surrendered largely because the Soviet Union entered the war. For months, B 29's had been firebombing Japanese cities, causing far more civilian deaths than the 2 atom bombs would. As many people have pointed out, civilian deaths seem to have had almost no impact on the will to fight in any country throughout the war. By contrast, the Soviets handed the Japanese army their ass in Manchuria within a matter of days. With supplies now cut off from all angles, the Japanese warlords shat their pants.


So hence my conclusion. Much as I'd like it to be an Allied aircraft, without the BF 109, there my not have been much of a war to begin with. It was present and decisive in every major battle the Germans fought. Superior aircraft did appear, but it remained at least competitive and influential from 1939 all the way to 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 27, 2019)

Esvees said:


> - The Yak 9 was the newest and best Soviet fighter over Stalingrad and was produced in larger numbers than any other Soviet fighter.



Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence. 
Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft. 
The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 27, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence.
> Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft.
> The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.



Agreed. I'm more and more skeptical about information published in the Soviet Union about their War Production. We only have the narrative that we have been given by the Russians. The more I read, the less I believe 36,000 Sturmovicks, and 60,000 T-34s were built.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 28, 2019)

If the Germans could build over 30,000 Bf109s while being bombed, why couldn't the Soviets build 36,000 Il-2s?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thos9 (Mar 28, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type.


Yes there was. In July 1945, the 386th Bomb Squadron completed its transition to the Consolidated B-32 Dominator, flying six more combat missions before the war ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence.
> Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft.
> The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.



But plenty of Yak-1, 1B and 7 right? Very similar aircraft from my perspective - similar dimensions, same engine, very similar weight, similar armament. The Yak 9 seems like an incremental improvement over the Yak-1B to me, and to the late model Yak 7 which it was developed from. It was a bit like a Yak 7 brought up to 1B standard, with the chopped down rear deck etc.

La 5 was also there at Stalingrad and for this one, we have a bit of a discrepancy between Soviet and German sources - the Soviets all seemed to love it and say it was pivotal to their success, the Germans seemed to dismiss it and not think much of it. The perception of the Fw 190 seems to go the opposite way.

I think it's a bit odd that we seem to accept German numbers so readily and dismiss Soviet numbers so completely. Surely both were authoritarian States that engaged in mass-murder of civilians under their control, heavily relied on propaganda, and didn't care too much for the truth. But even the Democracies could be accused of similar attitudes and ruthlessness - if not as much to their own people certainly toward neutral or occupied states and enemy civilians. It was Total War.

I just consistently find it odd that we seem to embrace the German records even when they are propaganda and laud the German kit even where it exceeded it's limitations and began to have problems, but at the same time just dismiss everything from the Soviets and diminish the merits of their kit like the Yak and La fighters and the Il-2, even though these were the tools that actually brought the Nazi regime down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 28, 2019)

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But plenty of Yak-1, 1B and 7 right? Very similar aircraft from my perspective - similar dimensions, same engine, very similar weight, similar armament. The Yak 9 seems like an incremental improvement over the Yak-1B to me, and to the late model Yak 7 which it was developed from. It was a bit like a Yak 7 brought up to 1B standard, with the chopped down rear deck etc.
> 
> La 5 was also there at Stalingrad and for this one, we have a bit of a discrepancy between Soviet and German sources - the Soviets all seemed to love it and say it was pivotal to their success, the Germans seemed to dismiss it and not think much of it. The perception of the Fw 190 seems to go the opposite way.
> 
> ...



The performance of neither the Yak-1 nor early variant La-5 were spectacular. The Yak-1 was outclassed by the Bf 109F and the La-5 by the Fw 190A. Improvements came later. Although apparently, a Yak-7 could take on a Fw 190A and win. AFAIK small numbers of of Yak-1b's & 9's became available in November 1942. Small numbers of Curtiss Kittyhawks were also deployed and were considered superior to the Bf109F. The Yak-9 was a development of the Yak-7, the Yak-3 from the Yak-1m, a derivative of the Yak-1b. The Yak-3 outclassed all German fighters, the La-5F/FN had issues, but was extremely good with most of their top aces either flying them or the P-39, in equal measures. The Yak's were escort fighters and so their pilots never racked up such high scores as they had to stay with their bombers and assault aircraft, driving off German fighters was their role, not necessarily shooting them down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 28, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> We only have the narrative that we have been given by the Russians. The more I read, the less I believe 36,000 Sturmovicks, and 60,000 T-34s were built.



Initial narrative was given by the Soviets. Then, it was checked, double-checked, disputed, corrected, disputed again - in post USSR states and in other countries.
I'm very sceptical about Soviet statistical data in general, military or civilian***. Yet in this particular case (Il-2/Il-10) post Soviet authors did not find major discrepancies so far. Numbers given by Oleg Rastrenin (who has done probably the most extensive research of this aircraft) in one of his latest editions: 33,083 of Il-2 (all modifications) and of Il-10 were delivered to "sturm" regiments of VVS from 1941 to 01st June 1945, including: 8,067 one-seaters, 23,882 two-seaters, 1,134 Il-10. And since there were some numbers in Navy, in reserve, in schools and elsewhere, total of 35,000-36,000 seems to be realistic, IMHO.

**)*Just for information. Issues with Soviet statistics were not limited by ideological bias only. Data collection system in some industries and departments was of horrible quality. There was also typical phenomenon of _pripiski _on many levels, top down. Even the dreaded and regularly purged NKVD(KGB) was not exemplary. Corrupted society = corrupted data...


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But plenty of Yak-1, 1B and 7 right?



Of course. I'm just trying to stop this particular misconception about Yak-9.
My small contribution into eternal struggle against fake news.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 28, 2019)

There is a tendency for subordinates to exaggerate good news and downplay bad when reporting to bosses. In a capitalist system, the worst is likely to be getting fired and maybe blacklisted for unwanted news ( a high-level accountant, maybe the comptroller, at Convair was fired for reporting the CV-880 was being sold for less than cost of components and subcontracted work, even though it was true); in the Soviet system, imprisonment or even death could result.


----------



## bbear (Mar 29, 2019)

I don't think this kind of question has an answer as such. It's interesting but it's a struggle to talk sense without agreed criteria of evidence, definitions, means of evaluating sources, shared values even. There's even a place for epistemology : how do we know what we think we know about the path of war, it's turning points, the role of air power and advantages and disadvantages of candidate aircraft types. Any certainty or strongly held position is possibly not supported as strongly as proponents believe. Alternates to that strongly held position may have hidden merits. This is why we discuss things, to bring out those merits, to test what seems certain. At least, that is what I thought before the age of the internet.

That said and arguing from first principles
*The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.*
The war taken from 1939 to 45. (taking the alternate from 1936 Manchuria invasion might give a different result)
Two tidal cycles can be identified: West and East, German and Japanese aggression. Each cycle has a flood tide of Axis expansion an Ebb tide of allied recovery, with an additional tide of Soviet expansion, (neglected in this analysis).
Was each turn, from flood to ebb, a point or a stage? Was the turn centred on an event ( for example the Battle of Midway) or a campaign ("Battle" of the Atlantic) or a process (rearmament)?
Taking the West first, there are a series of points at which the tide could have turned, two points where it did turn, three Campaigns and three processes
Points : 
Battles for Poland, Netherlands, France. Dunkerque, BoB - take those together as Axis North West Europe Expansion point
Barbarossa first stages
Defence of Malta
Normandy Landings

Campaigns
"Battle" of the Atlantic
Barbarossa conceived widely, the Eastward expansion
Western Desert

Processes 
Rearmament, attrition, war orientation - total war, formation of Alliance

Of those I choose the Battle of the Atlantic as the critical turn of tide, that could have gone either way. Malta came close, but could conceivably have been lost, and the Western Desert
Campaign, and the link from Europe to India/Australia without affecting the war outcome.

The airplane that did the most to turn that tide:
Candidates:
B24 Liberator
PBY Catalina
Short Sunderland

From which I pick : B24 Liberator as the one that closed the air gap

By a similar process for the Eastern tidal cycle of War I choose the Mitsubishi Zero as over confidence in this platform exemplified the underestimation of American strength as a democracy which led to war.

Thank you for a most interesting question.

And I could be wrong, especially about the Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 29, 2019)

I think it would have to be the Typhoon or the P-47 Thunderbolt. These aircraft made it impossible for Axis trains and ground forces to move. They increased an already difficult position to an impossible one for their enemies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 29, 2019)

I agree, generally, with the 'break it down by Theater and Year' approach because it helps separate out the three arguments, namely

which Theater is the most relevant to war outcomes, or even a hierarchy of importance of the Theaters,
which years are most key,
and then separately which aircraft was the most important in each Theater and year.
If you don't make a clear distinction between these three things then the argument / discussion becomes hopelessly muddled and you just go around and around fruitlessly talking past each other. Even if you are only focusing on one single aircraft type for the whole war, a tall order, you still have to evaluate these factors. If you select a Russian or German aircraft as the most important in the war, you are thereby deciding that the Pacific Theater is secondary.

That said, while I agree with what I believe is a general consensus that the Soviet -German war was the most important in the overall War effort, I think people seem to be a little too dismissive of some of the other primary Theaters (like the Pacific) and by extension also the secondary and tertiary Theaters and their relevance to the outcome of the overall War.

We can look at raw production numbers and make certain assumptions, but as I have pointed out before, if production alone was sufficient to win wars the US would have won the Vietnam War, Afghanistan would have been pacified by the Soviets in the 80's and be pacified now by the Americans, Korea would be unified and under the American Sphere of Influence and so forth. Production capacity alone does not guarantee victory.

So we have direct fronts and what you might call indirect or 'supply chain' fronts. The Pacific War, the BoB and associated conflicts, the invasion of Normandy and subsequent campaign in Western Europe are all direct fronts / conflicts similar to the Soviet - German war if smaller in scale. The 'Battle of the Atlantic', the CBI, Greece and the Balkans, the Med and Middle East, and the secondary Theaters in the Pacific qualify as 'supply chain' fronts. If we assume the latter don't matter then aren't we also contradicting the idea that the production capacity is the deciding factor, or even a major factor?

For the Med, I think the 'breaking' of Fascist Italy and their removal or serious downgrading as an economic and technological force in the Axis War effort is more significant than people are assuming. But the big question is really - how badly does Britain really need that supply chain from South Asia? How badly do they need commerce and communication in the Med? I think a lot, probably more than we are generally taking into account.

Same for the CBI and this has relevance for the Pacific scenario because as I said before, (and I'll address this more in another post) if the Japanese had won at Midway and the Solomons they could have done a lot more harm in the Indian Ocean and on the Indian Subcontinent. But does it matter? How much does Britain need that link to India?

Similarly for the "Battle of the Atlantic" and the various other convoy fights. How badly did the Soviets really need the Lend Lease and other materiel and weapons that they received? How much could an Alaska route compensate if the Atlantic route was broken. How much could the Japanese have interfered with the latter if they had a freer hand due to defeating the Yanks? How badly did England need what they were getting cross-Atlantic from the Americans?

Only once you have some of these questions answered can you focus on which plane mattered the most. Or, as I would prefer, which planes, maybe a top 5 or top 10, broken down by time period and Theater.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 30, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf



One part in the report I find very interesting, ," it is estimated that overseas sources contributed up to one-quarter of Soviet aircraft supplies (this was the peak recorded in late 1943) and up to one-fifth of tank supplies (in 1942); "

Lend Lease had a decisive part in Russia staying in the War. Try playing a Russian Front simulation game with 25% less Russian air units, and 20% less armor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 30, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> One part in the report I find very interesting, ," it is estimated that overseas sources contributed up to one-quarter of Soviet aircraft supplies (this was the peak recorded in late 1943) and up to one-fifth of tank supplies (in 1942); "
> 
> Lend Lease had a decisive part in Russia staying in the War. Try playing a Russian Front simulation game with 25% less Russian air units, and 20% less armor.


Not to mention all the locomotives and rolling stock that transported their troops and equipment to the front, nor the food supplies.


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 30, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not to mention all the locomotives and rolling stock that transported their troops and equipment to the front, nor the food supplies.


I read an article recently and at least according to the author it was the trucks we shipped to them, by making there army highly mobile, that contributed the most to victory on the eastern front.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I read an article recently and at least according to the author it was the trucks we shipped to them, by making there army highly mobile, that contributed the most to victory on the eastern front.


I’ve seen the same thing.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 30, 2019)

The USSR also had over one hundred thousand ZIS-5 trucks at the start of Operation Barbarossa.






Wiki​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 30, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I’ve seen the same thing.



Germany was beaten by Russian Blood and US $dollars.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Mar 30, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The USSR also had over one hundred thousand ZIS-5 trucks at the start of Operation Barbarossa.
> 
> View attachment 533727
> 
> Wiki​



It doesn't look as capable as a REO M-35 Deuce and a half.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 30, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> It doesn't look as capable as a REO M-35 Deuce and a half.


I don't think it was. There's a picture out there on the net of a deuce and a half pulling Zis-5s out of the mud.
Wish I had one right now. My car is buried axle deep in the swamp that is my driveway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 30, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> There is a tendency for subordinates to exaggerate good news and downplay bad when reporting to bosses. In a capitalist system, the worst is likely to be getting fired and maybe blacklisted for unwanted news ( a high-level accountant, maybe the comptroller, at Convair was fired for reporting the CV-880 was being sold for less than cost of components and subcontracted work, even though it was true); in the Soviet system, imprisonment or even death could result.


 
Well... In the Soviet system it depended on many factors. One could be executed and another one to be promoted for doing exactly the same things, - just in different periods or more or less smartly or just due lack/bad luck. Favouritism played big role as well.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 30, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> Lend Lease had a decisive part in Russia staying in the War. Try playing a Russian Front simulation game with 25% less Russian air units, and 20% less armor.



If this sim game is precise, it should increase number of remaining Soviet (not Russian) air units flights as there will be more lend leased aviation gasoline available.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Mar 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> How much it can carry is one attribute.
> 
> A good _useful _bomb load does beat a lighter useful bomb load. Useless bomb loads just to reach a high number mean nothing (B-26 Marauder 5200lbs, made up of one 2000lb topedo and two 16000lb AP bombs) nice number but you have to drop the torpedo first (preferably from under 200 feet) and the climb to altitude where the 1600lb will actually penetrate armor.


This load was never used in combat. But...
On May 4, 1942, Cpt Frank Allen, 19th Bomb Sq, 22nd BG, USAAF, Took off from Pearce Airdrome, Perth, West Australia, on a mission to seek out and sink a Japanese carrier reported to be in the vicinity of Geraldton. His B-26, #40-1498, _Sea Wolf, _with a crew of seven, was loaded with three 500 lb bombs, a 250 gallon auxiliary tank in the bomb bay, a Mk XIII torpedo, and overload ammo for all guns. This put his gross weight at take off well over 36000 lbs.
Fortunately, the carrier failed to materialize. I would hate to run into the CAP in a ship that overloaded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2019)

Greg Boeser said:


> His B-26, #40-1498, _Sea Wolf, _with a crew of seven, was loaded with three 500 lb bombs, a 250 gallon auxiliary tank in the bomb bay, a Mk XIII torpedo, and overload ammo for all guns. This put his gross weight at take off well over 36000 lbs.


That is a much more useful load than the max load I listed. 
A 500GP bomb actually has more explosive than a 1600lb AP bomb and it doesn't have to dropped from a height thousands of feet higher than torpedo dropping height to be effective. 
Of course you don't need a bomb that will go through 5-6 in of armor deck when dealing with a carrier either.


----------



## Esvees (Mar 31, 2019)

Interesting points, all of them.

I may be wrong in placing the Yak's overall above the P39 over Russia. Many of the VVS's top aces scored a huge number of kills in the P39 and it contributed massively during the massive air battles over Kuban in 1943. The LA 5 FN and to a smaller extent the LA 7 were also major ace makers. The Yak 3 by contrast seems to have arrived at a time when what few Luftwaffe the aircraft still had were increasingly being used in the West.

However, over Stalingrad, there were not many P39's yet. I believe the vast majority were still Lagg 3's, Yak 1B's, Yak 7's, maybe a very small number of Yak 9's. At Stalingrad, the failure of the Luftwaffe to supply even enough for minimum survival to the encircled 6th army was a very important factor in the loss. And while the weather, number of aircraft and fuel all played a part, they were able to supply far less than they had to the smaller pocket at Demyansk earlier in 1942. The major factor seems to have been losses of aircraft to Soviet fighters, even forcing the Germans to keep fighters inside the pocket, which would in turn gobble up valuable supplies. 

But the Germans were far from beaten in 1943, so the P39 and Lavochkins have a serious claim too. 

On the reliability of numbers, I don't think the German numbers deserve any more credibility than the Soviet ones do. They would equally fudge production numbers or over claim kills and fail to record damaged or written off aircraft in some cases. German generals after the war would also frequently overstate the numbers they faced on the Eastern front to make themselves look better. So the true numbers probably lie between the claims of both sides. 

On the importance of the theatres, the biggest factor in Germany and Japan's loss was probably oil. Most of the world's supply was in the US, with the other major supplier being the Soviet Union. The Middle East had no infrastructure yet. The German army kept growing in size right up until 1943 and was not actually that low on tanks. But they were having to increasingly rely on horses and struggling to keep their tanks and aircraft fueled as time wore on. The Soviet Union may have collapsed if the Germans had captured and held onto the Caucasus oil fields and/or they could block Soviet supplies up the Volga. So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Mar 31, 2019)

Esvees said:


> Interesting points, all of them.
> 
> I may be wrong in placing the Yak's overall above the P39 over Russia. Many of the VVS's top aces scored a huge number of kills in the P39 and it contributed massively during the massive air battles over Kuban in 1943. The LA 5 FN and to a smaller extent the LA 7 were also major ace makers. The Yak 3 by contrast seems to have arrived at a time when what few Luftwaffe the aircraft still had were increasingly being used in the West.
> 
> ...



"So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive."
Or denied the same to Axis powers? Or secured Oil supply routes? See Operation Countenance 1941. Anglo Soviet Invasion of Iran securing both the Persian Route and the Abadan refinery (8 million tons in 1940).
Or used up the oil the Axis had in operations? Meaning the Western Desert, air operations over Western Europe, U boat fuel, E boat fuel, . . . 
Or used up time? Time for the Axis powers to make the critical mistake that would provoke America into full commitment as an ally at war.

You may believe in oil supply specifically or trucks supply or any other specific item being critical in offence. OR Aircobras, or Yaks or some other airframe being critical to later offensive and defensive battles. Alternatively you may believe that "American $ and Soviet blood" is a sufficient and necessary general summary of the critical aspects of an aggressive formula for victory. You may believe any some or all of those things. If you do so believe then it follows that the stemming of the Axis tide before routes are shutdown resources taken and too much blood spilt is also critical. To mount a good offence we must have a good enough defence in time to survive the initial onslaught. 

Survival of the initial onslaught for the required time requires British territorial integrity, for the Arctic convoys and the Persian Route and Abadan and the bulk of the first year's supplies . Which in turn means contesting the Battle of the Atlantic, the Western desert campaign and the defense of Malta. 

Which for the Western Theaters would make the Spitfire the plane that did the most to turn the tide of war. But it's all arguable, I don't think there is a right answer. There my be some wrong ones.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 31, 2019)

Esvees said:


> So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive.


So back again to the oilfields of Rumania, and the B24 pops up again as it has so many times in this thread.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 31, 2019)

bbear said:


> "So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive."
> Or denied the same to Axis powers? Or secured Oil supply routes? See Operation Countenance 1941. Anglo Soviet Invasion of Iran securing both the Persian Route and the Abadan refinery (8 million tons in 1940).
> Or used up the oil the Axis had in operations? Meaning the Western Desert, air operations over Western Europe, U boat fuel, E boat fuel, . . .
> Or used up time? Time for the Axis powers to make the critical mistake that would provoke America into full commitment as an ally at war.
> ...


Yes I don't think there's a specific right answer to the thread title. When I started the thread I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion aside from the usual" which plane is best" at fill in the blank here.
As you suggested while there is no one right pick here there are, imho, plenty of wrong ones. Some for obvious reason that they were unsuccessful designs but also many great designs that simply came to late to contribute to any turning of the tide as it had already been turned in a given theater months or years earlier.
I think the F6F and the P51 are two good examples of great designs that made huge contributions that nonetheless came to late to do any tide turning as it had been turned about a year before there existence in any numbers in there respective main theaters of oparation.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 31, 2019)

Esvees said:


> Interesting points, all of them.
> 
> I may be wrong in placing the Yak's overall above the P39 over Russia. Many of the VVS's top aces scored a huge number of kills in the P39 and it contributed massively during the massive air battles over Kuban in 1943. The LA 5 FN and to a smaller extent the LA 7 were also major ace makers. The Yak 3 by contrast seems to have arrived at a time when what few Luftwaffe the aircraft still had were increasingly being used in the West.
> 
> ...



Very good points I think, particularly about Stalingrad.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 31, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So back again to the oilfields of Rumania, and the B24 pops up again as it has so many times in this thread.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Except the earlier raids on Ploesti etc. were not as effective as thought and suffered so many losses (due to tactics chosen / required, and also the aircraft used). So it's hard to argue they were decisive as a turning point, the effect of the Ploesti raids (both by US and Soviet bombers) was more attritional and I think the effect was felt more later in the war.

Also I know I will get a lot of argument / hate for saying this but I do believe Mosquitoes would have been better for that mission. They didn't have enough in the area or in place so it's a moot point. But I believe they would have been far more effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 31, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> That is a much more useful load than the max load I listed.
> A 500GP bomb actually has more explosive than a 1600lb AP bomb and it doesn't have to dropped from a height thousands of feet higher than torpedo dropping height to be effective.
> Of course you don't need a bomb that will go through 5-6 in of armor deck when dealing with a carrier either.




Also pretty pointless for a level bomber like a B-26 Marauder to carry AP bombs since they almost never managed to hit ships with any kind of bombs other than skip bombs, and I don't think B-26's specifically sank or hit a lot of ships regardless. B-25s and A-20's seem to have done better in that role.

There were hundreds of B-17 and later B-24 raids against Japanese shipping and almost no hits. Kenney gave up on level bombing early on for his mediums and switched to the strafing + skip bombing tactic right away.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 31, 2019)

Gents,
Still standing by the T-6/Harvard (more Allied pilots got their wings on it, I think, than any other).
Second place still going with the ubiquitous DC-3/C-47.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 31, 2019)

Esvees said:


> maybe a very small number of Yak 9's


As far as I know, this number was zero. 



Esvees said:


> The Soviet Union may have collapsed if the Germans had captured and held onto the Caucasus oil fields and/or they could block Soviet supplies up the Volga.


I agree with this assumption. 
Just one small correction: Azerbaijan oil fields (Baku area) were the most important with about 75% of total USSR output in 1940. Krasnodar and Grozny (the latter located in Northern Caucasus indeed) - another 15%.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 31, 2019)

Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but what about the twin-engine trainers? 

What was the US equivalent of the Anson?


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 31, 2019)

I believe one was the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat.






Wiki​


----------



## Esvees (Apr 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Also I know I will get a lot of argument / hate for saying this but I do believe Mosquitoes would have been better for that mission. They didn't have enough in the area or in place so it's a moot point. But I believe they would have been far more effective.



If you asked me what the best all-round warplane was for WWII, I'd probably say the Mosquito. It certainly caused plenty of German attrition, but maybe not enough to be decisive. However, it does deserve massive props as the ultimate Nazi-trolling aircraft and aircrews with the biggest balls. Highlights include strafing/bombing several downtown Gestapo HQ's and interrupting one of Goehring's speeches.

There's only 1 aircraft I can think of with a similar combination of speed and versatility, although not quite as good, namely the Petlyakov Pe 2. There were lots of them and I think they did actually bomb the Ploiesti oil fields with some success, but not consistently.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 1, 2019)

I am going to throw my hat into the ring with the B-25 Mitchell ... used by all Allies on every front (the Russians had 3 or 4 by December '41) ... the AC was highly modifiable as bomber and gun ship ... and in the Pacific it was the Warthog of its era. While it never served as a night fighter as the Boston, Mosquito and Beaufighter did, the 8 nose-mounted 50s scored a number of kills on Japanese AC in air combat.
B-25s had their down-side ... with the heavy gun load they lacked the power to fly long on one engine ... and operating at the 25' to 200' level that they did in the Pacific an engine loss to AA fire was almost always fatal.
But a very reliable, all metal, flexible war weapon the B-25 was, IMO.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I believe one was the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat.
> 
> View attachment 533915
> 
> Wiki​



See also Beechcraft 18 aka C-45






And I think the Lockheed Hudson etc. as well


----------



## Schweik (Apr 1, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> I am going to throw my hat into the ring with the B-25 Mitchell ... used by all Allies on every front (the Russians had 3 or 4 by December '41) ... the AC was highly modifiable as bomber and gun ship ... and in the Pacific it was the Warthog of it's era. While it never served as a night fighter as the Boston, Mosquito and Beaufighter did, the 8 nose-mounted 50s scored a number of kills on Japanese AC in air combat.
> B-25s had their down-side ... with the heavy gun load they lacked the power to fly long on one engine ... and operating at the 25' to 200' level that they did in the Pacific an engine loss to AA fire was almost always fatal.
> But a very reliable, all metal, flexible war weapon the B-25 was, IMO.



I wasn't aware that the B-25 had trouble running on one engine, that is a big 'ding' against it. Do you know if that was just with the heavier gunship variants or all variants?

B-25 was important for the Med, and of course the Pacific, and to some extent CBI. For the Soviets it was mostly relegated to night bombing as they found it too vulnerable to AAA. And of course it didn't see that much use in NW Europe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

For trainers the US (being the profligate wastrels that we are) also use the Curtiss AT-9





and the Fairchild AT-13, 14 , 21 series 






Now please note that some of these were pilot trainers and some were crew trainers, a distinction not made with the Anson.

The AT-9 was purposely designed to be difficult to fly and and was about the only US aircraft that was not sold surplus to civilians although some were sold/given to mechanics/ground schools

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 1, 2019)

I don't think it was just gunships that were vulnerable ... it was the low altitude that they operated at, not just as straffers but as skip bombers.


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> See also Beechcraft 18 aka C-45
> 
> View attachment 533971
> 
> ...


Have an interesting( at least to me) personal story about the Beach 18. When I was a kid my friends dad, Pat Milstead, was Mohahmed Alis private pilot.
Mr Ali owned a small collection of Beach 18s( at least 3 that I know of) and on several ocassions I got a chance to ride on them. Always from Long Beach to Roubeydux( ya probably misspelled).
Anyway I never did get to meat Mr Ali but it was really something to get to ride on his planes when I was about 12 years old.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Apr 4, 2019)

In all actuality, there's no one aircraft that can assume this title. It's a combination of the various aspects they all brought to the table, coupled with operational doctrine and proper application. Where one airframe did particularly well at some missions, it may not be suited for other, equally important tasks.


----------



## chipieal (Apr 4, 2019)

ykickamoocow said:


> But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job. I mean if necessary the Americans could have always borrowed a Lancaster and modified it since Little Boy was under the Lancaster's bomb load capacity and the British had been dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys from Lancasters for years, both of whom were bigger than the atomic bomb.


With a nod to our British contributors, I beleieve that what was going on just under the surface in WW II woud have not allowed the use of a Lancaster instead of a B - 29. Whether anyone wants to admit it, what was engineered by FDR. was to strip Britian as a superpower. That is why when FDR. offered the lend/ lease destroyers, what he got in return was the promise to divest itself of all areas of the British Empire. Why do you think we could not continue using the Merlin unless we paid for it? Also, the US military, in the 1930's, had a battle plan to fight Great Britian. So, we were not all chummy as history has made out. As with all great countries and civilizations throughout history - they all operate out of self interest. Also, we had the B - 32 Dominator as a backup to the 29.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 4, 2019)

I'm not so sure about this as in 1942/3 serious consideration was given to the UK building their own version of the B29. A team was sent to the USA to gauge how practical the idea was but it was decided not to proceed as the resources needed would have been too detrimental to other projects.
I will dig around and find more details


----------



## ClayO (Apr 4, 2019)

It's a trick question; the answer is "none of the above." What turned the tide in the Battle of Britain was not just the airplanes, but the men willing to fly them, in spite of the odds being against them. We also need to give credit to the detection and communication network the British put in place, along with the courage of the men and women operating that equipment, even while under attack. 
Combined with that was the British spy network, which had turned all of the German spies in Britain into double agents. They kept feeding the German high command false information about the rate of British fighter production, making them believe the battle was almost won, when in fact the LW was slipping behind, bit by bit. (Read Double Cross by Ben MacIntyre for the full story.)
The Battle of the Atlantic was turned by Polish and Alan Turing's code breakers, who told the British Navy where to go looking for U-boats. 
In the early days, we'd have been nowhere in the Pacific if the American code breakers hadn't hacked the Japanese Purple code - but that would have been for nothing without the fortitude of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at Midway, Guadacanal, Coral Sea, etc.
But none of that would have worked if it weren't for British and American industry and civilians cranking out ships, airplanes, tanks, trucks, etc. faster than our enemies could knock them down. If I had to name a single factor that turned the tide, that would be it.


----------



## sdmodeller (Apr 4, 2019)

Why not go with the one the Axis said? P-51? Goering said when he saw them over Berlin he knew the war was lost.
The case against Spitfire and Hurricane- stopped Germans, but did not turn the tide of war. 1942-43 were a mess for the allied bombing effort. Germany was intact economically and militarily. More important than the role of both was the damn poor judgment of Nazi leadership, as it is difficult for anyone who has looked at the BoB to say the RAF could have held out if the Germans had continued striking airfields instead of London.
The case against SBD (a personal favorite) did not serve in Europe, and the Japanese navy was hurt not broken. The Japanese did replace the losses at Midway and SBD, like all US naval aircraft were tactical, not strategic. The fact the Japanese had 2-3000 aircraft stowed away at the end of the war awaiting the US invasion shows that Japan still had lots of fight left.
The war was two fronts, and realistically I don't think one plane affected both fronts, but the P-51 allowed allied air power to win in Europe which then made the defeat of Japan possible.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2019)

sdmodeller said:


> The case against Spitfire and Hurricane- stopped Germans, but did not turn the tide of war. .


 Isnt stopping the Germans turning the tide compared to what would have happened if the Germans hadnt been stopped.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Apr 4, 2019)

I think I responded early on but will risk a repetition: yes! The SBD won the Pacific War, with the F4F in close attendance. (For those who doubt it, consider the options: fighting 1942 with SB2Us and F2As.) A couple of years ago I wrote a Naval History article titled "The Plane that Won the War" which upset some B-17 fans although none could describe how the Flying Fortress outdid the SBD in the first year of the war on any front. Others that finished "on the podium" of course were the F6F and B-29. Thing is tho: WW II was by far & away too vast to say that any single "platform" won the whole shootin' match, which is why it's helpful to distinguish between Pac and Lant/Med.

Break-break

Point's well taken here about the Hurrybox being underappreciated given the 2-1 numerical advantage over the Spit (limiting RAF FC to the single-engine types only.) But however grim things appeared in 40, the fact is that the Wehrmacht lacked the 'phib capability to stage D-Day in reverse. Quite apart from lacking air and naval superiority, Germany did not possess anything remotely comparable to LSTs or smaller bow-ramp landing craft to put heavy equipment (tanks-trucks) on the beach. Therefore, had Sea Lion become more than a staff study, it would've been necessary to seize two or more ports intact, and that simply was not going to happen. Therefore, with all due credit to the skill and valo(u)r of the RAF, neither the Spit nor the Hurricane were war-winning aeroplanes.


----------



## ssmith996 (Apr 4, 2019)

How about the IL-2?


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 4, 2019)

ClayO said:


> It's a trick question; the answer is "none of the above." What turned the tide in the Battle of Britain was not just the airplanes, but the men willing to fly them, in spite of the odds being against them. We also need to give credit to the detection and communication network the British put in place, along with the courage of the men and women operating that equipment, even while under attack.
> Combined with that was the British spy network, which had turned all of the German spies in Britain into double agents. They kept feeding the German high command false information about the rate of British fighter production, making them believe the battle was almost won, when in fact the LW was slipping behind, bit by bit. (Read Double Cross by Ben MacIntyre for the full story.)
> The Battle of the Atlantic was turned by Polish and Alan Turing's code breakers, who told the British Navy where to go looking for U-boats.
> In the early days, we'd have been nowhere in the Pacific if the American code breakers hadn't hacked the Japanese Purple code - but that would have been for nothing without the fortitude of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at Midway, Guadacanal, Coral Sea, etc.
> But none of that would have worked if it weren't for British and American industry and civilians cranking out ships, airplanes, tanks, trucks, etc. faster than our enemies could knock them down. If I had to name a single factor that turned the tide, that would be it.


Absolutely true, no one aircraft or any other piece of equipment turned the tide alone.
That is why the question/thread title are asked in realative terms and not as an absolute.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Apr 5, 2019)

Barrett said:


> I think I responded early on but will risk a repetition: yes! The SBD won the Pacific War, with the F4F in close attendance. (For those who doubt it, consider the options: fighting 1942 with SB2Us and F2As.) A couple of years ago I wrote a Naval History article titled "The Plane that Won the War" which upset some B-17 fans although none could describe how the Flying Fortress outdid the SBD in the first year of the war on any front. Others that finished "on the podium" of course were the F6F and B-29. Thing is tho: WW II was by far & away too vast to say that any single "platform" won the whole shootin' match, which is why it's helpful to distinguish between Pac and Lant/Med.


Thanks for the repeat. I don't disagree with your choices of P-51 Mustang in the West, SBD and F4F in the East. Could you say why war winning is the same as tide turning for you, as you seem to imply? Could I tempt you to say which of your tide turners you think did most and by what means. That is where, when and how did tide turning happen in the West and East and which was more critical and which aircraft most critical to that more critical turn?

thanks


----------



## pinehilljoe (Apr 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Isnt stopping the Germans turning the tide compared to what would have happened if the Germans hadnt been stopped.



I go back to a post I made around sheet 15. November 42 represented a global Waterloo for the Axis.* Stalingrad, Torch, El Alamein, Guadalcanal. After November 42 the Axis never won a Strategic victory. IMHO that was the Month the tide was turned. So pick your aircraft that were crucial in that period. 

*The term was coined by Herman Wouk.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Apr 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Isnt stopping the Germans turning the tide compared to what would have happened if the Germans hadnt been stopped.




Simple fact is that had the Battle of Britain not been won the war would almost certainly have either been 'won' by the Axis or though a fair bit less likely the Russians. The US would not have entered the European War (they only did so because Germany declared war on them specifically to be able to starve Britain) and anyway without Britain the US had no way of even doing so and Germany fully expected them to be fully occupied by the Pacific War. That was their very logical, if ultimately failed plan. The crucial moment there was that Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the WAR WOULD BE WON in EUROPE and that took precedence, which surely affects the debate here, unless people prefer to think better than they. Thats the decision that defeated Hitler and turned the War but only the BoB enabled that decision to be taken.

In 1938 the Germans were estimated to be 2 years ahead of anyone else in developing the Atomic Bomb. The initial allies atomic bomb development came out of the British efforts being carried out in Canada (Jacob Bronowski involved in it, stated that very fact himself). Had the Battle of Britain been lost, no American economic machine to develop those efforts would have been triggered at that time, or it would have been delayed substantially, very possibly without that vital early British work, had the Nazis threatened retribution in Britain. So that in itself says the Hurricane/Spitfire not only turned the war but most likely prevented the war being lost. Even if the US had beaten Germany to the bomb (and British efforts delayed the latter considerably in various ways in European operations) the simple fact is that they had no way to deliver it upon Germany in that timespan, whereas German missile technology was already maturing to be able to deliver a nuclear bomb on the US within a year or two of the war ending most like. If the BoB had been lost and the Russians managed to turn the tide, when could they have defeated the Axis? Certainly not in 1945 probably not in 1946 and certainly if any later than that, German technology, which itself would have been far more developed and numerous no doubt without the mass UK/US Bombing raids surely, would have been ready to turn any tide there again. Having dealt with the Russians they could turn their attentions to subduing the US with threats of nuclear destruction with the means to actually deliver it and eventually in time the Japanese would fall too, leaving them as World Masters either with the US turned to wasteland or as subdued lapdogs. The 'Man in the High Castle' though nothing can be described as certain, is probably a very accurate description upon events had the BoB been lost, so yep the Hurricane and the Spitfire fight it out for this crown in my opinion.

As for the Pacific War the Japanese could only win if the Germans won, for the US economic potential would always win out, it was simply a matter of time. Oh and the B29 was always planned to be the tool for the delivery of the bomb. Had it not existed the Lancaster or another option would have been modified to do so in the 2 years available to have done so if necessary to sustain the nuclear option, so at most a delay would have been the problem not the actuality. Fundamental difference to a weapon that changed the course of the war and one that simply dictated the time of it ending when its already won. If that isn't relevant to the question asked here then what is I wonder.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Apr 5, 2019)

Barrett said:


> I think I responded early on but will risk a repetition: yes! The SBD won the Pacific War, with the F4F in close attendance. (For those who doubt it, consider the options: fighting 1942 with SB2Us and F2As.) A couple of years ago I wrote a Naval History article titled "The Plane that Won the War" which upset some B-17 fans although none could describe how the Flying Fortress outdid the SBD in the first year of the war on any front. Others that finished "on the podium" of course were the F6F and B-29. Thing is tho: WW II was by far & away too vast to say that any single "platform" won the whole shootin' match, which is why it's helpful to distinguish between Pac and Lant/Med.
> 
> Break-break
> 
> Point's well taken here about the Hurrybox being underappreciated given the 2-1 numerical advantage over the Spit (limiting RAF FC to the single-engine types only.) But however grim things appeared in 40, the fact is that the Wehrmacht lacked the 'phib capability to stage D-Day in reverse. Quite apart from lacking air and naval superiority, Germany did not possess anything remotely comparable to LSTs or smaller bow-ramp landing craft to put heavy equipment (tanks-trucks) on the beach. Therefore, had Sea Lion become more than a staff study, it would've been necessary to seize two or more ports intact, and that simply was not going to happen. Therefore, with all due credit to the skill and valo(u)r of the RAF, neither the Spit nor the Hurricane were war-winning aeroplanes.




They didn't actually need to invade they just needed for Britain to submit with the offer of keeping their Empire blah blah which is the offer in fact that was made. Without Churchill that would have happened, Lord Halifax who was offered the premiership before him remember openly admitted that to the House at the time with the full implications. Without Britain staying in the war and operating as an Aircraft Carrier then all the events I layout elsewhere here would come to pass almost certainly, so your premise I'm afraid simply does not stand up as it precludes all the other realities that would have taken place had Britain been knocked out of the War at that moment. Fact is German technology or Russian numbers (allied to that tech had they won as happened post war anyway) would have prevailed. Remember nearly all the post war super developments were based on German and indeed in some cases British technology by both the Russians and the US which saved them up to a decade or more of their own learning curve no matter the potential of the Industrial base.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 5, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> I go back to a post I made around sheet 15. November 42 represented a global Waterloo for the Axis.* Stalingrad, Torch, El Alamein, Guadalcanal. After November 42 the Axis never won a Strategic victory. IMHO that was the Month the tide was turned. So pick your aircraft that were crucial in that period.
> 
> *The term was coined by Herman Wouk.



P-40, P-40, P-40 and P-40. That's the common denominator.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2019)

SPYINTHESKY said:


> In 1938 the Germans were estimated to be 2 years ahead of anyone else in developing the Atomic Bomb. The initial allies atomic bomb development came out of the British efforts being carried out in Canada (Jacob Bronowski involved in it, stated that very fact himself).
> .


Some of the early British efforts were done in what is now my local community centre. It was originally a very large house in the countryside, owned by one of the top managers of ICI who had all the refineries on Teesside. Much early research involved distillation of "heavy water" which was done more in refineries than physics labs. One of the rooms was completely lined with lead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2019)

I am not going back thru the 39 pages so if it has already been mentioned, sorry. The Hurricane and Spitfire that defeated the Luftwaffe in the BoB.


----------



## bbear (Apr 5, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> I go back to a post I made around sheet 15. November 42 represented a global Waterloo for the Axis.* Stalingrad, Torch, El Alamein, Guadalcanal. After November 42 the Axis never won a Strategic victory. IMHO that was the Month the tide was turned. So pick your aircraft that were crucial in that period.
> 
> *The term was coined by Herman Wouk.


I couldn't find your post but on Page 10 I think Schweik is making a similar point.
Can I clarify please? I think you are saying :
First that these engagements are both significant in themselves, taking advantage of topography or position with respect to supply routes or some other specific feature of the contest in each location 
and 
secondly that this time marks the point where the Allies have enough force ratio allowing for all factors to move successfully on to the offensive 
and 
in relation to the second point that despite the "Europe First" political agreement this happened everywhere pretty much simultaneously?

If so would the growth in number of operational squadrons of each type give us an objective answer? That is to say, if more IL2's had been built and squadrons equipped than any other type compared with the beginning of the war, then they were the aircraft that most changed the force ratio in the air. 

thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2019)

Aside from the people who try to outsmart the question that started the thread (talking about trucks or trains or liberty ships), and thus completely miss the point- There seems to be a American answer to this question which is all about the B-29 and the P51, and then there is a British answer which is all about the Battle of Britain and the Spitfire and Hurricane.

Of the two the BoB probably has a little bit more merit because it certainly was a turning point, but it wasn't a major turning point because the Axis did not go from winning to losing. They just went from winning an overwhelming way to still winning but slightly chastened.

To me the American version of this is ridiculous. Goering may have said that he knew the war was lost when he saw p-51s over Berlin. But Goering was out of touch and delusional during the Battle of Britain four years earlier in 1940, completely miscalculated Stalingrad in 1942, and it was all downhill from there. By the time P-51s are flying over Berlin, even if we had never produced a single P-51 or for that matter any airplanes after that point, there's absolutely no way the Germans could have won the war.

I give it to those who pointed out the turning point happened in 1942. That is to say if you have to narrow it down to a single Turning Point or pivot.

The SBD is The logical candidate for the Pacific. It's correct that Brewster buffaloes and Vought vindicator's could not have done the job. Neither could swordfish and fulmars.

But the real turning point in the war against the Germans did not really involve the Americans or the British as we have pointed out many times. It was Stalingrad. We can talk about trucks and tanks and trains and we have done quite a bit. But the question was about the airplanes. Which _airplane_ made the real difference. Which ones most contributed to the turning point in the war. Not which factor decided the outcome of the war definitively or any other variation on the question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Aside from the people who try to outsmart the question that started the thread (talking about trucks or trains or liberty ships), and thus completely miss the point- There seems to be a American answer to this question which is all about the B-29 and the P51, and then there is a British answer which is all about the Battle of Britain and the Spitfire and Hurricane.
> 
> Of the two the BoB probably has a little bit more merit because it certainly was a turning point, but it wasn't a major turning point because the Axis did not go from winning to losing. They just went from winning an overwhelming way to still winning but slightly chastened.
> 
> ...



If you want to argue Stalingrad, then I must argue earlier. Smolensk between the 10th of July and the 10th of September 1941. Okay the Russians didn't win, but they did counterattack. From then on, German hope of victory in 3 to 4 months was lost. From then on, the war for Germany was lost.
Battle of Smolensk (1941) - Wikipedia


----------



## Husky (Apr 5, 2019)

What aircraft? All of them.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2019)

Husky said:


> What aircraft? All of them.



No


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If you want to argue Stalingrad, then I must argue earlier. Smolensk between the 10th of July and the 10th of September 1941. Okay the Russians didn't win, but they did counterattack. From then on, German hope of victory in 3 to 4 months was lost. From then on, the war for Germany was lost.
> Battle of Smolensk (1941) - Wikipedia



Historians like Richard Glantz have pointed out that the intensity of the constant Soviet counter attacks even quite early in Barbarossa were on a much bigger scale than previously thought. I certainly agree with him and more generally with the revisionists of this school. He does talk about Smolensk.



But Stalingrad was still the tipping point. Certainly the attrition was ramping up, and our narrative of a weak Soviet collapse is somewhat inaccurate. But Stalingrad was the moment when the Soviet 'boxer' knocked his German pursuer down decisively, and while the German got up, he never recovered the initiative and never won another major battle.

And regardless of whether you put the pivot at Smolensk in August or Moscow in November or Stalingrad in December - the pivot point for the Germans in World War Two was at some point in the Third or Fourth quarter of 1942, and it was somewhere in Russia.

Which means that for the most part German and Russian planes are what mattered, as well as some Lend Lease or other Allied planes like the Hurricane, P-40, A-20 and so on, and a few Italian or other minor Axis powers aircraft. However I think it is pretty obvious that the turning point in the Soviet German War in 1942 did hinge at least to some extent on Soviet aircraft.

So I'm really not sure why you disagreed with my last post.

I don't discount the Battle of Britain, but I don't think it changed the momentum, it _lessened _the surging momentum of the German / Axis onslaught, but it didn't stop them launching new invasions, winning many battles and killing a whole lot more people. It did not send them from winning over and over to losing over and over like Stalingrad or Midway or El Alamein.

The turning point for the British - German war was indeed probably in North Africa and also in later 1942. The only question is how important was that Theater, I do think it was more important than people tend to think. Certainly much more important to the actual outcome or course of the war than P-51s over Berlin in 1944. But it was on a smaller scale than the Russian Front.

German and Italian forces in 2nd *El Alamein* had 116,000 men, 547 tanks, 480 serviceable aircraft, vs. Anglo-American-Commonwealth forces of 195,000 men, 1029 tanks, 530 serviceable aircraft

*Stalingrad *was German + Axis forces 270,000 men, 500 tanks, 402 operational aircraft vs. 187,000 men, 400 tanks, 300 aircraft.

So that is actually somewhat similar in scale. However casualties at El Alamein were ~ 40,000 men for the Axis and ~13,000 men for the Anglo-American-Commonwealth
Stalingrad was ~ 700,000 German and ~1,130,000 Soviet so that shows you a much more brutal battle.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Historians like Richard Glantz have pointed out that the intensity of the constant Soviet counter attacks even quite early in Barbarossa were on a much bigger scale than previously thought. I certainly agree with him and more generally with the revisionists of this school. He does talk about Smolensk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What I'm saying is that the dye was already set in 1941. Smolensk is the pivot point which eventually led to the defeat of the Germans. Its the time when Army Group Centre was split, one part going North to Leningrad which was never taken, the other part South to destroy the Soviet armies at Kiev. There was also the stiff resistance and evacuation at Odessa and Sevastopol holding out for 260 days. The German plan to defeat the USSR in 3 to 4 months had clearly failed in 1941. The Germans needed oil, they had to go south to the Caucasus, Von Paulus had to hold Stalingrad to allow their army group in the Caucasus to evacuate and to prevent oil transport up the Volga. The rot set in, in 1941 at Smolensk, and no matter what the Germans did after that, they simply couldn't win a strategic victory, and at Smolensk it was all done with Soviet equipment and men.


----------



## bbear (Apr 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Historians like Richard Glantz have pointed out that the intensity of the constant Soviet counter attacks even quite early in Barbarossa were on a much bigger scale than previously thought. I certainly agree with him and more generally with the revisionists of this school. He does talk about Smolensk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excuse me, I think perhaps we are missing something.

What followss is speculative and substandard "online/wiki research based" so feel free to ignore it or drop on it from a great height

I say the turning point is around June - October 1942. Counter attack at Smolensk to being held at Stalingrad. [4]
The bulk of additional airframes were British made Wellington, Spitfire V and Hurricane II [3]
Note no 8th AF or other US units operational in NWE or Med. theatres until late in the frame.
Also Russian production was a fraction of the UK's until later

Logic to explain why those three UK aircraft are the shortlist:
The BoB allowed the UK to adopt an aggressive posture (bomb raids at night, Rhubarbs by day, operation Jubilee, Bruneval raid, Desert, Taranto . . . ) requiring extensive defences and counter attack. With about 2,600 aircraft going to Russia at that time while perhaps an equal number were engaged in France, Germany, Norway and the Desert.[5] The flak guns to defend German airspace we know about. The BoB did not just deal with a risk of invasion, it meant that Luftwaffe dare not mount fighter/attacker sweeps of it's own in daylight. So taking out Wellingtons and Hurricanes on the ground never happened much. Thus the Wellngton's were free to bomb Germany by night, from airfields close to the coast and however ineffectual and cost;ly that ,might be German high command kept some of the flak/anti-tank batteries back

If not for the BoB the airforce attacking Russia could have been double what it was, and the air power sent against Stalingrad perhaps tripled.
The same would go for tanks etc [6],7]. All this comes about because the UK was swiftest to move it's economy and people to total war. For example the first year of Lend Lease supply to Russia was made in Britain. Which totality It's people might have lacked the commitment for before the BoB and the later night Blitz.


*see the armour for Barbarossa

Therefore for that and for Malta, the answer is Spitfire V.


References
on overall production [1] Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
and this on on aircraft produced per year [2] World War II aircraft production - Wikipedia
and this on RAF squadrons June 1942 [3] RAF Squadrons 1942
with this timeline [4] Timeline of World War II (1942) - Wikipedia
this about luftwaffe dispositions September 1942 [5] Luftwaffe Orders of Battle September 1942
armour for Barbarossa vs that kept back [6] Barbarossa, 1941
UK tanks for Russia [7] Soviet Tank, British Tank, USA Tank, Matilda Tank, Valentine Tank, Matilda II, The USSR

Note : from the fall of France and flank attack by hidden Matilda I's on the German supply line May 1940 it is known that they are immune to frontal 3.7cm fire, the largest available on Panzer3 at that time, though not in 1942. Barbarossa had relatively less 'Panzer IVs than III's and II's there were even some I's


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2019)

I am not an expert on Stalingrad but I thought the Russian tactic was to keep so close to the Germans that air power was largely nullified so aircraft weren't a major part of the battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Apr 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I am not an expert on Stalingrad but I thought the Russian tactic was to keep so close to the Germans that air power was largely nullified so aircraft weren't a major part of the battle.


Readily agreed. But it was not just aircraft, possibly everything except transport were shared between East and West. I would need to check. It's a new thought, to me at least. Also a greater number of aircraft would enable an even more spectacular and cheap advance to that point, possibly carrying the tide across the Volga leaving Stalingrad isolated. I am no expert on anything, but if I was a Soviet General facing the onslaught I think I would be pleased to hear that the Brits had reduced by say 10 to 50% the forces approaching me.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 6, 2019)

Eastern Front.
Discussing Soviet counter attacks in 1941 and 1942, at Smolensk or elsewhere, please do not forget about the outcome. 
On one hand - they delayed German advance. On the other hand - they left Red Army almost completely destroyed in 1941 and exhausted it in 1942 up to the limit. 14 year old boys were sent to trenches when Army Group A has broken into Caucausus. USSR's resources were huge but not limitless.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

When it comes to Stalingrad specifically, also remember that the battle had to distinct phases. First there was the German attack as part of _*Fall Blau*_ (Case Blue), August 23 - 18 November, during which the Soviets forced their troops to fight as hard as possible while giving ground (intentionally or otherwise) but holding on to the city and forcing the Germans to commit more and more and more troops. 

During the first phase the Soviets held back most of their best resources, especially in their best tanks and katyusha rocket launchers and so on, but even down to rifles and bullets. They even moved food out of the city before the attack started (but left the civilians there). They also fought a very intense air battle but with many squadrons held in reserve.

Then the second phase, the Soviet counter-offensive called *Operation Uranus* was launched on November 19 1942. This included the great pincer movement that isolated the massive German 6th army, ultimately dooming them. With the start of Operation Uranus. This is where the Soviets committed most of their reserves, including almost 900 of their best tanks (T-34s and KVs on a scale the Germans had never seen before), most of the Katyusha rocket launchers they had, and 1,000 new aircraft, mostly against the hapless Romanian and other Axis troops that were all that was left defending the shoulders of the salient.

The air battle was very hard fought in both phases of the engagement. During Fall Blau, the Soviets struggled to fend off German fighters and were ineffective at stopping their deadly Stukas. The Germans smashed the city with bombs, and the VVS were so badly beaten by the Luftwaffe they eventually had to halt daylight operations. But once Uranus had started in November, with the additional units the VVS was back with a vengeance and were able to contest Air Superiority in an endless series of extremely bloody engagements, and prevented even the limited amount of air-resupply promised by Goering from saving the 6th Army. The Germans lost 495 transport planes at Stalingrad and 248 bombers. Soviet air support became a factor in the subsequent collapse of German forces and the Il2's destroyed many German tanks.

One significant factor in the air war at Stalingrad, is that at just about the worst possible time in early November, significant Luftwaffe assets were moved to North Africa to deal with the situation in Tunisia etc. So that is an interesting side note. Soviet air operations at Stalingrad were mostly fought with Soviet planes - Yak 1Bs, Yak-7s, La-GG 3s, I-16s, Il-2s, Pe-2s and so on, and toward the end some La 5s. They also had some P-39s and P-40s though I don't think enough to make a big difference.

According to Soviet sources I've read however, the real tipping point for Air Superiority was _after _Stalingrad, during the Battle of Kuban which went on for most of 1943. This is when the Luftwaffe was dam,aged in the East to a sufficient extent that the Soviets were able to achieve local Air Superiority. Units like 16 GIAP (mostly equipped with P-39's, as well as some P-40s) did well against the Germans.. This is where Aces like Pokryshkin made their bones. They did also have Spitfire Mk V's in the Kuban, which puts them in an important part of the fight, but they did not have a particularly good record and were withdrawn due to heavy casualties. The Germans lost 148 aircraft from April to May 1943, the Soviets lost 439. More importantly though the Luftwaffe halted operations in the area on June 7, due to losses.

It still overall looks to me like the Yak fighters and Il-2 ground attack planes may have been among the most important aircraft in the Soviet-German war in WW2, along with the Me 109 and the Stuka. I think for the Soviets, the P-39 was also quite important, followed by the P-40 and the Hurricane, and probably the A-20 bomber.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

bbear said:


> Excuse me, I think perhaps we are missing something.
> 
> What followss is speculative and substandard "online/wiki research based" so feel free to ignore it or drop on it from a great height
> 
> ...



Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.

As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.

The bottom line is that the Soviet-German war was decided in the Soviet Union mostly by Soviet pilots flying Soviet aircraft. The Lend Lease and other Anglo-American planes played a role, but the most important of those was definitely the P-39. As critical as it was during certain periods of the war, I'm not sure we can argue that it was more important for overall victory than the Yak and La types. It is possible though if you concentrate on that tipping point moment.

As for the Spit V, it was a very important fighter - the best Allied fighter in 1942 I would say. But it had it's own substantial limitations - it did not have sufficient range, it could not cope with the Fw 190, and did not do well as a frontal aviation fighter in Russia. The Spit IX was perhaps more important, and played a vital role as an interceptor capable of contending with any Axis aircraft. But it too was best used as an interceptor and had limits, Spitfires never played a key role in the Pacific and in Russia they were relegated to Air Defense - an important job but not war-winning.


We are left with the debate as to whether the BoB was a key moment in the war or THE key moment in the war. I would contend the former, it was very important, the RAF saved us all from doom probably, but it did not change the trajectory of the war. If the Germans had defeated the Soviets England would definitely have fallen, I don't think there is any doubt about that.


----------



## bbear (Apr 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.
> 
> As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
*The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."*
That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.

Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

Understood.

For the record, I too am attempting to answer the question in the OP: "*The Airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war*" so if you are indeed focusing on that same question, you are *WRONG *to suggest that I am addressing something different.

I think you - and many others, are overstating the importance of the BoB here, but I agree in your specific case it means we are defining the "turn the tide of the war" aspect differently, and in that sense we are taking a different approach. Please keep in mind though, this angle isn't unique - this particular discussion is only one of dozens on this site over very similar topics and this is page 40 of this one. You are only one of many people who have made this same assertion about the BoB.

The debate in this thread for the last 40 pages has been a mixture of (to me less helpful) attempts to "beat" the question in the OP by coming up with some clever concept that trumps everything else, vs. (to me more helpful due to a higher signal to noise ratio) attempts to really drill down into some of the key moments of the war to better understand their significance on a Tactical, Operational or Strategic level, and get into the numbers and the details in a way that better illuminates the realities. We did this with the SBD in the Pacific, squashing spurious attempts to claim that it wasn't significant there (such as the assertion that the Vought Vindicator could have done the same job). We also delved into tank warfare in the Soviet-German War.

Both approaches however do trip over the same fundamental problem of which Theater and which particular moment "turned the tide of the war". The SBD probably was the aircraft that did the most to turn the tide of the Pacific War, but where does the Pacific War fit into the overall puzzle of WW2. With Russia, you can look for precursors all over the place, to the earliest battles in 1941, to the Winter War, to the Spanish Civil War, to the Russian Civil War, back to WW I, to the Franco Prussian or Napoleonic Wars, or back to the Teutonic Knights, Alexander Nevsky and the Mongols. I enjoy learning about those other periods and know a lot about some of them, but I think though it's kind of pointless when you are talking about the WW2 air-war. Everything in history is affected by what came before but if you don't make a rational cut-off point you are starting to count angels on the head of a pin.

Here are the facts. From ~1936- mid 1942, the Fascists and what became the Axis powers were winning all over the world. All over Europe, in the Middle East and Africa, in China and the Pacific. In the air and on the ground. They lost some battles and experienced some setbacks, but ultimately they prevailed again and again.

Then from some time in the third or fourth quarter of 1942 they started losing, pretty much all over the world. So to me, that is the tipping point.

I think the British victory in the BoB was significant but to suggest it was the tipping point of the whole war is a bridge to far if you'll forgive the analogy.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

bbear said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
> *The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."*
> That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.
> 
> Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.



The *TL : DR *is that you haven't made a good case for why the Spit V or the Wellington turned the tide of the war. Since it's an outlier position you'd be obligated to make that case well.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.
> 
> As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.
> 
> ...



In the first 5 months of 1942, it was the Hurricane that was the most numerous allied lend lease fighter available. 1588 Hurricane IIb's were shipped to them in 1941/42. From the end of 1941 came the first deliveries of P-40's, and a few P-39's for evaluation and bug sorting. The P-39 only comes into prominence in 1943/44 with the delivery of 1097 N's and 3291 Q's, there being only 648 deliveries in 1941/42. If the Germans had defeated the Soviet, England wouldn't have fallen because the Americans could never allow that to happen as Nazi Germany would have become an existential threat not just to them but all the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire.


----------



## bbear (Apr 6, 2019)

bbear said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
> *The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."*
> That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.
> 
> Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.


Thank you.

For clarity the two questions I refer to are the same word for word, it's just as I see it the word 'turn' means something different in each. My 'turn' has happened when the highest extent of the tide is reached that is when the tide stops. So the cause of that stop must come before that point.

So you understand my interest:
I'm trying, by discussion and research, to see whether it can be shown that broadly the Axis was brought to a halt before superior craft were manufactured in significantly larger numbers than the Axis possessed. I believe that as soon as any fascist armed force came up against an equal or near equal force, they lost, and when faced withb a numerically bigger a and better armed force they lost heavily. No magic Rommel, no magic Krupps arsenal, no Aryan superiority, no supermen, no 'strength' in merciless butchery.

I'm saying that achieving that equality took until June - September 1942.. The equality being built partially by manufacture of inferior types in the UK but because the power houses of war production in USSR and USA moved so decisively to out produce the Axis with superior weapons like the T34 and Sherman, the P39 and P51 the "signal" of fascist inferiority as a military doctrine is lost in the "noise" of American dollars.

I'm counting the Hurricane 1, Wellington Spitfire I and TBD as inferior to later types. I'm ambivalent about the IL2 and Yak.

I accept this is an outlying position and accept my obligation to prove my case is reasonable.. I have produced numbers from online sources. I am checking against a small stack of books. I am asking for time and criticism to help me with this obligation. If you are willing to take up the challenge of criticism I look forward to addressing the details with you once my checks are complete.

Thanks again for your time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

I for one am certainly not a believer in the inherent superiority of German anything, or that wearing a black shirt or shooting prisoners makes you tougher.

However, we can overstate the revision too. German pilots were good, German planes were good, and their tactics were effective. I agree with you that Allied forces reached parity and then the tide certainly turned, but it took a while didn't it? Lets also not forget that the Soviets all too gleefully joined the Germans in their brutal, murderous invasion and partition of Poland and the Baltic States, aggressively invaded Finland, mercilessly purged their own civilian population and military leadership, and were themselves generally just as inclined to engage in policies of Total War as the Germans were. These were generally in vogue in the late 30's. Even the Anglo-Americans had little problem rationalizing the "de-housing" and mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany alone in the Strategic Bombing campaigns, not to mention Japan and other places just caught in the middle.

More pertinent to your point, the 'tide' didn't change in 1940 - the Germans and Italians went on to conquer Greece and Yugoslavia in 1941, invade and capture Crete in 1941, conquer much of the Middle East, invade and brutally devastate the Soviet Union, coming very close to conquering them as well... the Japanese in the Pacific went on from China and Manchuria to the conquest of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and much of the South Pacific, and did not even slow down until Coral Sea in 1942.

The tide, in other words was still a flow tide to put it in nautical terms. To stretch the analogy, the BoB represented a functional shore break which prevented Britain being inundated by the initial flood. And that certainly did have knock-on consequences. But I don't think it changed it to an ebb tide.

That said, I appreciate your polite tone and you have as much right as anyone to develop your theories on here. That is what the forum is for.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

If you are inclined to podcasts I really recommend Dan Carlin's "Logical Insanity" podcasts on the pre-war theories about Total War and as it relates to bombing and the use of air power.

Hardcore History 42 – (BLITZ) Logical Insanity

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the first 5 months of 1942, it was the Hurricane that was the most numerous allied lend lease fighter available. 1588 Hurricane IIb's were shipped to them in 1941/42. From the end of 1941 came the first deliveries of P-40's, and a few P-39's for evaluation and bug sorting. *The P-39 only comes into prominence in 1943/44 *with the delivery of 1097 N's and 3291 Q's, there being only 648 deliveries in 1941/42. If the Germans had defeated the Soviet, England wouldn't have fallen because the Americans could never allow that to happen as Nazi Germany would have become an existential threat not just to them but all the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire.



This is wrong.

Read the article I linked. P-39s arrived in Russia in Dec 41 / Jan 42. They went through a 3-4 month workup up until April of 42, and this extended workup almost certainly contributed to the success these units had with the type. By June 1942 the P-39 "cobra" as the Russians called it was deployed in large numbers on the front and had a high success rate. As a fighter with good armor, working radios, and arguably as fast or faster at low altitude than all the existing fighters on the front on both sides, at least at combat altitudes they were fighting in, it was a major shot in the arm for them. I'm not sure precisely how many they had in combat in 1942, but even ~ 600 planes on the front, if they were considerably better than the I-16s, MiG-3, LaGG-3 and early Yak-1 and Yak 7 types that made up the vast bulk of Soviet fighter forces, was a major help. 

Note for example the 28 GIAP, active from 30 June 1942 until Sept 1942. With 20 P-39s, they claimed 64 enemy aircraft for 8 aircraft and 3 pilots lost. Even if you don't believe their claims (which were backed up by identity planes from the crashed aircraft, with aircraft crashing inside German lines not counted) the very low loss rate for this period in the VVS in three months of fighting stands out like a sore thumb - many other Soviet fighter squadrons were 'reduced' to non-flying status in just 2 or 3 weeks in the same period.

They also had substantial numbers of Hurricanes and a substantial number of Tomahawks in 1942, but they did not have as much success with these. Both Hurricanes and Tomahawks shipped to Russia were often battle weary machines already used in combat in the Middle East or elsewhere, with 'clapped out' airframes and engines. They had a lot of problems adapting the aircraft and engines to the field conditions in Russia, particularly Winter conditions, and the Russians themselves have said that in particular they did not like the Hurricanes as combat aircraft. The Tomahawks and Kittyhawks were better but suffered badly from mechanical problems especially burnt out engines, so they were only useful for a short time.

That said, you are correct to point out they got a lot of Hurricanes and they were in use in front line squadrons, notably up in Finland for example, and the Soviets did have some Hurricane Aces. They may not have been as bad as they said they were.

There were many more P-39s in 1943 but by then the Soviets had their own capable planes in large numbers: the Yak-1B, Yak-9, and La 5 and 5FN. Those few Lend Lease planes they had in 1942 were almost certainly more critical to the war effort.



A few stats on deliveries from here:

Aircraft Deliveries

quote:

"In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machine tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. "

and also: 

"Some American aircraft types were simply irreplaceable and very highly appreciated on all levels during the war, e.g. *P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft."*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Apr 6, 2019)

bbear said:


> Thank you.
> 
> For clarity the two questions I refer to are the same word for word, it's just as I see it the word 'turn' means something different in each. My 'turn' has happened when the highest extent of the tide is reached that is when the tide stops. So the cause of that stop must come before that point.
> 
> ...


Thanks once again. I will certainly take an interest i the podcast.

Just to be quite clear, I won't be tempted into moralising war as such. I don't think that's what we do here. I have declared my interests. That is all. I'm not in he least implying that you are tempting me, just that the primrose path to ideology is there and I'm giving it a wide berth - to mangle my metaphors grossly.

I am trying to answer the question as asked. My interest is caught by the nuance in the word 'turn' and the slant that the answer is an inferior type. Because of what that would mean for democracy vs fascism. But that's strictly my cup of poison. As far as what I believe we do on this site, I'm really interested in the range of different answers that can be defended and what cannot be defended as rational. 

I hope that's ok.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This is wrong.
> 
> Read the article I linked. P-39s arrived in Russia in Dec 41 / Jan 42. They went through a 3-4 month workup up until April of 42, and this extended workup almost certainly contributed to the success these units had with the type. By June 1942 the P-39 "cobra" as the Russians called it was deployed in large numbers on the front and had a high success rate. As a fighter with good armor, working radios, and arguably as fast or faster at low altitude than all the existing fighters on the front on both sides, at least at combat altitudes they were fighting in, it was a major shot in the arm for them. I'm not sure precisely how many they had in combat in 1942, but even ~ 600 planes on the front, if they were considerably better than the I-16s, MiG-3, LaGG-3 and early Yak-1 and Yak 7 types that made up the vast bulk of Soviet fighter forces, was a major help.
> 
> ...


I think you'll find that they only had the British Cobras fighting in mid 42, about 200, the American ones P-39D-1/K appeared in time for the air battle over the Kuban.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2019)

Without the Battle of Britain being won there would be no German losses at Malta, there would be no North Africa conflict. There would be almost no need for any German military in Western Europe, all could be concentrated in the east. There would be no 1000 bomber raids on Germany or need to defend against them with aircraft and guns. There would be no "air gap" in the Atlantic and no lease lend supplies to Russia across the Atlantic. All military equipment sent from the UK to Russia could be sent to the eastern front for the Germans. There are all sorts of "what iffs" about what could have happened if the BoB was lost, it is certain that things would have changed radically and not for Russias benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Without the Battle of Britain being won there would be no German losses at Malta, there would be no North Africa conflict. There would be almost no need for any German military in Western Europe, all could be concentrated in the east. There would be no 1000 bomber raids on Germany or need to defend against them with aircraft and guns. There would be no "air gap" in the Atlantic and no lease lend supplies to Russia across the Atlantic. All military equipment sent from the UK to Russia could be sent to the eastern front for the Germans. There are all sorts of "what iffs" about what could have happened if the BoB was lost, it is certain that things would have changed radically and not for Russias benefit.


The terms of the armistice with the French was that their navy should return to French ports. Without these units Operation Sea Lion would certainly fail. Admiral Darlan was of course not going to let the Germans get their hands on them. The British made sure they wouldn't. Even if the RAF lost the BoB, the Germans couldn't get across the channel.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 6, 2019)

bbear said:


> Thanks once again. I will certainly take an interest i the podcast.
> 
> Just to be quite clear, I won't be tempted into moralising war as such. I don't think that's what we do here. I have declared my interests. That is all. I'm not in he least implying that you are tempting me, just that the primrose path to ideology is there and I'm giving it a wide berth - to mangle my metaphors grossly.
> 
> ...



It's OK with me, and even if it wasn't, I don't own the site or the forum.

I think the main reason for the initial advantages of the Germans and Japanese in particular, less so the Italians, is that they had determined to start a war earlier than the other States which became involved as the main players in the war. The Germans shook out a lot of their gear and figured out what they needed to fine-tune, what they needed to drop etc., in the 1930's in the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese in Manchuria. One of the things that "Logical Insanity" get's into is the immense impact that was still being felt from WW1 particularly in Europe. Part of the reason for the seemingly crazy doctrines of total war from the air, ala Guernica etc. in it's early incarnations, was as a theory of how to avoid the long bloody stalemate of Trench Warfare. The early doctrine actually included the use of poison gas against civilian centers, on the premise that this escalation would bring the war to a far swifter conclusion and therefore save countless lives.

It was a faulty conclusion though because just like the maxim machine gun, modern artillery, the war plane and every other innovation of war in the last 150 years, humans adapt even when the horrors go far, far beyond the pale of what most of us today (or more generally, most people who have lived in peace) think we could endure. When total war includes annihilation of civilians especially, the will to resist can firm up under the abuse, no matter how brutal. We have seen this over and over all over the world. The US bombing campaign in North Korea as just one example, was incredibly unrestricted, and yet it did not win the war. 

I'm not straying into ideology or moralism mind you, at least not far - the flaws in these doctrines led to negative outcomes.

The Germans were smarting from their ill treatment in the wake of WW I and many of them - especially among the faction that took over, wanted another chance to win it. This influenced their determination to go to war again, which many of the other European powers thought was unthinkable, and by the time they accepted the reality that another, even worse Total War was on the horizon, the Germans and Japanese (for slightly different reasons) were already well along the road to developing their militaries for serious purposes.

The Soviets should have known better since they actually helped the Germans redevelop the Luftwaffe on Soviet territory in the 30's, allowing them to evade Versailles Treaty monitoring.

Ultimately the decisions made by Germany in the 1930's were very bad for Germany and for the German people. Which is probably why they don't seem very warlike today compared to some other States.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The terms of the armistice with the French was that their navy should return to French ports. Without these units Operation Sea Lion would certainly fail. Admiral Darlan was of course not going to let the Germans get their hands on them. The British made sure they wouldn't. Even if the RAF lost the BoB, the Germans couldn't get across the channel.


They wouldn't have to, the Germans didn't invade all of France, they didn't capture Paris.


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 7, 2019)

Something interesting about this is the difference in degree of consensus in different theaters. It seems that there is a consensus, at least for the most part, that for the Pacific theater the SBD was probably the aircraft that did the most to turn the tide but in other theaters opinions seem to varry much more. 
On the other side of the world there are more different engagements that could be thought of as turning points; Stalingrad,BOB, El Alemien etc. It's a tough call. Looking at it in realative terms i.e. which aircraft did the most to turn the tide not which aircraft turned the tide I think against the German/ Italian part of the Axis I would have to go with the Spitfire/Huricane combination. They stopped the Wermacht in the BOB then played substantial roll in pushing them back everywhere from North Africa to Western Europe, and to a lesser degree even in Russia. That's the way it looks to me anyway.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Note for example the 28 GIAP, active from 30 June 1942 until Sept 1942. With 20 P-39s, they claimed 64 enemy aircraft for 8 aircraft and 3 pilots lost. Even if you don't believe their claims (which were backed up by identity planes from the crashed aircraft, with aircraft crashing inside German lines not counted)



So the Soviets method of confirming victory claims was more credible and effective than that of the other airforces, Allied and Axis?


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No, as usual here we are getting in trouble by toying with imaginary scenarios. If the carrier elevator was too small for an SBD then they could not have operated an SBD to sink it. My only point is that the canard that dive bombers couldn't sink battleships is just that - a myth. Thank god for the US dive bombers, in particular the SBD, turned out to be so good at sinking enemy warships in general that they were able to make up for the fact that they lacked reliable torpedoes until well past the tipping point of the war.
> 
> Pre-war doctrine suggested that torpedo bombers were the only real way to sink ships, with dive bombers as kind of a backup. But the reality thank god was that our better quality dive bombers were more than up to the task. Wartime experience also showed that torpedo bombers were very vulnerable to defensive efforts and tended to suffer high loss rates especially against well protected military targets, whereas dive bombers could attack very difficult targets and survive sorties much better.
> 
> As for the Swordifsh, I'm sorry I know some people like them, and sometimes you just do the best you can with what you got, I certainly respect that. And I'll even concede with the early radar functionality, they provided some interesting all-weather capability. But I still think they were kind of an embarrassment and not a very good warplane by WW2 standards.



I really don't understand why the Swordfish gets knocked for being a slow speed biplane. Lets face it, what have we replaced it with in the 21st Century? Why, helicopters with the same sort of top speed, naturally.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2019)

It depends on the role and the weapons the aircraft uses.

Helicopters are not making daylight , short ranged attacks on defended warships to any great extent. 

They are not making short ranged night attacks to any great extent either so the radar equipped Swordfish hasn't been replaced either.

Now you do have things like this flying about.






But the stand off distance of the missles changes the whole engagement picture. 

Off course the Helicopter that can carry exocet missiles has about zero chance of escaping fighter planes so the ships it is after better not have air support. 

Modern Anti sub work has also changed. For a lot of WW II it was a race between the aircraft and the sub, running on the surface, as to which one spotted the other first and if the sub could submerge in enough time before the aircraft reached a weapons release point, faster aircraft having an advantage over slower aircraft here. Now that subs, even diesel electrics, spend much more time under water (and are much faster under water) that race no longer exists. 

sensors and weapons have changed anti-sub warfare.





Dipping sonar for one, requires the ability to hover and homing torpedoes vastly expand the weapons release area. 

But since these are post war developments (for the most part) speed was needed for many of the missions that torpedo bombers did in WW II.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It depends on the role and the weapons the aircraft uses.
> 
> Helicopters are not making daylight , short ranged attacks on defended warships to any great extent.
> 
> ...



Most of the time, the Swordfish wasn't dropping torpedoes!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Most of the time, the Swordfish wasn't dropping torpedoes!



You are right, it wasn't. But that was it's designed role.

And for it's other main role, anti-sub warfare, speed was an asset.

Once the sub was spotted (visually or with radar) an attack run had to made and the Swordfish (or other aircraft) had to get to a firing position (or dropping position) before the sub submerged and moved away form the spotted location. Rockets helped but you still needed to get within 1000yds or under. Now a sub forced under water could very well loose contact with the convoy and loose it's attack opportunity so any attack was a success from that standpoint. 

An Avenger, given the same distance from the sub when spotted, could close the distance quicker with better (but by no means guaranteed) chances of success, (sub has less time to move the swirl/submerge location) or is more exposed (less under water) when the rockets arrive.

Now with modern sensors, modern weapons and modern subs, most of this does not apply.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Apr 7, 2019)

I have completed my checks into the Spitfire V candidate. Though I couldn't find any references to Barbarossa plans or operations calling for minimum aircraft to be kept in the West to oppose the RAF I did note from an earlier post that Aircraft were withdrawn from duties in NWEurope to help resist Tunisia landings. So the idea that forces were pinned in the West was not fanciful. Coming back to on-line resources I found this from the Imperial War Museum
"Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 put pressure on the RAF to step up its attacks and tie down as many Luftwaffe fighters as possible in France. Operations became larger and more sophisticated. The so-called 'summer offensive' saw about 90 major sweeps, mostly between Rouen and Lille, alongside Rhubarbs and attacks against coastal shipping (known as 'Roadsteads'). The results were disappointing, and costly. Some 300 RAF pilots were lost. The famous British ace Douglas Bader, who had lost both his legs in a pre-war flying accident, was one of those shot down and captured. Nor did the attacks prevent the Luftwaffe from moving most of its force eastwards. Only two German fighter units with about 200 aircraft remained in France, and these proved more than enough to counter the RAF." What Did Fighter Command Do After The Battle Of Britain? 
which puts the tin lid on that explanation.

So, I'm back to first principles. Until otherwise proven, by default, the null hypothesis is that no causal effects exist, all apparent relationships are in fact random. Which is to say the Type and model of aircraft performing the most combat sorties before whatever you consider to be the turn is the one that did the most to turn the tide. Now I'm not saying that he null is true, only that to be reasonable, rational, one would need evidence not opinion to overturn the null.

For example parsifal argued that no fighter could be "the one that did most". As I understand it his argument was that fighters do not by themselves cause strategic change. I think again that this addresses a different form of the question, we are trying to identify the aircraft that did most to turn the tide, not putting up a theory that one model did turn the tide.

Running through the numbers as a summary
Aircraft production
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
U.S. 2,141 6,068 18,466 46,907 84,853 96,270 45,852 300,557
USSR 10,382 10,565 15,737 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,220
UK 7,940 15,049 20,094 23,672 26,263 26,461 12,070 131,549
Subtotal 22,402 33,622 56,238 97,957 147,959 164,975 80,767 590,326
Cumulative 22,402 56,024 112,262 210,219 358,178 523,153 603,920 (error) 
Germany 8,295 10,862 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,907
Japan 4,467 4,768 5,088 8,861 16,693 28,180 8,263 76,320
Subtotal 12,762 15,630 17,489 24,270 41,500 68,773 15,803 196,227
Cumulative 12,762 28,392 45,881 70,151 111,651 180,424 196,227 
Total 33,225 47,312 71,786 120,285 187,516 231,804 94,625 786,553
Allowing that the RAF rejuvenated in 1941 replacing front line platforms from Spit/Hurri I to II and Blenheim to Wellington
and that Soviets lost all aircraft notionally during Barbarossa 1941
and that only isolated lend-lease units from the USA were in operational use
and that the USAF had not deployed significantly 
and neglecting that the USN had significant activity in the time frame (January 1941 - September 1942)
and neglecting that all the P40s everywhere could count as one model
I falsely concluded that from squadron numbers that Spitfire V's flew the most sorties and therefore attempted to explain why they might be influencing the turn (that is the stop) at Stalingrad. That was an error, I should have said it is for others to find evidence why the biggest sortie flyer does not have the most to do with turning the tide. Also I left out the Axis sorties. All we know for sure is that the Allies won and the Axis lost. So it is logically as sound to say that every Axis sortie disadvantaged the Axis as it is to say that every Allied sortie advantaged that side -until otherwise proven. So the answer may quite likely be A6M or Me109.

I hope you can see why I think this approach is promising.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2019)

The Swordfish was slow, but also very good at its job. This is shown, for one thing that it outlasted one of its successors, the Albacore. It also operated in some appalling weather conditions, which may have been outside of the realm where more modern monoplanes may have been able to fly safely enough for operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bbear (Apr 7, 2019)

Did the advantages of being slow, short take off, low landing impact, short stopping distance, low impact of torpedo on release fade with time as carriers became larger, faster, better equipped to launch and recover,, as torpedo ruggedness improved? Did the longer mission times it was built for make for less pilot fatigue? Was the assessment against Albacore statistical or a matter of judgement? I've heard it said that a lot was the Swordfish crews as much as the machine itself that had the advantages. Would you agree? Thanks.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2019)

bbear said:


> Did the advantages of being slow, short take off, low landing impact, short stopping distance, low impact of torpedo on release fade with time as carriers became larger, faster, better equipped to launch and recover,, as torpedo ruggedness improved? Did the longer mission times it was built for make for less pilot fatigue? Was the assessment against Albacore statistical or a matter of judgement? I've heard it said that a lot was the Swordfish crews as much as the machine itself that had the advantages. Would you agree? Thanks.




I really don't know why the Albacore left service before the Swordfish.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I really don't know why the Albacore left service before the Swordfish.


Utility.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 7, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I really don't know why the Albacore left service before the Swordfish.



You could swing the initially quite large ASW radar underneath a Swordfish but not an Albacore. The Swordfish had better handling and was more manoeuvrable after a torpedo was dropped. However the Albacore was successfully used for both close and indirect air support over North Africa, and it could dive bomb. The skills needed to navigate over the Sahara Desert were similar to those needed to navigate over an Ocean. Even the Germans used biplanes for close air support at night, Fiat Cr 42's were specifically ordered and used for that purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 8, 2019)

The CR 42s were already there - they had been the primary air superiority fighter in the early days of the Desert War, facing off against Gladiators and later Hurricanes. As the war scaled up and more capable fighters came into the Theater, they were relegated to CAS but they were still flying missions in the day time, not just as night. So long as they had sufficient fighter cover.

However, it wasn't so much a matter of their being ideal for the mission type as they were on hand, as were pilots trained to fly them, and the Axis were desperate for military assets so they did what they could with them. I think it's a very similar story with the Swordfish. It was an obsolete aircraft which, thanks to the ineptitude of the Italians in particular managed to do some damage to the enemy. In the case of the Bismarck they were barely adequate. I still say the SBD would have been a vastly better weapon for that job.

CR 42s were sometimes used in quite large numbers of 40 or 50 aircraft, through the end of 1942. Somewhere on here I posted a breakdown of all the air-victories and losses for Oct 1942 in the Desert War and you'll see several Cr 42s on that list.


And speaking of 1942, per our earlier discussion, I checked my sources for the P-39. The earliest batch which came from the UK amounted to 212 aircraft delivered, mostly in late 1941 and early 1942. It is a stretch to call them "British" P-39s but they were diverted from the British Order and had some British instruments and so on, some of them had 20mm guns. This was the original batch the Soviets worked up from Jan-April 1942.

However, the Americans were sending mostly later model P-39s directly and they began arriving in the Soviet Union from September 1942 via the Iran / Azerbaijan route and in the same month via the Alaska - Siberian route (flying under their own power). So it is incorrect to suggest that there were only ~200 P-39's flying by the time of Stalingrad. By the time the new planes were coming in the Soviets had streamlined the process of adapting them and they could be gotten into action in a matter of a few weeks. 61 P-39D were delivered from the US via Iran before the end of 1942 as well as 50 P-39K. I couldn't determine the number shipped via Alaska.

There were also quite a few Tomahawks already in action in 1941 and early 1942 and there were P-40 units actually in battle at Stalingrad.

From Oct 1941 to April 1942 *126 IAP *(Tomahawks) flew 666 sorties over Kalinin (Tver) and the Western Front (mostly near Leningrad) and 318 sorties for the defense of Moscow, claiming 29 enemy aircraft for 4 losses. However they lost most of the planes to mechanical problems over the winter including 38 with burst radiators. They were down to 9 flying aircraft by Jan 1942 so most of the victories were in the first two months. They got new (used) P-40E's starting in March in 1942. They were sent to Stalingrad in August 1942. They flew 194 sorties from 28 August to 13 September, mostly escorts to Il2 Sturmoviks. Fighting at Stalingrad at that time was very intense and they were quickly 'reduced'. They claimed 36 aircraft destroyed and lost 13 aircraft and 7 pilots. They were withdrawn on 18 September and re-equipped with La-5s.

154 IAP and 159 IAP, equipped with Tomahawks fought over Leningrad from November 1941, escorting DC-3s contending with the siege of Leningrad (bringing in supplies and bringing out wounded). By March 1942 they were getting Kittyhawks as replacements for their Tomahawks. Total deliveries of P-40s to the Northern route via Murmansk was 272 in 1942 and 108 in 1943.

*147 IAP / 20 GIAP *was transitioned from Hurricanes to Tomahawk IIB and Kittyhawk P-40E by May 1942. They used the P-40 (mostly P-40E and K) through the end of 1943 after which they transitioned to the P-39N. They lost 38 P-40's in 1942 and 26 in 1943, of which 35 were lost in air combat. Victory claim numbers for the unit have been lost but since they retained the Guards designation must have been high.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 8, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> So the Soviets method of confirming victory claims was more credible and effective than that of the other airforces, Allied and Axis?



I never made that claim, and wouldn't make such an assumption. Claims verification processes for every air force and every side evolved during the War. The Soviet leadership, like all parties involved in the war, wanted and needed to know how many enemy aircraft their fighter pilots were actually shooting down.

The process of recovering the metal identity plates from the downed enemy fighters wasn't fool-proof. Aircraft lost to engine trouble, or shot down by another plane that didn't make a claim, or shot down by flak could be claimed that way. But I do believe it reduced the number of false claims. 

The reality is that all sides had errors in their claiming process, and all sides overclaimed. The Germans were hardly immune to this problem as is very clear in the records.

Based on Christer Bregstroms Black Cross / Red Star, which can hardly be called pro-Soviet in it's bias, the raw numbers reveal that the Soviet overclaiming, while fairly high was not astronomically higher than the Germans. I think you probably know this.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The CR 42s were already there - they had been the primary air superiority fighter in the early days of the Desert War, facing off against Gladiators and later Hurricanes. As the war scaled up and more capable fighters came into the Theater, they were relegated to CAS but they were still flying missions in the day time, not just as night. So long as they had sufficient fighter cover.
> 
> However, it wasn't so much a matter of their being ideal for the mission type as they were on hand, as were pilots trained to fly them, and the Axis were desperate for military assets so they did what they could with them. I think it's a very similar story with the Swordfish. It was an obsolete aircraft which, thanks to the ineptitude of the Italians in particular managed to do some damage to the enemy. In the case of the Bismarck they were barely adequate. I still say the SBD would have been a vastly better weapon for that job.
> 
> ...



Go look at the production numbers, 692 by Fairey in the initial pre war and early war production runs followed by 1699 out of Blackburn from 1941. If I'm not mistaken then this means that the FAA would have to have trained a substantial number of pilots post BoB to fly them.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I never made that claim, and wouldn't make such an assumption. Claims verification processes for every air force and every side evolved during the War. The Soviet leadership, like all parties involved in the war, wanted and needed to know how many enemy aircraft their fighter pilots were actually shooting down.
> 
> The process of recovering the metal identity plates from the downed enemy fighters wasn't fool-proof. Aircraft lost to engine trouble, or shot down by another plane that didn't make a claim, or shot down by flak could be claimed that way. But I do believe it reduced the number of false claims.
> 
> ...




I suspect that command — any command — is far less interested in how many planes pilot X shot down than the collective number shot down in an operation or an operational area.


----------



## bbear (Apr 8, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that command — any command — is far less interested in how many planes pilot X shot down than the collective number shot down in an operation or an operational area.



sorry to but in, but you say the operation or operational area?
Would the scope of interest get wider with rank and time? For example a commander at Dunkirk might worry about each separate days sorties getting kills to protect his beaches. In 11 Group Parks had to be concerned about trends in kills and losses in his area at a week's distance perhaps, Dowding might be interested in the implications on reserves, rotation of squadrons and the same for the enemy in a month. CAS might take a force balance view over the next say 6 months, Chiefs Of Staff/Cabinet might suggest changes of strategy even of war aims over a year or three on the basis of whole force analysis and diplomacy/intelligence.

I ask because of the approach I'm trying to Stalingrad as a turning point and the possible contribution of Spitfire Vs and Hurricane IIs in France a year of less before Stalingrad. Aircraft being so potentially quick to move from Russia to the Atlantic seaboard if necessary, or out of production to one front or another.

It all hangs on what a turning point is, is it in an operation, in a theatre or in the world as a whole?

Thanks

I'm sure you have read this before, but it's what prompted my question: The Circus/Rhubarb operations were aimed to relieve pressure on the Soviets but they had no way to measure success it seems, I don't know much about the Eastern front but checking what i have it doesn't seem that the planning for Barbarossa had any concern for the threat from British attacks, not even to say these could only be nuisance raids. Nor any later high command level concerns. Do you perhaps know where or under what heading I might find a discussion at that level? Or do you happen to know there were none as at that level the British efforts were a non-problem? I find plenty about Churchill giving assurances to Stalin. Plenty saying the "lean forward" was a mistake in kill/loss terms. But nothing to say it definitely did or didn't help in the East. 
1941: The Difficult Year — Articles | 1941 | history


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Soviets should have known better since they actually helped the Germans redevelop the Luftwaffe on Soviet territory in the 30's, allowing them to evade Versailles Treaty monitoring.



Just for the sake of accuracy: German flight school in Lipetsk, USSR was operational 1925-1933, testing centre at the same school 1928-1933.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MakerDude (Apr 8, 2019)

bbear said:


> I have completed my checks into the Spitfire V candidate. Though I couldn't find any references to Barbarossa plans or operations calling for minimum aircraft to be kept in the West to oppose the RAF I did note from an earlier post that Aircraft were withdrawn from duties in NWEurope to help resist Tunisia landings. So the idea that forces were pinned in the West was not fanciful. Coming back to on-line resources I found this from the Imperial War Museum
> "Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 put pressure on the RAF to step up its attacks and tie down as many Luftwaffe fighters as possible in France. Operations became larger and more sophisticated. The so-called 'summer offensive' saw about 90 major sweeps, mostly between Rouen and Lille, alongside Rhubarbs and attacks against coastal shipping (known as 'Roadsteads'). The results were disappointing, and costly. Some 300 RAF pilots were lost. The famous British ace Douglas Bader, who had lost both his legs in a pre-war flying accident, was one of those shot down and captured. Nor did the attacks prevent the Luftwaffe from moving most of its force eastwards. Only two German fighter units with about 200 aircraft remained in France, and these proved more than enough to counter the RAF." What Did Fighter Command Do After The Battle Of Britain?
> which puts the tin lid on that explanation.
> 
> ...


BBear good data but their is a slight flaw in it. The year was added into the subtotal for the allies. I corrected it and played around with it in a spreadsheet.





Re posted with some corrections.
Added more corrections

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 8, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that command — any command — is far less interested in how many planes pilot X shot down than the collective number shot down in an operation or an operational area.



Yes I agree, though for the Soviet VVS that could come down to individual squadrons.

The issue is that so much fighter combat took place at the individual level and the pilot doing the shooting was quite often the only, and usually at least the first person to be able to indicate that an enemy aircraft was shot down to begin with. The Soviets did not relish the individualism of fighter pilots and more than any other State I am aware of, emphasized group victories in terms of giving credit. But inevitably certain individuals stood out, and as their successes were good for morale, they were increasingly tolerated.

But the main issue of course was evaluating effectiveness by aircraft type, aircraft manufacturer, unit / leadership and training.

The higher leadership needed to know which aircraft _and which pilots_ were scoring victories. Both aircraft quality and pilot training were critical issues for the Soviets - they had a wide variety of aircraft deployed, both native made and foreign types, and an equally wide range of different levels of pilot training. Even within a specific type - an LaGG-3 or Yak-1 for example, could range enormously in build quality from given factories from essentially flying coffins / unusable with very low victory to loss ratios, to fairly good aircraft close to parity with the Germans. Similarly, some of their Lend Lease fighters had serious maintenance issues, or were clapped out (including many hand-me-downs from fighting in North Africa for example) and weren't performing up to par.

A badly made Soviet fighter might have so many holes, gaps and other construction defects (landing gear not fully closing and so forth) that due to the induced drag it flew 20 or 30 mph less than it should have, and in many cases the canopies were so poorly made that the pilots didn't trust them to come off if they needed to bail out so they flew without them which cost another 30 or 40 mph or more (this is not unique to the Soviets mind you, but happened with many early war types all over the world with maintenance challenges). Wood could delaminate and fall apart. Fuel and hydraulic fluid leaks could start fires. Soviet leaders needed to know which aircraft and which with modifications (they were constantly trying minor tweaks to designs) they were getting the job done. They were facing annihilation.

And the Anglo-American fighters could be almost as bad - several hundred planes in the early deliveries had already seen combat in North Africa or elsewhere and in many cases the engines were either already worn out or shortly after arrival (due to things like overboosting engines and inadequate engine oil filtration and so on) got burned out in a matter of weeks, and were delivering 70-80% of their rated horsepower or even less. Airframes too got worn out and even the airframe could be below par- wings sometimes had a set from high G turns and so on. Then once Winter conditions set in the Soviet mechanics had to scramble to figure out how to prep them for 40 below temperatures, and that was another steep learning curve.

As for training, it also varied quite widely. To give one example from the P-40 in Soviet Aviation article:

_"The *6th ZAB* was one of the best-equipped training bases in the Soviet VVS. Pilots trained here practiced not only takeoffs and landings but also *gunnery at both air and ground targets, solo and group flight and tactics.* Therefore the majority of units that were trained here achieved success at the front and became guards units. Thus, 436th and 46th IAP, for combat on the Northwest Front (flying the P-40) were reformed in March 1943 as the 67th and 68th Guards IAP; the 10th IAP was reformed as the 69th Guards IAP and re-equipped with Airacobras. Many foreign units also passed through training here - the Normandie squadron, 1st Czechoslovakian IAP, and others. "_

This is much better conversion training than some Anglo-American units got in 1941 or 1942. Training in aerial gunnery, individual and group combat, strafing and navigation would have been very welcome for many DAF squadrons in North Africa, who had to extemporize training techniques and the RAAF squadrons who had to defend Darwin and Port Moresby. Same for a lot of American fighter pilots in the early days of WW2, many of whom had as little as 20 -40 hours on type before going into combat (for example the 49th FG also over Darwin, who luckily for them had very good leadership which helped compensate for this deadly lapse to some extent).

So units going through an outfit like the 6th ZAB would have a much higher ratio of victories to losses than units flying identical aircraft but with less effective or more hasty training, which was much more the norm particularly in 1941 or most of 1942.

This was quite evident with the Lend Lease aircraft - most of the Soviet P-39 units as we know did well, some spectacularly well, but some had fairly dismal records and were quickly rotated out of the front - again an indication that the higher command was paying close attention. It's unclear from my sources what the problem was - local climatic conditions, mechanical issues, training or leadership, or just the quality of the local opposition or bad luck with the group of pilots recruited for that squadron. The Soviet Leadership couldn't always determine _why _a given unit was performing poorly (or well - some units with inferior planes like LaGG-3 did unusually well for example) but they could respond accordingly - bad units were rotated out and either eliminated or assigned different duties (one badly performing P-39 unit was assigned to fly ferry flights which was probably a stroke of luck for them) or transitioned to different aircraft. They only had so many good fighter aircraft and they desperately needed to get the most mileage out of every one they had. High performing units were assigned 'Guards' designation, given priority treatment in terms of support and were also given better planes if possible.

Bottom line is that they of course needed to know how many planes were being shot down by their fighters and they did what they could to ensure that they did know. The trail of determining if an enemy aircraft was destroyed usually started with the fighter pilot who shot it down, and the policy of recovering crashed aircraft was one way they tried to determine if the claim was valid. Much like Anglo-Americans added gun cameras and also sometimes required identifying wrecked aircraft where possible (i.e. not shot down over water or deep into enemy territory).


During WW II, the Soviet leadership had to rapidly evolve their air forces (VVS, PVO, Navy etc.) from antiquated, poorly trained units flying open cockpit, stubby mid-30's vintage I-153 biplanes and I-16 series monoplanes, and burned out Hurricanes and Tomahawks, to excellent, cannon armed, streamlined 400 mph + La 7, Yak 3 and Yak 9s, late model P-39s and P-63s escorting increasingly deadly Il-2, Pe-2 and Tu-2 bombers and attack aircraft. In 1942 and 1943 they straightened out most of their production problems, improved their designs, imposed uniformity in manufacturing at least to some extent, and greatly improved the management of Lend Lease and other foreign aircraft (P-40, P-39, Spitfire, A-20, DC-3) vis a vis maintenance, winterization and training, and determination of the specific roles where each type would be best suited. They did so under the most difficult and brutal conditions imaginable and had effectively transformed their air forces by mid 1943 into something that the once dominant Luftwaffe could no longer handle except locally and for a short duration.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 8, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy: German flight school in Lipetsk, USSR was operational 1925-1933, testing centre at the same school 1928-1933.



Yes, my bad. I should have said 1920's and early 30's.


----------



## bbear (Apr 8, 2019)

MakerDude said:


> BBear good data but their is a slight flaw in it. The year was added into the subtotal for the allies. I corrected it and played around with it in a spreadsheet.
> View attachment 534641
> 
> 
> Re posted with some corrections.


Thanks very much for sorting out my clumsy error. The data is national WW2 museum sourced though their fact sheet link is inoperative and only an incomplete table is currently available. The exact numbers appear to be adjusted or updated. There is a claim that the table disagrees with other sources. With that caveat and a few checks I think it's ok. I'd be a bit shocked if the national museum was dud. But these days, who knows. Their website doesn't fill me with confidence I have to say. Numbers for the USSR will be the weak point if any I suspect.

The obvious feature is the one you've high lighted, production for the USA dwarfs all else by the end of 1942 and counting Lend Lease and other support to USSR other allies and the power of the war $ is plain. And I believe that was achieved on an economy only 50% devoted of war by %of GDP counted at war's end IIRC.

You also pick out the jump in UK production as total war was engaged.

This data is close as we can come to an idea of forces or at least the potential for force balance. Data for deployment of RAF June 1942 and Luftwaffe September 1942 I posted already if I find similar data for the USSR and Japan, and the US Navy, we're set for a lower level of analysis.

But even then allowing for losses and replacements, I think there is an intimation at least that UK forces must have dominated in scale the remaining USSR force June 1941 - September 1942. I believe their factories had reorganised by about June 1942. So the products of that period from the deployment data for RAF June 1942 were very roughly all the air power making sorties against the Luftwaffe in the approach to the stopping of the tide before Stalingrad. And whichever one did the most sorties, is the answer : aircraft that did the most (an answer to my version of the word 'turn').

Now that is still an hypothesis and there are other contenders for whom an equally strong* argument can be made**. In any case it's more the method that interests me, not the result.


*(equally weak at the moment)
** P40, IL-2, Yak-3, TBD,
-----
EDIT added
There weren't enough P 40's produced and delivered in the relevant period to September 1942 (7,000?) to get close to the 10's of 1000's of Spit. V's or IL2s, Most IL-2s deployed had not seen action on that dateline (though there was a dramatic shift round straight after). TBD's only existed in tiny numbers.

However coming up on the rails from nowhere is - the Lockheed Hudson which with an installed base with British and Commonwealth force of 65 Squadrons 500 perhaps in similar use as for Coastal Command (200 RAF CC,) used as Maritime patrol/anti-surface may have clocked up a credible 50,000 sorties*

* better estimate to follow : currrently estimated in the period June 41 to September 42. (15 months, out of 6 years, RAF CC where 200 made 240,000/6/1.25/500 sorties = 24,000 sorties, or 50 missions per day for the 200 which seems like remarkable reliability. I assume equivalent patrol/anti-surface role use across commonwealth - 50,000 missions is a low estimate )

So, despite never being posted to Midway or Stalingrad or Malta or North Africa possibly - that's my new answer. Lockheed Hudson did the most.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RoyalOrderofWhaleBangers (Apr 8, 2019)

MakerDude said:


> BBear good data but their is a slight flaw in it. The year was added into the subtotal for the allies. I corrected it and played around with it in a spreadsheet.
> View attachment 534641
> 
> 
> Re posted with some corrections.


 
Nice data and table. One typo correction: the Allied to Axis production ratio for 1940 is 2.03.

What is impressive (or depressive for the Axis) is that even without U.S. input the Allies are outproducing the Axis by 44 - 105% every year until 1944, when German and Japanese output increases drastically. Even then the U.S. output exceeds that of the Axis by 40%, and of course that includes substantial numbers of heavy bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I really don't know why the Albacore left service before the Swordfish.



I can never understand why we bothered with the Albacore in the first place

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I really don't know why the Albacore left service before the Swordfish.


Swordfish was kept in service after the Albacore had been retired because of the differing roles that emerged for each type as the war progressed. By 1943-4, swordfish were used primarily aboard escort carriers in the ASW role, requiring exceptional all weather handling and the ability to operate from very short and slow landing platforms. Both types could meet those criteria, but the swordfish was slightly better. In a headwind with an escort carrier travelling full stick, a Swordfish could descend at a rate of closure of less than 30 knots relative, making them wwii equivalents to a rotary airborne platform. Albacore couldn’t quite match that, in addition the accident rate for the Albacore in rough weather on CVE deck spaces was worse than the Swordfish.



If you analyse it from those perspectives, which are criteria far more important than the often concentrated upon issues of performance and lift capacity, the Swordfish was the logical choice for retention.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2019)

Agree with Glider, in the Albacore the RN almost seemed to be hedging its bets and going with the Devil-you-know. The original specifications (M.7/36 and O.8/36) could and probably should have been met by a design without built-inobsolescence as much as the Albacore had. Both specs were combined into 41/36, from which the Albacore was built. Eric Brown was quite scathing in his criticism of the Swordfish in his book Wings Of The Navy, not so much of the aeroplane itself, but the fact that the RN persisted with such antiquated warplanes within which its young airmen should have to go to war.


----------



## bbear (Apr 9, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Agree with Glider, in the Albacore the RN almost seemed to be hedging its bets and going with the Devil-you-know. The original specifications (M.7/36 and O.8/36) could and probably should have been met by a design without built-inobsolescence as much as the Albacore had. Both specs were combined into 41/36, from which the Albacore was built. Eric Brown was quite scathing in his criticism of the Swordfish in his book Wings Of The Navy, not so much of the aeroplane itself, but the fact that the RN persisted with such antiquated warplanes within which its young airmen should have to go to war.


From what you say, was the much respected Brown talking about Swordfish use ASW from difficult Escort Carriers or use against daylight heavily protected targets like Bismark from a main line Carrier like Ark Royal?

I can't see the humanitarian angle, these are very highly trained professional volunteers as crew not raw 19yr old conscripts being ordered on pain of court martial. There was a design competition for a replacement for Swordfish IIRC. Supermarine bid for it, type 312 or was it 322? The Treasury had already sprung for two different fighter development programs , Hurricane and Spitfire. A second class torpedo plane goes right along with all the partly WW1 era navy we started with. I feel much more sympathy with the ratings on some of those old nags.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 9, 2019)

[QUOTE="Schweik, post: 1470806, member: 73921"
They did so under the most difficult and brutal conditions imaginable and had effectively transformed their air forces by mid 1943 into something that the once dominant Luftwaffe could no longer handle except locally and for a short duration.

Yet the Soviets were still losing 3 aircraft in combat for 1 lost Luftwaffe aircraft.

Not to take anything away from the Soviet achievements in the air war, but I do think that you are over selling it.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> [QUOTE="Schweik, post: 1470806, member: 73921"
> They did so under the most difficult and brutal conditions imaginable and had effectively transformed their air forces by mid 1943 into something that the once dominant Luftwaffe could no longer handle except locally and for a short duration.
> 
> Yet the Soviets were still losing 3 aircraft in combat for 1 lost Luftwaffe aircraft.
> ...



You've omitted to mention that post war analysis of RAF vs Lufwaffe victory to losses for 1941- 43 also came up with that same 1:3 ratio.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You've omitted to mention that post war analysis of RAF vs Lufwaffe victory to losses for 1941- 43 also came up with that same 1:3 ratio.


It would be a similar ratio if using identical aircraft, especially regarding pilot losses over France.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You've omitted to mention that post war analysis of RAF vs Lufwaffe victory to losses for 1941- 43 also came up with that same 1:3 ratio.



Since it's about the Eastern Front, I don't think I have omitted anything. Just to be clear, that ratio of 3 Soviet to 1 LW for 1943 is for all operational losses, not just air-to-air. Also, the ratio was much the same in '41, '42 and '44.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Since it's about the Eastern Front, I don't think I have omitted anything. Just to be clear, that ratio of 3 Soviet to 1 LW for 1943 is for all operational losses, not just air-to-air. Also, the ratio was much the same in '41, '42 and '44.



3 to 1 or more? 
"Official" (yet much disputed) figure of VVS losses in 1943 was 9543 in VVS RKKA (Army) and 11246 in all services, including Navy, Long Range Aviation and PVO (Anti Air Defence). This is for so-called "combat" aviation (thus excluding trainers, passenger, transport) and combat losses only. Total losses for all reasons were probably twice higher.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> [QUOTE="Schweik, post: 1470806, member: 73921"
> They did so under the most difficult and brutal conditions imaginable and had effectively transformed their air forces by mid 1943 into something that the once dominant Luftwaffe could no longer handle except locally and for a short duration.
> 
> Yet the Soviets were still losing 3 aircraft in combat for 1 lost Luftwaffe aircraft.
> ...



Actually, after 1943, they weren't. Admittedly most of the losses were due to aircraft lost on the ground and write offs 9mostly burnt by own crews), but that is the only way to understand the VVS operational procedures correctly. They were so intrinsically linked to the needs of the ground forces that to view the VVS as something separate creates an incorrect picture of the forces overall effectiveness


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2019)

bbear said:


> From what you say, was the much respected Brown talking about Swordfish use ASW from difficult Escort Carriers or use against daylight heavily protected targets like Bismark from a main line Carrier like Ark Royal?
> 
> I can't see the humanitarian angle, these are very highly trained professional volunteers as crew not raw 19yr old conscripts being ordered on pain of court martial. There was a design competition for a replacement for Swordfish IIRC. Supermarine bid for it, type 312 or was it 322? The Treasury had already sprung for two different fighter development programs , Hurricane and Spitfire. A second class torpedo plane goes right along with all the partly WW1 era navy we started with. I feel much more sympathy with the ratings on some of those old nags.



The British had a real problem bringing aircraft from the "requirement" stage to the production/service use stage. 

The requirement/specification for the Albacore was issued in 1936. It took until Dec 1938 to get a prototype into the air and until March of 1940 to start delivering production examples to a service squadron. It didn't serve on a carrier deck until Nov 1940. 

The Fairey Barracuda was built to specification S.24/37 which was issued in 1937 but the first Barracuda prototype didn't fly until Dec 1940. It was this specification that the Supermarine 322 was built to satisfy. 

The treasury was springing for a host of competing programs. Perhaps too many and spreading development teams too thin. It may not have sunk in that retracting landing gear, high speed monoplanes with flaps (of different sorts) and other moving parts (bomb bay doors, etc) took just a few more hours to design than a fixed gear biplane with few other moving parts (sarcasm) 

I would note as far as the Navy goes, most other major navies were in the same situation. The 1939 US Navy had a very high percentage of old ships, their 8 in gun cruisers excepted. , the French also had a fair portion of scrap yard escapees. In some cases the sailors on French or Italian "modern" ships might have been better off on WW I leftovers. 

I would note again ( I have already made this argument in another thread) that in 1936-37 the British had no carriers with both the speed and flight deck lengths of the American carriers and in fact had 3 carriers that weren't much bigger than WW II escort carriers (and topped out at about 25kts) so asking for a superzoomy monoplane torpedo bomber might mean that 3 out your 7 carriers couldn't use it. Stall speed of the Albacore is given as 54mph ?
Peace time landing and take-off requirements being a bit different than war time. Please note the US had lost almost 30 Douglas Devastators out of 129 built from first issue until Dec 1941 in peace time accidents.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Stall speed of the Albacore is given as 54mph?



Not sure what the Pilot's Notes have but handling trials list:
(bomber load) 11,200 lb = 69 mph ASI​(recon load) 9,870 lb = 65 mph ASI​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Not sure what the Pilot's Notes have but handling trials list:
> (bomber load) 11,200 lb = 69 mph ASI​(recon load) 9,870 lb = 65 mph ASI​



Just realised that my taxi, a Vauxhall Cavalier CDTI, has the same top speed as a Fairey Albacore.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 10, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> 3 to 1 or more?
> "Official" (yet much disputed) figure of VVS losses in 1943 was 9543 in VVS RKKA (Army) and 11246 in all services, including Navy, Long Range Aviation and PVO (Anti Air Defence). This is for so-called "combat" aviation (thus excluding trainers, passenger, transport) and combat losses only. Total losses for all reasons were probably twice higher.




It would be operational (combat) losses and include all services, so the 11200 odd with corresponding operational LW losses of some 3120. Losses of the other smaller Axis will of cause skew the ratio a little, so 3 seems a good approximation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

The Soviet system did not particularly emphasize pilot safety and they continued to endure heavy losses through the end of the war. This is a separate issue from gaining the ability to enforce local air superiority as needed after the Battle of the Kuban river (this was the first and perhaps most heavily contested case where they did).

However that said, raw numbers can be misleading in many ways.

As we know, when counting operational losses, that includes a lot of basic accidents, maintenance problems, navigation errors, landing and takeoff accidents, running out of fuel and so on. This kind of thing incidentally was low for the Luftwaffe for the first half of the war but ticked up noticeably by mid 1943, probably due to changes in pilot training.

So a certain percentage of sorties result in crashes or other losses, in many cases this amounts to a large percentage of the total number number of losses. Depending on aircraft type and other factors (Winter in Russia being a particularly difficult time for flying) it can be from 30-40% of the losses.

Furthermore, certain types of missions expose the aircraft to severe risks from AAA. Perhaps highest among these are low-level CAS missions, which were notoriously dangerous especially against the Germans.

Based on what I was just looking at on this site here*, I see the following numbers:

*In May 1943, for the Luftwaffe on the Russian front:*

~500 fighters (454 day fighters, 52 'long range fighters', and 9 night fighters)
~500 Medium bombers
574 "Ground attack aircraft" (I assume these are Stukas, HS 123 and HS 129)
~400 recon planes

For a total of 1598 'combat aircraft' and 2,133 aircraft of all types in May 1943, down from 1,894 / 2,796 the year before. This is of course just German and doesn't include Italian, Romanian, Finnish or Bulgarian aircraft. Reduction in strength is mainly due to fighters and some bombers sent to North Africa / Italy or for air defense of Germany, with additional ground attack aircraft being brought in to Russia.

*For the Soviets in 1943 I see: *

6,777 fighters (up from 3,468 in may 1942)
3,505 Ground Attack (mostly Sturmovik but probably also including I-153 etc.. this is up from 331 in May 1942.)
2,667 Bombers (up from 1,170 in 1942)
540 Recon which stayed the same from 1942.

For a total of 16,657 aircraft.

Then losses show 3,128 for the Luftwaffe (not counting their Axis partners) and 11,200 for the Soviets. Hence your 1-3 ratio.

But lets compare losses to forces here. The *Luftwaffe *had 2,133 aircraft deployed on the Russian Front of which they lost 3,128. *146% of their aircraft were lost.*
The *Soviet*s had 16,657 of which they lost 11,200. That is a loss rate of roughly* 67% of operational aircraft.*

When we see 3-1 odds, the assumption is that these are all victims of the _experten_, shot down by fighters in desperate, heroic against the odds combat. But the reality is probably far more prosaic. The reality is that the Luftwaffe units were under heavy pressure. The VVS, PVO and Soviet Navy units were as well of course, but as a percentage of the much larger number of units deployed, they actually didn't take as many losses.

If you look at the Soviet force numbers, you can see that while fighters roughly doubled from May 1942, _ground attack aircraft increased by a factor of 10_ - 3,505 from 331. Ground attack aircraft had the most hazardous mission of the war barring kamikaze strikes. Heavily laden, cumbersome Il2s had a fairly high accident rate, and were very vulnerable to ground fire. I don't know the exact breakdown of Soviet losses for the year off hand, but I bet if you drill down into it you'll observe the following:

A high number are from operational losses - maintenance, accidents etc. probably 30-40% depending on the season.
Of the remainder i.e. combat losses, a high number are of ground attack aircraft.
And of the rest, fighter and bomber losses, a high number of those are on ground attack missions.
In 1943 the Germans were fighting on four fronts - the West facing England, Reich defense against heavy bomber raids, Italy and the Med, and the Russian Front. In the Russian front they were losing about 1/4 of their aircraft losses. But whereas a big part of the mission of Western raids and the Strategic Bombing offensive was explicitly to destroy the Luftwaffe, in Russia that was not the goal. The goal was to annihilate the German army, which they did albeit at great cost. A big proportion of this loss was by ground attack aircraft. By one estimate I read 12,000 Il-2's alone were lost by the Soviets during the war. These numbers can be debated, but there is no doubt that the 'concrete bomber', as tough as it was, paid a heavy price for the destruction of the German army. But they were quite critical in that role, of that there can be no doubt (at least not in my mind).

The Luftwaffe also emphasized the individual success rates of the pilots. They flew missions to help guarantee high air to air scores often at the expense of support of the ground forces. I know that in North Africa and the Med this caused a lot of angst and animosity both within the Luftwaffe and between the Luftwaffe and the Heer. I haven't plunged in depth to the same extent in the Russian front but I suspect you had a similar dynamic.

And yet in spite of that, a large percentage of Soviet losses were due to their flying much more aircraft in hazardous conditions and of that 3-1 ratio, probably 1.5 of it was due to flak and accidents and a heavy proportion were of ground attack aircraft.

*If you don't like this source or these numbers I can crack open some books and cite pages. This one is convenient because it's online.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 10, 2019)

So a heavy numerical advantage to the Soviets actually results in 3 times as many losses as the LW suffered? Perhaps the sheer number of Soviet aircraft in the air resulted in them flying into each other, thus explaining the magnitude of their losses?

Seriously, the noted losses for both sides are those that occured on operational or combat missions, whichever you prefer to call them, to all causes, with or without enemy action. The distribution of those losses as to actual cause is not known; whether the one side lost a higher percentage to say AAA, is entirely probable; and it's entirely possible that LW fighters were accounting for fewer Soviet aircraft than other causes, as, after all there were fewer LW fighters than there had been the year before!

However, what is striking is that despite the numerical increase in aircraft, with both locally produced and Lend-Lease of superior quality compared to the types with which they opposed the LW in 1941; the ratio of Soviet losses to LW losses is not much better than in '43 than they were in '41.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

In other words we know that a lot of the losses - on both sides- didn't even involve any enemy action at all. The Soviets had a greater number of those because they were operating 5 times as many aircraft. That accounts for some percentage of the 3-1 ratio, maybe 1/5 maybe 1/3 I don't know, again I think that partly depends on the Season and what part of the front.

Another substantial subset of the losses would be due to flak and ground fire, no enemy aircraft necessarily even encountered. With the Luftwaffe 500 short ranged fighters defending the entire ~1,500 miles of the Russian Front, and facing ~16,000 enemy aircraft including 3,500 ground attack and 2,500 bombers, plus some large number of 6,700 fighters on any given day flying CAS / FB missions as well and armed with rockets or bombs. The Luftwaffe could not actually intercept every enemy mission - far from it.

I don't know what the tactics were in this regard in Russia but in North Africa by mid 1942 they definitely did not even try to do that. They emphasized local superiority to preserve their fighters. In other words if there were 10 separate DAF support / bombing missions taking place on a given day, rather than spread their fighters out in a thin front to attack each mission with just a few fighters against each enemy mission, they would concentrate their fighters to focus on 1 or 2 of them and try to achieve a big slaughter. This was only gradually countered by the DAF by putting better escort tactics and so on. But the result was that 7 or 8 out of the 10 missions would be unmolested by enemy aircraft and had only to contend with Flak. Flak still causing casualties of course. When you listen to DAF pilot interviews they often didn't even encounter enemy fighters.

My guess (and admittedly, it's just a guess) is that the air to air combat ratio from Luftwaffe to Red Army Air Forces, while initially very high in 1941, by the middle of 1943 had declined to something closer to maybe 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Luftwaffe, and in some cases the Soviets were clearly on the winning side of local engagements.

This too, of course, would still vary enormously by district / frontal zone, and by season. Some Luftwaffe fighter units still had excellent morale and very good pilots through 1943 and were more or less openly feared by the Soviets. Conversely some Soviet units in 1943 didn't have such great aircrews or leadership, or had supply and maintenance problems, and many were still flying obsolete and / or burned out aircraft including Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and older Yak fighters. The best Luftwaffe units vs. the worst Soviet units flying the oldest planes probably had much higher ratios. The best Soviet units flying their best planes vs. middling Luftwaffe units we can see could be quite deadly. This was where the Soviet fighter pilot morale started to build back up as aces assumed leadership positions in many squadrons. Many VVS squadrons received their Guards status designations in late1942 or 1943. This was based on performance per standard Soviet procedure, and these units got priority for new and better fighters.

Individual pilots like Pokryshkin (59 individual victories claimed), Kozhedub (62), Rechkalov (56), Gulayev (55), Yevtigneyev (53), Glinka (50), Koldunov (46), Lavrinenkov (36) and Sultan (30) tend not to get the credit they are really due in Western historiography of WW2 air combat. There is always a sly implication that most of their victory claims were not real or valid, because Soviet Russia was a totalitarian and evil Empire, and yet we seem assume most of the Nazi victory claims are totally valid. Of course all sides overclaimed, but there is no reason in my mind at least to assume that the above pilots didn't shoot down dozens of enemy aircraft. And I have no reason personally to assume these guys were in any way inferior to the top American or British or Commonwealth aces of the war.

The fact that of that list I mentioned above of nine high scoring Soviet pilots, at least five of them flew and got a large number of their victories flying the P-39 (Porkryshkin, Rechkalov, Gulayev, Glinka, & Sultan) and none, as far as I could determine, scored 30 or 40+ victories while flying the Spitfire, the P-40*, the Hurricane** or any other Lend-Lease aircraft suggests to me that the P-39 played a uniquely important role in Soviet aviation. It is baffling to us in the Anglophone world since US, British / Commonwealth and other allies like the Free French and Italians had very bad luck with this aircraft. The Soviets made it their own and contrary to decades of Anglo-American literature claiming they were only used for ground attack, or only used to attack slow and ungainly transports, it was clearly one of their most important Air Superiority fighters in the crucial mid-war period. To me it remains to be examined whether the P-39, the Yak 1, 7 or 9, or the La 5 were the most critical in that key period. That might in turn answer the thread question definitively.

In the list above the other stand out aircraft seems to be the La 5 / 7 series and the Yak 3.

They did also of course have quite a few P-40 Aces, including at least 5 quadruple aces and multiple HSU recipients, and they had some Hurricane aces as well, but none above the 15 or 20 kill mark.

* Glinka did fly the P-40 but got no kills on it
** Sultan scored one victory with a Hurricane vs. a Ju 88 by ramming it, before being transitioned to Yak-7

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> So a heavy numerical advantage to the Soviets actually results in 3 times as many losses as the LW suffered? Perhaps the sheer number of Soviet aircraft in the air resulted in them flying into each other, thus explaining the magnitude of their losses?



The implication that the 3-1 ratio means air to air combat is both false and pervasive. Do you or do you not agree that the total number of operational non combat losses with 16,000 aircraft flying missions are going to be higher than with 2,000 aircraft, regardless of who is flying the missions?



> Seriously, the noted losses for both sides are those that occured on operational or combat missions, whichever you prefer to call them, to all causes, with or without enemy action. The distribution of those losses as to actual cause is not known; whether the one side lost a higher percentage to say AAA, is entirely probable; and it's entirely possible that LW fighters were accounting for fewer Soviet aircraft than other causes, as, after all there were fewer LW fighters than there had been the year before!



The likelihood is in fact that most of the Soviet sorties did not even encounter Luftwaffe fighters.



> However, what is striking is that despite the numerical increase in aircraft, with both locally produced and Lend-Lease of superior quality compared to the types with which they opposed the LW in 1941; the ratio of Soviet losses to LW losses is not much better than in '43 than they were in '41.



Only if you look in raw numbers. The ratio of actual air to air victories was much higher for the Luftwaffe in 1941 than 1943 or later.

My point is that 3 or 4,000 aircraft crashing during takeoff in the snow, losing their way and running out of gas, and another 3 or 4000 ground attack aircraft lost shot down by flakwagons while bombing and strafing German armored columns is not as glorious as 11,000 lost to Eric Hartmann alone. But it's far more likely.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 10, 2019)

The accuracy of aces and ekspertens claims can vary from the from the reasonabbly accurate to the wildly inaccurate, with the majority probably somewhere in between, imo tending towards the less accurate. This then naturally also applies to the score of the fighter units and their _*claims *_to losses ratios. 
Without anything more tangible than that, it's difficult to say how well the P-39 performed for the Soviets; better than what the Western Allies did with it, no doubt, but that's not really a difficult record to beat.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2019)

In fact the majority of losses were due to reasons other than being shot down, for both sides. landing accidents, structural failures, navigational errors, the list is almost endless. So of course a side with more numbers is going to suffer a higher attrition rate.

In air to air combat, Germany continued to display superiority over the VVS until the very end. However, from a very early point this was realised by VVS and it ceased to be a priority for them to defeat, or even attempt to defeat the LW by gaining air superiority by means of air combat. Novikov issued orders to that effect from April'42 and they were never rescinded. Shooting down German a/c was a "nice to have" bonus that VVS would avail themselves, if the opportunity presented itself but it was not something the VVS went after as a priority. for them, the priority was influencing the ground battle and ensuring ones own strike aircraft were able to survive long enough to carry out that function. Once a breakthrough had been achieved on the ground, German losses to their by now exhausted and usually grounded aircraft would go through the roof as their frontline airfields were overrun and the aircraft trapped on those airfields destroyed, often by own forces. these write offs of non operational aircraft could often not appear on LW loss returns, as often such aircraft were awaiting return to depots for major overhauls and repairs, and often were removed from the LW effectives lists whilst in that condition. Moreover LW supply problems and an overall shortage of spares led to abnormally low operational rates close to the front, usually below 40% of total strengths. When the airfields these non-operational aircraft were overrun, they of course became losses, though often not reported as such.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

Based on that same site I linked upthread, in *1941 the Soviet* air forces consisted of ~4,400 (mostly very obsolete!) aircraft yet they took 10,300 losses. *234% operational losses *in other words. By 1943 with a deployed total of 16,000 aircraft assigned to active combat units that had reduced to 67%. That is a big change.

The *Luftwaffe in Russia in 1941* had ~3,000 aircraft and took 2,800 losses. *93% losses. *By 1943 that ratio has increased to 146%, also a big change.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

parsifal said:


> In fact the majority of losses were due to reasons other than being shot down, for both sides. landing accidents, structural failures, navigational errors, the list is almost endless. So of course a side with more numbers is going to suffer a higher attrition rate.
> 
> In air to air combat, Germany continued to display superiority over the VVS until the very end. However, from a very early point this was realised by VVS and it ceased to be a priority for them to defeat, or even attempt to defeat the LW by gaining air superiority by means of air combat. Novikov issued orders to that effect from April'42 and they were never rescinded. Shooting down German a/c was a "nice to have" bonus that VVS would avail themselves, if the opportunity presented itself but it was not something the VVS went after as a priority. for them, the priority was influencing the ground battle and ensuring ones own strike aircraft were able to survive long enough to carry out that function. Once a breakthrough had been achieved on the ground, German losses to their by now exhausted and usually grounded aircraft would go through the roof as their frontline airfields were overrun and the aircraft trapped on those airfields destroyed, often by own forces. these write offs of non operational aircraft could often not appear on LW loss returns, as often such aircraft were awaiting return to depots for major overhauls and repairs, and often were removed from the LW effectives lists whilst in that condition. Moreover LW supply problems and an overall shortage of spares led to abnormally low operational rates close to the front, usually below 40% of total strengths. When the airfields these non-operational aircraft were overrun, they of course became losses, though often not reported as such.



While I generally agree with all this - in fact the first part of what you wrote is almost a paraphrase of what I already noted upthread, the 'ignoring' the Luftwaffe strategy only went so far and in fact did change during the war. Just as it did with the DAF by the way.

One of the changes in Tactics both in the DAF and by the VVS at about the same time (third and fourth quarter of 1942), was to direct raids against German airfields, and specifically fighter airfields in some cases. On the Russian Front this was done with Sturmoviks and Pe-2s as well as fighters, and according to the Soviets themselves was a major success.

They did also make the effort (and attacking German airfields was sometimes part of that effort) to achieve local air superiority where and when it was deemed necessary, such as over the Kuban but also in many other key battles. At other times the general strategy was as you stated - basically to do their best to simply drive German fighters away from the Sturmoviks and bombers rather than to shoot them down. The Luftwaffe played into this as they tended to concentrate on the easiest targets at least some of the time (though not always).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Based on that same site I linked upthread, in *1941 the Soviet* air forces consisted of ~4,400 (mostly very obsolete!) aircraft yet they took 10,300 losses. *234% operational losses *in other words. By 1943 with a deployed total of 16,000 aircraft assigned to active combat units that had reduced to 67%. That is a big change.
> 
> The *Luftwaffe in Russia in 1941* had ~3,000 aircraft and took 2,800 losses. *93% losses. *By 1943 that ratio has increased to 146%, also a big change.



That site thus not agree with you that the Soviet losses in '43 are a sign of success.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The accuracy of aces and ekspertens claims can vary from the from the reasonabbly accurate to the wildly inaccurate, with the majority probably somewhere in between, imo tending towards the less accurate. This then naturally also applies to the score of the fighter units and their _*claims *_to losses ratios.
> Without anything more tangible than that, it's difficult to say how well the P-39 performed for the Soviets; better than what the Western Allies did with it, no doubt, but that's not really a difficult record to beat.



While I can't disagree with anything you said categorically, the implication here is that you can take dozens of Soviet Aces who scored say 20 or more victories (and they had a lot of those - for others reading the thread look here for a taste) could theoretically be reduced down to nothing. But _somebody _shot down 3,000 German aircraft in 1943 and 11,000 in total on the Russian Front during the war. No doubt many of those were lost to winter conditions, accidents and other vagaries of war, but a lot of them were in fact shot down. 

Your implication is that the Soviet claims system is so distorted that we can assume that 50 or more Aces with large victory tallies can be effectively reduced to zero actual victories. I don't believe that. It might be 2/3 it might be 1/2, but some percentage of those victories were real. The very fact that most of these guys survived the war tells you something.

In other words, yes of course claims are inflated, but what you are implying stretches beyond the plausible, through the credible and into flat earth territory.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> That site thus not agree with you that the Soviet losses in '43 are a sign of success.



You do know who won and who lost WW2, right?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that non combat related operational losses for 16,000 aircraft* flying sorties nearly every day are going to be higher than for 2,000 aircraft flying every day? 

*This number of course is just the TO&E, through the course of 1943 it was probably closer to 25,000 aircraft, adding in the losses, who flew on the Soviet side and 5,000 on the Luftwaffe side.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 10, 2019)

Soviet top Aces of WWII rating

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

If you look at that list of Soviet Aces just posted by Fubar57 and myself, you certainly do see a lot of P-39s in the top reaches.

I would also add, if the Luftwaffe had suffered the same number of losses as the Soviets in 1943 (11,000) with only 2,000 planes deployed, that would represent a catastrophic 550% loss rate which would be beyond belief. It would mean on average total replacement of every unit 5 times through the year, or roughly every ten weeks. That is truly unsustainable. 

As it was, with 146% losses, it was pretty grim for the Luftwaffe that year.

Of course in the next two years they were probably looking back on 1943 like it was the good old days...


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The *Soviet*s had 16,657 of which they lost 11,200. That is a loss rate of roughly* 67% of operational aircraft*





Schweik said:


> I don't know the exact breakdown of Soviet losses for the year off hand, but I bet if you drill down into it you'll observe the following:
> 
> A high number are from operational losses - maintenance, accidents etc. probably 30-40% depending on the season.
> Of the remainder i.e. combat losses, a high number are of ground attack aircraft.
> And of the rest, fighter and bomber losses, a high number of those are on ground attack missions.



11,246 losses of VVS in 1943 are only *combat* losses of only *combat* aircraft.
I can not find the figure of the losses "total, for all reasons" or "non-combat" in 1943 but there is general assumption that combat losses were from 50% to 65% of total (for all reasons).

In 1943:

VVS RKKA (Army) combat losses by types:
bombers 940
sturmoviks 3,515
fighters 4,642
other 446
Other services, combat losses without breakdown by types:
Long Range 516
PVO 278
Navy 909

VVS RKKA (Army) combat losses by reasons:
Air/air 3,905
AAA 2,234
On the airfields 239
"Did not return from the combat assignment" (exact official wording) 3,122

Source:
"Soviet aviation in Great Patriotic War in numbers"
ВВС в цифрах
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Военная история ]-- Советская авиация в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг. в цифрах
Published in 1962 by VVS HQ. Declassified in 1990s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 10, 2019)

parsifal said:


> Novikov issued orders to that effect from April'42 and they were never rescinded. Shooting down German a/c was a "nice to have" bonus that VVS would avail themselves, if the opportunity presented itself but it was not something the VVS went after as a priority. for them, the priority was influencing the ground battle and ensuring ones own strike aircraft were able to survive long enough to carry out that function



Yes...and no.
From 1943 and on certain VVS units were assigned exclusively with the task of "free hunting". 9th GIAP began to do that in May 1943. Alexander Pokryshkin was one of the most famous proponents and practitioners.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 10, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> 11,246 losses of VVS in 1943 are only *combat* losses of only *combat* aircraft.
> I can not find the figure of the losses "total, for all reasons" or "non-combat" in 1943 but there is general assumption that combat losses were from 50% to 65% of total (for all reasons).
> 
> In 1943:
> ...



Ok fair enough. Some percentage of the ~3,000 FTR were presumably due to non-combat reasons, though no way to tell how many.

The rest fits the pattern I think. Do fighter losses include planes like I-153 flying CAS missions?


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2019)

bbear said:


> From what you say, was the much respected Brown talking about Swordfish use ASW from difficult Escort Carriers or use against daylight heavily protected targets like Bismark from a main line Carrier like Ark Royal?



Not specifically. Here's what he says. This first quote is his opening on the Swordfish chapter:

"Had I been unaware, in 1940, that the Fairey Swordfish shipboard torpedo bomber was still very much a part of the Royal Navy's first-line aircraft inventory, I feel sure my reaction on first encountering this unlovely example of aeronautical archaism early in that year would have been one of sheer disbelief that the Fleet Air Arm could have actually been endeavouring to fight a war with so anachronistic a piece of hardware!"

His closing statement from the same chapter:

"I would not detract from the great actions in which the Swordfish participated, nor especially from the gallant aircrew who fought these actions, but the hard fact is that these aircrew should never have been exposed to such danger in equipment so ancient in concept and I cannot believe that a more technologically advanced aircraft could not have done as well or even better."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 10, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The treasury was springing for a host of competing programs. Perhaps too many and spreading development teams too thin. It may not have sunk in that retracting landing gear, high speed monoplanes with flaps (of different sorts) and other moving parts (bomb bay doors, etc) took just a few more hours to design than a fixed gear biplane with few other moving parts (sarcasm)



I would certainly agree with this. The sheer number of new specifications for new aircraft types that emerged in the second half of the 30s was almost like the British were attempting to play catch-up, but the slow pace of industry forced into new advances in technology and materials meant things took much longer than anticipated. I also would like to use this number of new specifications for military hardware as an example of how the British heeded the warnings about Hitler's Germany despite Chamberlain's Peace-in-our-time. When the Hurricane was ordered for example, the order for 600 examples was the largest single order for an aeroplane type in British aviation history to that date.

Nevertheless, the gestation period for newer more modern types was lengthy. Almost every aspect of operating these aircraft required changing, from maintenance to ground and air training and logistics. Airfields needed construction and or modification, access by road and rail was required; there was much to do. The fact that this happened before the outbreak of WW2 did help put Britain into a war footing that, although her armed forces was lumbered with obsolescent types and tactics by September 1939, meant that she was better prepared than perhaps she might have been had this effort not transpired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You do know who won and who lost WW2, right?



I do actually, but thoughtful of you to ask.



Schweik said:


> I would also add, if the Luftwaffe had suffered the same number of losses as the Soviets in 1943 (11,000) with only 2,000 planes deployed, that would represent a catastrophic 550% loss rate which would be beyond belief. It would mean on average total replacement of every unit 5 times through the year, or roughly every ten weeks. That is truly unsustainable.



11000 is a higher number than 3000, do you agree? As can be seen from Dimlee's reply, the number of Soviet aircraft lost in air-air combat 1943 is in the region of 30-35%, which seems to me is a relatively normal proportion of total combat losses.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> While I can't disagree with anything you said categorically, the implication here is that you can take dozens of Soviet Aces who scored say 20 or more victories (and they had a lot of those - for others reading the thread look here for a taste) could theoretically be reduced down to nothing. But _somebody _shot down 3,000 German aircraft in 1943 and 11,000 in total on the Russian Front during the war. No doubt many of those were lost to winter conditions, accidents and other vagaries of war, but a lot of them were in fact shot down.
> 
> Your implication is that the Soviet claims system is so distorted that we can assume that 50 or more Aces with large victory tallies can be effectively reduced to zero actual victories. I don't believe that. It might be 2/3 it might be 1/2, but some percentage of those victories were real. The very fact that most of these guys survived the war tells you something.
> 
> In other words, yes of course claims are inflated, but what you are implying stretches beyond the plausible, through the credible and into flat earth territory.



I did in fact write *aces and eksperten *so my comment applies in general, to aces of all airforces. Just as most IAP's, GIAP's, FG's, Sqd's, JG's, LeLv's and so on all probably have a high claims to losses ratio. 

None of that really tells us a lot of how successful a given ace, or unit or a specific fighter was other than perhaps as a 'ballpark' indication.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok fair enough. Some percentage of the ~3,000 FTR were presumably due to non-combat reasons, though no way to tell how many.
> 
> The rest fits the pattern I think. Do fighter losses include planes like I-153 flying CAS missions?



Most probably they do. In that document "Sturmovik" category included only Il-2 and Il-10.
R-5s, R-10s were included into "reconnaisance" or "others".


----------



## bbear (Apr 16, 2019)

I just want to clarify my contribution.

From 1st principles: Until shown otherwise all elements o] air power or air activity contribute EQUALLY to any given outcome.
That is any airframe manufactured, any operation, deployment, sortie, command decision or other category member contributes EQUALLY to the Axis defeat. AXis ad Ally alike.

Overlolrd, Barbarossa, Eclipse : the same
Spitfire P51 IL2,, Ju 87, Me 262, Boulton Paul Defiant: the same
Operation Chastise, 1st and 2nd Schweinfurt Raid, Bodenplatte : the same
Jubilee, Market Garden, Varsity, : the same
Taking of Warsaw, Antwerp, attempt on Stalingrad : the same

To me, that's the only rational start point


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The British had a real problem bringing aircraft from the "requirement" stage to the production/service use stage.
> 
> The requirement/specification for the Albacore was issued in 1936. It took until Dec 1938 to get a prototype into the air and until March of 1940 to start delivering production examples to a service squadron. It didn't serve on a carrier deck until Nov 1940.
> 
> ...



I don't think that all British firms had problems. As examples deHaviland and Avro seemed to do as well as any American company. Unfortunately the Fleet Arm Arm didn't get the A Team.

Fairey also had management issues and was reorganized mid war. To quote the Ministry of Air Production: "Nothing has held up the production of the Barracuda and Firefly except inefficient management." In addition the Fleet Air Arm received lower priority during the battle of Britain which did have an impact on production of new types.

The other thing that people tend to forget is that the USN was still taking delivery of biplanes in 1941. The last biplanes were taken out of carrier service early in 1942 (naturally the Marines kept theirs longer). The USN actually introduced 2 biplane models after the Swordfish entered service, around the same time as the Albacore.
It is fashionable to mock the British and their antiqued aircraft but the reality is that if the US had entered the war in September 1939 the USN would be fielding more biplanes than monoplanes, including all of their fighters as well as their scouts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

Avro Manchester, requirement issued in May 1936, first flight 25 July 1939, officially entered service Nov 1940. First operation Feb 1941. 

Granted the B-24 project may have been speedy even by US standards. 
Consolidated was approached by the Army in 1938 about being a 2nd source for B-17s (or so the story goes) but decided they can do better. IN Jan 1939 they pitch their idea to the Army and the army encourages them to proceed (even though no money may have changed hands), Consolidated cobbles together some sort of mock up in less than a month, In feb 1939 the army issues a specification covering the proposal and in March they sign a contract covering one prototype. in the months that follow several additional contracts are placed (essentially off the drawing board) bit the Prototype flies for the first time Dec 29 1939 meeting the letter of the contract by one day. 
British take delivery of their first Liberator (no turbos) in March of 1941. With no turbos and no self sealing tanks they are assigned to long range transport work. But that is about 2 1/2 years from work starting ( Consolidated thinking they could beat Boeing at the 4 engine bomber game) and planes entering limited service vs 4 1/2 years for the Avro Manchester. 

as for the US navy you are part right. The Navy did have about 100 Vought Vindicators in 1939 which were monoplanes the last time I checked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Avro Manchester, requirement issued in May 1936, first flight 25 July 1939, officially entered service Nov 1940. First operation Feb 1941.
> 
> Granted the B-24 project may have been speedy even by US standards.
> Consolidated was approached by the Army in 1938 about being a 2nd source for B-17s (or so the story goes) but decided they can do better. IN Jan 1939 they pitch their idea to the Army and the army encourages them to proceed (even though no money may have changed hands), Consolidated cobbles together some sort of mock up in less than a month, In feb 1939 the army issues a specification covering the proposal and in March they sign a contract covering one prototype. in the months that follow several additional contracts are placed (essentially off the drawing board) bit the Prototype flies for the first time Dec 29 1939 meeting the letter of the contract by one day.
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2019)

The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. *SB2U* is *S*cout *B*omber *2* *U *(U stands for Vought) 

This is the SBU-1





The last 40 of 140 built were built in 1937. Notice the NACA cowl, the adjustable cowl flaps and the controllable pitch propeller ( I would hesitate to say constant speed) 
BTW This plane was called the Corsair 

Curtiss version




*SBC-3
S*cout *B*omber *C*urtiss *3*
In production in July of 1937, retractable landing gear, NACA cowl, adjustable cowl flaps and adjustable propeller. 
The later -4 had a more powerful engine and could carry a 1000lb bomb, with the bomb gone it could make 234mph at 15,200 ft. One might want to check the performance against a Blackburn Skua before casting too many stones.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. *SB2U* is *S*cout *B*omber *2* *U *(U stands for Vought)
> 
> Curtiss version
> View attachment 536042
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. *SB2U* is *S*cout *B*omber *2* *U *(U stands for Vought)
> 
> This is the SBU-1
> View attachment 536041
> ...




I know what SB stands for. I also know that VB stands for a lighter than air bomber squadron and that VS stands for lighter than air squadron. The monoplanes equipped the VBs and the biplanes equipped the VFs.
an example
USS Ranger.
I am not trying to cast the Royal Navy as a paragon of performance but trying to illustrate the conservatism that was present in both navies.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I know what SB stands for. I also know that VB stands for a lighter than air bomber squadron and that VS stands for lighter than air squadron. The monoplanes equipped the VBs and the biplanes equipped the VFs.
> an example
> USS Ranger.
> I am not trying to cast the Royal Navy as a paragon of performance but trying to illustrate the conservatism that was present in both navies.



I could be wrong but I think the "V" stands for "heavier than air"
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Aircraft Squadron Designations - Wikipedia 

Yes it is wiki but a lighter than air bombing squadron on a carrier?? Blimps? 

We not only have conservatism we have different budgets/priorities. 

The US navy wanted monoplanes, the Devastator went to sea in late 1937 or early 1938? 

In some cases the last production runs of biplanes were not because the navy really wanted them but because the new monoplanes were slow in being delivered. The US Navy was not ordering in large numbers in the late 30s and figured they had time to get a good design and do it right.
The Specifications for the Avenger and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver were both issued in 1939. and both were to use the Wright R-2600 engine. Curtiss fumbled the Helldiver badly. 
Grumman designed, developed and got the Avenger into production in around 3 years.
Fairey took close to 6 years for the Barracuda. Granted Grumman was not bombed and didn't have to halt development at times to do other work.

The US/Grumman also had the incentive that there was no real alternative. Any competitor was running later than the Avenger and the likelihood of getting the Devastator back into production was probably pretty slim.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

I agree with SR in terms of Britain's lengthy in service trials of prototype aircraft, to a point. Perhaps the Manchester isn't the best example of how long it took, because the aeroplane was riddled with problems, aerodynamically and electrically, not to forget its troublesome powerplant. But all of that effort put into ironing out the bugs meant that the Lancaster, i.e. Manchester III entered service relatively swiftly and without as many serious issues. The Lancaster being very much a candidate for the original premise of this thread, of course.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I could be wrong but I think the "V" stands for "heavier than air"
> U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Aircraft Squadron Designations - Wikipedia
> 
> Yes it is wiki but a lighter than air bombing squadron on a carrier?? Blimps?
> ...


I knew you jump on my mistake. Obviously I meant heavier than air. 
As I said earlier Fairey had management issues that delayed both the Albacore and the Barracuda and the Firefly. The mistake wasn't the Swordfish the mistake was the Albacore. The Swordfish soldiered on longer than it should have, but in September 1939 it wasn't a terrible airplane and as a weapons system it was very effective. Unlike the TBD it had torpedoes that actually worked and worked very well. Yes it was vulnerable but all torpedo bombers were. 
Also I don't think the USN was entirely wedded to the monoplane. They were ordering SB2U and SBCs at the same time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I knew you jump on my mistake. Obviously I meant heavier than air.
> As I said earlier Fairey had management issues that delayed both the Albacore and the Barracuda and the Firefly. The mistake wasn't the Swordfish the mistake was the Albacore. The Swordfish soldiered on longer than it should have, but in September 1939 it wasn't a terrible airplane and as a weapons system it was very effective. Unlike the TBD it had torpedoes that actually worked and worked very well. Yes it was vulnerable but all torpedo bombers were.
> Also I don't think the USN was entirely wedded to the monoplane. They were ordering SB2U and SBCs at the same time.



I have had my share of brain farts, so no worries. 
We can find exceptions to both sides of the argument, why did the navy order the last 27 Grumman biplane fighters? Because Brewster was late getting the Buffalo into production (and perhaps Grumman was also late getting the F4F ready, initial contract for F4Fs was because of doubts about Brewster. 

Order for the SBC-4 was signed 5 January 1938? The Northrop BT-1 was just starting in production? and it was pretty much a failure (the Americans didn't always get it right either)


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Avro Manchester, requirement issued in May 1936, first flight 25 July 1939, officially entered service Nov 1940. First operation Feb 1941.
> 
> Granted the B-24 project may have been speedy even by US standards.
> Consolidated was approached by the Army in 1938 about being a 2nd source for B-17s (or so the story goes) but decided they can do better. IN Jan 1939 they pitch their idea to the Army and the army encourages them to proceed (even though no money may have changed hands), Consolidated cobbles together some sort of mock up in less than a month, In feb 1939 the army issues a specification covering the proposal and in March they sign a contract covering one prototype. in the months that follow several additional contracts are placed (essentially off the drawing board) bit the Prototype flies for the first time Dec 29 1939 meeting the letter of the contract by one day.
> ...



Conversely the B-17 took forever to get into production but I wouldn't claim that Consolidated was superior to Boeing. The pace of development of any aircraft is not entirely in the airframe manufacturers hands. As war became more and more inevitable the pace quickened dramatically resulting in the much reduced time for the B-24..
Also Consolidated may have been quick to produce a prototype but it took a long time to produce a combat ready aircraft for its intended role. The first truly combat capable model the B-24D didn't appear until 1942, by which time the career of the Manchester was over and the Lancaster's had begun.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Conversely the B-17 took forever to get into production but I wouldn't claim that Consolidated was superior to Boeing. The pace of development of any aircraft is not entirely in the airframe manufacturers hands. As war became more and more inevitable the pace quickened dramatically resulting in the much reduced time for the B-24..
> Also Consolidated may have been quick to produce a prototype but it took a long time to produce a combat ready aircraft for its intended role. The first truly combat capable model the B-24D didn't appear until 1942, by which time the career of the Manchester was over and the Lancaster's had begun.



A large part of getting an aircraft into production is money. If congress (in the US) only funds 13 airplanes that is what you get, 13 airplanes. However the manufacturer, plans accordingly and only invests in enough tooling, floor space and workers to build the 13 aircraft in the time span specified in the contract. Which means the follow up contracts take time to fill as more floor space, workers and tooling have to be provided in order to increase production. 

We also have in the late 1930s a rather sliding scale as to what a "truly combat capable model" of an aircraft was. As neither armor or self sealing fuel tanks were specified for early models let alone the standard of armament needed/desired. 


as to whether the B-24 was "better" than the B-17, we need the reality of combat to decide that one, Consolidated may have thought they had (or could) designed a better airplane. 

From Joe Baugher's website.

"Early test flights proved the Davis wing to be everything that its designers had hoped for. With a full bomb load, the range of the XB-24 was 200 miles greater than that of the B-17. With extra fuel tanks mounted in the forward bomb bay, the range was 600 miles greater than that of a similarly-equipped B-17, which in such a configuration could carry no load at all. Gross weight was *38,300 pounds*" 

Please note that both the B-24 and B-17 models flying in 1938-40 were flying 10-20,000lb lighter than they would be flying in 1943/44. 

And" A comparison between the B-24 Liberator and the B-17 Fortress is perhaps inevitable. The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations. The Liberator was not capable of absorbing nearly the same amount of battle damage that the Fortress could handle. "

You have to pay for higher performance with something and in the case of the B-24 it was structural strength or perhaps "reserve" structural strength. 
A lot of the early British bombers in 1939/40 were not "truly combat capable" by the standards of 1941/early 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations.


The Lib was a bean counter's airplane; the Fort was a combat pilot's airplane. I've had "my five minutes of fame" in the front seat of each of them, and the difference is marked. The fort trimmed up easily and flew rock steady, with tiny adjustments on #s 2 and 3 to hold position (loosely) on the plane we were flying tandem with. The Lib seemed to "hunt" all over the sky, and in my brief turn at the controls, I never did get it properly trimmed. The idea of herding one of those beasts in a combat box for eight hours through flak and fighters is downright exhausting to contemplate. My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mcoffee (May 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
> Cheers,
> Wes



RIchard Hurd - CP to Wayne Friberg aboard "Barrel House Bessie" on Operation Tidal Wave, 376th BG. Yeah, definitely "hats off".

The B-24 was both better and worse than the B-17. Faster, better range, larger bomb bay. The quoted higher ceiling is a bit misleading as the B-24 flew at lower altitudes than the B-17 in actual combat. Higher altitudes exasperated the above noted difficulty in flying tight formations. The ditching characteristics of the B-24 were awful as the the aircraft tended to break its back as water pressure imploded the bomb bay doors. The oft quoted toughness of the B-17 vs the B-24 is also a bit misleading as the B-24 had a slightly better loss per sortie rate (1.59 to 1.61) than the B-17.

B-17 vets are certain that they had the best aircraft, just as B-24 vets are certain that the opposite is true. Both served with distinction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2019)

IIRC in a B-17/ B-24 comparison, the B-17 was way better with an engine out. I remember a B-24 driver telling me years ago that when a B-24 lost an engine it could be a handful to fly. If anyone has any validation to that, please post.


----------



## michael rauls (May 14, 2019)

Id be willing to bet you're right as it sounds like the B24 was a handful to fly even with all the engines working. I can only imagine with one out.


----------



## BiffF15 (May 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Lib was a bean counter's airplane; the Fort was a combat pilot's airplane. I've had "my five minutes of fame" in the front seat of each of them, and the difference is marked. The fort trimmed up easily and flew rock steady, with tiny adjustments on #s 2 and 3 to hold position (loosely) on the plane we were flying tandem with. The Lib seemed to "hunt" all over the sky, and in my brief turn at the controls, I never did get it properly trimmed. The idea of herding one of those beasts in a combat box for eight hours through flak and fighters is downright exhausting to contemplate. My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

I spoke quite a bit with a UPS pilot who flew them with The Collins Foundation (IIRC). He much preferred the B17 for the points you brought up.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (May 14, 2019)

Seems like the B24 /B17 comparison is an example of having better stats doesn't always nescesarily make for a better plane.
Not saying one or the other was walk away better but it sounds to me like that in aggregate they were in the same balpark in spite of the 24 having almost across the board better stats on paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IIRC in a B-17/ B-24 comparison, the B-17 was way better with an engine out. I remember a B-24 driver telling me years ago that when a B-24 lost an engine it could be a handful to fly. If anyone has any validation to that, please post.


Had an aquaintance who flew B-24s tell me that they were a handful, especially with a large warload. He also said that taking off in typical English murk and climbing to the rally point was a stressful eternity occasionally interrupted with the sudden roar of engines accompanied by a dark shadow passing in front of his ship or the occasional orange flash nearby as ships collided on the overcast.
He said anything after that for the duration of the mission was a cake-walk.
In regards to the B-24 itself, it was a modern, streamlined design but that Davis wing was made for efficient cruise under ideal conditions. Once it received damage (interceptors, flak, etc.), it became a real handful.


----------



## soulezoo (May 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Seems like the B24 /B17 comparison is an example of having better stats doesn't always nescesarily make for a better plane.
> Not saying one or the other was walk away better but it sounds to me like that in aggregate they were in the same balpark in spite of the 24 having almost across the board better stats on paper.


That's not a far off summation IMO. Another might be that the -17 was the pilot's/combat crew's plane while the -24 was the logistics/bean counter's plane. -24 had the better bomb-bay so maybe it was the better bomb loader's plane as well.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 14, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> that Davis wing was made for efficient cruise under ideal conditions. Once it received damage (interceptors, flak, etc.), it became a real handful.


And the back side of its power curve became a yawning canyon. Low, slow, and dirty could very quickly become low, slow, and dead!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## NevadaK (Oct 10, 2019)

Greetings All,

This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate. 

My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero’s phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It’s a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.
> 
> My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero’s phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It’s a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.


I like your thinking on this. Deeper than the first imediatly appearant layer. Considering the war was well underway before Pearl Harbor you may just have a point. My pic was the SBD( which of course had nothing to do with the fact my grandfather built them) but I'll have to think this over.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.
> 
> My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero...


First of all, welcome to the forums.

And in regard to the A6M, this is a valid point. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor (and concerted attacks on the Philippines) were done without advanced warning and air superiority was not achieved by the A6M, but rather the element of surprise.

As it happens, it was a P-36 that first downed an A6M during the Hawaii attack, but the reputation of the Zero preceded it, so it did have an effect on the urgency of a "new threat upgrade" in the U.S. (and Allied) circles.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.
> 
> My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero’s phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It’s a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.



My only comment - and not derogatory, is that if the A6M turned the tide of the war based on tactical footprint to enable Pearl Harbor, might we state that the F4F turned the tide back the other way based on the results at Midway?

I personally think that the A6M was a top choice (not the only choice) of 'best all around air supremacy fighter' in 1942, pilots being equal. That said, the P-40E and F6F although inferior in maneuverability, held their own in SWP and New Guinea against the best IJN fighter pilot cadre of WWII. Tactics introduced by Thach, exploited the A6M weaknesses while (mostly) avoiding overwhelming maneuverability. Speed and dive and tactics enabled SWP and CBI pilots to trade in P-40 vs A6M. After the P-38F and F6F entered the fray the only performance advantage remaining to the A6M was zoom climb from level medium speed and much better rate of turn at low to medium speeds.

Last comment. IMO the Bushido 'code' crippled the IJN 'top gun' pilots. The concept of teamwork and mutual protection offered by finger four and flight integrity of lead/wing never crossed or entered the mind of 'one against all'. AAF and RAAF and USN and USMC pilots were not hampered by that inspiration. The IJN 'kill 'em all' vs US 'kill 'em one at a time' failed them in the application of the very great A6M

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.
> 
> My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero’s phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It’s a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.


Resp:
I agree that at the time, circa 1940/41, that the A6M was a real threat. Gen Chenault submitted a detailed report to the British and USAAC/USAAF leadership in late 1940 or early 1941. I have not been able to determine the British reaction to the report, but the US leadership took one look . . . saw that Chenault wrote it . . . and dropped it in a desk drawer. Nothing was ever passed down to educate or evaluate its information. Chenault, while a Chinese General (civilian clothes) flew to Hawaii about 4 months before Pearl Harbor where he gave a 3 hour presentation on the Zero. If I remember correctly the range of the A6M was around 1.000 miles (?). The USAAC/USAAF had a written restriction of incorporating external fuel stores (drop tanks) on fighters since 1939. Bomber Command initiated the restriction that kept manufacturers that built fighters for the USAAF from making them drop tank capable. Combat Air Patrols around Hawaii would have been more practical (of course no one seemed to be thinking along this line) if drop tanks were available. Chenault was forced out of the USAAC circa 1935/36 for promoting/teaching modern fighter tactics . . . and for extending a fighter's range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Oct 11, 2019)

Greetings All,

Thank you for your replies. Admittedly, my proposal that the A6M is the plane the did the most to turn the tide of the war is based less on individual technical comparisons and more on how it influenced Japanese planning and tactical conceptualization. While not explicitly discussed in the linked article the Zero is the critical AirPower component that enable the IJN transform carrier operations.

Pearl Harbor's Overlooked Answer

One thing that I overlooked in my original post. The most immediate impact of the Zero on turning the course of the war wasn’t in the Pacific, but in the eastern front. Soviet foreknowledge of the impending Japanese offensive allowed the USSR to relocate the forces needed for the winter offensive that pushed the Germans from Moscow and stabilized that front.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

Are you saying that the Soviets knew about the Pearl Harbor attack? I though the "Siberian Transfer" was more to do with a treaty they had made with the Japanese due to the latter being miffed about the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact vis a vis Poland.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> It was the Zero’s phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater.





drgondog said:


> IMO the Bushido 'code' crippled the IJN 'top gun' pilots.


First of all; welcome aboard NevadaK! You've brought to the table a broader perspective than our usual focus on performance, tactics, combat record and technology. Well done.
Drgondog, roger, concur. I think Bushido crippled more than IJN fighter pilots, it impeded the entire Japanese strategic approach to the war effort. The samurai sword fighter's dedication to the single swift decapitation stroke so dominated their culture that the necessity of planning and designing for a war of attrition completely escaped their thinking (With the exception of Yamamoto Isoroku).
This manifested in so many ways: failing to adequately protect the merchant shipping that carried the lifeblood of their economy; bypassing opportunities to attack enemy logistics transport because of a focus on primary combatants; a general neglect of defense in favor of offense; failing to put sufficient effort into developing the next generation of all nature of weaponry until the current one was disastrously obsolescent, and the list goes on. Any nation as resource constrained as Japan taking on a major power like the US could not afford such errors.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are you saying that the Soviets knew about the Pearl Harbor attack? I though the "Siberian Transfer" was more to do with a treaty they had made with the Japanese due to the latter being miffed about the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact vis a vis Poland.


Yes, although there is uncertainty as to how detailed the knowledge was. They were at least aware that Japan was preparing for offensive actions against the US

Richard Sorge - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> First of all; welcome aboard NevadaK! You've brought to the table a broader perspective than our usual focus on performance, tactics, combat record and technology. Well done.
> Drgondog, roger, concur. I think Bushido crippled more than IJN fighter pilots, it impeded the entire Japanese strategic approach to the war effort. The samurai sword fighter's dedication to the single swift decapitation stroke so dominated their culture that the necessity of planning and designing for a war of attrition completely escaped their thinking (With the exception of Yamamoto Isoroku).
> This manifested in so many ways: failing to adequately protect the merchant shipping that carried the lifeblood of their economy; bypassing opportunities to attack enemy logistics transport because of a focus on primary combatants; a general neglect of defense in favor of offense; failing to put sufficient effort into developing the next generation of all nature of weaponry until the current one was disastrously obsolescent, and the list goes on. Any nation as resource constrained as Japan taking on a major power like the US could not afford such errors.
> Cheers,
> Wes



My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Yes, although there is uncertainty as to how detailed the knowledge was. They were at least aware that Japan was preparing for offensive actions against the US
> 
> Richard Sorge - Wikipedia


Resp:
Preparing for an offense is a far cry from knowing an attack was about to occur. Japan instigated a plan of attack after a German merchant raider boarded an Austrialian commercial vessel carrying a British assessment of Singapore defenses, noting the British's lack of advanced fighters and inadequate forces/equipment to defend an attack from inland. 6 mos from the assessment seizure Yamamoto set into motion the attack on Pearl Harbor. His prior assessment was that the two Allied forces were too much for Japan to take on, but when he found out that Singapore's defenses were weak, he ordered an attack plan be set in motion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.


Nothing wrong with the quality of their equipment. Their torpedoes were the best in the world, hands down, no contest. The Zero was a strong, well built aircraft with world class performance on a less than 1000 hp engine. It needed armor and self sealing tanks but it was not shoddily built.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.


I dunno. I've had pretty good luck with Toyotas

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

The Japanese kit was first rate, they made a strategic error to do with attrition as some others have mentioned, the Germans basically made a similar error.

When you consider just two generations earlier they were still walking around with Samurai swords, it's really astonishing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 11, 2019)

NevadaK said:


> Yes, although there is uncertainty as to how detailed the knowledge was. They were at least aware that Japan was preparing for offensive actions against the US
> 
> Richard Sorge - Wikipedia



This is interesting and somewhat popular theory... but still just a theory, based on speculations of various authors in the post Soviet period and on the whole legend about Richard Sorge as the "Soviet James Bond" who allegedly informed Moscow about Barbarossa, etc. Many facsinating stories and "memoirs" but no documented evidence so far.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Preparing for an offense is a far cry from knowing an attack was about to occur.


Either way, it was an indication of "all quiet on the Siberian front", and a resumption of hostilities in Manchuria/Siberia being highly unlikely.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.


It's much easier to blame the equipment than to acknowledge the shortcomings of your culture. But it sure did result in a fanatically quality conscious industrial system.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.





XBe02Drvr said:


> It's much easier to blame the equipment than to acknowledge the shortcomings of your culture. But it sure did result in a fanatically quality conscious industrial system.
> Cheers,
> Wes



"Many in Japan credit Deming as one of the inspirations for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of 1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war on the road to becoming the second-largest economy in the world through processes partially influenced by the ideas Deming taught"

W. Edwards Deming - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

Dammit, Joe, you beat me to the punch! I was just refreshing my memory of W E Deming and you took the words right out of my mouth.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Many in Japan credit Deming as one of the inspirations for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of 1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war on the road to becoming the second-largest economy in the world through processes partially influenced by the ideas Deming taught"
> 
> W. Edwards Deming - Wikipedia


Modern mechanization and an embracing of the ideas of others is what made Japan a world economic power.
The idea of the old farmer plodding down the "road" (we might call it an easement or a driveway) on a cart pulled by an ox ended with the war, although changes didn't exactly happen over night.


----------



## Sid327 (Oct 12, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Modern mechanization and an embracing of the ideas of others is what made Japan a world economic power.
> The idea of the old farmer plodding down the "road" (we might call it an easement or a driveway) on a cart pulled by an ox ended with the war, although changes didn't exactly happen over night.



I believe it's more to do with their culture.
The strict schooling and education system (did you ever see the tv series about young Japanese school children, particularly doing mental Maths using just an abacus and the teacher was speaking to the kids in quickfire order giving them several seven figure numbers to add and they were right with it. Try doing that with Western kids just using two figure numbers).
The self discipline, the commitment to work and to do a good job and the pressure to get it right first time and not fail.
Their mentality is serious, they are put under pressure to learn to do things correctly from a young age and instilled with it, much like the Germans were (or maybe still are).
This to me, as I understand it is what makes Germany and Japan different.
Just look at the crime rate in Japan now in comparison to any other country: Crime Index by Country 2019 Mid-Year

Back in the time we are talking about (WW2) .......the West portrayed Japanese people as small, yellow skinned, sub-human and incapable. There were propaganda posters made at the time showing a Japanese man wearing glasses with really thick lenses (because their eyesight "apparently'' was so poor).
They were vastly under-rated.

As for the thread, if there was anything that made a difference in the war, it wasn't a particular plane. It was military intelligence IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 12, 2019)

Sid327 said:


> Back in the time we are talking about (WW2) .......the West portrayed Japanese people as small, yellow skinned, sub-human and incapable. There were propaganda posters made at the time showing a Japanese man wearing glasses with really thick lenses (because their eyesight was so poor).
> They were vastly under-rated.



I'm afraid such racism continues to this day, albeit less overt. Most books about the Malayan Campaign focus on how the British "lost Singapore", the inference being that the British should have won. That view completely ignores the fact that British forces in the theatre were third rate at best but they were confronted by well-led, first-rate Japanese forces which, at point of contact, almost always outnumbered and out-gunned the defending British forces.

The British didnt "lose" Singapore. The Japanese won through superior training, ability to bring greater power to bear at decisive points, and better generalship.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The British didnt "lose" Singapore. The Japanese won through superior training, ability to bring greater power to


General Yamashita Tomoyuki, "the Tiger of Malaya" was an anomaly in the Japanese military, as a non samurai with enlisted experience who rose to high rank in a class conscious institution. He was such a brilliant leader and tactician that he scared MacArthur (who was responsible for post-war governance of Japan) into executing him through a "kangaroo court" proceeding in the Philippines outside of the regular war criminal trial system. Mac didn't trust the trial system to get rid of him, and feared him as potential political dynamite if he ever got back to Japan.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> General Yamashita Tomoyuki, "the Tiger of Malaya" was an anomaly in the Japanese military, as a non samurai with enlisted experience who rose to high rank in a class conscious institution. He was such a brilliant leader and tactician that he scared MacArthur (who was responsible for post-war governance of Japan) into executing him through a "kangaroo court" proceeding in the Philippines outside of the regular war criminal trial system. Mac didn't trust the trial system to get rid of him, and feared him as potential political dynamite if he ever got back to Japan.
> Cheers,
> Wes



More likely be would have incriminated Hirohito.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of the Japanese post-War analysis for their failure was that their equipment lacked sufficient quality. My proof, Japanese automotive and electronic goods.


As others have mentioned, the Japanese industry in the 1930's was producing world-class equipment. Their warships, aircraft and vehicles were certainly up to the task but once the war started and their raw material and skilled labor base started dwindling, their equipment quality started to decline. We can also make a similar comparison to Germany in this respect, too.

Not sure how many people in the forum might recall this, but in the late 60's and early 70's, there was a saying to the effect that they may have lost WWII, but they're having their revenge with the global market because their automobiles and electronics were displacing American and European products at an alarming rate. You can't do that with garbage...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Oct 12, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Preparing for an offense is a far cry from knowing an attack was about to occur. Japan instigated a plan of attack after a German merchant raider boarded an Austrialian commercial vessel carrying a British assessment of Singapore defenses, noting the British's lack of advanced fighters and inadequate forces/equipment to defend an attack from inland. 6 mos from the assessment seizure Yamamoto set into motion the attack on Pearl Harbor. His prior assessment was that the two Allied forces were too much for Japan to take on, but when he found out that Singapore's defenses were weak, he ordered an attack plan be set in motion.


Greetings Navalwarrior and thank you for your reply,
I think there were a range of factors that led Japan to pursue the course of action that it did. Some were tied to intelligence such as what you posted, some was based on recent experience such as the military exchange between the USSR and Japan in 1939(?), some based on need as in raw materials, and some based on technological capability as in the range and at the time air combat superiority of new combat aircraft. In the context of the original post, my proposal is that the A6M was the plane that "did the most to turn the tide of the war". Not because it won, but because its use, most notably at Pearl harbor, significantly altered the course of the war. The Pearl Harbor attack required several advancements in machines and tactics including a carrier fighter with extensive range to enable a safe stand off distance. Once these were in place and the Japanese began shaping their plans for an offensive to the south and away from Russia, this information was passed by Sorge to the USSR at one of the most critical moments in war. With this knowledge, the USSR was able to relocate the units that pushed Germany away from Moscow and stabilized the eastern front. All the Soviets needed to know was that an attack would not be headed in their direction and they were safe from having to contest a second front. It also appears that the USSR didn't share this information with the western allies. Some argue that this was to get the US into the war, other arguments are that it was to keep an important asset safe.


----------



## Sid327 (Oct 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> As others have mentioned, the Japanese industry in the 1930's was producing world-class equipment. Their warships, aircraft and vehicles were certainly up to the task but once the war started and their raw material and skilled labor base started dwindling, their equipment quality started to decline. We can also make a similar comparison to Germany in this respect, too.
> 
> Not sure how many people in the forum might recall this, but in the late 60's and early 70's, there was a saying to the effect that they may have lost WWII, but they're having their revenge with the global market because their automobiles and electronics were displacing American and European products at an alarming rate. You can't do that with garbage...




Agreed.

Germany and Japan may have lost the war, but they have won the peace.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Japanese kit was first rate, they made a strategic error to do with attrition as some others have mentioned, the Germans basically made a similar error.
> 
> When you consider just two generations earlier they were still walking around with Samurai swords, it's really astonishing.


I believe the main Japanese strategic error was starting a war with a country that has double the population and a material production advantage that is off the charts. As I understand it, the Willow Run factory was building more B24’s than the entire Japanese air industry for all types of aircraft combined. The USA could probably have established air superiority over the Japanese home islands using B24’s alone! (Assuming a 1 to 1 loss ratio of B24 to Japanese fighters) This was also back before the USA developed ‘rules of engagement’, ‘fair fight’, ‘collateral damage’ and other war losing catch phrases. Unless the Japanese developed nukes the war was lost for them the very instant they started it.

Much has been written that Germany lost because they built a few super tanks, ships planes etc instead of a lot of ‘good enough’ equipment like the Sherman and T34. I don’t agree with that, you can’t win a war of attrition with equal equipment when your enemies out produce you 50 to 1. Combining USA, USSR and British production against Germany and they never had a chance.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I believe the main Japanese strategic error was starting a war with a country that has double the population and a material production advantage that is off the charts.



It's debatable whether they really had a choice. Have you ever listened to Dan Carlin's series on the Japanese in WW2? It's pretty eye-opening.



> As I understand it, the Willow Run factory was building more B24’s than the entire Japanese air industry for all types of aircraft combined. The USA could probably have established air superiority over the Japanese home islands using B24’s alone! (Assuming a 1 to 1 loss ratio of B24 to Japanese fighters) This was also back before the USA developed ‘rules of engagement’, ‘fair fight’, ‘collateral damage’ and other war losing catch phrases. Unless the Japanese developed nukes the war was lost for them the very instant they started it.



I'm not sure 'fair fight' etc. rules are always the problem - we used an absolutely no holds barred strategy against North Korea and we still didn't win that war, despite apparently destroying every single building in the country. We just sent them underground.

Key to winning a war is knowing what you are fighting for to begin with.



> Much has been written that Germany lost because they built a few super tanks, ships planes etc instead of a lot of ‘good enough’ equipment like the Sherman and T34. I don’t agree with that, you can’t win a war of attrition with equal equipment when your enemies out produce you 50 to 1. Combining USA, USSR and British production against Germany and they never had a chance.



I agree a qualitative edge was needed by both the Japanese and the Germans, and they both demonstrated how effective that cold be in an age of rapidly advancing technological development. But neither Germany or Japan prepared for an intermediate phase between (to use in a general and not specific sense) "Blitzkrieg" and full attrition warfare.

With regard to fighters, both had excellent but also seriously flawed designs - the German Bf 109 and later Fw 190, the Japanese A6M and Ki43. The Bf 109 was crippled by a lack of range, the A6M by a lack of armor etc.. Both were excellent, war-winning designs in 1941. By 1943 though both were showing their age a bit. The Bf 109 was still a good interceptor and short range air superiority fighter, but they really needed a longer ranged fighter and they were losing their edge against the competition in general. The Fw 190 fixed that for a while, but it too fell behind the competition (or at least, didn't remain decisively ahead).

The A6M was still a good carrier fighter but they really needed something more robust, higher flying and faster both for use as interceptors and for the attrition campaigns going on in the Islands. Ki-43 while very good, was not ideal for attrition warfare and was fairly useless against high altitude bombers.

Neither country fielded significant new fighters in 1942 or 1943. Only incremental improvements or what amounted to failed projects. The Germans could have had what they needed with the Jets, but for complex reasons that didn't work out. If it had been available earlier, things could have been seriously strained for the Allies.

One problem the Germans had was a lack of certain rare metals and elements needed to make jet engines. Interestingly the Japanese had many of these materials, but had no easy way to get them to Germany. The I-53 submarine, which was sunk by the Americans, contained 9.8 tons of molybdenum, 11 tons of tungsten which would have been helpful in the German war-effort. Molybdenum in particular was one of the rare elements needed to mass produce the Jumo 004 engine. If that sub and a bunch like it had been able to make it to Germany on a routine basis perhaps again, things could have been different.

Japanese submarine I-52 (1942) - Wikipedia



I think the other major Strategic errors made by the main Axis powers was being overly aggressive. The surprise attack at Pearl Harbor probably wasn't necessary - a 24 hour warning probably would not have led to a Japanese defeat IMO (though that could be a good debate. The Germans with their mass-murder program and extermination campaigns in the East made it hard to find middle ground to put it mildly. Thus they instigated a very risky policy that ultimately led to doom. If it had been more like the wars of the earlier pre-industrial eras they may well have ended with Japan and / or Germany expanding their power substantially over the long run.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

Both the Germans and Japanese also should have fielded vastly superior tactical bombers in the mid war period. The Japanese did produce some excellent bomber deisgns, but they were either flawed or had production problems or both. Again the Germans had the Jets, the Ar-234 could have been a game changer, but too little, too late.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's debatable whether they really had a choice. Have you ever listened to Dan Carlin's series on the Japanese in WW2? It's pretty eye-opening.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There were many rules and restrictions in the Korean War: can’t bomb MIG15 bases, can’t pursue MIG15 across border, can’t bomb bridges Chinese troops were using to cross into Korea, can’t bomb Chinese troops massing in Manchuria

A better Zero, a better 109 or 190, not using mass suicide attacks, withdrawing an army from Moscow, developing better bombers, all of these would have helped tactically, but it would only have delayed the inevitable, especially for Japan. Would an improved, faster, better armored Betty be able to escape the attention of a Hellcat, Corsair, Mustang, P47 or P38? Not often enough to turn the tide of the war. I believe the USA would have beaten Japan even if all of our equipment had swapped sides, with the exception of the Nukes. (We have Zero, Betty, Kate, they have Wildcat, P40, etc) If we had the Zero, Betty, Kate and Japanese torpedoes, we would have beaten them in the first year before they would have had a chance to field improved equipment such as Hellcat, P38 etc.

The Germans fielding the ME262 when it was available might have been a big game changer, but not sure it would have stopped the giant horde of angry Russians headed toward Germany.

Other than that, nearly all your points go back to not having sufficient manufacturing capability compared to the USA, Russia and Britain

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> More likely be would have incriminated Hirohito.


Political dynamite of the worst kind. Keeping Hirohito free of blame was the key to a peaceful occupation. You can bomb 'em you can starve 'em, you can burn 'em out, just don't trample on their living deity, the core of their national identity. MacArthur was an old "Asia hand" and understood this intrinsically.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> the war was lost for them the very instant they started it.


As Yamamoto Isoroku so famously pointed out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

My point is that if the war was Total War, as in a fight to the death, they couldn't win. But if it's the sort of territorial / zone of influence war as took place routinely in the Early Modern period (or even WW I) or later in the Cold War, i.e. all sides fight until a new equilibrium is reached and fighting becomes too expensive to continue, then they the Japanese (and the Germans) could have succeeded. The Japanese decision to attack by surprise, and the German ethnic cleansing etc., made Total War a guarantee.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> There were many rules and restrictions in the Korean War: can’t bomb MIG15 bases, can’t pursue MIG15 across border, can’t bomb bridges Chinese troops were using to cross into Korea, can’t bomb Chinese troops massing in Manchuria



And despite seriously considering it, Truman ultimately wouldn't let LeMay and MacArthur nuke China. 

Read up on the bombing Campaign on North Korea if you aren't familiar with it, it's rather eye-opening. All the extreme measures the US was held back from in Vietnam were taken. It didn't win us the war but it certainly wrecked that country and contributed to the kind of regime they have today:

Bombing of North Korea 1950-1953 - Wikipedia

Yes there is always _some_ limit as a war keeps escalating wider and wider, in this case the limit being not wanting to directly get into a war with the Soviets and / or a nuclear war. I don't think that was so much some kind of postmodern timidity as very pragmatic realpolitik. But considering that the war went all the way down to the South of the country and then balanced back out at the 38th Parallel bombing on the Chinese border alone probably wouldn't have made that difference. We had all the bridges from the Taedong river to Busan to bomb.

WW III was (and is) _extremely _high stakes, which the US leadership at that time decided Korea wasn't worth. Pulling back just from that brink of nuking China is not some hippy move. Maybe it's just a matter of not wanting to cross the proverbial Rubicon like Japan or Germany did in WW II (and possibly pay the same gruesome price). 

Even in WW II we didn't use chemical or biological weapons. War almost always has some limits. When it doesn't sometimes there is a steep price to pay.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My point is that if the war was Total War, as in a fight to the death, they couldn't win. But if it's the sort of territorial / zone of influence war as took place routinely in the Early Modern period (or even WW I) or later in the Cold War, i.e. both fights fight until a new equilibrium is reached and fighting becomes too expensive to continue, then they the Japanese (and the Germans) could have succeeded. The Japanese decision to attack by surprise, and the German ethnic cleansing etc., made Total War a guarantee.



A couple of points:
1. Please explain how WW1 was NOT a fight to the death? Clearly, it wasn't from the US perspective but the Europiean powers would likely disagree with that assessment. 
2. The Japanese did not decide to attack by surprise. It was a screw-up due to decoding issues.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And despite seriously considering it, Truman ultimately wouldn't let LeMay and MacArthur nuke China.
> 
> Read up on the bombing Campaign on North Korea if you aren't familiar with it, it's rather eye-opening. All the extreme measures the US was held back from in Vietnam were taken. It didn't win us the war but it certainly wrecked that country and contributed to the kind of regime they have today:
> 
> ...





Schweik said:


> And despite seriously considering it, Truman ultimately wouldn't let LeMay and MacArthur nuke China.
> 
> Read up on the bombing Campaign on North Korea if you aren't familiar with it, it's rather eye-opening. All the extreme measures the US was held back from in Vietnam were taken. It didn't win us the war but it certainly wrecked that country and contributed to the kind of regime they have today:
> 
> ...



Huge can of worms when you get into USSR, China, nukes etc in an expanded war in Korea, but if it had only been the USA vs NK and China, no nukes and no Russia, gloves off, the USA fighting like they did in WW2 would have slaughtered China in my opinion. 

1st day the MIG15 shows up, next day all MIG15 airfields are hit with F51’s, F80’s, F84’s bombing and strafing, keeping MIG’s on the ground until B29/B50’s show up and obliterate the airfield and everything around it. Troop concentrations in China bombed by B29/B50’s, bridges, etc. The real question would be if we ran out of ordinance before China ran out of people. 

Whole new thread for this discussion

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Huge can of worms ...
> 
> Whole new thread for this discussion



Agreed.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The real question would be if we ran out of ordinance before China ran out of people.


Foregone conclusion. We couldn't have manufactured ordnance fast enough to keep up with Chinese demographics.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> A couple of points:
> 1. Please explain how WW1 was NOT a fight to the death? Clearly, it wasn't from the US perspective but the Europiean powers would likely disagree with that assessment.
> 2. The Japanese did not decide to attack by surprise. It was a screw-up due to decoding issues.



1. It was certainly a fight to the death for individuals, but not for the States which instigated and conducted the wars, though admittedly both Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empires collapsed and the Ottoman Empire soon after. Germany continued and was not overrun or invaded as in the end of WW2.
2. Lets say they issued a public declaration of war a week before the attack...


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> A couple of points:
> 1. Please explain how WW1 was NOT a fight to the death? Clearly, it wasn't from the US perspective but the Europiean powers would likely disagree with that assessment.
> 2. The Japanese did not decide to attack by surprise. It was a screw-up due to decoding issues.


Wars are not a fight "to the death" unconditional surrender is all they are fought for, no one advocates killing every man, woman and child of their enemy, if they did they would certainly lose because you make a fanatical enemy of everyone who isn't your closest friend. This is actually what the Nazis and followers of Tojo did and both lost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

Wars to unconditional surrender are also pretty rare historically, at least in Europe.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wars to unconditional surrender are also pretty rare historically, at least in Europe.


Which wars were fought to "the death" in any era in Europe?


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A large part of getting an aircraft into production is money. If congress (in the US) only funds 13 airplanes that is what you get, 13 airplanes. However the manufacturer, plans accordingly and only invests in enough tooling, floor space and workers to build the 13 aircraft in the time span specified in the contract. Which means the follow up contracts take time to fill as more floor space, workers and tooling have to be provided in order to increase production.



Well put and something we all tend to forget


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 12, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Well put and something we all tend to forget


Resp:
This is one reason NAA jumped at the idea of the possible conversion of the Allison engine Mustang into a dive bomber; A-36A. If the USAAF didn't pursue the purchase of the Mustang, then the production space at NAA would have gone to the assembly of other aircraft; namely the AT6 and/or the B-25.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Which wars were fought to "the death" in any era in Europe?



Lets be clear, we are talking about two things - "to the death" of the State, ala another nation, kingdom, republic or etc., and second the overlapping concept of 'Total War'. Neither scenario literally means total murder of every single person.

Fighting to the death of a rival State was rare but not unheard of. I can think of a few off the top of my head: The Norman invasion of England saw the permanent and quite thorough overthrow of the Saxon regime which had preceded it. The Burgundian Wars ultimately ended the well developed State of the Valois Duchy of Burgundy when the Swiss killed Duke Charles the Bold at the Battle of Nancy. The Mongols annihilated several polities on the Eastern fringes of Europe (like the Principality of Kiev) in the 13th through 16th Century, as did the Ottomans from the 15th through the 17th. (The Ottomans destrroyed the Byzantine State as the most prominent example, though there were many smaller ones). Others were converted into Satraps which were effectively new States (with the old regime murdered and thousands of citizens impaled or enslaved). The War between the Conquistadors The War of the Roses in England ended in virtual annihilation of the Lancastrian side. The Albigensian Crusade was fought to the annihilation of the Cathars, the Northern Crusades were fought to the annihilation of the native Prussians, though the Lithuanians proved to be a harder nut to crack.

Total War was also not unheard of and was widely practiced during the 30 Years War in the 17th Century which saw the massacre of the population of the entire city of Magdeburg for example, and a hitherto unusually widespread mass-murder of civilians. The same occurred during the Hugujenot Wars in France.

During the Napoleonic Wars, several States were at least temporarily overthrown and re-created as "Revolutionary" puppets of the French Empire. And so on.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> First of all; welcome aboard NevadaK! You've brought to the table a broader perspective than our usual focus on performance, tactics, combat record and technology. Well done.
> This manifested in so many ways: failing to adequately protect the merchant shipping that carried the lifeblood of their economy; bypassing opportunities to attack enemy logistics transport because of a focus on primary combatants; a general neglect of defense in favor of offense; failing to put sufficient effort into developing the next generation of all nature of weaponry until the current one was disastrously obsolescent, and the list goes on. Any nation as resource constrained as Japan taking on a major power like the US could not afford such errors.
> Cheers,
> Wes



And on the production side the policy that male children finished school at 15? and were put in factories for one year (with months of production lost to training) and then at age 16?, when now fully competent at whatever they were producing, they were ripped out of the factory and put in the military was wasteful on many levels as was the refusal to use women in factories for many years. These issues were covered in some detail in the book* Japan's Imperial Conspiracy *by David Bergamini. This 1971 book is thoroughly discredited for its conclusions and the warping of fact to justify those conclusions but much of the content is both well researched and thought provoking. If the author had not allowed his political leanings to influence his writing this would be an excellent book as it does cover many items that we now ignore and a lot of history we have now forgotten. My copy was lost probably 30 years ago so I must go by memory on the ages quoted above.

To paraphrase Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey in his 2019 autobiography _*Before I forget*, _memory is not a reliable helper.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Which wars were fought to "the death" in any era in Europe?



Also the Romans annihilated several polities they came into conflict with.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Also the Romans annihilated several polities they came into conflict with.


Did they? Which ones?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Did they? Which ones?



Carthage comes to mind. There were various other kingdoms around the Middle East as well. But there were several smaller polities in Italy, in Greece, and in what are now Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium and England.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 12, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Nothing wrong with the quality of their equipment. Their torpedoes were the best in the world, hands down, no contest. The Zero was a strong, well built aircraft with world class performance on a less than 1000 hp engine. It needed armor and self sealing tanks but it was not shoddily built.



And, unlike allied aircraft the zero had an extensive flotation system to maximize the pilots chances of survival after ditching. It is often claimed the A6M was too lightly built but if you consider skin and frame thicknesses with the Spitfire it stacks up very well. 

Technically much of it is brilliant. The tail wheel and retract system is far simpler and lighter than any allied aircraft and extremely strong. Again the arrester hook was way ahead of allied ones for weight and reliability and it had functions not found on allied hooks.

And what other fighter had a range of 2,695 km / 1,675 nautical miles from 518 litres/114 imp gals/137 USgal and 3,105 km / 1,930 miles with a 330 litre / 72 Imp gal / 87 USG drop tank added. 

What what other non Japanese fighters had all round vision canopies instead of razorbacks in 1940? Just the P-39.

See the Zeke 32, Design Analysis article for the May 1943 _Aviation _magazine for the flotation details etc.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lets be clear, we are talking about two things - "to the death" of the State, ala another nation, kingdom, republic or etc., and second the overlapping concept of 'Total War'. Neither scenario literally means total murder of every single person.
> 
> Fighting to the death of a rival State was rare but not unheard of. I can think of a few off the top of my head: The Norman invasion of England saw the permanent and quite thorough overthrow of the Saxon regime which had preceded it. The Burgundian Wars ultimately ended the well developed State of the Valois Duchy of Burgundy when the Swiss killed Duke Charles the Bold at the Battle of Nancy. The Mongols annihilated several polities on the Eastern fringes of Europe (like the Principality of Kiev) in the 13th through 16th Century, as did the Ottomans from the 15th through the 17th. (The Ottomans destrroyed the Byzantine State as the most prominent example, though there were many smaller ones). Others were converted into Satraps which were effectively new States (with the old regime murdered and thousands of citizens impaled or enslaved). The War between the Conquistadors The War of the Roses in England ended in virtual annihilation of the Lancastrian side. The Albigensian Crusade was fought to the annihilation of the Cathars, the Northern Crusades were fought to the annihilation of the native Prussians, though the Lithuanians proved to be a harder nut to crack.
> 
> ...


The Norman invasion of England was seen by William as claiming his rightful throne, he may have subjugated the north in the harrying of the north but that was only a small part of his already defeated enemy, it was consolidation of a victory already won. You are going back into the distant past. I have met and worked with a Huguenot descent French woman in Paris so the wars against them weren't all that successful. The 30 years war was devastating but eliminated most by starvation and only 50% not all of the population. Going back to Biblical times it has been tried and not achieved and the burden you put on the killers creates a people you just don't want to be in charge of, they will obviously kill anyone for no particular reason.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Norman invasion of England was seen by William as claiming his rightful throne, he may have subjugated the north in the harrying of the north but that was only a small part of his already defeated enemy, it was consolidation of a victory already won. You are going back into the distant past. I have met and worked with a Huguenot descent French woman in Paris so the wars against them weren't all that successful. The 30 years war was devastating but eliminated most by starvation and only 50% not all of the population. Going back to Biblical times it has been tried and not achieved and the burden you put on the killers creates a people you just don't want to be in charge of, they will obviously kill anyone for no particular reason.



Nearly every prince in Europe had some claim to neighboring territories, which doesn't really mean that much except that the Royal families of widely divergent places were small in number and often intermarried quite a bit. Resulting in problems like the Hapsburg chin...

I was pretty careful to stipulate what I meant - war to the destruction of the rival State, and Total War, neither of which require or mean the complete extermination of the population. That said, certain polities did occasionally exterminate, or come quite close to it in the mathematical sense. Read about Tamerlane. And in particular, though there was no extermination, the Norman conquest of England was far more brutal and lethal than most people realize. Much, much more extreme than had previously been the case during the Viking conquests.

The point though is that the Saxon regime was eliminated.

I did go far back but examples I cited are not all in the distant mists of time, they extend from Rome to Napoleon. And I could cite more. That said, it was far more common in Europe for wars to be fought for relatively small territorial gains and not to the destruction of one or both parties. This was my original point - WW II didn't have to be a war to "_unconditional surrender_" -it was really the Strategies of the two primary Axis powers which led to that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Which wars were fought to "the death" in any era in Europe?


Third Punic War comes to mind...


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I was pretty careful to stipulate what I meant - war to the destruction of the rival State, and Total War, neither of which require or mean the complete extermination of the population. That said, certain polities did occasionally exterminate. And in particular, though there was no extermination, the Norman conquest of England was far more brutal and lethal than most people realize. Much, much more extreme than had previously been the case during the Viking conquests.
> 
> The point though is that the Saxon regime was eliminated.
> 
> I did go far back but examples I cited are not all in the distant mists of time, they extend from Rome to Napoleon. And I could cite more. That said, it was far more common in Europe for wars to be fought for relatively small territorial gains and not to the destruction of one or both parties. This was my original point - WW II didn't have to be a war to "_unconditional surrender_" -it was really the Strategies of the two primary Axis powers which led to that.


It is easier to eliminate a population when that population amounts to almost nothing. Like "clan feuds" I have read about in Scotland that were little more than a pub brawl. I live in the North East of England I am fully aware of what the Norman conquest was and what it meant, I am also fully aware that it involved very few people in modern terms, the total population of England was about 1.5 million


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 12, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The Japanese did not decide to attack by surprise. It was a screw-up due to decoding issues.


It was planned to be only one step away from a surprise attack. The actual text of the diplomatic message was convoluted and vague and well short of an unequivocal declaration of war. It certainly didn't give any specifics of impending hostile action, and even if delivered on time, would not have allowed adequate time to alert defensive forces in an effective manner. Diplomacy aside, militarily the Japanese expected to achieve tactical surprise.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 12, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was planned to be only one step away from a surprise attack. The actual text of the diplomatic message was convoluted and vague and well short of an unequivocal declaration of war. It certainly didn't give any specifics of impending hostile action, and even if delivered on time, would not have allowed adequate time to alert defensive forces in an effective manner. Diplomacy aside, militarily the Japanese expected to achieve tactical surprise.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp:
Correct! But if it had been delivered, rather than delayed . . . the Japanese could have said we notified you. As an aside, the US Navy actually fired the 1st shot when they fired (and hit) a midget Japanese sub.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 13, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Correct! But if it had been delivered, rather than delayed . . . the Japanese could have said we notified you. As an aside, the US Navy actually fired the 1st shot when they fired (and hit) a midget Japanese sub.


At least somebody was awake that morning! Let's hear it for junior tin can skippers; not old enough to succumb to caution.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 13, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It is easier to eliminate a population when that population amounts to almost nothing. Like "clan feuds" I have read about in Scotland that were little more than a pub brawl. I live in the North East of England I am fully aware of what the Norman conquest was and what it meant, I am also fully aware that it involved very few people in modern terms, the total population of England was about 1.5 million



200,000 dead out of a 1 million population is no small number.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 13, 2019)

I came across this by accident today. DESIGN and OPERATION of United States COMBAT AIRCRAFT

_DESIGN and OPERATION of United States COMBAT AIRCRAFT_

_Office of War Information_

_The Following Report on the Performance of American Military and Naval Aircraft was Prepared by the Office of War Information. Copies may be obtained, upon request, from the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information. Washington, D. C. October 19, 1942_

etc

Not quite on topic but much closer than some of the discussion


----------



## The Basket (Oct 13, 2019)

Norman conquest was different from the Anglo Saxon conquest of the land we call England today.

Norman conquest was top down so the Lords and Kings were replaced although when the Kings lost their French possessions they became English and more Anglo by default. So one could argue that Anglo Saxon culture and language did overcome Norman over time. The peasants would not have seen themselves as French so the conquest was political. 

When the Anglo Saxons conquered Celtic Britannia that was the full ethnic cleansing with the Celts booted out off land. That was far more a root and branch destruction of what came before than the Norman conquests or the Roman conquest.

William was of Viking descent and so were many in the North East of England at the Time.


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 13, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Norman conquest was different from the Anglo Saxon conquest of the land we call England today.
> 
> Norman conquest was top down so the Lords and Kings were replaced although when the Kings lost their French possessions they became English and more Anglo by default. So one could argue that Anglo Saxon culture and language did overcome Norman over time. The peasants would not have seen themselves as French so the conquest was political.
> 
> ...



There was no Anglo-Saxon invasion. The Angles were refugees having been kicked out of what became Denmark. The Saxons were traders in Roman times who settled on the Saxon shore running between Norfolk on the East to Sussex on the South Coast. They intermarried with the Romano-Britons, eventually taking over, many Romano-Britons left settling in north-west France in what is known today as Brittany (Bretagne) as opposed to Grand Brittannia (Great Britain). The Vikings pillaged and settled the East Coast of England. The Normans (Norse men intermarried with French) along with the Bretons returned in 1066. The harrowing of the north resulted in the deaths of 200,000. England's population at the time was 1 million. What most people believe is the Norman fantasy concocted in the 12/13th centuries, you know, king Arthur, Camelot, the Anglo-Saxon invasion that never happened.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 13, 2019)

Eh? The real, if there was a real King Arthur, fought the Anglo Saxons.
Why did Bretons leave to form Brittany?
I will use England and Anglo Saxon as a catch all phrase to make it easier.

Whether you call it an invasion or not, the Anglo Saxons certainly got the language and culture squared away. So you can call it a settlement or invasion but same dog.

The results are exactly the same which is the end of Ramono-Celtic culture in England been replaced with Germanic culture.

The intermarriage of Celts and Germaics could be the use of shorthand for rape and pillage so hardly useful. Kill all the men leaving the women and children.

Whether the English Celts fled or died or survived as Germanic offspring is neither here nor there. A genetically Celtic child would be brought up speaking English and as a Germanic child. And so would see themselves as Germanic. They wouldn't see themselves as Celtic. 

Germanics won and the old English language has little basis from Latin or Celtic language. Which it would if Romano Celts and Germanics were equal.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 13, 2019)

Korea and Vietnam were limited wars for limited aims. Running them like WWII would have led to a much larger Soviet victory, as the US would have been seen as violently over-reacting.




buffnut453 said:


> A couple of points:
> 1. Please explain how WW1 was NOT a fight to the death? Clearly, it wasn't from the US perspective but the Europiean powers would likely disagree with that assessment.
> 2. The Japanese did not decide to attack by surprise. It was a screw-up due to decoding issues.



If I remember my history (and not of the highly distorted version taught in high school) correctly, your second item is technically correct, but the IJN plan was there to be such a short warning time that the Pearl Harbor attack was functionally a surprise attack. 

To item one, considering the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, it's certainly hard to argue it wasn't. The peace terms offered to the Entente on the western front weren't much better. 

The long series of wars against Native Americans were functionally genocidal, as they were meant to remove the indigenous peoples from their homelands and destroy both their independence and culture


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 13, 2019)

Did either the Normans or Anglo-Saxon use............
*The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 13, 2019)

Merlin was King Arthur's magician

Merlin powered the Spitfire.

William was from Normandy. 

Invasion in 1944 was Normandy.

Its all linked. Its like poetry, it rhymes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 13, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Eh? The real, if there was a real King Arthur, fought the Anglo Saxons.
> Why did Bretons leave to form Brittany?
> I will use England and Anglo Saxon as a catch all phrase to make it easier.
> 
> ...



The stories you read are the result of the victors, the Normans, rewriting the country's history.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> There was no Anglo-Saxon invasion. The Angles were refugees having been kicked out of what became Denmark. The Saxons were traders in Roman times who settled on the Saxon shore running between Norfolk on the East to Sussex on the South Coast. They intermarried with the Romano-Britons, eventually taking over, many Romano-Britons left settling in north-west France in what is known today as Brittany (Bretagne) as opposed to Grand Brittannia (Great Britain). The Vikings pillaged and settled the East Coast of England. The Normans (Norse men intermarried with French) along with the Bretons returned in 1066. The harrowing of the north resulted in the deaths of 200,000. England's population at the time was 1 million. What most people believe is the Norman fantasy concocted in the 12/13th centuries, you know, king Arthur, Camelot, the Anglo-Saxon invasion that never happened.


The harrying of the north was a result of its resistance to Norman rule and allegiance of many in York and Yorkshire to Denmark from wiki *1069* − Sweyn II of Denmark lands with an army, in much the same way as Harald Hardrada. He took control of York after defeating the Norman garrison and inciting a local uprising. King William eventually defeated his forces and devastated the region in the Harrying of the North.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 13, 2019)

I believe the Cornish had a Merlin to protect them.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 13, 2019)

Trying to get back on the rails...

An individual aircraft type could not turn the tide of war. Probably the one that, arguably, came closest in ETO was the P-51D, but by the time it arrived Germany was already past a point where it could have won.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At least somebody was awake that morning! Let's hear it for junior tin can skippers; not old enough to succumb to caution.


Resp:
Yes, the Navy acted. If my memory serves me, the attack by the US destroyer on the midget sub was @ 0600 Sunday 07 Dec 1941. This was how many hours before the 1st strike by Japanese forces? I believe that the US Army manned radar station picked up a 'blip' of incoming aircraft @ 0701 (?). So it seems we have at least an hour plus time frame to 'take some kind of action!' So this indicates more than the 35 min (discussed earlier in another post concerning the Pearl Harbor attack) or so to start the ball rolling. The US was truly 'sleeping' that morning. Where was the central watch center to gather and assess various bits of information/Intel?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 13, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Where was the central watch center to gather and assess various bits of information/Intel?


Empty, except for a bored young fighter pilot who was not fully qualified to stand that watch, but was covering for somebody else. He was at least well enough informed to know about the incoming B17 flight, and when the radar guys reported their returns, he figured that was what they had seen. Radar was new and mysterious, and procedures not very sophisticated. If this had been a BoB type sophisticated radar early warning system he could have been fed enough detailed information to smell a rat. Numbers of targets, direction of approach, and closing velocity would have been inconsistent with a few B17s from California. The mindset just wasn't there to be suspicious. Besides, when have the peacetime Army and Navy ever worked together on intelligence and force protection matters?
Kudos to LCDR Outerbridge and the crew of USS Ward, who drew the first blood of the Pacific war. BTW, three years to the day after Pearl Harbor, Ward was hit by a kamikaze, burned out, and abandoned, but the tough old gal refused to sink. CDR Outerbridge, now in command of another ship, was assigned the task of scuttling her by gunfire.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Empty, except for a bored young fighter pilot who was not fully qualified to stand that watch, but was covering for somebody else. He was at least well enough informed to know about the incoming B17 flight, and when the radar guys reported their returns, he figured that was what they had seen. Radar was new and mysterious, and procedures not very sophisticated. If this had been a BoB type sophisticated radar early warning system he could have been fed enough detailed information to smell a rat. Numbers of targets, direction of approach, and closing velocity would have been inconsistent with a few B17s from California. The mindset just wasn't there to be suspicious. Besides, when have the peacetime Army and Navy ever worked together on intelligence and force protection matters?
> Kudos to LCDR Outerbridge and the crew of USS Ward, who drew the first blood of the Pacific war. BTW, three years to the day after Pearl Harbor, Ward was hit by a kamikaze, burned out, and abandoned, but the tough old gal refused to sink. CDR Outerbridge, now in command of another ship, was assigned the task of scuttling her by gunfire.
> Cheers,
> Wes


If the French had mounted an attack on UK in 1939 without warning it would probably have had a similar unprepared or disbelieving response.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2019)

Get this thread back on topic, or another formerly good conversation will be closed.

Take your Anglo-Saxon, are the Brits Germanic or not (And yes they are, there is a reason English is a Germanic language) conversation to it’s own thread in another section. Stop ruining it for the other members.

This applies to all involved....


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I believe the Cornish had a Merlin to protect them.


That was only a wizard, not a little bird lol


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 13, 2019)

This may be a little off topic but I'd like to talk about the plane that did the most to turm the tide of the war. Specifically a slightly different angle on the topic. Instead of the type of plane how about the individual plane.
This of course would be largely dependant on the pilot as much as if not more so than the aircraft but still an interesting exercise......at least to me.
My pick( probably suprising no one) is Wade McCluskys SBD that found the Japanese carriers at Midway. Would certainly love to hear others thoughts on this however as I can think of a few other obvious contenders.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 13, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Correct! But if it had been delivered, rather than delayed . . . the Japanese could have said we notified you. As an aside, the US Navy actually fired the 1st shot when they fired (and hit) a midget Japanese sub.


This was League of Nations politics, sailing towards a naval base with mini subs in place, air planes in the air, is an act of war. No paper is needed to make that statement. Japan wanted war for all sorts of reasons and that is what they got. Bullied the wrong guys in hind sight but there you go.


----------



## pinsog (Oct 13, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> This may be a little off topic but I'd like to talk about the plane that did the most to turm the tide of the war. Specifically a slightly different angle on the topic. Instead of the type of plane how about the individual plane.
> This of course would be largely dependant on the pilot as much as if not more so than the aircraft but still an interesting exercise......at least to me.
> My pick( probably suprising no one) is Wade McCluskys SBD that found the Japanese carriers at Midway. Would certainly love to hear others thoughts on this however as I can think of a few other obvious contenders.


Not sure that would apply against Germany due to the amount of planes on all sides. Japan might be different due to the much smaller, early war, number of planes. McClusky is a pretty good choice. I’ll toss in:
1. Richard Best at Midway scoring the only hit on Akagi, single handedly sinking a major fleet carrier
2. Shooting down Yamamoto

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 13, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Not sure that would apply against Germany due to the amount of planes on all sides. Japan might be different due to the much smaller, early war, number of planes. McClusky is a pretty good choice. I’ll toss in:
> 1. Richard Best at Midway scoring the only hit on Akagi, single handedly sinking a major fleet carrier
> 2. Shooting down Yamamoto


I still like NevadaK's rationale for the A6M. It was the Zero's role as an enabler that triggered chains of events that turned out to be earth shaking.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I still like NevadaK's rationale for the A6M. It was the Zero's role as an enabler that triggered chains of events that turned out to be earth shaking.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Agree with you. His assessment was spot on.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 13, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I still like NevadaK's rationale for the A6M. It was the Zero's role as an enabler that triggered chains of events that turned out to be earth shaking.
> Cheers,
> Wes


If the A6Ms capabilities were so much better than other existing Japanese designs that without them the attack on Pearl Harbor would not have been contemplated then a very good case could indeed be made for it doing the most to turn the tide of the war by making the attack on the US posible which in turn turned the tide.
The question is, would Pearl Harbor have been carried out without the Zeros and its capabilities...........and the answer to that is way above my paygrade as they say. 
Certainly an interesting and insightful angle and certainly plausible.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 13, 2019)

Usually there is always an alternative. So what other Japanese IJN fighter would have been there instead of the Zero?
The Spitfire cancelled a lot of fighter developments in the UK so its not a case as there was no alternative but one wasn't needed. So it didn't appear. 
No Bf 109 then He 112 it is or Messerschmitt may have come back with a better design in 1936 which would become the 109. There is usually a backup somewhere which can do 80% of what say a P-51 can do. Whether that's the Corsair or the P-40Q. Dunno. Because history was stopped for the P-40Q which could have been different had the Mustang not been around.

The Zero was certainly not a unique aircraft and I would assume that a Nakajima aircraft like a naval Hayabusa or even the A5M on supercharge would still have done what the Zero could have. Perhaps or perhaps not. 

A naval Hayabusa would not be as good perhaps but it will be close enough. I sincerely think the IJN or IJA would have gone to war regardless. Maybe no Pearl or Midway but fighting spirit will overcome any military disadvantage.

Any nation that does Banzai charges into machine guns with Samurai swords is not going to be doubting its capability or waiting for Mitsubishi to make the Zero. If I got a short range fighter then I have to make the most of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 13, 2019)

Probably a fully functional Ki-61 with a later series engine


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 13, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> The question is, would Pearl Harbor have been carried out without the Zeros and its capabilities


Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms? That would be roughly akin to raiding Lae from Moresby with P26s. Twin 7.7s and short legs somehow just aren't all that reassuring. I suspect that scenario would require Kido Butai to approach dangerously closer to the target area in order to provide fighter escort.
Likewise, a navalized Hayabusa seems highly improbable, as it was designed to an entirely different standard, would probably suffer performance penalties from the ruggedizing required for carrier ops, and anyway wasn't going to happen, given the rivalry between Army and Navy.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms? That would be roughly akin to raiding Lae from Moresby with P26s. Twin 7.7s and short legs somehow just aren't all that reassuring. I suspect that scenario would require Kido Butai to approach dangerously closer to the target area in order to provide fighter escort.
> Likewise, a navalized Hayabusa seems highly improbable, as it was designed to an entirely different standard, would probably suffer performance penalties from the ruggedizing required for carrier ops, and anyway wasn't going to happen, given the rivalry between Army and Navy.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Very good points. What I was mostly thinking of however were the aircraft that didn't get built because the A6m beat them out. Assuming there was one or two such designs( hard to imagine there wasn't at least one or two competing designs that lost out to the Zero but I don't know) of somewhat lesser capabilities would those shortcomings be enough to make Pearl Harbor too difficult and/or risky to undertake. Don't know if that's an answerable question( certainly not by me) but it would be the the deciding factor in whether the Zero did indeed turn the tide of the war by making posible the attack that brought the US into the war thereby insuring the defeat of the Axis. Although.................. I'm of the opinion that the Allies would most likely have won even without the US, almost certainly so if we were manufacturing arms for them but thats a seperate issue than tide turning and a whole nother can of worms I suppose.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

The A5M4 (in service 1938) had a range of 1,201 km (746 miles). It also had provisions for a drop tank, 132ish liters (35 gal.) so range wasn't a problem. Of course it didn't have the firepower of the A6M2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

Cool...... off to wiki.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Probably a fully functional Ki-61 with a later series engine


Whose first prototype made its first flight a couple days AFTER Pearl Harbor.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Cool...... off to wiki.


I like using this site, quick and to the point...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=619


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> What I was mostly thinking of however were the aircraft that didn't get built because the A6m beat them out. Assuming there was one or two such designs


Other potential aircraft are irrelevant vis a vis the Zero's role as enabler and inspirer of the opening phases of the Pacific war. Any aircraft fulfilling that role would wear the mantle of "tide turner", but the Zero was there and did the job, so gets the credit.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I like using this site, quick and to the point...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=619


Thanks for the tip on the site. Looks good.
I was aware of the Claude but thought the"4" sufix might denote a much improved version or perhaps an entirely different design. Seems like although performance( speed specifically) was not up to par with the A6m with a range like that it would certainly have made Pearl Harbor doable.
In addition I was thinking had the Zero never been designed what other plane would have been the replacement for the Claude. There must have been a couple competing designs though I've never read anything about such unlike German designs that lost out to the Bf109 for example where there is plenty of mention about them in various articles.
Think I'll do a little digging and see what I can turn up.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> It also had provisions for a drop tank, 132ish liters (35 gal.) so range wasn't a problem.


I had forgotten about the drop tank. That gives a comfortable radius of action and even a little loiter time on target. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

Well apparently form what I was able to find out the requirements for the new Navy fighter were only sent to Nakajima and Mitsubishi and Nakajima pulled out of the competition thinking the requirements impossible so sounds like it was either A5m or A6m but it also sounds like, to me at least, that the A5m hade the capabilities to make Pearl Harbor doable so I don't know if the Zeros capabilities were unique enough to alone alow for Pear Harbor to be undertaken.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 14, 2019)

If the Zero turned the tide of the war by enabling the Pearl Harbor attack then it turned the tide in favour of the British and its allies, because after that the Axis was doomed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> the A5m had the capabilities to make Pearl Harbor doable so I don't know if the Zeros capabilities were unique enough to alone alow for Pearl Harbor to be undertaken.


You hit the nail on the head. Essentially the options were A5M vs A6M. Zeke was a world class fighter with the performance to dominate it's operating arena, a real confidence enhancer for strategic decision makers. Claude was an aging previous generation fighter ostensibly able to accomplish the mission, but not with much margin for error.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms?
> 
> *SNIP*
> 
> ...



Oh My! I don't believe I'd want to face down even the few P-40's airborne on Dec. 7 as an A5M jockey, at least now without a healthy dose of sake before launch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Oh My! I don't believe I'd want to face down even the few P-40's airborne on Dec. 7 as an A5M jockey, at least now without a healthy dose of sake before launch.


Where's your samurai spirit, Saburo? Those Curtiss jockeys haven't yet been infested with the deadly up-and-down dogfighting virus, and you've got the best round 'n round dogfighter in the world! Tennoheika banzai!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where's your samurai spirit, Saburo? Those Curtiss jockeys haven't yet been infested with the deadly up-and-down dogfighting virus, and you've got the best round 'n round dogfighter in the world! Tennoheika banzai!


*BANZAI!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 14, 2019)

I think the A6M Zero is the only reason the Japanese did not lose the war by the end of 1942, but I don't see how it turned the tide. There is no question that it enabled a year of Japanese conquests though.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

The zero was definitely one of the reasons for the initial Japanese success, along with the Ki-43, a lot of very lethal (if also vulnerable) bombers like the G3M, G4M, B5N, and D3A, highly trained flight crews, as well as their highly effective air and sea-launched torpedoes, excellent and quite formidable warships and superbly trained navy - particularly in their astonishing skill at night combat.

To me probably their biggest flaw was the lack of a well developed air-sea rescue program, which dovetailed with the lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks on their planes. As one US Army document put it, shooting down a zero almost always meant killing the pilot. The same obviously applied for a D3A or G4M. For the US and Australian etc. planes, I don't know the exact ratio but I would guess it was more like 1/3 of the time averaged out over the first year. That pretty quickly leads to one side running out of pilots much quicker than the other.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Pilots not wearing parachutes was also a problem...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Claude was an aging previous generation fighter ostensibly able to accomplish the mission, but not with much margin for error.



True, I agree Wes, but let's not forget that the A5M was still in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. Three carriers still operated them, the Hosho, Ryujo and Zuiho and whilst the A5Ms were slated to provide long range escort to bombing attacks on the Philippines, the A6M with its pilots trained to economise fuel consumption meant that the superior and more modern type provided escort in that case.

It's also worth noting that without the A5M there would not have been an A6M; the former was the world's first naval carrier fighter monoplane to enter service and production. it's method of construction and design philosophy was expanded on to create the Mitsubishi 12-Shi fighter (the A5M was ample evidence that the Zero was not a 'copy' of a Western design). Also, as an alternative to the Mitsubishi submission to the specification, which was quite stringent, Nakajima was also issued the specification but pulled out (why?), so it remains to be seen whether Nakajima's Type '0' Carrier Fighter might have measured up to the Mitsubishi A6M. Might it have been a navalised Ki-43 or a new design altogether? The last Nakajima naval single seater was the 9-Shi fighter, which was a rough equivalent in performance and indeed appearance to the A5M, which bettered the Nakajima product and went into production and service.

Might make a fascinating what-if; a Nakajima Type 12-Shi carrier fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

The Ki-43 would have had to have been substantially strengthened to conduct carrier operations.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Ki-43 would have had to have been substantially strengthened to conduct carrier operations.



Most certainly, but instead of just modifying the Ki-43, a new design incorporating the type's features would seem more plausible, perhaps utilising the same basis of the Type 9-Shi fighter, as with what the A5M was to the A6M? The aircraft has to meet the stringent requirements of the 12-Shi spec. The Ki-43 alone would not have done so.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Seems to me one of the biggest problems the Japanese had with regard to improving their fighters was with their engines. One comparatively easy solution to that was by borrowing German ones like the Italians did. They had what I would call a partial technology transfer of the DB 600 series engine, an early (I think 601A) version which was adapted to the Ki 61. The problem is that Japanese industry had trouble adapting to the new engine, and probably could have used more help. Communications with the Germans was very limited and difficult. By the mid-war any physical transfer of artifacts such as engines, parts, blueprints or machine tools had to be done by submarine, and those were often being caught and destroyed by US or British naval assets.

If they had been able to start robust production of a reliable DB 601E some time around 1942, which probably would have required the Germans sending maybe a couple of people and a lot of documentation and machine tools, that Ki-61 could have become much more of a problem for the Americans. That might have given the Japanese a viable replacement to the Ki-43 and possibly also the A6M in time to make a difference until their own radial engine designs caught up.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Packard was able to make good Merlins after about a year. Alfa Romeo was able to get 601 series engine production working pretty well - no doubt under close German supervision, but it took a little while too. Japan suffered from being so far from their Ally.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Seems to me one of the biggest problems the Japanese had with regard to improving their fighters was with their engines.



This is certainly true as time progressed but initially this was not an issue. The Zero's performance in 1940/1941 was comparable to foreign carrier fighters of the same vintage. Obviously as time went on, the discrepancies became greater.

Yup, it was the DB 601A, which became the Kawasaki Ha-40 engine that powered the Ki-61 and its predecessor the Ki-60 heavy interceptor, the naval variant was the Aichi Atsuta that went into the excellent Yokosuka D4Y dive bomber. The Japanese versions suffered mechanically inthat crankshaft failure was an issue - many of the problems were never solved and apparently the engine was not popular from a mechanic's standpoint.

An aircraft that never progressed that held promise, powered by the same engine was the Nakajima Ki-62, which looked like a Ki-84 with an inline engine, the latter incorporating design features of the Ki-62. Only one was built and it was discontinued in favour of developing the Ki-43 and '-44 fighters. Perhaps a Nakajima 12-Shi might have resembled the projected radial engined variant, the Ki-63, that looked like a Ki-84?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

I don't think they ever made a really powerful version of the Ha 40 did they? I think it remained around 1,100 hp right?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

There was the Ha-140 variant that was rated at 1,500hp for the Ki-61 high altitude variant, there was also the Ha-201, which was two Ha-40s joined to a common gearbox for the Kawasaki Ki-64, which was rated at 2,350hp.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Right but viable for the field or more test / experimental versions...? Japanese mechanics seemed to really struggle with the Ha-140


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where's your samurai spirit, Saburo? Those Curtiss jockeys haven't yet been infested with the deadly up-and-down dogfighting virus, and you've got the best round 'n round dogfighter in the world! Tennoheika banzai!


I actually think facing p40s with A5Ms at this stage is not as hopeless as it might look at first glance. At that point in the game everyone was still turnfighting, tactics to use speed and if possible altitude to neutralize the moaenuverability advantage of Japanese types had not been developed. In low or medium speed turning fight between an A5m and a p40 I'm not sure the p40 comes out on top. I think things are going to be alot closer than we might think with our knowledge of tactics that were developed later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

The similar (maybe superior) Ki 27 didn't fare that well against P-40s though it mostly faced pilots using BnZ tactics. I know A5M faced I-16 and some other types in Manchuria not sure how that went precisely. I think the speed disparity with those fixed undercarriage types is so significant it would become obvious pretty quickly how to win against them. The Zero was a lot scarier because it's performance was actually quite good. P-40s could outrun them in dives etc. but it took careful tactics and discipline. It was never easy or safe to fight a Zero with a good pliot even in much more powerful fighters late in the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 14, 2019)

Reading about the Germans selling liquid cooled engine technology to the Japanese.
They did not mind sending how to build the engines.
They refused to sell the Fuel Injection Technology the Japanese had to design their own.
Seems they did an ok job but were unreliable because there were too few trained mechanics to tune them.
When they did work Ki61 was a competitive aircraft.

When they came on line were able to dive and outclass the P-40s.
This caused General Kenny to ask for more P-38 Lightnings.
(I am looking for the specific Citation)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> At that point in the game everyone was still turnfighting, tactics to use speed and if possible altitude to neutralize the moaenuverability advantage of Japanese types had not been developed.


Oh, but they had! Unfortunately, this was done by the heretic, Chennault, which rendered it unpalatable to the air combat orthodoxy of USAAF. It took costly lessons to vindicate his tactical lessons to the Establishment.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> In low or medium speed turning fight between an A5m and a p40 I'm not sure the p40 comes out on top


A virgin prewar P40 pilot, uncontaminated by Chennaultism, would be meat on the table for any reasonably competent A5M driver.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Pilots not wearing parachutes was also a problem...



Both the A6M and Ki-43 seats were designed to be used with parachutes so you needed a parachute to sit in them. Shinpachi and others have blown that myth away multiple times.

Unlike any of our fighters the A6m had an excellent flotation system to give the pilot time to evacuate the aircraft after ditching. See the Zeke 32, Design Analysis article

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Seems to me one of the biggest problems the Japanese had with regard to improving their fighters was with their engines. One comparatively easy solution to that was by borrowing German ones like the Italians did. They had what I would call a partial technology transfer of the DB 600 series engine, an early (I think 601A) version which was adapted to the Ki 61. The problem is that Japanese industry had trouble adapting to the new engine, and probably could have used more help. Communications with the Germans was very limited and difficult. By the mid-war any physical transfer of artifacts such as engines, parts, blueprints or machine tools had to be done by submarine, and those were often being caught and destroyed by US or British naval assets.
> 
> If they had been able to start robust production of a reliable DB 601E some time around 1942, which probably would have required the Germans sending maybe a couple of people and a lot of documentation and machine tools, that Ki-61 could have become much more of a problem for the Americans. That might have given the Japanese a viable replacement to the Ki-43 and possibly also the A6M in time to make a difference until their own radial engine designs caught up.



The critical factor on the Atsuta engine was the shortage of copper in Japan - to the point that they named the engine after the shrine gates that were melted to provide the copper. (Francillon _Japanese aircraft of the Pacific_)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 14, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> apparently the engine was not popular from a mechanic's standpoint.





Dan Fahey said:


> were unreliable because there were too few trained mechanics to tune them


When an aviation maintenance monoculture suddenly has to cope with a new and radically different technology which stands all of their practices and procedures on their heads, it tends to disrupt things a little.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Both the A6M and Ki-43 seats were designed to be used with parachutes so you needed a parachute to sit in them. Shinpachi and others have blown that myth away multiple times.
> 
> Unlike any of our fighters the A6m had an excellent flotation system to give the pilot time to evacuate the aircraft after ditching. See the Zeke 32, Design Analysis article



I just read the metliculously researched "South Pacific Air War" which described several incidents of Japanese pilots not wearing parachutes in the New Guinea area.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

Probably a personal choice.






DA WEBS​


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Yeah I never thought it was universal


----------



## pbehn (Oct 14, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Probably a personal choice.
> 
> View attachment 556607
> 
> DA WEBS​


My fathers only drama as a stoker on a destroyer in WW2 was hitting an iceberg, I stupidly said "why didn't you learn to swim dad", "what the hell would I swim to in iced water"? came the curt reply. For some naval aviators saving the weight was a rational decision if your chances of being rescued were close to zero.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 14, 2019)

Sakai Saburo's thoughts, from "Samurai"...

"In 1942, none of our fighter planes carried pilot armor, nor did the Zeros have self-sealing fuel tanks, as did the American planes. As the enemy pilots soon discovered, a burst of their 50-caliber bullets into the fuel tanks of a Zero caused it to explode violently in flames. Despite this, in those days not one of our pilots flew with parachutes. This has been misinterpreted in the West as proof that our leaders were disdainful of our lives, that all Japanese pilots were expendable and regarded as pawns rather than human beings. This was far from the truth. Every man was assigned a parachute; the decision to fly without them was our own and not the result of orders from higher headquarters. Actually, we were urged, although not ordered, to wear the parachutes in combat. At some fields the base commander insisted that chutes be worn, and those men had no choice but to place the bulky packs in their planes. Often, however, they never fastened the straps, and used the chutes only as seat cushions.

We had little use for these parachutes, for the only purpose they served for us was to hamstring our cockpit movements in a battle. It was difficult to move our arms and legs when encumbered by chute straps. There was another, and equally compelling, reason for not carrying the chutes into combat. The majority of our battles were fought with enemy fighters over their own fields. It was out of the question to bail out over enemy territory, for such a move meant a willingness to be captured, and nowhere in the Japanese military code or in the traditional _Bushido_ (Samurai code) could one find the distasteful words “Prisoner of War.” _There were no prisoners._ A man who did not return from combat was dead. No fighter pilot of any courage would ever permit himself to be captured by the enemy. It was completely unthinkable"

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Yeah that is a paradox about the Japanese, and a major difference between them and the Germans and Italians.. I know people roll their eyes when I bring up ancient history but quite a few of the German pilots had a _Von_ prefix before their name and not a few were _Graf Vo_n... they flew with the feudal coats of arms of their families or their town on their planes. Those men would have grown up hearing and reading stories about the exploits of their ancestors in Centuries past, and one of the most common features of those stories in the genaeology was the routine capture and eventual ransom (or more rarely, escape or rescue) of the ancestor in question. The idea of being captured certainly wasn't relished, it usually meant a fairly major financial setback, and they faced some enemies, like the Mongols and Ottomans, with whom captivity was often worse than death. But captivity and an eventual release was very routine in the constant day to day squabbling that went in in Central Europe between the Latinized people. Not just Germans and Italians but also with the Poles, Czechs, Scandinavians, Flemish and so on. For a German knight or burgher to be captured was certainly a setback, but it was by no means annihilated the _Ehren_ (honor / reputation) of the person involved. It was just a fact of life.

For the Japanese, the incredible discipline and hard attitude that served them so well also had this rigidity which could be a downside. Captivity was nigh unthinkable. Even escape could be looked at as suspect. In South Pacific Air War there is an anecdote about a bomber crew, I think of a Betty, which had been shot down and presumed dead. The crew were posthumously promoted as was customary and listed as KiA. But then after a few weeks of struggling through the jungle, they showed up. This caused such embarrassment and eventually resentment among their colleagues that they were (according to the book) sent out on a solo mission to attack Port Morseby so as to get decently killed.

On a more pragmatic and less ideological level, even a less hardened Japanese pilot or flight crewman was aware that not much effort was being made to rescue downed pilots, so if captivity wasn't unthinkable, dying of thirst and fever deep in a Tropical jungle or floating forlorn in the open ocean until the sharks ate you also probably didn't seem worth considering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

The Soviets had a variation on that, being captured meant you could be 'contaminated' by contact with the Germans. Some pilots were tainted with suspicion by the NKVD etc. after being captured and escaping or even just being shot down behind enemy lines and coming back.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> On a more pragmatic and less ideological level, even a less hardened Japanese pilot or flight crewman was aware that not much effort was being made to rescue downed pilots, so if captivity wasn't unthinkable, dying of thirst and fever deep in a Tropical jungle or floating forlorn in the open ocean until the sharks ate you also probably didn't seem worth considering.


Experience in the Battle of Britain showed pilots landing in water had little chance of being rescued and the parachute that just saved their life in the air tried to take it in the water, dragging them through the water and entangling them in string and silk.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> (Francillon _Japanese aircraft of the Pacific_)



The Bible for English language interpretation of the subject. An indespensible reference, along with the predecessor Japanese Aircraft 1910 -1941 also by Putnam.



XBe02Drvr said:


> When an aviation maintenance monoculture suddenly has to cope with a new and radically different technology which stands all of their practices and procedures on their heads, it tends to disrupt things a little.



Yuyp, it does, but environment plays a big part in how the engineers cope. Are the changes brought about because of technological advance, a different philosophy or short sighted managerial change?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

True but the North Sea is tough to survive immersion in, you can only survive without some kind of special suit for ten minutes or so most of the year, certainly during Winter or Fall. The South Pacific by contrast, though it really was full of man-eating sharks, was warm enough to facilitate the survival of literally thousands of downed Allied aircrew, sometimes after many days afloat. As a a single stand-out example, during the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the US commander Admiral Mitscher launched 226 aircraft on a strike which he knew, even with his carriers steaming toward the target at flank speed, was going to be out of range for many of them to make it back... and they would be recovering after dark. But he wanted to take out those Japanese carriers, no telling when the next opportunity would present itself or how much damage they would do in the meantime.

In the event, 20 USN planes were shot down by enemy aircraft and flak, but 80 had to ditch in the sea or crashed during landing. Of those 80 planes, 75% of the crews were rescued from the sea, some several days later (and presumably with a bad sunburn).

The rest... eaten by sharks or drowned. Or enslaved by Cthulhu....

I grant you though parachuting into the water (vs. ditching) was a dicey proposition. It too was done though. Some planes lacked the flotation characteristics of the A6M3 and it was better to bail out if you had the luxury.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Some planes lacked the flotation characteristics of the A6M3 and it was better to bail out if you had the luxury.



Eric Brown described the Sea Hurricane as having "...the ditching propensities of a submarine"!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 14, 2019)

Takes some Samurai-like courage to fly one of those things off of a catapult from a merchant ship way out in the North Atlantic in January. 

Truth is, we make a lot out of the Bushido mentality of the Japanese, and they did take things a step further with the Kamikaze and the Ohka and all that, but the truth is a lot of the airmen and even more of the infantry, tankers, submariners and so on, at least the ones out there on the front line were up against pretty hairy odds in WW2 and most of them were well aware of it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> the truth is a lot of the airmen and even more of the infantry, tankers, submariners and so on, at least the ones out there on the front line were up against pretty hairy odds in WW2 and most of them were well aware of it.



Yup, hazard of the time. I remember reading that the German submarine arm of WW1 and 2 had the highest rate of no return from operations of any branch of any armed force in the history of warfare. Something like 80 percent of men on operations failed to return. The second highest was the German naval airship arm - those Zeppelin crew members faced the same odds as the German submariners.

It isn't confined to wartime. Look at the Space Shuttle, there were six frames, one not being orbital, two destroyed with the loss of their crew and that leaves three remaining. A 40 percent loss rate of space capable Orbiters. Even in wartime that's unsustainable odds. The Orbiters had no escape system for the crew other than exiting out the hatch on the left side of the vehicle, which was accessed by a flight of stairs from the flight deck, even then, parachuting out of a tumbling Orbiter that may or may not be on fire and successfully opening a chute is no guarantee of survival. I vaguely remember that, like the RAF Vulcan, Victor and Valiant crews, only the two pilots were planned to have ejection seats, but this was canned for weight saving I think. Again, survival at the velocities the Shuttles were experiencing on take off would rip someone to shreds. In the case of the Challenger, there was no possibility of escape. In the Columbia, when they were aware of their impending fate, again, what to do? At that stage of their flight regime, the vehicle was not powered and literally freefalling into the atmosphere.

Here's a description of how to get out of the Orbiter if there is an emergency. Note that it only applies when the thing is on gliding approach.

HSF - The Shuttle

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 15, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Are the changes brought about because of technological advance, a different philosophy or short sighted managerial change?


All of the above. Old time aircooled mechanics working on a foreign large displacement liquid cooled engine are going to encounter materials, tolerances, and procedures unlike anything they have been taught or are used to. Liquid cooled engines run at much steadier temperatures, have tighter internal tolerances, and use different alloys in their high temp parts. Their lubrication, gasketing, and intake/exhaust details are unlike anything these maintainers have ever experienced, and this goes for the entire system, including management, supply and training.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Takes some Samurai-like courage to fly one of those things off of a catapult from a merchant ship way out in the North Atlantic in January.
> 
> Truth is, we make a lot out of the Bushido mentality of the Japanese, and they did take things a step further with the Kamikaze and the Ohka and all that, but the truth is a lot of the airmen and even more of the infantry, tankers, submariners and so on, at least the ones out there on the front line were up against pretty hairy odds in WW2 and most of them were well aware of it.



You forgot our merchant seamen, who risked their lives daily.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2019)

"They sacrifice themselves like Samurai, these Americans"
Admiral Nagumo, 5 June 1942

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 15, 2019)

pbehn said:


> the parachute that just saved their life in the air tried to take it in the water, dragging them through the water and entangling them in string and silk.


Because, being land based pilots, they weren't given adequate training in how to deal with a parachute in the water. USN handled this with what was called a paradrag rescue trainer.
We had a Dilbert Dunker and a WWII vintage paradrag trainer on base, and as the only SCUBA diver in our group, I became safety diver on these antiques. This made scheduling of training sessions much easier, as we weren't dependent on availability and willingness of divers from the Underwater Swimmers School downtown.
As part of my prep, I had to ride both devices, wearing a flight suit, boots, a nonfunctional mae west and a helmet and O2 mask. If a real "feet wet" parachute landing had been anything like that paradrag, I'd have been a goner without that training.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 15, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> All of the above. Old time aircooled mechanics working on a foreign large displacement liquid cooled engine are going to encounter materials, tolerances, and procedures unlike anything they have been taught or are used to. Liquid cooled engines run at much steadier temperatures, have tighter internal tolerances, and use different alloys in their high temp parts. Their lubrication, gasketing, and intake/exhaust details are unlike anything these maintainers have ever experienced, and this goes for the entire system, including management, supply and training.
> Cheers,
> Wes



And unlike a lot of the American mechanics, these guys had mostly _not_ grown up working on tractors or tinkering with Model-Ts. America in the 1930's was very poor but mechanization was widespread even in the rural areas. You had a certain percentage of young men who knew how to work on engines. In Japan, the countryside from which a lot of the population hailed was decidedly not in the machine age in the 1930's. Many of those Japanese kids had never seen anything more complicated than a plow or an ox-cart before being drafted. Japan did a great job training their troops but you were really moving a mountain there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 15, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Because, being land based pilots, they weren't given adequate training in how to deal with a parachute in the water. USN handled this with what was called a paradrag rescue trainer.
> We had a Dilbert Dunker and a WWII vintage paradrag trainer on base, and as the only SCUBA diver in our group, I became safety diver on these antiques. This made scheduling of training sessions much easier, as we weren't dependent on availability and willingness of divers from the Underwater Swimmers School downtown.
> As part of my prep, I had to ride both devices, wearing a flight suit, boots, a nonfunctional mae west and a helmet and O2 mask. If a real "feet wet" parachute landing had been anything like that paradrag, I'd have been a goner without that training.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Any idea when these started XB? The UK didn't really start to address air sea rescue until around 1942/3 Ive no idea whether they did ditching training during the war.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Soviets had a variation on that, being captured meant you could be 'contaminated' by contact with the Germans. Some pilots were tainted with suspicion by the NKVD etc. after being captured and escaping or even just being shot down behind enemy lines and coming back.



Infamous Order No.270.
Order No. 270 - Wikipedia
Quote
_if a superior or a unit of the Red Army – instead of organizing resistance to the enemy – prefers to become a prisoner they should be destroyed by all means possible on land and air, and their families deprived of public benefits and assistance. _
Unquote.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 15, 2019)

Crazy. Threatened from within and without. They had to walk quite a tightrope.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They had to walk quite a tightrope.



The joys of the Soviet system.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Infamous Order No.270.
> Order No. 270 - Wikipedia
> Quote
> _if a superior or a unit of the Red Army – instead of organizing resistance to the enemy – prefers to become a prisoner they should be destroyed by all means possible on land and air, and their families deprived of public benefits and assistance. _
> Unquote.


If the German high-command decided to enter the Soviet Union as benefactors instead of conquerors, they could have taken the Soviet Union with nearly a struggle - treating them as "unter mensch" just steeled their resolve...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> If the German high-command decided to enter the Soviet Union as benefactors instead of conquerors, they could have taken the Soviet Union with nearly a struggle - treating them as "unter mensch" just steeled their resolve...


I've read that in some areas at first the Russian civilians saw the Germans as liberators and were happy when they showed up...........which of course changed in short order. If the Germans had played there cards right and embraced the " libaratior" role and been mr nice guy to the Russians they captured/ occupied they could have met with substantially less resistance and probably have taken Russia. Speculation on my part of course but IMHO .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> If the Germans had played there cards right and embraced the " libaratior" role and been mr nice guy to the Russians they captured/ occupied they could have met with substantially less resistance


Nice fantasy. No way that would have ever come to pass under Nazi ideology. To much historical baggage vis a vis Slavic peoples and the hordes from the east.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've read that in some areas at first the Russian civilians saw the Germans as liberators and were happy when they showed up...........which of course changed in short order. If the Germans had played there cards right and embraced the " libaratior" role and been mr nice guy to the Russians they captured/ occupied they could have met with substantially less resistance and probably have taken Russia. Speculation on my part of course but IMHO .



It's called the EU.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Nice fantasy. No way that would have ever come to pass under Nazi ideology. To much historical baggage vis a vis Slavic peoples and the hordes from the east.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Not a fantasy of mine. That's for sure. I have NO sympathy for Nazi -ism.
It simply shows that there own hate of others eventually sank them. Or at least played a large part in doing so.
And also shows just how oppressive the Soviet state was that invaders looked good to there countrymen, at least to some.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Any idea when these started XB? The UK didn't really start to address air sea rescue until around 1942/3 Ive no idea whether they did ditching training during the war.



"Parachute Drag Trainer (PDT)
The PDT is used for aircrews to practice righting, self-stabilization and parachute release skills when dragged by a wind-blown parachute upon water entry. ETC’s PDT consists of a tower, cable run, and a wall support. The PDT provides realistic, variable drag speed for different wind conditions."

This is the modern and far more elaborate version of the WWII antique we had at our base. Our unit was, I believe, installed in 1943, but primary training bases such as Pensacola, Corpus Christi, Olathe, etc, had already had them for years.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've read that in some areas at first the Russian civilians saw the Germans as liberators and were happy when they showed up...........


They did, especially the Ukranians who were still reeling from Uncle Joe's famine.

The German troops were showered with flowers, there were celebrations and Russian soldiers wanting to defect to help fight the Red Army.

As it was just mentioned, the Germans would maintain their agenda of oppression in the occupied areas, which of course ruined any chance of public capitulation to the German's cause.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Nice fantasy. No way that would have ever come to pass under Nazi ideology. To much historical baggage vis a vis Slavic peoples and the hordes from the east.
> Cheers,
> Wes



This whole "Slavic hordes of the East" thing was a particularly grotesque aspect of Nazi ideology because historically, the Germans were very closely linked to at least the Latinized Slavs for centuries.

Germans used to have literally an industry of founding and organizing towns in the middle ages. A large percentage of the towns in what are now Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic and Scandinavia were founded or reorganized ("located") by German speaking settlers some time between the years 1000 and 1300. Places like Krakow, Danzig / Gdansk, Stockholm, Buda and Pesht, Wroclaw / Breslau, Riga, Talinn / Reval and so on, were all "located" by Germans and had substantial German-speaking populations for Centuries. German scholars call this the Ostiedlung. For the most part they got along well with the local populations.

If you have ever wondered why Prussia was sort of floating out there in Northern Poland away from the rest of Germany, the reason is that it was originally a cluster of German-settled towns which had come under the control of the monastic State of the Teutonic Knights, for a long time one of the largest and best administered proto-States in Europe, created by and dedicated to fighting the nearly endless Northern Crusades in that region. After the Crusades bogged down due to the military prowess of the Lithuanians and the knights started making enemies all around them, the German towns, led by Danzig, got fed up and switched allegience to Poland. They formed a league called the Prussian Confederation and fought a major war against the Teutonic Order _so as to become part of the Polish Kingdom_!, because the Poles agreed to grant them near total autonomy. In the end they won the war and became a special autonomous region of Poland from the 1400's until the late 1700's. Many famous people like Nicholas Copernicus and his uncle and patron Bishop Lucas von Watzenrode grew up in German-speaking towns in Polish "Royal Prussia" but were strong political allies of Poland and against the Teutonic Order.

Poland was for a long time a major success story as a multi-ethnic, multi-religion commonwealth with a mix of Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, and some Muslim citizens all allowed by law to practice their religion freely, with ethnic Poles, Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Czechs, and others, becoming one of the largest and most powerful proto-States in Europe for the better part of three Centuries, as a Constitutional monarchy or kind of nobles Republic with roughly 20% of the population having a strong say in how the government was run in the Polish parliament or Sejm (including veto power over taxes and declarations of war).

Within Germany itself, a good proportion of the land and the people are formerly Slavic . Mecklenburg, Brandenburg and Pomerania (roughly the north-eastern quadrant of modern Germany) were Slavic Wendish / Orebite kingdoms which were conquered by Saxon warlords and converted to Christianity between the time of Charlemagne and the 12th Century, and the people just started speaking German dialects after a while.

For all the above reasons, you will find many people with German names in the "Slavic" countries and many Slavic names in the "German" countries (like Friedrich _Nietzsche_, and quite a few top German _experten_ fighter aces like Walter Krupinski, Eberhard von Boremski, Hans-Joachim Kroschinski, Gerhard Michalski and so on) . To this day 13% of Germans have Slavic names. The existence of German-speaking enclaves in various East European States actually helped cause both WW I and WW II with the spread of new ethnic-nationalist ideologies and the rise of ethnic tensions in the 19th and 20th Centuries - places like Prussia in Poland, the Saxon zone of Transylvania, and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.




But prior to the 19th Century, the real split historically was not truly ethnic but rather mainly religious, between the zone of Latinized people (who mostly became Catholic or Protestant) and the Greek Orthodox zone. Poles and Czechs for example were on the Latin side of the fence. Russians, whose Cyrillic alphabet is based on the Greek alphabet, were in the Greek Orthodox zone. This divide was bitter, and sharpened when the Mongols took over most of the Rus, the Slavic - Swedish zone of small principalities in what is now Western Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. There were truly vicious religious wars already in the 16th Century like the Livonian War. There was certainly a cultural border between the Latin and Greek influenced zones. But also cross-border fertilization, with many Russian (and Serbian etc.) nobles attending the Sorbonne in Paris going back to the 14th Century, Veliky Novgorod, Pskov and Tver maintaining links with the German Hanseatic League through the 15th Century, and St. Petersburg was essentially created for commerce with the West and partly founded in the 17th by Swedish POWs so as to have a more Latinized / Western friendly character as a West facing trading entrepot and cultural zone.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

The Ukranians and Belorussians had been conquered by the Mongols, and endured their very harsh rule, subject to their slave raids etc., until the (then Pagan) Lithuanians recaptured most of that territory from the Mongol Golden Horde in the 14th and 15th Century. Things were a lot better for the Ruthenians (Ukranians) for a while. Lithuania then merged with Poland to form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Ukranians had a little better deal under the religious freedom law, though many were second-class citizens so to speak due to their Greek Orthodox religion, they had far more rights than they had under the Mongols and Russians.

That all broke down in the mid 17th Century in the wake of the vicious religious wars which swept Europe at that time (especially the apocalyptic 30 Years War). The mostly Ruthenian / Ukranian Cossacks, who were very tough rebels that had been allied with the Poles in wars against the Ottomans and Mongols, felt that they were being betrayed and gradually forced into serfdom under counter-reformation sectarianism, so they rebelled. Then the Swedes invaded which caused a major disaster the Poles call The Deluge, in which ultimately Poland recovered from but it kind of broke their back. The Cossacks went into the Russian orbit for a while, and were used with success by the Russians to take back nearly all the land formerly controlled by Mongol and Turkic warlords (this is how Russia grew to be so wide!). But were ultimately betrayed again, losing their autonomy under Catherine the Great in the 18th Century.

So the Ukranians had a history of being allied with the Latin powers, but also a memory of deep betrayals both from them and the Russians. This resurfaced in the Russian revolution and subsequent regional wars, when the Ukranians kind of went their own way refusing to ally with the Soviet Bolsheviks or Whites or the Polish Catholics. Instead they formed this entity called the Black Army which was anarchist in political orientation (like the Kurds in Syria) and proved to be an extremely adept at defeating both the "Whites" and the Bolsheviks with new innovative tactics and weapons.

Ultimately after several failed military campaigns the Bolsheviks defeated them by inviting their leaders to a peace conference and killing them all. Ten years later was the Holodomor, the great famine instigated by "Uncle Joe" which killed somewhere between 3 and 12 million Ukranians mostly by starvation. After that they were definitely ready for just about any new leadership that was even remotely reasonable, but instead the Nazis brought in the _Einsatzgruppen_.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> If the German high-command decided to enter the Soviet Union as benefactors instead of conquerors, they could have taken the Soviet Union with nearly a struggle - treating them as "unter mensch" just steeled their resolve...



This idea is quite popular among some historians. The question is who would act as a benefactor. The political leadership of Reich was probably too indoctrinated and military leadership (who was more sympathetic to ROA, etc.) was either not influential enough or have chosen to stay away.
Kirill Alexandrov (one of the best experts of the anti-Communist movements in the USSR) has described how Henning von Treskow had organised the visit of General Vlasov to Army Group Centre in Smolensk in March 1943. Just before Hitler's visit to the same place and that Cointreau bottle taken on board of the fuhrer's airplane. Could it be part of a plan, Hitler is dead and Vlasov is installed as the head of anti-Stalin government in Smolensk? Food for thought... at least for fans of älternative history.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

It's also good to remember just the years before the invasion there was also not a vacuum, Germany and Russia were pretty entangled in the Weimar years and not always in a good way. One (to me) pretty shocking thing was that the Luftwaffe kind of came together in Russia.

Lipetsk fighter-pilot school - Wikipedia

There was a good show on Netflix for a while called Babylon Berlin, which gives you a pretty eye-opening perception of the time period.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Ukranians and Belorussians had been conquered by the Mongols



Sorry for my "nit-picking" but there were no Ukrainians or Belorussians/Belarusians or Russians (in modern meaning) during the Mongol invasion.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Sorry for my "nit-picking" but there were no Ukrainians or Belorussians/Belarusians or Russians (in modern meaning) during the Mongol invasion.



I used the modern terms for the Anlgophone readers to have a point of reference, but I did mention the term "Ruthenian" and "Rus" i.e. "_the Mongols took over most of the *Rus*, the Slavic - Swedish zone of small principalities *in what is now* Western Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus._ " which are probably closer to correct terms, albeit still too broad.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

But point taken

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> They did, especially the Ukranians who were still reeling from Uncle Joe's famine.
> 
> The German troops were showered with flowers, there were celebrations and Russian soldiers wanting to defect to help fight the Red Army.
> 
> As it was just mentioned, the Germans would maintain their agenda of oppression in the occupied areas, which of course ruined any chance of public capitulation to the German's cause.


True. If your cruel to the population you occupy more often than not your just shooting yourself in the foot as you guarantee bitter resistance.
On the Ukraine don't know if youve ever read about the Holodomor but it's quite disturbing.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 16, 2019)

The Ukranian resistance was indeed pretty tough and pretty mean too. After the Nazis were defeated some of the Ukranian groups continued fighting the Soviets into the 50's.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Ukranian resistance was indeed pretty tough and pretty mean too. After the Nazis were defeated some of the Ukranian groups continued fighting the Soviets into the 50's.


Ive never heard that before. The part about them fighting the Soviets into the 50s I mean. Kinda wierd how everything that went on in the Ukraine has had so little attention paid to it all these years.
Perhaps because the Soviets were our allies in the war.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 17, 2019)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 17, 2019)

So....did the Belorussians, the Ukrainians, or the Lithuanians develop any aircraft that might have changed the course of WWII?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2019)

The Hungarians resisted the Soviets after the war and it turned into a full-blown revolution in the 50's, which was put down by the Soviets.

In regards to the aircraft question, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were the only Eastern European countries that had indigenous aircraft manufacturing, the others did not have a manufacturing base capable of large scale aircraft production/development.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 17, 2019)

What about Poland and Czech? Poland had the PZL P-11 which was used (in a more advanced export version, the P-24) fairly widely by Greece, Romania etc., and then (allegedly) became the basis for the quite more modern looking and successful IAR-80 series from Romania.

The Czechs didn't have any modern fighters in large scale service but they certainly had the capacity - something like 1/3 of the tanks in the German army at the time of their invasion of France were Czech made Pz 35 (T) and Pz 38 (T). One assumes the French were regretting throwing the Czechs under the bus as a sacrifice for peace at that point...

The Czech aircraft companies, notably Avia, were able to produce decent number of older generation aircraft and came up with some very promising designs before the war that they didn't have time to develop.

The B-534 was a decent fighter for it's time (early to mid-30's) with some advanced design features. And they made 500 of them.







Avia B-534 - Wikipedia

They also had some far more sophisticated designs. For example the B-35 / 135











Avia B.35 - Wikipedia

Avia B-135 - Wikipedia

The 135 managed ~330 mph with an 860 hp Hispano-Suiza engine and had a 20mm cannon in the nose spinner. 12 were made for export to Bulgaria. Bulgaria was supposed to make some of their own but proved incapable of manufacturing them in their own factory. I think if the Czechs had been able to build say 500 of those it _could_ have made a difference.


Even the Latvians came up with a fairly promising fighter design though their design bureau was snuffed out with the Soviet invasion.








Of course none of these changed the course of the war. The Czech fighters, along with their very capable tanks, might have changed the early trajectory had they gotten support against the Germans early on and not been forced to give up their easily defended mountainous border via diplomacy... but that is a different topic and one of histories great "What-Ifs"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 17, 2019)

The Yugoslavians also had the *Rogožarski IK-3* 

Rogožarski IK-3 - Wikipedia






Yet another interesting baby strangled in the crib.


----------



## CCL2341 (Oct 17, 2019)

pbehn said:


> t the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each.


On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.

All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 17, 2019)

CCL2341 said:


> On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
> 
> All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time



The Hurricane held the line until larger numbers of Spitfires became available, and American aircraft arrived in the hundreds of thousands.


----------



## WJay (Oct 17, 2019)

Considering the question...
I submit the aircraft is the DC-3/ C-47.
I know this aircraft as The Goony Bird in Vietnam.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2019)

CCL2341 said:


> On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
> 
> All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time


That was basically my point. Spitfire production was much lower than Hurricane production until the new factory started producing which was during the BoB. There were two month between the fall of France and August 17 1940.


----------



## Barrett (Oct 17, 2019)

I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2019)

Barrett said:


> I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
> There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.


Which Hurricane wing? Until just before the war they were dope covering a metal lattice frame, the last were changed to metal skinned in 1940.


----------



## Norman (Oct 17, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
> Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
> Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
> So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.


C-47.


----------



## Norman (Oct 17, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
> Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
> Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
> So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.


C-47.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 17, 2019)

Barrett said:


> I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
> There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.



Going by Len Deighton (Blood, Tears and Folly - pp353)...
*
"By the time war came, 299 Spitfires had been built using 24 million man-hours while 578 Hurricanes had been produced for only 20 million man-hours".*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 17, 2019)

If you look at say the DC-3 then you could say DC-5 or C-46 or Lockheed Lodestar so important as the DC-3 was it was not unique as there were alternatives.

Ju-52 was more important as Germany had less ability and less capability to design and build a rival.

Again with the Zero if a Diet Zero has only half the range then you only perform half the mission. So the Pacific war would have been very different. No Midway no Pearl Harbour and probably less expansion in the Pacific. So probably all good points for the Japanese. The Japanese would still have a naval fighter but probably something worse.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2019)

Wingnuts; waaay ahead of you, mate. Take a look here:

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Oct 17, 2019)

According to BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION by Michael M. Postan, HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERIES, early Spitfire Is 15,200 man-hours vs Hurricne Is 10,300. This about Jan 1940.
And IMHO the reason of the greater part of the difference was that Hawker was a big aircraft manufacture, used to some sort of mass production, it had built 2,000+ Harts/Audaxes/Hinds in 30s. Supermarine on the other hand was much smaller manufacture, having build mostly small series of flying boats before the WW2. When Castle Bromwich got its production running its produced Spitfires clearly more effectively than the mother factory, in 1941 10,400 man-hours for Spit V.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Wingnuts; waaay ahead of you, mate. Take a look here:
> 
> The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945



I just posted the photo to show what was possible with the Lanc. I did not have time to read all the posts on the subject


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 17, 2019)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet as I have not read all the posts, but one unlikely aircraft that really did a lot of useful work was the Fairy Swordfish, AKA the Stringbag. Although not turning the tide it did rather spoil things for the other side. Crippling the Bismark, The raid on Taranto, the battle of Cape Matapan, and numerous U Boat sinkings. and sank a greater tonnage of enemy ships than any other allied aircraft, even though it was regarded as obsolete by the start of the war it did last longer than the Fairey Albacore that was designed to replace it. 

My top picks for the aircraft that did the most would be the Spitfire/Hurricane combination, the SBD Dauntless, and the DC-3/C47. I am sure the B-17, B-24 and the Lancaster would be quite high in the list.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 17, 2019)

Norman said:


> C-47.


Thats a good pick. I think alot of people don't realize how important the c47 was.
To me a turning of the tide would be more of say a pivotal battle like Midway or El Alemien. But a case could certainly be made for a longer more all inclusive timeframe for turning of the tide so I'm certainly not going to try and talk you out of it...............Especially since I love the C47


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I just posted the photo to show what was possible with the Lanc.



Yup, and within the thread you'll see documentation poduced during the war on trials carried out with a modified Upkeep carrying Lancaster and its effect on its performance. All the information provided should give you a clear indication of the Lancaster's performance based on load carrying capability and fuel available operating at its MTOW with given engine power outputs.

As has been discussed, yes, the Lancaster 'could' carry a Little Boy (but only a Little Boy, not a Fat Man), but it could not carry out the atom bomb attacks as they were owing to insufficient performance, the reasons for which are readily available in the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 17, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, and within the thread you'll see documentation poduced during the war on trials carried out with a modified Upkeep carrying Lancaster and its effect on its performance. All the information provided should give you a clear indication of the Lancaster's performance based on load carrying capability and fuel available operating at its MTOW with given engine power outputs.
> 
> As has been discussed, yes, the Lancaster 'could' carry a Little Boy (but only a Little Boy, not a Fat Man), but it could not carry out the atom bomb attacks as they were owing to insufficient performance, the reasons for which are readily available in the thread.



Thanks for that, although I'm not really into "what might have beens". I spent most of my time in the RAF between 1965 and 1970 on Avro Shackletons, a descendant of the Lanc, they were able to carry nuclear torpedos but they were much smaller than the Little Boy and Fat Man.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2019)

Ooo the Shackleton! Welcome Wingnuts, any stories you have, feel free...

Yup, we trade on the 'what might have beens' on this forum and a lot can be learned, particularly about what we think we know. Before the suggestion in this thread I had no idea about the Lanc being talked about as a nuclear bomber, none at all, and by the end of it, we now have considered, thoughtful input from so many individuals that has brought a peculiar and little known aspect of the Lancaster to life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Ooo the Shackleton! Welcome Wingnuts, any stories you have, feel free...
> 
> Yup, we trade on the 'what might have beens' on this forum and a lot can be learned, particularly about what we think we know. Before the suggestion in this thread I had no idea about the Lanc being talked about as a nuclear bomber, none at all, and by the end of it, we now have considered, thoughtful input from so many individuals that has brought a peculiar and little known aspect of the Lancaster to life.



Apart from a short time, about 2 months, on Hunters in Aden (Khormaksar) after our Shack squadron disbanded and about 4 months on Argosys in Bahrain ( Muharraq) I spent most of my time in the RAF between 1965 and 1970 on Shacks, starting at RAF Kinloss in Scotland on T4s with MOTU, then on to Mk3s with 206 Sqn, then to Khormaksar on 37 Sqn and after Bahrain to RAF Ballykelly on the Handling and Rectification Flight (H&R). The best think about being on Shacks was the number of detachments we had, regularly to Norway, Iceland and all the bases in the Med, plus longer 3 month detachments to Majunga in Madagascar, Sharjah and Masirah in the Gulf, Changi in Singapore and a Westabout wold trip through Canada, the US and across the Pacific via Hawaii, Wake and Guam to Changi and then back to the UK via Gan and the Middle East.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 18, 2019)

CCL2341 said:


> having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
> 
> All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time



The Hurricanes taking on the bombers and the Spitfires the escort fighters might have been the plan, but I think it seldom worked out that way. Being there in larger numbers than the Spitfire is the Hurricanes major contribution and also the main reason for the higher number of victories.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2019)

Juha3 said:


> According to BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION by Michael M. Postan, HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERIES, early Spitfire Is 15,200 man-hours vs Hurricne Is 10,300. This about Jan 1940.
> And IMHO the reason of the greater part of the difference was that Hawker was a big aircraft manufacture, used to some sort of mass production, it had built 2,000+ Harts/Audaxes/Hinds in 30s. Supermarine on the other hand was much smaller manufacture, having build mostly small series of flying boats before the WW2. When Castle Bromwich got its production running its produced Spitfires clearly more effectively than the mother factory, in 1941 10,400 man-hours for Spit V.



No

I have worked on both. The Hurricane has a simple fuselage made of steel tubes, squared where they join and held together with rivets bolts and gussets (instead of welded like the equivalent American and European aircraft). Over this is a set of wooden formers made of two layers of thin ply sandwiching 1/4 square stiffeners and 1/4 thich shaped sections and all covered in fabric. The whole belly fairing detaches making working inside fairly easy (except where the bracing wires get in the way - not needed on welded frames). Labour intensive woodwork that any competent woodmaker could make but the main frame is simple and easy to produce with low manhours.

The Spitfire fuselage is a nightmare with the skin riveted to the alloy frames and then hundreds of short intercostals riveted to L brackets between each of the frames and to the skin. Many many hours stuffed in a confined space riveting and then fitting internals. American aircraft used long stringers riveted to the skin before being riveted to the frames. Many were split on the centre line so that each half was made with lots of access and the only time inside was to join the half frames and one horizontal rivet line each side. Those were also designed to be wired and plumbed before the halves were joined.

Apart from the spars the Hurricane metal wing is a fairly straight forward structurefor the time with simple stamped parts. The Spitfire wing uses wood technology so each rib is made of dozens of small parts (some extrusions and many channels) held together by riveted gussets. Bulk manhours to make each rib.

P-40s and P-51s were around 4,00 to 4,500 manhours because they were designed to be easily produced.

If you are interested in some of the problems the MAP had in aircraft production read the following - both were senior members of the MAP staff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tarzan.Skagen (Oct 18, 2019)

My favorit is with second to none the Havilland Musquito. I Think it as the best multiroule aircrsft at the time.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> P-40s and P-51s were around 4,000 to 4,500 manhours because they were designed to be easily produced.


 Depends on the period for the Mustang figures.

Mustang I took 12,000 labor hours to produce in October 1941 (Very early serial production of NA-73 through #10 to capture an average, once the key mods were incorporated).

The P-51D-30 took 2077 labor hours from July through August 1945.

Source NAA internal memos and Bob Gruenhagen, p. 138

NAA Stan Smithson and Ralph Ruud largely credited to conceptualizing "airplane on the half-shell" by working closely with Ray Rice's production engineering group to design the aft fuselage assemblies in left and right sub-assemblies to provide access to install, electrical, hydraulic and fuel sub-systems before joining the two rear fuselage halves together. Ruud was particularly innovative in designing riveting jigs to battery drill rivet holes, and tooling to stamp the fuselage shins to match the complex second order geometric Lines.

By the time the P-51A run was over the labor hours had dropped below 4000 per ship (June 1943), due to AAF injecting additional plant funding at both Dallas and Inglewood in July and October 1943 - combined with top industrial engineering support from parent company GM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2019)

drgondog said:


> Depends on the period for the Mustang figures.
> 
> NAA Stan Smithson and Ralph Ruud largely credited to conceptualizing "airplane on the half-shell" by working closely with Ray Rice's production engineering group to design the aft fuselage assemblies in left and right sub-assemblies to provide access to install, electrical, hydraulic and fuel sub-systems before joining the two rear fuselage halves together. Ruud was particularly innovative in designing riveting jigs to battery drill rivet holes, and tooling to stamp the fuselage shins to match the complex second order geometric Lines..




Actually the P-40 was a much earlier half shell aircraft though split into upper and lower halves. I have never seen production line photos of the P-36 but it is possible that also was built in halves.

The Douglas A-20 was also half shell with a vertical split and predated the P-51 by some 22 months.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> There was a good show on Netflix for a while called Babylon Berlin, which gives you a pretty eye-opening perception of the time period.


I give you bacon for mentioning Babylon Berlin, an awesome show. I hear they are in the process of filming a third season at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet as I have not read all the posts, but one unlikely aircraft that really did a lot of useful work was the *Fairy Swordfish*, AKA the Stringbag. Although not turning the tide it did rather spoil things for the other side. Crippling the Bismark, The raid on Taranto, the battle of Cape Matapan, and numerous U Boat sinkings. *and sank a greater tonnage of enemy ships than any other allied aircraft*, even though it was regarded as obsolete by the start of the war it did last longer than the Fairey Albacore that was designed to replace it.
> 
> My top picks for the aircraft that did the most would be the Spitfire/Hurricane combination, the SBD Dauntless, and the DC-3/C47. I am sure the B-17, B-24 and the Lancaster would be quite high in the list.



I'd really like to see some kind of confirmation or evidence that the Swordfish sunk the most tonnage of enemy shipping, I find that very unlikely but I'm ready to be surprised.

For the second part, I agree in principle that it probably makes the most sense to pick a half dozen or so "most important" aircraft for different Theaters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

If I had to guess I'd have put it around #5 or 6 behind SBD, TBF / TBM, SB2C, A-20, Beaufort, B-25, TBD, and the Beaufighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If I had to guess I'd have put it around #5 or 6 behind SBD, TBF / TBM, SB2C, A-20, Beaufort, B-25, TBD, and the Beaufighter


Are we a little america-centric here, or what?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are we a little america-centric here, or what?



I hope not!! I just think in terms of sheer tonnage, I think thems the facts brah. If you can show me that Swordfish sank more tonnage of enemy ships than an SBD I'll be a very impressed individual. Even besting the TBF would be pretty impressive.

But I'll go beyond that a step - when it comes to naval and coastal aircraft I think the US had the lead. Brits had the best interceptor and the best high-speed bomber though. And the Beaufighter was very good.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

I'll also go out on a limb and say that despite it's many fans, and it's success at Taranto, I don't think the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, sorry. Nor the Albacore for that matter. Both would have been more suitable for a war in the mid-30s.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

The claim about the shipping destroyed is apparently from this book: "Stott, Ian G. _ The Fairey Swordfish Mks. I-IV_ (Aircraft in Profile 212). Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications, 1971. OCLC 53091961 "

I have my doubts...


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'll also go out on a limb and say that despite it's many fans, and it's success at Taranto, I don't think the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, sorry. Nor the Albacore for that matter. Both would have been more suitable for a war in the mid-30s.




It had some qualities others didn't like being able to fly slow enough to drop a torpedo, and to carry radar and an operator and weapons and stay in the air long enough to find something. There was nothing remarkable about its performance it was just able to do jobs its replacements couldn't.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

Or a B5N?


----------



## Juha3 (Oct 18, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Actually the P-40 was a much earlier half shell aircraft though split into upper and lower halves. I have never seen production line photos of the P-36 but it is possible that also was built in halves...



Yes, P-36 was also built in halves as it should, P-40 being in essence a liquid engined follow-up version of P-36. The 21 pages sales brochure of H-75A also mentioned that.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?


I believe so.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?



Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.


The last operational squadrons equipped with Swordfish A/C were stood down in 1945.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I believe so.



What then?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Drop British torpedoes, which, at least early in the war, were much better than American ones.



American torpedos were horrible in the first year or two, but we were talking about aircraft. I think over the course of the war, the TBF (which I also don't particularly like as a design) did a lot more damage than the Swordfish.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

For the early years the go to ship-sinker was the SBD


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What then?


I think I already posted that it had the size to carry centimetric radar and weapons and an operator at a speed that was useful. I am no great champion of it as a plane in any sort of way but it was in service until just before the end because it could do stuff ...mainly evolving around flying very slowly for a long time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> American torpedos were horrible in the first year or two, but we were talking about aircraft. I think over the course of the war, the TBF (which I also don't particularly like as a design) did a lot more damage than the Swordfish.


We will just let the Bismarck float around doing nothing in particular with the Italian fleet until you get your TBF/TBMs and their torpedos sorted then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2019)

Juha3 said:


> Yes, P-36 was also built in halves as it should, P-40 being in essence a liquid engined follow-up version of P-36. The 21 pages sales brochure of H-75A also mentioned that.



Thanks. I have not seen that brochure but I do have a 24 page one that I now see says the same on page 11. It may be that your brochure is the same one but missing pages or it may be a totally different one.

Mine has this cover and I will post it if you want.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Oct 18, 2019)

Just to be difficult, I'd have to go with the Martin NBS-1, used by Billy Mitchell to demonstrate that airplanes could sink ships.


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'd really like to see some kind of confirmation or evidence that the Swordfish sunk the most tonnage of enemy shipping, I find that very unlikely but I'm ready to be surprised.
> 
> For the second part, I agree in principle that it probably makes the most sense to pick a half dozen or so "most important" aircraft for different Theaters.



Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia "By the end of the war, the Swordfish held the distinction of having caused the destruction of a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft."

https://www.historyhit.com/facts-fairey-swordfish/

Fairey Swordfish

Fairey Swordfish

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=571

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

pbehn said:


> We will just let the Bismarck float around doing nothing in particular with the Italian fleet until you get your TBF/TBMs and their torpedos sorted then.



Actually the early torpedoes worked so I could just send a few squadrons of Devastators to do the job properly and actually sink it instead f just jamming the prop


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> Fairey Swordfish - Wikipedia "By the end of the war, the Swordfish held the distinction of having caused the destruction of a greater tonnage of Axis shipping than any other Allied aircraft."
> 
> 10 Facts About the Fairey Swordfish
> 
> ...




I saw the Wikipedia quote I just don't think that's true. There is a lot of daffy stuff on Wikipedia. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with the real heavy hitters like the SBD and TBF. I googled it a little bit today ... and there are a bunch of sites which say the same thing about the SBD for example:

Douglas SBD Dauntless (Dive Bomber) | Pearl Harbor Museum

"In total, the _Dauntless sank_ more enemy _shipping_ than any other Allied bomber. "

National WW II museum says more or less the same thing 

"By some accounts, the Dauntless sank more Japanese ships than any other plane. "

"Slow But Deadly" - Douglas SBD Dauntless Dive-bomber with 26 Photos

One site says 300,000 tons, another mentions "six Japanese carriers, fourteen cruisers, six destroyers, fifteen freighters "

From another thread on here - total sorties:






Some info on tonnage sunk 






Looks like over 2 million tons by USN carrier aircraft which would break down mostly to three types - SBD, TBF / TBM and SB2C. Some by fighters of course, and a few from the old Devastator at Coral Sea and maybe a few more by Vindicators. But it looks like that 300,000 tons for the SBD is plausible.

As for the TBF, History of War.org credits the Avenger with "being involved in the sinking of" 11 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 25 destroyers.

Helldiver is once again given credit for sinking the greatest amount of enemy tonnage of every Allied bomber on several sites like this one and this one 

...though I take that with a grain of salt.

I think we need to see hard numbers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I hope not!! I just think in terms of sheer tonnage, I think thems the facts brah. If you can show me that Swordfish sank more tonnage of enemy ships than an SBD I'll be a very impressed individual. Even besting the TBF would be pretty impressive.


Since when is the definition of "turning the tide" defined in terms of tonnage, and since when is the PTO THE decisive arena? If you want to talk tonnage in the overall effort, you can't ignore Bomber Command and the Lanc, and the day the TBF first (ineffectively) saw combat the tide was already starting to turn in PTO. By the time they saw combat in any numbers, the initiative had already changed hands.


Schweik said:


> For the early years the go to ship-sinker was the SBD


By the time SBD saw combat in any numbers, the "early years" were already over. The war was almost three years on.


Schweik said:


> But I'll go beyond that a step - when it comes to naval and coastal aircraft I think the US had the lead.


Not to knock the Catalina, the Mariner, or the Seagull, but here the B24 was huge. Much as its reputation tends toward "not the greatest aircraft", the Liberator's multi faceted contribution to the overall effort stands out in many ways that were decisive. The Lib's exploits with Coastal Command in the Uboat war and with the USN in the PTO as a super long range strike aircraft tend to go unnoticed by historians of land warfare. Low level dawn attacks by Privateers on Japanese bases "outside the combat zone" accounted for huge attrition losses in ships and aircraft.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I saw the Wikipedia quote I just don't think that's true. There is a lot of daffy stuff on Wikipedia. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with the real heavy hitters like the SBD and TBF



Don't forget the Swordfish was in action from the start of WW2 in 1939 up to the end in 1945, it had a two year head start on the SBD and TBF who did not get into action until 1942 when the US joined in. The Swordfish had already a head start at Taranto and Matapan and numerous action in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'll also go out on a limb and say that despite it's many fans, and it's success at Taranto, I don't think the Swordfish was a very good aircraft, sorry. Nor the Albacore for that matter. Both would have been more suitable for a war in the mid-30s.


I dunno. I kinda think just the fact that they were still pretty successful way past there" best by" date shows the were good designs. Long in the tooth by 42 maybe but still good designs. Imho.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Since when is the definition of "turning the tide" defined in terms of tonnage, and since when is the PTO THE decisive arena? If you want to talk tonnage in the overall effort, you can't ignore Bomber Command and the Lanc, and the day the TBF first (ineffectively) saw combat the tide was already starting to turn in PTO. By the time they saw combat in any numbers, the initiative had already changed hands.



Tonnage isn't the only criteria, I was responding to the claim that the Swordfish sunk more than any other type. I would say that the SBD, TBF and SB2C _also _sunk more capital ships and won more crucial WW2 battles than any other naval bomber too (including the Swordfish).

I disagree - the tipping point was from late 1942 through mid 1943. The TBF was involved in the mid-war. 

I would say for naval combat the PTO _was indeed_ the decisive arena because naval warfare took place there on a _far larger scale_ than in the North Atlantic, the Med, or anywhere else, objectively, and it's also a categorical fact that the Japanese had by far the largest, most dangerous and most effective navy on the Axis side. Nobody else came close. If the Americans hadn't stopped them they certainly would have caused major problems for the British in and around India. They were nudging in that direction anyway.



> By the time SBD saw combat in any numbers, the "early years" were already over. The war was almost three years on.



Until the Japanese carriers were sunk the naval war in WW2 was in it's early stages.



> Not to knock the Catalina, the Mariner, or the Seagull, but here the B24 was huge. Much as its reputation tends toward "not the greatest aircraft", the Liberator's multi faceted contribution to the overall effort stands out in many ways that were decisive. The Lib's exploits with Coastal Command in the Uboat war and with the USN in the PTO as a super long range strike aircraft tend to go unnoticed by historians of land warfare. Low level dawn attacks by Privateers on Japanese bases "outside the combat zone" accounted for huge attrition losses in ships and aircraft.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I agree - the Liberators got my nomination earlier in this very thread (I think) as well as one or two others as one of the most important aircraft in it's particular category.


I found a source with a bit more hard numbers.

https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...nese-naval-merchant-shipping-losses-wwii.html


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> American torpedos were horrible in the first year or two, but we were talking about aircraft. I think over the course of the war, the TBF (which I also don't particularly like as a design) did a lot more damage than the Swordfish.


You know what would be a really interesting comparison is whether the TBF or Swardfish sank more tonnage not in total but per plane. I have no idea but that would be interesting to know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could it do anything that a TBF / TBM couldn't do?



It was doing it two years before the aircraft you mentioned had entered the war, the RN did not have TBFs or TBMs back then, neither did they have SBDs. I am sure the RN, and the crews, wished they had a better aircraft, but they had to go with what they had.... and it did better than they expected and for longer. It could carry almost anything they hung off it, radar, torpedoes, Leigh lights, bombs, rockets.... hence the name "Stringbag" it could carry anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Oct 18, 2019)

Hello MiTasol, yes the same No. 6895-A, and fuselage info on page 11, the last page (21) ends with "Packing and Shipping",


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> You know what would be a really interesting comparison is whether the TBF or Swardfish sank more tonnage not in total but per plane. I have no idea but that would be interesting to know.


 
I have not been able to find any figures comparing the two.


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For the early years the go to ship-sinker was the SBD



The early years for the US navy maybe, the the RN had been sinking ships for two years before the SBD started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 18, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I dunno. I kinda think just the fact that they were still pretty successful way past there" best by" date shows the were good designs. Long in the tooth by 42 maybe but still good designs. Imho.



That is a good point - I don't think there is anything wrong with a Swordfish when it was first introduced in 1936, at worst it was slightly obsolescent but a single-engined aircraft carrying a torpedo was always going to have some significant design challenges.* But by 1940 or 41 the FAA or Fairey or Blackburn or somebody should have come up with something better. The British were good at aircraft design you can't tell me they couldn't have made something better. The Barracuda came a little too late and never really did much.

During the war the best Allied carrier based naval strike aircraft were the SBD, TBF, SB2C (for all it's faults)

To me the best carrier based torpedo bombers that saw action were the later war Japanese ones which never got to fly in any numbers like the Aichi B7A

I think the best torpedo bombers which actually fought in the critical early and middle years of the war were land based twin or three engined aircraft like the G3M and G4M, the Beaufighter and Beaufort, the A-20, the SM 79, the Ju 88 and so on.

S

* and I don't think the Allies really had any really_ good _carrier based torpedo bombers until well past the tipping point of the war (and past the heyday of propeller engined aircraft or torpedo bombers period). Some examples of those would include the seemingly excellent Blackburn Firebrand  (promising and available early but they had to tinker with it too long to get it in service) and the Douglas BTD

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I have not been able to find any figures comparing the two.


Ya that would be really interesting. Maybe this weekend if I have time I'll try to figure it out. Tonnage sunk should be the easy part of the equation but for the other half of the equation I'm wondering if I should use total of each type produced or maybe try to find the total of each type to deployed to combat units.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> The early years for the US navy maybe, the the RN had been sinking ships for two years before the SBD started.



Until the Japanese carriers were sunk the *naval *war in WW2 was in it's early stages.


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Until the Japanese carriers were sunk the *naval *war in WW2 was in it's early stages.



That seems to be a very US-centric way of thinking, I don't think a lot of other nationalities would agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 19, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ya that would be really interesting. Maybe this weekend if I have time I'll try to figure it out. Tonnage sunk should be the easy part of the equation but for the other half of the equation I'm wondering if I should use total of each type produced or maybe try to find the total of each type to deployed to combat units.



I don't think I could work up the energy, I only posted about the Swordfish because I think it tends to be ignored, I did not intend to set off a fierce debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I disagree - the tipping point was from late 1942 through mid 1943. The TBF was involved in the mid-war.


I would submit that the initiative in PTO changed hands with the American invasion of Guadalcanal. After that, no Japanese offensive action had any long term success, and given the relative production capacities of the two nations, the war of attrition was a foregone conclusion. The tide had peaked and was ebbing. (Ain't hindsight wonderful?)
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> That seems to be a very US-centric way of thinking, I don't think a lot of other nationalities would agree.


A lot of Americans wouldn't agree, either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2019)

It is a fact that the Stringbag was a crucial weapon in the RN's inventory and it's crowning achievement was the sinking of the Bismark. But we need to ask ourselves, did sinking the Bismark alter the course of the war in the Atlantic/ETO, or was it more of a moral booster?

On the other hand, the SBD literally deprived the IJN the ability to provide force projection by eliminating it's primary carrier force (no other warplane in history has the distinction of sinking so many enemy aircraft carriers), so in a historical context, this fact is not "flag waving" or so-called "US-centric", but rather fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 19, 2019)

Juha3 said:


> Hello MiTasol, yes the same No. 6895-A, and fuselage info on page 11, the last page (21) ends with "Packing and Shipping",



Here is the full document then (or at least as full as I have) Hawk 75-A sales brochure

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 19, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> It is a fact that the Stringbag was a crucial weapon in the RN's inventory and it's crowning achievement was the sinking of the Bismark. But we need to ask ourselves, did sinking the Bismark alter the course of the war in the Atlantic/ETO, or was it more of a moral booster?
> 
> On the other hand, the SBD literally deprived the IJN the ability to provide force projection by eliminating it's primary carrier force (no other warplane in history has the distinction of sinking so many enemy aircraft carriers), so in a historical context, this fact is not "flag waving" or so-called "US-centric", but rather fact.



The Stringbags attack on the Bismark was not a crowning achievement, only one of the early successes, it also seriously damaged the Italian fleet at Taranto and Matapan discouraging them from playing a major role in The Med, the same with the disabling of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir. The actions of the Swordfish in the Med spoiled Rommel's chances in North Africa by cutting off his supplies. The attack on Taranto was the inspiration for the Pearl Harbour attack. The sinking of the IJN carriers was significant and did turn the tide in the Pacific, but the war had been going on for a long time and it was not considered "early stages" by many who had been in action since 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually the early torpedoes worked so I could just send a few squadrons of Devastators to do the job properly and actually sink it instead f just jamming the prop



The US had not decided to enter WW2 when the Bismark was sunk so no Devastators were available, plus the flak system in the Bismark may have been successful in downing a few of them, it was the extra slow speed of the Stringbags that saved them. The devastators were retired after Midway whereas the Swordfish managed to continue for another three years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Oct 19, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Here is the full document then (or at least as full as I have) Hawk 75-A sales brochure



Yes, exactly the same I have, one from a Finnish archive. Oy Mecantile Ab (Oy/Ab means Ltd) was one of the largest technical import companies in Finland at that time. I was at first mystified with the 24 pages but then noticed that there are three page Eights (Eight, Eight A and Eight B) and of course the cover.
Thanks a lot.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually the early torpedoes worked so I could just send a few squadrons of Devastators to do the job properly and actually sink it instead f just jamming the prop


I am not in any way the champion of the Swordfish as a combat aircraft. The nature of the war had changed and carrying ASW radar and weapons became a useful feature. In this battle, being able to fly slowly was just as useful as flying fast, no doubt other planes could have done the same but the Swordfish actually did. The Wellington was similar, being used for all sorts of "stuff" that other planes could also have done but didn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2019)

Juha3 said:


> Hello MiTasol, yes the same No. 6895-A, and fuselage info on page 11, the last page (21) ends with "Packing and Shipping",



Juha - I don't have the books mentioned. Question - are there any images of installations of basic internal systems - hydraulic, mechanical, oxygen, fuel and electrical lines with quick connect joints installed in the halves before joining the finished 'shells' together on the assembly line?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> That seems to be a very US-centric way of thinking, I don't think a lot of other nationalities would agree.


I share wingnuts and your POV on this. I suspect that the Merchant Marine fleets thought they were in the middle of a very successful naval war (which Germany was winning) in the Atlantic before we even contemplated Coral Sea of Midway.

As to 'turning point' vs IJN the two months between Coral Sea and the end of Midway battle in early June would have to the focus. Does anybody have a better nomination than Stalingrad and Midway (and perhaps BoB in September 1940) for definable 'turning points'?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> The US had not decided to enter WW2 when the Bismark was sunk so no Devastators were available, plus the flak system in the Bismark may have been successful in downing a few of them, it was the extra slow speed of the Stringbags that saved them. The devastators were retired after Midway whereas the Swordfish managed to continue for another three years.



I think the idea that German AAA couldn't deal with the low speed of the Swordfish has been pretty much discredited. The Germans weren't complete idiots; they would have designed the AA fire control to deal with aircraft in service when the system was being designed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

drgondog said:


> As to 'turning point' vs IJN the two months between Coral Sea and the end of Midway battle in early June would have to the focus. Does anybody have a better nomination than Stalingrad and Midway (and perhaps BoB in September 1940) for definable 'turning points'?


I don't know where I read it (but somewhere), it said Stalingrad Midway and El Alamein may or may not have been turning points but together showed that the tide had turned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> That seems to be a very US-centric way of thinking, I don't think a lot of other nationalities would agree.



No, it's not even remotely "US-centric". Not everything boils down to a rivalry between US and British airplanes. I think the only factor there is a matter of familiarity with different battles based on what stories you read about most and saw on TV growing up. The primacy of the IJN is just the nature of the history of the war.

The Japanese were by an order of magnitude the biggest *naval *threat to the Allies in WW2, that is just a fact. Who else could compare?
The IJN aircraft carriers were by far their most dangerous asset in terms of Strategic power projection (though definitely not their _only_ threat as their surface fleet from destroyers to super-battleships, submarines and long range land based bombers were also very dangerous).
The Italians, by contrast, were constrained by a lack of fuel and many other technical and logistical challenges and never posed a threat outside of the Med regardless.
The Vichy French were similarly constrained but even more so. From their perspective they didn't even expect to be attacked when they were.
You can say the war was going on since 1939 sure, you can also extend that backward another 2 or 3 years to the Manchurian War, the Spanish Civil War, the Italo-Ethiopian Wars and so on. But the fact is the *naval* war in WW2 didn't begin to peak until the mighty Japanese fleet was challenged.
I know a lot of people love the Swordfish, and without a doubt Swordfish squadrons achieved some impressive accomplishments in spite of the aircraft's _severe_ limitations in performance, range, armament and so on. It's also true that the Swordfish proved to be remarkably versatile especially for such an obsolete design. But it was hardly the only aircraft to carry an ASW radar (TBFs did that too for example). I think the achievements of the Swordfish squadrons are much more attributable to highly skilled and brave pilots, good planning, and to the relatively good quality of British torpedoes which were certainly better than the American*.

There is nothing particularly unusual about a slow torpedo bomber. Most early air-launched torpedoes in fact required the aircraft to fly very slowly to launch them. The TBD Devastator cruised at 128 mph, the TBF at 153 mph.
The (obsolescent) TBD was indeed replaced, because the USN had better aircraft available to replace it. Like the Swordfish it was reasonably advanced when it came out in 1936, but like the Swordfish, it was past it's prime by 1940.


S


* the best torpedoes though were probably Japanese and then Italian


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I am not in any way the champion of the Swordfish as a combat aircraft. The nature of the war had changed and carrying ASW radar and weapons became a useful feature. In this battle, being able to fly slowly was just as useful as flying fast, no doubt other planes could have done the same but the Swordfish actually did. The Wellington was similar, being used for all sorts of "stuff" that other planes could also have done but didn't.



I think the word you are looking for is 'versatility' and I'll grant you the Swordfish certainly had that. The Wellington had it in spades (and was one of the good twin engined torpedo bombers I should have included on my list of them upthread, I knew I was forgetting some) but versatility was hardly unique to those two aircraft. Most of the USN aircraft were highly versatile as well and were used for ASW, as emergency fighters, night fighters, intruders, etc. etc.

I just think the Royal Navy, FAA, whatever authority could and should have come up with a functional monoplane aircraft to carry torpedoes so they didn't have to rely on one with a 150 mph top speed and a 500 mile range. The Fairey Barracuda was the closest they came but it was obviously a struggle to get into action 


Oh and by the way, *Shortround6*, here is yet another example where the engine design delayed the development of a major and potentially very important combat type, from Wiki:

_"The Barracuda had originally been intended to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Exe X block, sleeve valve engine. However, production of this powerplant was problematic and eventually abandoned, which in turn delayed the prototype's trials.[1][6] *Instead, it was decided to adopt the lower-powered 12-cylinder* Vee type Rolls-Royce Merlin 30 engine (1,260 hp/940 kW) to drive a three-bladed de Havilland propeller; the prototypes eventually flew in this configuration.[1][7] Expe "_


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> The US had not decided to enter WW2 when the Bismark was sunk so no Devastators were available, plus the flak system in the Bismark may have been successful in downing a few of them, it was the extra slow speed of the Stringbags that saved them. The devastators were retired after Midway whereas the Swordfish managed to continue for another three years.



I was kidding about using the TBD, I don't think it was really much better than the Swordfish to be honest. The TBF though, however flawed that it was, was clearly a step up from the old stringbag and it was even considered better than the Albacore and Barracuda that replaced it - by the Royal Navy itself which adopted the TBF as a replacement.

Part of the problem with the Barracuda was the FAA's insistence on a low altitude rated engine, which they seemed to do for almost all of their aircraft requirements.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

I think with torpedo planes in general, the requirements were often the death-knell of the designs. Many second or third generation torpedo bombers were required to _also_ be dive bombers and to have an internal bomb-bay so they could have a reasonable cruising speed. Dive bombing and carrying a ten or fifteen foot long torpedo were almost diametrically opposed design traits and this was really a bit too much for a single engined prop driven aircraft given early war manufacturing capabilities and engines. Many strange and ungainly designs were the result. Only the Aichi B7A really managed to thread this very tricky needle in time to see some action in the war. 

However a couple of the end of the war designs, especially 'strike fighters' also looked promising but by the time they were ready for action the war was over and the heyday of torpedo planes and prop driven aircraft in general had passed.

The highly versatile Ju 88 was capable of both dive bombing and torpedo bombing (in slightly different configuraions) as was the Barracuda and the Albacore, but neither really excelled as dive bombers.


















Some time around 1944-1945 or a little later designers had managed to figure this out and a new generation of "strike fighter" planes came into production. If these had been available during the war they could have had an impact. Some were just prototypes or 'proof of concepts' but many saw limited production Some of the more interesting I found so far include:

Fiat G.55/S - a very promising development of that excellent fighter design. They did torpedo trials successfully before the wars end but it never saw action.
Blackburn Firebrand - an attractive and powerful multi-role strike fighter, though Eric Brown apparently didn't like it much.
Westland Wyvern - another capable multi-role design which replaced the Firebrand, fought in the Suez crisis
Douglas BTD Destroyer - a formidable dive bomber (340 mph, 1400 mile range, 2 x 20mm cannon) which ended up as a stepping stone toward the A-1 Skyraider
Martin AM-1 Mauler - rival to the AD-1 Skyraider, it was more powerful and capable but a bit harder to use in carrier operations (330 mph, 1500 mile "combat range", 4 x 20mm and up to 3 torpedoes). 

The Aichi B7A2 compares pretty well to these with 350 mph top speed, 1,100 mile range, 2 x 20mm cannon (and excellent handling).

Probably the most famous result of those was the Douglas A-1 /. AD-1 Skyraider which ended up being tailored for CAS mostly because of the type of wars being fought in the 50's and 60's. The other persistent variation was as an ASW specialist, probably best represented by the Fairey Gannet


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the word you are looking for is 'versatility' and I'll grant you the Swordfish certainly had that. _"_


Well it is serendipity that became versatility. No one ever said "design me a war plane that is very slow and can lift a lot with too many people in it for anything I can foresee in the future".


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But the fact is the *naval* war in WW2 didn't begin to peak until the mighty Japanese fleet was challenged.


Are you choosing to ignore the near starvation of Britain by U-boats and the arctic war on the Murmansk run? Hmmm, Murmansk: nobody seems to acknowledge the crushing drain on German resources imposed by the Soviets. This was huge among the tide turning causes.
IIRC, the first US hostilities in the war were pre-Pearl Harbor, in protecting convoys from U-boats.
"Oh what were their names, tell me what were their names"
The men who went down on the good ship Reuben James?"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you choosing to ignore the near starvation of Britain by U-boats and the arctic war on the Murmansk run? Hmmm, Murmansk: nobody seems to acknowledge the crushing drain on German resources imposed by the Soviets. This was huge among the tide turning causes.
> IIRC, the first US hostilities in the war were pre-Pearl Harbor, in protecting convoys from U-boats.
> "Oh what were their names, tell me what were their names"
> The men who went down on the good ship Reuben James?"
> ...



Wes,

You beat me to the punch...and I agree wholeheartedly. 

The point I was going to make was that, while Japan had the largest Axis naval fleet, the threat was almost entirely tactical in nature. It posed very little threat at the operational and strategic levels. For example, even if Japan had taken Guadalcanal, Midway and even Hawaii, it would not have resulted in outright victory for Japan because none of those geographic areas were critical to the survival of the US and its Allies. Yes, the threat to Australia would have increased but the likelihood of a successful attack by Japan is vanishingly small given the distances involved and the forces necessary for a power that was already stretched to breaking point. The use of the IJN to support operations into India was also unlikely to do much. As it was, the bulk of the Japanese Army was ground down in the jungles of Burma. Having even long-range fires from battleships and throwing in a number of aircraft carriers isn't going to change that, not least because the IJA and IJN just couldn't cooperate effectively. Japan was a regional power going up an established global power and an emerging global superpower. The ultimate end-state was predetermined.

Compare that with the U-boat campaign in the Atlantic and the story is very different. While the actual Axis force was smaller, the operational and strategic effect was disproportionately larger for both the US and the UK. The Battle of the Atlantic was a "must win" campaign whereas pretty much every battle in the Pacific could afford to be lost. Thus the actual threat posed by German convoy attacks was of far greater import than any number of Japanese aircraft carriers. 

Just my two penn'orth.

Cheers,
Mark

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you choosing to ignore the near starvation of Britain by U-boats and the arctic war on the Murmansk run? Hmmm, Murmansk: nobody seems to acknowledge the crushing drain on German resources imposed by the Soviets. This was huge among the tide turning causes.
> IIRC, the first US hostilities in the war were pre-Pearl Harbor, in protecting convoys from U-boats.
> "Oh what were their names, tell me what were their names"
> The men who went down on the good ship Reuben James?"
> ...


I agree completely here is a map of U Boat sinkings around the USA coast 
US Coast - The U-boat War in Maps - uboat.net

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you choosing to ignore the near starvation of Britain by U-boats and the arctic war on the Murmansk run? Hmmm, Murmansk: nobody seems to acknowledge the crushing drain on German resources imposed by the Soviets. This was huge among the tide turning causes.
> IIRC, the first US hostilities in the war were pre-Pearl Harbor, in protecting convoys from U-boats.
> "Oh what were their names, tell me what were their names"
> The men who went down on the good ship Reuben James?"
> ...



No I certainly wasn't ignoring any of that by choice or otherwise, and it would be absurd to imply that I had - I was speaking of the scale of the naval war. The ghosts of the people who died in the Rape of Nanking or the Siege of Madrid and so on would also prefer not to be ignored either. Did you choose to ignore them? If you make any kind of general statement about WW II, true or false, you inevitably leave some out. Please don't pretend that I was doing so capriciously since we both know I was not.

I have in fact _in this very thread_ as well as several others more recently argued about the importance of the Soviet part of the war and therefore voted the Soviet fighters and Sturmovik as more important than perhaps all the rest, at least when it comes to the destruction of the Germans. Stalingrad was by far the most important 'tipping point' for the Germans.

As for supplying the Soviets, lets not forget that Murmansk was not the only route. They could be and were also supplied via the Pacific, ASLB route and others.

In the context of the claim that was made that the Swordfish was the type most important to the outcome of the war I don't even think you can make a solid case that that aircraft type won the Battle of the Atlantic. With it's short range and limited efficacy that would be a hard concept to prove.

The Strategic relevance of the Pacific Theater vs. the North Atlantic or the Med is an interesting subject to debate, but it's a separate argument from what I was saying - which was that the biggest naval _battles_ and by far the greatest Axis navy by far were in the Pacific.

However I would say that if China completely fell to the Japanese early on and the IJN was able to claim mastery of the Pacific, taking Hawaii and even threatening Australia, they would have certainly made their presence felt to the English in their important colonial asset of India and furthermore critical supply and logistics support to the Germans could have come from the Pacific Rim via Africa. That could have made a big difference.

It is hard to imagine them breaking out into the Atlantic or the Med but who knows.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2019)

The problem is you're looking at everything from a naval perspective and equating intensity of action with threat and results. Just because a battle was particularly intense does not mean it was particularly significant to the overall war.. Japan did not pose an existential threat to the Allies whereas Germany did...that's why Germany was prioritized over Japan. 

I think this is one area where we're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I agree completely here is a map of U Boat sinkings around the USA coast
> US Coast - The U-boat War in Maps - uboat.net
> 
> View attachment 557225




And yet, shipping losses world wide were pretty heavy on the Pacific Rim as well.






Furthermore, if you notice India has no land bridge to England. Many important resources came to England from India. And manpower too. The huge concentration of sunk ships you see on that map along the Pacific Rim would have extended far more into the Indian Ocean had the Americans not stopped the IJN, and a wide variety of rare and useful materials ranging from rubber to aluminum ore to oil and magnesium, could have gotten to Germany and Italy via East Africa and / or the Suez canal (if Rommel had captured and held Egypt)

Could the IJN have helped in the war in the Middle East if they were there? The track record of Spitfires and Hurricanes v.s Zeros says yes they could have.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2019)

I'm losing track of all the "what if's" in this argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The problem is you're looking at everything from a naval perspective and equating intensity of action with threat and results. Just because a battle was particularly intense does not mean it was particularly significant to the overall war.. Japan did not pose an existential threat to the Allies whereas Germany did...that's why Germany was prioritized over Japan.
> 
> I think this is one area where we're going to have to agree to disagree.



I agree they are two different arguments - two different subjects, but for the US, the truth is that even though we made an official decision to that effect Germany was _not_ in fact prioritized over Japan. The results of losing control of the Pacific would have been _very_ serious for the US, as they were for the UK as well but even more so, and would have been impossible for the US to ignore. The US didn't really make strong commitments across the Atlantic until they had won some substantial victories against the Japanese.

So from the point of view of dealing with the Germans, even if you reject the points I made about the vulnerability and importance of India to the British, US victory in the Pacific ensured that the US (and the important British Commonwealth Alllies of Australia and New Zealand) stayed in the war and that the US in particular could focus on the Germans. The US was therefore able to supply a lot of resources to Russia and Britain, to commit to winning the Battle of the Atlantic (where the B-24 and PBY were so important), to the war in the Med, and the bombing campaign against Germany by 1943. But if you look at the timeline, the Americans got a grip on the situation in the Pacific before significant efforts were made against the Germans.

Coral Sea - May 1942
Midway - June 1942, first major defeat of Japanese
Guadalcanal - Aug 1942 (started, continued into Feb 1943)
Torch (US invasion of North Africa) - Nov 1942
Second El Alamein - Nov 1942 (First major battle in Med with significant help from the US in terms of US made tanks and US air assets)
Battle of Bismarck Sea - March 1943
Allied invasion of Sicily - Aug 1943
Allied invasion of Italy - Sept 1943
*D-Day June 1944*

No doubt operations like Torch were already in the works during Midway etc., but does anybody really think they would have been able to send as much men and materiel across the Atlantic if Midway had been lost and the Pacific war had taken a catastrophic turn?

That is my point, and I just want it to be clear. I'm Ok with "agreeing to disagree" from here on if you still don't get where I'm coming from.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm losing track of all the "what if's" in this argument.



Here is a simpler version:

The UK needed supplies from India. 
They got to England via ship. 
Japan had access to the Indian ocean. 
The Japanese navy could have blocked those supplies and sunk the ships.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And yet, shipping losses world wide were pretty heavy on the Pacific Rim as well.
> .


I am aware of that the Pacific rim is close to Japan I pointed out losses close to the USA coast which continued up to 1945, the Atlantic war started as soon as the war started in 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I am aware of that the Pacific rim is close to Japan I pointed out losses close to the USA coast which continued up to 1945, the Atlantic war started as soon as the war started in 1939.



U.S. Ships sunk or damaged on Alaska coast, West coast of U.S., Pacific Ocean area, Philippines, or Okinawa During World War II


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Here is a simpler version:
> 
> The UK needed supplies from India.
> They got to England via ship.
> ...



But were those supplies critical to the war effort? By March 1942, the British had already lost Malaya which was the largest producer of natural rubber, and one of the largest producers of tin. These were vital strategic resources and yet their loss didn't bring Britain to its knees. What makes you think that cutting supply lines from India to the UK would have a greater impact?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 19, 2019)

Well, I don't know. I think it was pretty important - in a lot of reading about the war and battles in North Africa and the Middle East, the _raison d'être_ of the struggle over Egypt and the Suez canal, was in large part to keep those supplies coming from India (and perhaps South Africa too to some extent). Lets also not forget that 2.5 million troops from India were fighting with the Commonwealth and 87,000 of them gave their life to defeat the Axis.

The alternative to supplies from places like India was to get more stuff from the US, but if the US was still in a death struggle with Japan (i.e. losing) in say 1943 or 44, they would not have been able to send so much help to the UK (or Russia).


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The alternative to supplies from places like India was to get more stuff from the US, but if the US was still in a death struggle with Japan (i.e. losing) in say 1943 or 44, they would not have been able to send so much help to the UK (or Russia).



But that's my whole point. At no stage during the war, nor under any conceivable set of circumstances was the US in a "death struggle" with Japan. Japan was in a death struggle with the US but not vice-versa. America was never under threat of defeat, so any action by the IJN would probably have extended the war but it's very doubtful, IMHO, that it would have altered the result. 

I think we need to stop talking about fish-heads and get back to aircraft, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Oct 19, 2019)

All well and good saying this aircraft sank x amount of destroyers or so many battleships but what aircraft sank the most freight tonnage or troopship tonnage .


----------



## wingnuts (Oct 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> No I certainly wasn't ignoring any of that by choice or otherwise, and it would be absurd to imply that I had - I was speaking of the scale of the naval war. The ghosts of the people who died in the Rape of Nanking or the Siege of Madrid and so on would also prefer not to be ignored either. Did you choose to ignore them? If you make any kind of general statement about WW II, true or false, you inevitably leave some out. Please don't pretend that I was doing so capriciously since we both know I was not.
> 
> I have in fact _in this very thread_ as well as several others more recently argued about the importance of the Soviet part of the war and therefore voted the Soviet fighters and Sturmovik as more important than perhaps all the rest, at least when it comes to the destruction of the Germans. Stalingrad was by far the most important 'tipping point' for the Germans.
> 
> ...



I did not say the Swordfish turned the tide of the war, just that it played an important part that is often overlooked. My original vote for the aircraft that did most was the Spitfire/Hurricane combination AND the SBD, followed by the C-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 20, 2019)

wingnuts said:


> I did not say the Swordfish turned the tide of the war, just that it played an important part that is often overlooked. My original vote for the aircraft that did most was the Spitfire/Hurricane combination AND the SBD, followed by the C-47.



Let's add Hellcat and Superfortress in the Pacific, Liberator and Swordfish in the Atlantic. The P-40 in North Africa. The Yak / Sturmovik combo on the Eastern Front.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Beejay (Oct 20, 2019)

Judging by the numbers built (36,000+ during the war and another 6,000+ after) and how long it was used as a front line combat aircraft (1941-1972), the Ilyushin Il-2 (& -10) Shturmovik ('attack aircraft') surely is "the airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war"?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 20, 2019)

Beejay said:


> Judging by the numbers built (36,000+ during the war and another 6,000+ after) and how long it was used as a front line combat aircraft (1941-1972), the Ilyushin Il-2 (& -10) Shturmovik ('attack aircraft') surely is "the airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war"?



Along with the Dakota.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I saw the Wikipedia quote I just don't think that's true. There is a lot of daffy stuff on Wikipedia. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with the real heavy hitters like the SBD and TBF. I googled it a little bit today ... and there are a bunch of sites which say the same thing about the SBD for example:
> 
> Douglas SBD Dauntless (Dive Bomber) | Pearl Harbor Museum
> 
> ...



I think we we need to see numbers that at least reflect some version of reality. I know you are just posting the tables and did not make them. but lets look at table 1 in your post.

The US Navy is supposed to have made attacks (total sorties) of 4989 against armored ships and 6582 against unarmored warships.

This paints a rather distorted picture as the same target was attacked many times and in fact could have been attacked multiple times (over the course of several years) 

It could also be padded by counting the number of ships/hulks sunk in Japanese harbors at the end of the war. An ex Russian war prize of the 1904-5 Russian Japanese war may "count" as an armoured ship for statistical purposes but does skew the results 

The Japanese Navy went to war with 6 battleships and 4 battle cruisers that dated to before 1922, (heavily upgraded) 13 light cruisers ( single 5.5 in guns for the most part) and about 50 destroyers of 859-1300tons. Whether they are "armoured" is certainly subject to question. A bit of bullet proof plating around the bridge? 

The Japanese added from 1922 on (an some of the above were actually completed after 1922) 2 battleships. about 25 carriers (of assorted effectiveness and lineage) about 32 cruisers that ranged from repeats of the old 5500 tons ships to the modern 10 gun heavy cruisers. and about 155-160 destroyers, destroy escorts and steam torpedo boats. There were more escort and sub chasers but you get the idea.

The two charts also give no dates. a number of the numbers of ships sunk may date to the last few months of the war when the US carrier forces ravaged the Japanese home Islands. 




The Izumo and her sister ship were both sunk at Kure by carrier aircraft in July of 1945 for example. 



.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> . But if you look at the timeline, the Americans got a grip on the situation in the Pacific before significant efforts were made against the Germans.
> 
> Coral Sea - May 1942
> * Battle of Gazala **on 27 May 167 Grant tanks. *
> ...



AS M4s showed up in North Africa the M3s were taken out of service and shipped to the Far East. 
about 200 Grants were shipped before Gazala, another 250 showed up in June of 1942 (shipped when?) and by 2nd Alamein over 600 Grant and Lee tanks were in the Mideast along with about 300 M4 tanks (270 in service for the Battle). This does not count Stuart light tanks or any other vehicles (1/2 tracks?) 
The P-40F was 2nd best US army fighter available at the time after the P-38. The vast majority went to North Africa as fast as deliveries would allow. 
Before Torch all aid/material (except aircraft) that went to NA had to go around Africa and up to Egypt which meant a supply line measured in weeks and often several months. 

Using the benefit of hindsight the Japanese ability to operate in either the Atlantic Ocean or western Indian Ocean for any period of time would have been severely hampered by fuel shortages. it is about 2000 miles from Ceylon to Somalia where the choke point is. It is about 1800-1900 miles from Singapore to Ceylon.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> But that's my whole point. At no stage during the war, nor under any conceivable set of circumstances was the US in a "death struggle" with Japan. Japan was in a death struggle with the US but not vice-versa. America was never under threat of defeat, so any action by the IJN would probably have extended the war but it's very doubtful, IMHO, that it would have altered the result.
> 
> I think we need to stop talking about fish-heads and get back to aircraft, though.



Let me explain my point, I thought it was obvious but I'll spell it out:

We all know that *Midway was a very close run thing*, in fact not a little bit of luck was involved as well as leveraging of every available asset to the maximum possible, from things like radar to the capabilities of the Allied aircraft involved: SBD, F4F, TBF, B-26, PBY etc.
If Midway had gone the other way, as it very well could have, and instead it had resulted in a major US defeat, that would have had _serious _repercussions.
If due to losses at Midway, subsequent battles had also gone against the US, the knock-on effects would have been substantially more drastic.
Perhaps, ultimately the US would have won the war due to economics. Maybe they would have rallied in 1943 or 1944. But all it would take is a few serious setbacks, which without any doubt could easily have happened - and the US would have felt sufficiently threatened to seriously diminish the support which could have been sent to the other Allies and the timetable of their tras-Atlantic participation could have been pushed back substantially.

If Midway had failed torch wouldn't have been as robust and may have failed altogether. This extends the timeline of the war substantially. Extending the timeline of the war could have had unforseen outcomes of many kinds.

If for example, the US had been equipped with Fairey Swordfish (or say, Skuas) instead of SBD Dauntlesses I am confident they would have lost Midway and Coral Sea both and the Pacific War would have gone quite differently.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

rednev said:


> All well and good saying this aircraft sank x amount of destroyers or so many battleships but what aircraft sank the most freight tonnage or troopship tonnage .



I posted the estimate (not my estimate) of 300,000 tons by the SBD and almost 2,000,000 tons by the US Navy aircraft in general (from two sources). How does this compare to the Swordfish?

When I point ed this out incidentally I was told by somebody upthread that tonnage didn't count and "what battles and major victories were won?" so I pointed out the number of CV, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers and so on.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

(double post)


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> AS M4s showed up in North Africa the M3s were taken out of service and shipped to the Far East.
> about 200 Grants were shipped before Gazala, another 250 showed up in June of 1942 (shipped when?) and by 2nd Alamein over 600 Grant and Lee tanks were in the Mideast along with about 300 M4 tanks (270 in service for the Battle). This does not count Stuart light tanks or any other vehicles (1/2 tracks?)
> The P-40F was 2nd best US army fighter available at the time after the P-38. The vast majority went to North Africa as fast as deliveries would allow.
> Before Torch all aid/material (except aircraft) that went to NA had to go around Africa and up to Egypt which meant a supply line measured in weeks and often several months.



The US made tanks were generally attributed as a major factor in victory at 2nd El Alamein. They were better against the German tanks and probably more important, much better against AT guns, artillery and infantry etc. In spite of this of course I think almost all of them were destroyed.

The P-40F may have been 2nd or 3rd best US Army fighter (don't forget US Army Air Force also operated two Spitfire groups) but it was the one they were most able to use as air cover over the battlefield. P-38s had a tough time in low altitude combat and, after one group had to be shut down, they were utilized mainly to escort heavy bombers in Theater at high(ish) altitudes. This was an important role but it wasn't, arguably, the most important role. The Spits were as always limited by range and weren't ideal in the ground attack role. The P-40F had the range and was equally proficient in ground attack or escort / fighter sweep duties. So it was pretty important. I don't know if I'd go all the way to crucial or vital for the MTO alone, but if you added up P-40 roles in South Pacific, MTO, Russia and CBI it becomes more significant.



> Using the benefit of hindsight the Japanese ability to operate in either the Atlantic Ocean or western Indian Ocean for any period of time would have been severely hampered by fuel shortages. it is about 2000 miles from Ceylon to Somalia where the choke point is. It is about 1800-1900 miles from Singapore to Ceylon.



The Solomons etc. were also quite far for the Japanese, as you know to deal with this they pre-positioned supplies. Presumably if they could push into India, without US interference it's not beyond the pale that they could have reached as far as say, Karachi to use as a staging base. Of course it's all speculation which always gets us in trouble around here....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we we need to see numbers that at least reflect some version of reality.* I know you are just posting the tables and did not make them. but lets look at table 1 in your post. *




*This is key. Were you referring to the table I posted as an image or the second one which was a link only?*



> The US Navy is supposed to have made attacks (total sorties) of 4989 against armored ships and 6582 against unarmored warships.
> 
> This paints a rather distorted picture as the same target was attacked many times and in fact could have been attacked multiple times (over the course of several years)
> 
> ...



I agree for the most part with your points, however the tonnage of shipping sunk is probably correct and I stand by my statement that the Japanese navy was the most dangerous on the Axis side, and the second most dangerous in the World in WW II.


----------



## Beejay (Oct 20, 2019)

That's a lot of ifs, buts, maybes, linear reasoning, rolls of dice and navy and army topics to get to the one plane you feel turned the tide of war, the SBD.

Your argument should then be extended to its inevitable outcome however: the plane that gave the US its headstart at Midway, the Catalina.

Although ... if we continue with what-ifs: the reason Japan came south was because that was the navy's master plan. And that became Japan's master plan after the army's defeat in the very early days of WW2 against the Soviets over Mongolia (in the most crowded dogfights ever). Had the army won that, its masterplan would have been followed, Japan wouldn't have sailed to Hawai and the Soviet Union might well have been attacked on both fronts, leaving the US out of it. The plane that had the biggest impact on that Mongolian conflict was the Tupolev SB, which thus must be the pivotal WW2 plane.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Wes,
> 
> You beat me to the punch...and I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> ...


Very interesting analysis. I hadn't actually thought about it that way before. 
Just thinking out loud here but maybe the dynamics are actually similar in that either way nobody is going to invade the mainland U.S., at least not successfully so the similarity is if the Germans win in the Atlantic its Europe that suffers from lack of U.S. help, if the Japanese do in the Pacific it's China, Burma, Philippines etc. That suffer.


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 20, 2019)

Beejay said:


> The plane that had the biggest impact on that Mongolian conflict was the Tupolev SB, which thus must be the pivotal WW2 plane.



I'm not sure about "the biggest impact". There was one impressive raid of SB bombers on 20th August and that was it. Flights of all bombers (not just SB) - about 10% of all VVS flights during the conflict. Share of flights assigned to interdiction and to support of ground troops was about 20%.


----------



## vandee (Oct 20, 2019)

European Theatre of Operations---Avro Lancaster
Asiatic Pacific Theatre---B-29
John


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 20, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Not sure that would apply against Germany due to the amount of planes on all sides. Japan might be different due to the much smaller, early war, number of planes. McClusky is a pretty good choice. I’ll toss in:
> 1. Richard Best at Midway scoring the only hit on Akagi, single handedly sinking a major fleet carrier
> 2. Shooting down Yamamoto


Resp:
2. Shooting down Yamamoto.
I have read two different sources that indicate the mission planning by the actual P-38 pilots was done in less than 24 hrs. That three B-24s flew in special drop tanks (one 310 and one 165 gallon) for the P-38s the night before, to go the distance. Ground crews worked thru the night fitting the oversize 310 gal tank w special brackets. Washington leadership spent time deciding if an attack such as this was even legal. However, military experts worked out the numbers to determine whether it could be done, and . . . how it could be done. So the decision also included a flight plan. 
So given so little time, it is just mind boggling that it was so successful. My hat is off to the men involved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Empty, except for a bored young fighter pilot who was not fully qualified to stand that watch, but was covering for somebody else. He was at least well enough informed to know about the incoming B17 flight, and when the radar guys reported their returns, he figured that was what they had seen. Radar was new and mysterious, and procedures not very sophisticated. If this had been a BoB type sophisticated radar early warning system he could have been fed enough detailed information to smell a rat. Numbers of targets, direction of approach, and closing velocity would have been inconsistent with a few B17s from California. The mindset just wasn't there to be suspicious. Besides, when have the peacetime Army and Navy ever worked together on intelligence and force protection matters?
> Kudos to LCDR Outerbridge and the crew of USS Ward, who drew the first blood of the Pacific war. BTW, three years to the day after Pearl Harbor, Ward was hit by a kamikaze, burned out, and abandoned, but the tough old gal refused to sink. CDR Outerbridge, now in command of another ship, was assigned the task of scuttling her by gunfire.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Agreed. Today, most int ops are joint service manned. Threats are looked at from many angles.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Let me explain my point, I thought it was obvious but I'll spell it out:
> 
> We all know that *Midway was a very close run thing*, in fact not a little bit of luck was involved as well as leveraging of every available asset to the maximum possible, from things like radar to the capabilities of the Allied aircraft involved: SBD, F4F, TBF, B-26, PBY etc.
> If Midway had gone the other way, as it very well could have, and instead it had resulted in a major US defeat, that would have had _serious _repercussions.
> ...



Again, lots of "what ifs" in all of that. Loss of Midway was not critical to the defence of the USA. What does Japan get out of a Midway victory? Yet another small island that has to be resupplied by transport vessels that are already over-tasked. The fundamental war-winner for the Allies was the plain and simple fact that they were out-producing the Axis by a significant margin while the Axis had extremely limited capabilities to address that deficit. The U-boat campaign was one of the most successful. Nothing Japan did, or could do, came close. 

Yes, loss of all US aircraft carriers would extend the war but that still doesn't help Japan when it's being outproduced hand over fist. Japan couldn't resupply the islands they did have, so adding yet more transportation needs isn't going to help. At the end of the day, those great WW2 maps showing a big red swath of Japanese-occupied geography was, in reality, a few, relatively small islands entirely separated, which allowed the Allies to defeat them in detail...or simply move past them and let them wither away. 

None of the vessels engaged in Midway had any impact on actions in Europe or North Africa. The Allies could afford to let Japan take Midway and just wait until production replaced any losses. Again, that was why the "Germany First" strategy was enacted...because Japan wasn't an existential threat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The US made tanks were generally attributed as a major factor in victory at 2nd El Alamein. They were better against the German tanks and probably more important, much better against AT guns, artillery and infantry etc. In spite of this of course I think almost all of them were destroyed.



It doesn't matter how many were knocked out, what matters in this argument is that the US allowed about 500 M3 tanks to be sent to Egypt between Pearl Harbor and Midway, plus hundreds of M3 light tanks. Plus other assorted material. WHich is hardly putting the Pacific first although I will grant is was little hard to figure out what to do with hundreds of 30 ton tanks in the Pacific in 1942. 



> The P-40F may have been 2nd or 3rd best US Army fighter (don't forget US Army Air Force also operated two Spitfire groups) but it was the one they were most able to use as air cover over the battlefield. P-38s had ................................, but if you added up P-40 roles in South Pacific, MTO, Russia and CBI it becomes more significant.



I don't intend to discuss how good or bad the P-40 was in general or it's record. What is important to this discussion is that the P-40Fs with the Merlins went to NA (except for a few squadrons) while the Pacific had to get along with P-40Es and later Ks. Simplified logistics or sending the_ better_ P-40s to _fight Germany first_? 





> The Solomons etc. were also quite far for the Japanese, as you know to deal with this they pre-positioned supplies. Presumably if they could push into India, without US interference it's not beyond the pale that they could have reached as far as say, Karachi to use as a staging base. Of course it's all speculation which always gets us in trouble around here....



Just look at the distance involved. Japanese reaching Karachi means by passing the Indian peninsula or taking a large part of southern India? 

The Japanese had over 20 years to preposition supplies/base materials at Truk, No such time (or shipping) was available to stage intermediate bases from Malaysia and while Rangoon did fall in March of 1942 pushing thousands of miles beyond that might have been beyond the capacity of the Japanese,


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, lots of "what ifs" in all of that. Loss of Midway was not critical to the defence of the USA. What does Japan get out of a Midway victory? Yet another small island that has to be resupplied by transport vessels that are already over-tasked. The fundamental war-winner for the Allies was the plain and simple fact that they were out-producing the Axis by a significant margin while the Axis had extremely limited capabilities to address that deficit. The U-boat campaign was one of the most successful. Nothing Japan did, or could do, came close.
> 
> Yes, loss of all US aircraft carriers would extend the war but that still doesn't help Japan when it's being outproduced hand over fist. Japan couldn't resupply the islands they did have, so adding yet more transportation needs isn't going to help. At the end of the day, those great WW2 maps showing a big red swath of Japanese-occupied geography was, in reality, a few, relatively small islands entirely separated, which allowed the Allies to defeat them in detail...or simply move past them and let them wither away.
> 
> None of the vessels engaged in Midway had any impact on actions in Europe or North Africa. The Allies could afford to let Japan take Midway and just wait until production replaced any losses. Again, that was why the "Germany First" strategy was enacted...because Japan wasn't an existential threat.


Resp:
The notion that they US would 'let' Japan do/have anything after Pearl Harbor is a 'false notion.' Logic was out the window! Roosevelt wanted 'satisfaction.' ADM King flew out to California to see Nimitz. Their conversation went something like this; King to Nimitz: 'we (US Navy) aren't defending anything (meaning the craze in California), I want you to attack (Japanese Naval Forces), attack . . . attack!! Do you understand? Nimitz: Yes air! A USN Submariner assigned to Norfolk, VA was reporting to duty one cold day when he spotted a 'painted outline of an aircraft carrier' on the Tarmac. For some reason, a B-25 (PBJ) Mitchell was parked nearby. He forwarded his idea of the possible launching of Mitchells from an aircraft carrier. Two launches were done off the coast of New England. However, each time there was only one Mitchell onboard. Training and problem solving soon began at Elgin Field, Florida. The rest is history.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Let me explain my point, I thought it was obvious but I'll spell it out:
> 
> We all know that *Midway was a very close run thing*, in fact not a little bit of luck was involved as well as leveraging of every available asset to the maximum possible, from things like radar to the capabilities of the Allied aircraft involved: SBD, F4F, TBF, B-26, PBY etc.
> If Midway had gone the other way, as it very well could have, and instead it had resulted in a major US defeat, that would have had _serious _repercussions.
> ...


Actually the majority of the follow on battles did go against the United States. People over look the fact that the USN lost as many fleet carriers in 1942 as the IJN. 4 each. With the damage to Enterprise the USN had one fleet carrier left in the Pacific in December 1942. They had to borrow HMS Victorious and modify it a fair bit to match American procedures. It served in the Pacific alongside Saratoga for the first half of of 1943. The Japanese also gave several kickings to the USN surface fleet. The naval battles off Guadalcanal were brutal affairs. Fully half of the US heavy cruisers were sunk or knocked out for months (6 sunk and 3 very heavily damaged). Most of 1943 was a period of recovery for the US.
While Midway was obviously very important Guadalcanal was the true turning point where the Japanese offensive was finally stopped at great cost to the USN and the USM. On the other hand without Midway Guadalcanal likely falls to the Japanese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 20, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> 2. Shooting down Yamamoto.
> I have read two different sources that indicate the mission planning by the actual P-38 pilots was done in less than 24 hrs. That three B-24s flew in special drop tanks (one 310 and one 165 gallon) for the P-38s the night before, to go the distance. Ground crews worked thru the night fitting the oversize 310 gal tank w special brackets. Washington leadership spent time deciding if an attack such as this was even legal. However, military experts worked out the numbers to determine whether it could be done, and . . . how it could be done. So the decision also included a flight plan.
> So given so little time, it is just mind boggling that it was so successful. My hat is off to the men involved.


After reading Shattered Sword I’ve come to the conclusion that Yamamoto more valuable to the US alive than dead. It was his convoluted plan that lead to the loss of the 4 carriers at Midway.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Again, lots of "what ifs" in all of that. Loss of Midway was not critical to the defence of the USA. What does Japan get out of a Midway victory



Midway was the stepping stone to Hawaii.



> Yes, loss of all US aircraft carriers would extend the war but that still doesn't help Japan when it's being outproduced hand over fist.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> None of the vessels engaged in Midway had any impact on actions in Europe or North Africa. The Allies could afford to let Japan take Midway and just wait until production replaced any losses. Again, that was why the "Germany First" strategy was enacted...because Japan wasn't an existential threat.



I'm sorry but I really don't think it is that complicated. Midway was a very 'close run thing' - as it was it really could have gone either way, certainly it _would_ have if the US had inferior planes (like a Swordfish) instead of the SBDs they used to sink the carriers. 

If the US had lost Midway, despite your confident predictions that victory was inevitable, the US would have put a lot more effort into the Pacific War and therefore less of what they had to support England and Russia - and both El Alamein and Stalingrad were also close run things. The tipping point of the war could have been delayed a year or more. 

And that definitely could have been trouble.

However this does not mean I think the SBD was the one and only MVP of WW2 aircraft, it does however contribute to my assertion that the Swordfish wasn't in the running.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually the majority of the follow on battles did go against the United States. People over look the fact that the USN lost as many fleet carriers in 1942 as the IJN. 4 each. With the damage to Enterprise the USN had one fleet carrier left in the Pacific in December 1942. They had to borrow HMS Victorious and



I don't think it's a correct statement to say that the majority of follow on battles went against the US, some did some didn't. Even some of the defeats involved substantial setbacks for the IJN. 

A roughly even swap of carriers was 'Ok' with the US for 1942 because of the whole production / logistics advantage of the US, specifically their new Essex class ships were coming online quickly. However if the US had the exchange been more lopsided (i.e. a major defeat for the US at Midway), that would mean a lot longer before parity was reached and that the US would remain decidedly off balance. Resulting in the obvious scenario that the US military and industrial capacity would have been directed more into the Pacific than into any other Theater.

As it was Guadalcanal was slowly but steadily going the way of the US, albeit with several titanic naval battles far larger than any others which took place in the Atlantic, some of which were major defeats for the USN, sufficient damage was inflicted on the Japanese navy and the Marines did well enough in the land battle that the outcome was clear.

I don't believe HMS Victorious played any significant role in any major battles of the the Pacific War during it's brief service with the fleet. It had some involvement in the invasion of New Georgia I think that is about it.



> While Midway was obviously very important Guadalcanal was the true turning point where the Japanese offensive was finally stopped at great cost to the USN and the USM. On the other hand without Midway Guadalcanal likely falls to the Japanese.



The Navy actually lost more men at or near Guadalcanal than the Marines did.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It doesn't matter how many were knocked out, what matters in this argument is that the US allowed about 500 M3 tanks to be sent to Egypt between Pearl Harbor and Midway, plus hundreds of M3 light tanks. Plus other assorted material. WHich is hardly putting the Pacific first although I will grant is was little hard to figure out what to do with hundreds of 30 ton tanks in the Pacific in 1942.



Well there was always the Philippines. But my point is not that they didn't send any tanks before Midway or that the ones they sent didn't do any good, but rather that they would not have been able to send as much stuff after if they had lost at Midway. El Alamein is seen as such a major victory because in the words of Churchill "We never won a battle [in North Africa] before El Alamein and we never lost a battle after it." The second half of that statement had a lot to do with American support. After the M3s (which were good for a minute but quickly became obsolete) came M4s (which remained effective for a bit longer). And along with them plenty of artillery, self propelled howitzers, trucks, food, fuel, heavy machine guns, mortars, and of course, more and more aircraft - not just fighters but also far more effective bombers than had been used in Theater before.

After El Alamein the Allies won a series of victories in North Africa rapidly leading to the defeat of the Afrika Korps in Tunisia. Which was followed in fairly rapid succession by the neutralization of Pantelleria (the Axis Malta), the invasion of Sicily, the invasion of Italy, and the first capitulation of the Italian government. I'm not sure these things would have happened so swiftly without the enormous quantity of military assets and logistical support sent by the US from the second half of 1942 and arriving in the MTO in later 1942 and 1943.



> I don't intend to discuss how good or bad the P-40 was in general or it's record. What is important to this discussion is that the P-40Fs with the Merlins went to NA (except for a few squadrons) while the Pacific had to get along with P-40Es and later Ks. Simplified logistics or sending the_ better_ P-40s to _fight Germany first_?



Well that is taking a rather linear approach, and I guess it hinges on what you think the importance of the P-40 was in general. But I do have a correction or two.

First - the P-40F was not a competitor with the P-40E in US service. The British and Commonwealth units were still using the equivalent of the P-40D and E in North Africa but the Americans had switched over to the K* and later the N in the Pacific. Second - P-40Ks did serve in the MTO for a while (with the 57th FG) due to a shortage of the Fs, and didn't seem to do terribly badly.

Second - this is somewhat subjective, but I would not argue that the P-40F/L was automatically the better version of the plane. The F was the better version _to fight the Germans and Italians_, with their DB 600 series high flying, fast fighters. However the P-40K was probably the better aircraft for fighting the Japanese in the CBI and New Guinea and so on. It was faster down low and the engine seemed to do better in the Tropical environment (that is the real reason why only a small number of F models were ever deployed to the South Pacific).



> Just look at the distance involved. Japanese reaching Karachi means by passing the Indian peninsula or taking a large part of southern India?



I admit it's a stretch - it's certainly speculative. But I don't really see why the Japanese should be able to overrun China and Burma would have necessarily been unable to conquer large parts of India (say the coastline) if they had a free hand (i.e. if the US had been beaten back to a defensive posture on the mainland). Again, granted, it's pure speculation I have little to base that on.



> The Japanese had over 20 years to preposition supplies/base materials at Truk, No such time (or shipping) was available to stage intermediate bases from Malaysia and while Rangoon did fall in March of 1942 pushing thousands of miles beyond that might have been beyond the capacity of the Japanese,



Well one thing they could do in Burma that they couldn't in Truk is get a lot of supplies there by rail. If they weren't contending with intensive US support for China (including all the US air units) they may not have had much to hold them back. If there were a bunch of USN debacles in 1942 I don't see why the Japanese 

Also lets keep in mind, again admittedly in the land of speculation - if the Japanese military had all the resources of mainland China plus the Pacific Rim available to them more or less free and clear, i.e. without much US interference and only whatever the British could do from India, they would concievably have had resources and assets comparable to what was available to the US, albeit without anywhere near the same industrial capacity. It's still a sizeable economic base.

* or E's re-engined to the K standard (V-1710-73) which is basically the same thing


----------



## Schweik (Oct 20, 2019)

Beejay said:


> That's a lot of ifs, buts, maybes, linear reasoning, rolls of dice and navy and army topics to get to the one plane you feel turned the tide of war, the SBD.



Actually not. At least not just the SBD. I believe I posted my response to the OP many many pages upthread, can't be bothered to look for it but I think I remember suggesting a handful of options, the SBD was one of them but I also included several others.

My point in the discussion was simply that the SBD far exceeded the value of the Swordfish.



> Your argument should then be extended to its inevitable outcome however: the plane that gave the US its headstart at Midway, the Catalina.
> 
> Although ... if we continue with what-ifs: the reason Japan came south was because that was the navy's master plan. And that became Japan's master plan after the army's defeat in the very early days of WW2 against the Soviets over Mongolia (in the most crowded dogfights ever). Had the army won that, its masterplan would have been followed, Japan wouldn't have sailed to Hawai and the Soviet Union might well have been attacked on both fronts, leaving the US out of it. The plane that had the biggest impact on that Mongolian conflict was the Tupolev SB, which thus must be the pivotal WW2 plane.



Interesting theory but it sure aint mine...


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Midway was the stepping stone to Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think its a good point that things could have EASILY gone against the US at Midway. Say the US losses 3 carriers.
Alot of aditional rescources are going to have to be shifted to the Pacific.
In hind sight we kind of assume the outcome was a given when it was not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 20, 2019)

ClayO said:


> I'd have to go with the Martin NBS-1, used by Billy Mitchell to demonstrate that airplanes could sink ships.



You can add the Handley Page O/400 to that list then; not only did it drop the biggest air dropped bomb during the Great War, but a single US built example also took part in Billy Mitchell's sinking of the Ostfriesland, dropping the last bomb to hit the ship. In September 1921 an example carried a single 4,000lb bomb and dropped it at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 20, 2019)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually the majority of the follow on battles did go against the United States. People over look the fact that the USN lost as many fleet carriers in 1942 as the IJN. 4 each. With the damage to Enterprise the USN had one fleet carrier left in the Pacific in December 1942. They had to borrow HMS Victorious and modify it a fair bit to match American procedures. It served in the Pacific alongside Saratoga for the first half of of 1943. The Japanese also gave several kickings to the USN surface fleet. The naval battles off Guadalcanal were brutal affairs. Fully half of the US heavy cruisers were sunk or knocked out for months (6 sunk and 3 very heavily damaged). Most of 1943 was a period of recovery for the US.
> While Midway was obviously very important Guadalcanal was the true turning point where the Japanese offensive was finally stopped at great cost to the USN and the USM. On the other hand without Midway Guadalcanal likely falls to the Japanese.


Resp:
Well stated. US operations in a nutshell. None of it was easy. You aviators should study Guadalcanal. The US Navy lost more men than the Marines in securing the island. Two admirals were killed in less than 24 hrs attempting to hold back surface forces. The Marines fought during the day and watched the Naval fireworks between the two Navies at night. When the carrier Enterprise arrived to assist by launching aircraft to supress Japanese naval forces, their pilots knew full well that they could not return to land on their carrier . . . due to elevator damage (could not lower returning aircraft to clear the deck) the Enterprise received in a prior engagement. All pilots were briefed that they would have to land at Henderson Field when they finished their attack against the Japanese. At one point there were so few aircraft operational on Henderson that naval personnel worked under tarps at night, removing a wing from one plane and fitting it to another . . . just so they could attack the Japs the next day. A LCDR the flew the 'parts' plane out to attack shipping. If my memory serves me, he and his ground crew repaired various aircraft, doing this for nearly 5 days (nights, actually) just so they could take the fight to the Japanese. The LCDR was eventually killed when he flew the last aircraft to attack the enemy ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 21, 2019)

Another thought pertaining to the importance of theaters and there priorities.
If things had gone really badly for the US at Midway and perhaps Guadalcanal also, I think you can kiss the Germany first priority good buy. The U.S. is not going to let Japan take the whole Pacific up to and maybe including Hawaii. At that point the priority is going to have to shift I think by necessity, for the U.S. anyway, to some substantial degree to the Pacific theater.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Izumo and her sister ship were both sunk at Kure by carrier aircraft in July of 1945 for example.



That's a very nice picture, taken in Shanghai on the Huangpu River.



Schweik said:


> that the SBD far exceeded the value of the Swordfish.



To whom exactly, is the question to be asked here. To those engaged in the Pacific where the SBD's successes were high, but to those whom benefitted from the presense of the Stringbag, that is easily debated. It's worth mentioning that the Swordfish was primarily used as an anti-submarine aircraft from 1942 onwards, being armed with rockets, rather than torpedoes and carrying search radar. As an anti-sub aircraft, it was operated from 18 MACs (Merchant Aircraft Carriers) and 14 escort carriers and sank some 22 U-boats. By comparison, out of interest, the Grumman Avenger sank 35 U-boats, three less than the PBY Catalina. The highest number of U-boats confirmed as sunk by a single type was the B-24 Liberator, with 72 sunk. Info according to U-boat.net.

Anyway, back to the Swordfish, it is worth quoting at this time the words of Eric Brown, whose appreciation for it is often misconstrued;

"Its survival throughout WWII despite obsolescence places the Stringbag in somewhat the same category as the Junkers Ju 87, although the former was not subjected to the same progressive development as the latter. Both were operated primarily in an environment in which enemy fighters were conspicuous by their absense or where air superiority could be guaranteed. In the case of the Swordfish, this environment was out in the ocean beyond the range of enemy fighters or under cover of darkness before night fighting became an art. 

"When fighters were around the Swordfish still had a measure of protection in its remarkable manoeuvrability, but when the chips were down as in the aiming run of a torpedo attack it was totally vulnerable. I would not detract from the great actions in which the Swordfish participated, nor especially from the gallant aircrew who fought these actions, but the hard fact is that these aircrew should never have been exposed to such danger in equipment so ancient in concept and I cannot believe that a more technologically advanced aircraft could not have done as well or even better."

A fair and measured assesment of the type. 

Here's what Brown had to say about the Dauntless;

"It had established an enviable record for reliability and toughness and its career in the Pacific had certainly been illustrious. Yet from a performance standpoint it had been a very mediocre aeroplane and having operated for much of the time in a non-air superiority environment, one is left with a deep respect for its crews. I personally did not find the hidden quality in the Dauntless that I had sought on the strength of its remarkable operational reputation. I could only conclude that it was to be numbered among the handful of aeroplanes that have achieved outstanding success against all odds."

By contrast an aircraft Brown was very fond of was the Grumman Avenger, in fact, all of Grumman's frontline carrier types he had a fondness for - in the Martlet/Wildcat he had shot down 3 Fw 200 Condors in combat and reckoned that; "this Grumman fighter was, for my money, one of the finest shipboard aeroplanes ever created." 

High praise indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the not unreasonable suggestion in support of Brown's, that both the Dauntless and Swordfish were successful despite themselves. Both went into the combat arena because you go to war with what you've got and if the units operating them were equipped with more modern or better performing types would have achieved the same measure of success that these two types bathed in. There's no reason the US Navy would not have been able to do what it did with the SBD if it were equipped with a different dive bomber, maybe the Aichi D3A or perhaps even the Blackburn Skua - both types were competent dive bombers and easily demonstrated that they could do the job effectively, regardless of any comparison of numbers of ships sunk. The Swordfish was the same; its load carrying capability was offset by its lack of crew comfort and below par performance, but that did come with good manoeuvrability, something that perhaps a modern type might not have possessed. Regardless, the successes the Swordfish achieved at Taranto, Matapan and against the Bismarck could have been done with, say a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima B5N.

This is again, not to denigrate either type, but to assess them both evenly, taking into account their weaknesses and their sterling combat careers alike. They both shone because they were thrust into the limelight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 21, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Well stated. US operations in a nutshell. None of it was easy. You aviators should study Guadalcanal. The US Navy lost more men than the Marines in securing the island. Two admirals were killed in less than 24 hrs attempting to hold back surface forces. The Marines fought during the day and watched the Naval fireworks between the two Navies at night. When the carrier Enterprise arrived to assist by launching aircraft to supress Japanese naval forces, their pilots knew full well that they could not return to land on their carrier . . . due to elevator damage (could not lower returning aircraft to clear the deck) the Enterprise received in a prior engagement. All pilots were briefed that they would have to land at Henderson Field when they finished their attack against the Japanese. At one point there were so few aircraft operational on Henderson that naval personnel worked under tarps at night, removing a wing from one plane and fitting it to another . . . just so they could attack the Japs the next day. A LCDR the flew the 'parts' plane out to attack shipping. If my memory serves me, he and his ground crew repaired various aircraft, doing this for nearly 5 days (nights, actually) just so they could take the fight to the Japanese. The LCDR was eventually killed when he flew the last aircraft to attack the enemy ships.


The Cactus Air force was actually comprised of USN, USMC, USAAF and Commonwealth pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Let's add Hellcat and Superfortress in the Pacific, Liberator and Swordfish in the Atlantic. The P-40 in North Africa. The Yak / Sturmovik combo on the Eastern Front.



If Midway was the turning point, then the Hellcat and B-29 are late to the party; same goes if Guadalcanal was the turning point. You could make a case for the Superfortress as the 'finisher'. 

If the 2nd Battle of Alamein is the turning point in North Africa (I agree it was) then the P-40 was certainly apart of the air battle, but it was hardly alone; quite a few other types were also involved.

Yaks and Sturmoviks in the Battle of Stalingrad? Could well be, it's a good bid anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 21, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the not unreasonable suggestion in support of Brown's, that both the Dauntless and Swordfish were successful despite themselves. Both went into the combat arena because you go to war with what you've got and if the units operating them were equipped with more modern or better performing types would have achieved the same measure of success that these two types bathed in. There's no reason the US Navy would not have been able to do what it did with the SBD if it were equipped with a different dive bomber, maybe the Aichi D3A or perhaps even the Blackburn Skua - both types were competent dive bombers and easily demonstrated that they could do the job effectively, regardless of any comparison of numbers of ships sunk. The Swordfish was the same; its load carrying capability was offset by its lack of crew comfort and below par performance, but that did come with good manoeuvrability, something that perhaps a modern type might not have possessed. Regardless, the successes the Swordfish achieved at Taranto, Matapan and against the Bismarck could have been done with, say a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima B5N.
> 
> This is again, not to denigrate either type, but to assess them both evenly, taking into account their weaknesses and their sterling combat careers alike. They both shone because they were thrust into the limelight.


I think that's well thought out and there certainly is some merit to that view of both planes. There certainly was some good fortune or just plain luck if you like that both types seemed to consistently benefit from but I'm also gona have to disagree just a bit also. Some planes posses valuable characteristics that don't nescesarily show up in performance stats.
A good example of this is the F6F in my view. Doesn't look that impressive by the performance stats but very successful in practice. I'm not a pilot but I'm thinking there is a lot of value in a plane that does what you tell it and doesn't talk back so to speak. Seems that kind of plane would breed confidence whereas the opposite might breed skitishnes and tentativity and confidence would seem valuable in combat. Imho, from what ive read in pilots evaluations of the SBD and F6F, Eric Brown not withstanding, ( not sure about the Swordfish)that would seem to have at least some substantial part in their success that wouldn't be evident just looking at performance stats. 
Also, if a string of luck goes on long enough eventually you have to start thinking there's something behind it even if it isn't imediatly appearant at first glance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 21, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> If Midway was the turning point, then the Hellcat and B-29 are late to the party; same goes if Guadalcanal was the turning point. You could make a case for the Superfortress as the 'finisher'.
> 
> If the 2nd Battle of Alamein is the turning point in North Africa (I agree it was) then the P-40 was certainly apart of the air battle, but it was hardly alone; quite a few other types were also involved.
> 
> Yaks and Sturmoviks in the Battle of Stalingrad? Could well be, it's a good bid anyway.



Agree to all except significance of P-40 at El Alamein. If it was just P-40's then air superiority would still have been achieved, along with close air support. In the case of Hurricanes and / or Spitfires, you can't have one without the other.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

Undoubtedly Michael, I agree with you. Aircraft like the F6F were a cut above their adversaries and achieved fame because they possessed characteristics that branded them not just good at what they did as their job, in the F6F's case as a fighter, but also that it possessed excellent performance and undeniable strength and robustness, as well as handling characteristics that made it a good fighter. The point Brown is making is that the Swordfish and the Dauntless, while possessing strengths, the former's load carrying abilities and manoeuvrability and the latter its robustness and excellent diving characteristics, could have been carried out by others of their type and the results would have been the same. The F6F however stood apart for the reasons I've explained and on its debut was a demonstrably superior fighter compared to its contemporaries in the A6M, Sea Hurricane, and F4F from the same company. 

Likewise the likes of the Lancaster compared to the Halifax. The Hali was known for its extensive career in Bomber Command and its ability to survive a crash landing owing to its strength of construction, and also the diversity of roles it took on, but it was successful despite itself. It was in fact a dog of an aeroplane, certainly the early Merlin engied variants more so than the Hercules engined ones, but even then, they had their issues and were not completely satisfactory. The early Halifaxes did not meet their performance figures, were too heavy and draggy, which resulted in continual modification to lighten and streamline the airframes, with so many different series of each mark built that incorporated yet another change on the production line. This is of course not mentioning the severe rudder overbalance, which if the condition arose, had the aircraft turn into an unrecoverable dive, which continued to claim aircrews' lives after it had entered service. The larger 'D' shaped fins countered this nasty tendency.

The Lancaster by contrast was an excellent performer from the outset and although there were stability and drag issues, notably round the tail feathers and around the top turret mounting, these were overcome by increasing the chord of the elevators and the size of the fins and deleting the third one of the prototype and placing a ring around the mid upper turret. It is fair to say, however that without the Manchester suffering the issues it did and efforts made to rectify these, the Lancaster might not have had the reputation it did. Compared to the Halifax I and II however, the Lancaster I was faster, could carry a bigger bomb load over a similar distance and had a better chance of returning.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Undoubtedly Michael, I agree with you. Aircraft like the F6F were a cut above their adversaries and achieved fame because they possessed characteristics that branded them not just good at what they did as their job, in the F6F's case as a fighter, but also that it possessed excellent performance and undeniable strength and robustness, as well as handling characteristics that made it a good fighter. The point Brown is making is that the Swordfish and the Dauntless, while possessing strengths, the former's load carrying abilities and manoeuvrability and the latter its robustness and excellent diving characteristics, could have been carried out by others of their type and the results would have been the same. The F6F however stood apart for the reasons I've explained and on its debut was a demonstrably superior fighter compared to its contemporaries in the A6M, Sea Hurricane, and F4F from the same company.



I think the point Michael was making is that the F6F does not look particularly impressive on paper, by the normal stats we measure for a fighter - top speed, rate of climb, wing loading, and so on. But it turned out to be (by at least some measures, such as total victory claims) the most lethal fighter ever produced by the US. It's top speed on paper doesn't look much faster than the A6M5 for example. (Boscombe down analysis here gives a top speed of 371 mph, later marks were a bit faster but nowhere near say, an F4U). Clearly the F6F had some traits, which were in part due to the powerful engine, in part due to handling, takeoff and landing suitability... perhaps the elusive concept of 'power of maneuver', and other hard to measure characteristics which made it not just good but one of the wars great fighters.

While I think Eric Brown is a good source of insight into aircraft performance, I don't think he is the last word - several of his analysis of various aircraft have been more or less debunked on this forum by various people. I do take it into consideration, but I suspect he missed something with the SBD and may have had a different assessment of it in a different context. Next to a Spitfire or a Fw 190 sure it's a dud. But how many carriers did a Spitfire sink? If Eric had ever tried to drop a bomb on a Japanese ship or had to maneuver against an A6M he may have seen the light and grasped the meaning behind the nickname "Slow But Deadly".

I don't think the SBD was remotely comparable to the Swordfish or even the Skua. The SBD was known to have very good handling and maneuverability as well as excellent dive performance. It was also fairly heavily armed for it's day and class with two 12.7mm mg in the nose. The Skua was simply a generation behind it, it didn't have the range, speed, bomb carrying capability or the air-to-air combat ability to pull off the feats that the SBD did, (particularly at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal). Skuas proved to be particularly vulnerable to fighters and had to be removed from combat in 1941. The SBD by contrast was able to shoot down enemy fighters on more than one occasion (with more than 120 air to air claims), could usually, though not always, make it through to the target even without an escort. It had a surprisingly high survival rate (allegedly the lowest loss rate of any USN carrier aircaft, which is fantastic for a bomber, apparently only 80 were shot down by Japanese aircraft in the whole war) and continued in use to the end of the war.

The SBD seemed to have two really crucial traits: 1) It was capable of surviving to reach the target and get the crew back to the vicinity of the carrier or airfield it launched from, and 2) most importantly it seemed to have a knack for scoring damaging hits with it's bombs. The combination of those two traits makes a very dangerous weapon for carrier warfare. It probably would have remained the main Navy dive bomber (with bigger / more powerful engines) except the wing design made it problematic to come up with any way to fold them. Thus limiting the number which could be kept on a carrier, and that was a major problem. That is really why the essentially inferior SB2C replaced it.

The D3A is a closer competitor to the SBD and in many ways comparable - in some aspects superior. But I would argue that it's vulnerability due to a lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks meant that it would have suffered seriously from attrition given the type of missions the SBD had to fly, in fact the D3A did suffer badly from attrition in those same battles, if not quite as badly as the B5N. In other words it may have been able to win Midway yes, but there may not have been any left (not to mention trained air crews) to also win at Guadalcanal afterwards.

Overall, as I mentioned upthread, I don't think anyone was able to produce a truly stellar dive bomber during the early to mid-war. From a design point of view, it was a hard nut to crack. Dive bombing was a very sought-after trait for military planners because it enhanced bombing accuracy by an order of magnitude. This makes it particularly compelling for naval aircraft. But adding dive brakes and stressing an aircraft for that high-G pullout knocks out too many _other_ traits that you need in a wartime aircraft, much like carrying a torpedo does, especially for early war engines of ~800-1,200 hp. So when we say the SBD is "mediocre", what are we comparing it to? It was actually one of the best in it's class, possibly the very best (at least for the mid-war) though there were two other serious contenders.

The best dive bombers operational on any kind of large scale were all a distinct design compromise. I would say the SBD, D3A and Ju 87 (the only true vertical dive bomber) were the only three really good ones in terms of their operational history. The Skua, the Albacore and the Su-2, the Vought Vindicator and the Vultee Vengeance did not quite work out though they did show the deadly bombing traits to some extent. The A-36 could have been an outstanding dive bomber, and did some lethally accurate bombing in a very dangerous Tactical environment (in Italy, often unescorted). In fact it's importance in that role is probably underestimated. But it ultimately proved to not be quite strong enough for those high G pullouts. You also had twin engined dive bombers (notably Ju 88 and Pe-2) but their airframes and engines were heavily stressed by true steep angle dive bombing strikes and they had to be relegated to shallow angle 'dive bombing' of the type used by fighter bombers. Still much more accurate than level bombing, which along with speed and overall performance made them two of the best bomber designs of the war, but nowhere near as reliable for destroying targets as a real dive bomber.

A bit later in the war when bigger engines were available the SB2C could do the dive bombing job but it wasn't a great plane - closer to your analogy probably it ended up doing some real damage but kind of in spite of it's flaws rather than due to it's design merits. The multi-role Barracuda didn't seem to quite gel as a design. The impressive Aichi B7A and the Yokosuka D4Y were also good but flawed, the D4Y by vulnerability more than anything else, the B7A only by appearing in any numbers too late and being too big for existing carriers (apparently the B7A had armor and self-sealing tanks, which along with a 350 mph speed, two 20mm cannons and maneuverability compared favorably to an A6M, make it probably the best wartime aircraft in the class). None of these came early enough to help tip the balance of the war though.

So the best dive bombers through the mid-war had the best possible package of traits given the limitations of engine power and the features required by their role. The "Slow but Deadly" nickname of the SBD implies this, it doesn't seem that capable on the surface but it's actually quite lethal and therefore deceptively effective. Just like the Ju 87 and D3A.

Finally I should add - the SBD among it's many roles was also used pretty extensively for ASW. If you read Neptune's Inferno (arguably the single best overview of the naval war at Guadalcanal) it's surprising how many had to be constantly diverted, even in the hour of the most pressing need, to ASW patrols because of the immense danger posed by the Japanese submarines. Later it was the

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

*TL : DR *I definitely don't think they could have won Midway armed with Skuas or Swordfish instead of SBDs. The former would have been slaughtered by Japanese fighters.

The D3A is a closer match and a better point, but I think that was another one of the greatest aircraft of WW2, per the thread OP.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> If Midway was the turning point, then the Hellcat and B-29 are late to the party; same goes if Guadalcanal was the turning point. You could make a case for the Superfortress as the 'finisher'.
> 
> If the 2nd Battle of Alamein is the turning point in North Africa (I agree it was) then the P-40 was certainly apart of the air battle, but it was hardly alone; quite a few other types were also involved.
> 
> Yaks and Sturmoviks in the Battle of Stalingrad? Could well be, it's a good bid anyway.



I agree with all that - given the crucial nature of Stalingrad to the defeat of the Germans and also the successful defense of Leningrad and Moscow, we have to look East, and when we do we will see that the Soviets were just starting to catch up in terms of fighter and ground attack capabilities at that time, they still had a way to go. The P-40 was important there too (during the siege of Leningrad in particular) but P-39 was really one of the stand-outs for the Soviets hard-won and gradual reclamation of Air Superiority in 1943.

However the Il2 (especially once they started putting the rear-gunner on it), Yak series and La 5 (etc.) fighters were all crucial to the defeat of the Germans. Once the Soviets worked out their production and build-quality issues they caught up enough to challenge German air supremacy and things really started shifting, though it was a hard job getting there.

I think the early war saw the crucial value of the Stuka, the Bf 109, the A6M, the D3A and G4M on the Axis side, and the Spitfire / Hurricane combo on the Allied side particularly for the critical moment that was the Battle of Britain. We shouldn't discount the astonishing successes of the Axis in the early war, that was the first turning point - with the BoB representing the first and earliest hard stop to the explosive Axis expansion. I don't think anyone was expecting the crushing victories the Axis powers won early on. Historically, if you go back into the longer memories of earlier times which extend centuries into the past, France, Poland, and the Royal Navy (including in places like the Far East) were formidable military powers which were not prone to easy defeats. Nor the Dutch East India Company.

Their sudden and decisive demise put all the Allied nations severely back on their heels and while some may feel victory was inevitable for economic reasons etc., I think most people at the time didn't see it that way (I know my family didn't). The Hurricane played an important role in those early days in blunting Axis momentum in places like the Pacific, North Africa and Russia.

The three mid-war turning points (back to neutral if you will) are Midway (or you could say Coral Sea / Midway / Milne Bay) and El Alamein (El Alamein / Tebaga Gap / Wadi Akarit) and Stalingrad (with Moscow and Leningrad). Then the momentum shifts right after that _against_ the Axis with Guadalcanal, the invasions of Sicily and Italy (and the first capitulation of Italy) and Kursk. From that point onward the Axis were on the defensive and (IMO) there are no more tipping points, though there were of course titanic battles and some serious flare ups (Philippines, Anzio, D-Day, Ardennes, Kharkov, Korsun pocket)

All three of those Theaters - Pacific, MTO and Soviet-German war tend to get somewhat ignored in Anglophone discussions of WW2. British tend to focus on the BoB, Spitfire, Mosquito* and Lancaster while the Americans talk about Pearl Harbor**, D-Day, 8th Air Force P-51s and B-29s. We tend to forget in particular how big the scale of El Alamein and subsequent battles in North Africa were, those were almost comparable in scope to the titanic showdowns on the Russian front.

And the naval battles in the Pacific were beyond the scale of any ever before or since in history.

* Mosquito was one of the stellar aircraft of the war, I'm not sure if it was decisive to victory but in terms of giving an asset to the Allies that could reach out and seriously hurt German targets with precision, day or night, it was unparalleled.
**and a little bit Midway, probably more when this new film comes out.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 21, 2019)

When this thread started, there was discussion of defining the point the tide was turned. I think Nov '42 was the high water mark of the Axis. Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, Torch/El Alamein represented a global Waterloo for the Axis. After Nov 42 none of the Axis powers realized a strategic victory through the end of the War.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

I think that is about when it started, but it took a while. Stalingrad went on until February of 43, same for Guadalcanal, serious heavy fighting in North Africa continued until March of 43 (Kasserine Pass, a substantial Axis victory, was in Feb of 43).

Second El Alamein was also set up by the first El Alamein in July 42 (a draw, technically but a rare example of stopping a major push by the Afrika Korps) and during the battle of Alam el Halfa, which was really the first important British victory by their new commander Bernard Montgomery, in August of 42. Simultaneously in the MTO was the series of engagements some call collectively "the siege of Malta" - Malta holding out, kind of by the skin of their teeth, amounted to another major Allied victory. That campaign went on through the year (and well before) but ended around your tipping point of Nov 42. Having Malta as an air base meant Axis logistics were choked off - definitely contributing to victory in the Med. Here you can give credit to the Hurricane and the Spit (and before that, the Gladiator).

Coral Sea (May 42) and Midway (June 42) were earlier, but in combination amounted to a serious punch in the face that knocked out some of the IJN's teeth. The real effects of it weren't entirely apparent really until Guadalcanal heated up, with those four or five carriers the Japanese would probably have won there.

So while you could reasonably say Nov 42 was the fulcrum, it was kind of more of a range from mid 1942- spring 1943, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

I would also say in defense of the Swordfish, it clearly was one of those remarkable designs with something 'extra' that gave it the versatility it displayed and the long career it had - and contributed, along with pilot training, to the successes achieved with it. I just think it was a much earlier (mid-30s) design which didn't remain truly viable for as long.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The notion that they US would 'let' Japan do/have anything after Pearl Harbor is a 'false notion.' Logic was out the window! Roosevelt wanted 'satisfaction.' ADM King flew out to California to see Nimitz. Their conversation went something like this; King to Nimitz: 'we (US Navy) aren't defending anything (meaning the craze in California), I want you to attack (Japanese Naval Forces), attack . . . attack!! Do you understand? Nimitz: Yes air! A USN Submariner assigned to Norfolk, VA was reporting to duty one cold day when he spotted a 'painted outline of an aircraft carrier' on the Tarmac. For some reason, a B-25 (PBJ) Mitchell was parked nearby. He forwarded his idea of the possible launching of Mitchells from an aircraft carrier. Two launches were done off the coast of New England. However, each time there was only one Mitchell onboard. Training and problem solving soon began at Elgin Field, Florida. The rest is history.



I never said the US would let Japan do anything. My statement was that nothing in the Pacific Theater came close to constituting an existential threat to US survival. As such, it didn't matter from a strategic perspective whether the Japanese won at Midway or Guadalcanal because, in the long run, the war was simply unwinnable from a Japanese perspective. Yes, America would seek to disrupt Japanese intentions but any tactical or operational losses were simply setbacks because, ultimately the Allies would win the materiel capacity fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

I'm sure that is true, but I think the sentiment at the time wouldn't necessarily reflect that with such equanimity. Any major setback (i.e. on the scale of Midway) in the Pacific would have had to be corrected before proper focus was shifted across the Atlantic. Many books I have read such as Neptune's Inferno (mentioned recently), pointed out that "Europe First" was more of a symbolic position and not necessarily the reality.

The loss of Hawaii, or even the plausible _threat_ of Aircraft carriers launching strikes against San Fransisco or Los Angles may not have affected the ultimate outcome of the war, but they would have been a politically intolerable situation to American leadership. Far more so than anything happening in Europe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 21, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I never said the US would let Japan do anything. My statement was that nothing in the Pacific Theater came close to constituting an existential threat to US survival. As such, it didn't matter from a strategic perspective whether the Japanese won at Midway or Guadalcanal because, in the long run, the war was simply unwinnable from a Japanese perspective. Yes, America would seek to disrupt Japanese intentions but any tactical or operational losses were simply setbacks because, ultimately the Allies would win the materiel capacity fight.


Reap:
Roger. There were too many unknowns in the beginning. Even today we debate, as we are now . . . the ins and outs of WWII. Information traveled slower and was harder to confirm. Good Intel likes to have several different sources to support and confirm information. The US will always be criticized for not helping (fighting forces) to combat Germany before 1942. So I will not attempt to do so. Logistics in the PTO was far greater than Europe. The USN quickly found that pre-WWII doctrine would not suffice against Japan (subs used as Intel gathering over destruction of enemy vessels and the Carrier became more important than the Battleship). Major changes occurred reapidly. Japan may have known the war was unwinnable, but in 1941-1943 it was questionable. Keep in mind that when Hitler declared war on the US in January 1942, the US was looking at how to fight/supply two wars.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

The idea that the Japanese could wipe out the hard core of the US surface fleet in one day or capture the Philippines in a matter of four months, let alone all the British and Dutch possessions in the Pacific - to take Singapore in a week in spite of the protection of two Battleships of what was supposed to be by far the greatest navy the world had ever seen (both quickly sunk on a single day). And all this in the context of what the Germans had done in Europe. They fought France in trenches for four years in WWI and lost, then in 1940 they take France down in six weeks. This was all unthinkable according to pre-war conventional wisdom. So things were _in play_, all assumptions and theories about Axis capabilities were suspect, real outcomes were up in the air as far as most people were concerned (including many military planners). I don't think there was so much confidence outside of maybe a few of the senior guys like Marshall.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Midway was the stepping stone to Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Calling Midway a "stepping stone" is a bit of a stretch. Its only practical use was as a refuelling stop for long-range patrol aircraft and a submarine resupply base. As a launching point for an invasion of Hawaii, it's a non-starter. As for Hawaii, by the middle of 1942, it had been significantly reinforced compared to December 1941. Thus the proposition of invasion was a real long-shot for Japan.

I still don't see how delaying the tipping point of the war by a year would have been "trouble" (apart from the inevitable increase in human losses). The main impact on Japanese shipping was not the US carrier fleet, it was the submarine force. Even with the loss of Midway, the US submarines would still have exacted considerable losses on the Japanese maritime forces, which Japan had to maintain just to resupply all its far-flung outposts. 

It's worth remembering that, apart from China, Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies (and, perhaps, Burma), pretty much every other territory the Japanese took over was a net resource suck. Japan desperately needed raw materials and additional production capacity and yet yet they persisted in invading places that just added more and more materiel and logistical expense which they simply couldn't afford.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

This takes us even deeper into speculation but Ok I'll explain what I think is obvious - delaying the tipping point by a year means an extra year for the Axis, and in particular the Germans, to get certain things sorted out. Like say, Jets. Or to win some of those crucial battles in Russia.

The Japanese as well had some critical technologies in development which if they had been able to come to full maturity before they were against the ropes, could have meant trouble.

You may be 100% certain that the Japanese couldn't have for example captured Hawaii, I am not so certain- but the more important fact is that people at that time could not afford to be so sure. If Midway had been lost, yawning vistas of potential disaster would open up that _had_ to be closed before US attention could be focused elsewhere.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Another thought pertaining to the importance of theaters and there priorities.
> If things had gone really badly for the US at Midway and perhaps Guadalcanal also, I think you can kiss the Germany first priority good buy. The U.S. is not going to let Japan take the whole Pacific up to and maybe including Hawaii. At that point the priority is going to have to shift I think by necessity, for the U.S. anyway, to some substantial degree to the Pacific theater.



Even with the Germany First strategy, the bulk of American resources went to the Pacific anyhow. As to "take the whole Pacific", that's an impossibility. Again, Japan had outposts that were not mutually supporting. They never came close, at any stage, to "owning" even a substantial part of the Pacific. By the middle of 1942, invading Hawaii is simply a fanciful notion. From where would the invasion forces sail? How combat ready would an invading force be after several days at sea? 'Fraid that's not a viable outcome.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The idea that the Japanese could wipe out the hard core of the US surface fleet in one day or capture the Philippines in a matter of four months, let alone all the British and Dutch possessions in the Pacific - to take Singapore in a week in spite of the protection of two Battleships of what was supposed to be by far the greatest navy the world had ever seen (both quickly sunk on a single day). And all this in the context of what the Germans had done in Europe. They fought France in trenches for four years in WWI and lost, then in 1940 they take France down in six weeks. This was all unthinkable according to pre-war conventional wisdom. So things were _in play_, all assumptions and theories about Axis capabilities were suspect, real outcomes were up in the air as far as most people were concerned (including many military planners). I don't think there was so much confidence outside of maybe a few of the senior guys like Marshall.


Exactly. Its not so much what we know the capabilities/ possibilities were now. It's what they were starting to look like they might be then.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This takes us even deeper into speculation but Ok I'll explain what I think is obvious - delaying the tipping point by a year means an extra year for the Axis, and in particular the Germans, to get certain things sorted out. Like say, Jets. Or to win some of those crucial battles in Russia.
> 
> The Japanese as well had some critical technologies in development which if they had been able to come to full maturity before they were against the ropes, could have meant trouble.
> 
> You may be 100% certain that the Japanese couldn't have for example captured Hawaii, I am not so certain- but the more important fact is that people at that time could not afford to be so sure. If Midway had been lost, yawning vistas of potential disaster would open up that _had_ to be closed before US attention could be focused elsewhere.



The arguments are getting rather hyperbolic. Why would the loss of Midway result in a "yawning vista of potential disaster" when the loss of Wake Island didn't? Is a small coral atoll named Midway really that much more significant than a small coral atoll called Midway? If Midway had been lost, the American people would have shrugged, and carried on. Midway was an inconsequential speck in the middle of the Pacific. It had precious little meaning to the average American.

I'm not suggesting the people at the time knew the war was a foregone conclusion. However, I have yet to see a serious contradiction of the relative strategic positions of Japan and Germany. Yes, Japan could and did cause trouble but even Japanese officers (eg Yamamoto, among others) did not believe Japan could win a protracted war. They gambled on America caving in after Pearl Harbor. As soon as that didn't happen, the writing was on the wall...and the more perceptive Japanese knew it at the time.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The idea that the Japanese could wipe out the hard core of the US surface fleet in one day or capture the Philippines in a matter of four months, let alone all the British and Dutch possessions in the Pacific - to take Singapore in a week in spite of the protection of two Battleships of what was supposed to be by far the greatest navy the world had ever seen (both quickly sunk on a single day). And all this in the context of what the Germans had done in Europe. They fought France in trenches for four years in WWI and lost, then in 1940 they take France down in six weeks. This was all unthinkable according to pre-war conventional wisdom. So things were _in play_, all assumptions and theories about Axis capabilities were suspect, real outcomes were up in the air as far as most people were concerned (including many military planners). I don't think there was so much confidence outside of maybe a few of the senior guys like Marshall.


Exactly. Marshall promoted Eisenhower because of his pre-doctrine on the 'Next War in Europe' and his knowledge of the Pacific from having served under MacArthur. At Marshall's request, Eisenhower flew to Washington, DC to furnish his 'Two Front War Plan.' He told Marshall that every plane, ship and man sent to 'save' Courrigidor would be a waste; we had at the time too little to send too far! Halsey replaced more senior but less aggressive officers. Marshall cornered Gen Pershing when he was a Maj during WWI. Pershing was dissatisfied with his senior officers in preparing their dough boys for combat.  After Pershing finished dressing them down, Maj Marshall put his hand on Pershing's shoulder as he turned to leave. Marshall then began to outline the problems they faced upon arrival . . . and most importantly, furnished details of what the command had done to address them. Once finished, Pershing thanked Marshall before leaving. Each time Pershing wanted to know anything, he contacted Maj Marshall. Marshall also confronted President Roosevelt in 1941 at the end of a Cabinet Meeting; as the others were filling out, Marshall . . . in a stern voice said . . . Mr President, we've talked about the need to act now, but today you still haven't signed the authorization to start the ball rolling. Sir, this needs to be signed (by you) today! The order was finalized and signed by Pres Roosevelt early the next morning. It's called Leadership.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> The arguments are getting rather hyperbolic. Why would the loss of Midway result in a "yawning vista of potential disaster" when the loss of Wake Island didn't?



Abolutely not. Very good point. However, that is not what I was saying. Losing Midway Atoll isn't a catastrophe - but if the battle had gone the other way (as I think many know it very well could have) and we had lost say 3 or 4 carriers, on top of the earlier losses of our battleships at Pearl Harbor, I think that would open the yawning chasm and etc.

With apologies for the literary allusions I suffer from notions of being a writer.



> I'm not suggesting the people at the time knew the war was a foregone conclusion. However, I have yet to see a serious contradiction of the relative strategic positions of Japan and Germany. Yes, Japan could and did cause trouble but even Japanese officers (eg Yamamoto, among others) did not believe Japan could win a protracted war. They gambled on America caving in after Pearl Harbor. As soon as that didn't happen, the writing was on the wall...and the more perceptive Japanese knew it at the time.



Maybe Yammamoto did. Maybe Marshall did. They were probably unusually prescient by the standards of their day.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Even with the Germany First strategy, the bulk of American resources went to the Pacific anyhow. As to "take the whole Pacific", that's an impossibility. Again, Japan had outposts that were not mutually supporting. They never came close, at any stage, to "owning" even a substantial part of the Pacific. By the middle of 1942, invading Hawaii is simply a fanciful notion. From where would the invasion forces sail? How combat ready would an invading force be after several days at sea? 'Fraid that's not a viable outcome.



I made a new thread here to explore the notion of the Japanese invading / capturing Hawaii if they had won at Midway


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I made a new thread here to explore the notion of the Japanese invading / capturing Hawaii if they had won at Midway



Thanks...should be an interesting discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 21, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Exactly. Marshall promoted Eisenhower because of his pre-doctrine on the 'Next War in Europe' and his knowledge of the Pacific from having served under MacArthur. At Marshall's request, Eisenhower flew to Washington, DC to furnish his 'Two Front War Plan.' He told Marshall that every plane, ship and man sent to 'save' Courrigidor would be a waste; we had at the time too little to send too far! Halsey replaced more senior but less aggressive officers. Marshall cornered Gen Pershing when he was a Maj during WWI. Pershing was dissatisfied with his senior officers in preparing their dough boys for combat. After Pershing finished dressing them down, Maj Marshall put his hand on Pershing's shoulder as he turned to leave. Marshall then began to outline the problems they faced upon arrival . . . and most importantly, furnished details of what the command had done to address them. Once finished, Pershing thanked Marshall before leaving. Each time Pershing wanted to know anything, he contacted Maj Marshall. Marshall also confronted President Roosevelt in 1941 at the end of a Cabinet Meeting; as the others were filling out, Marshall . . . in a stern voice said . . . Mr President, we've talked about the need to act now, but today you still haven't signed the authorization to start the ball rolling. Sir, this needs to be signed (by you) today! The order was finalized and signed by Pres Roosevelt early the next morning. It's called Leadership.



Marshall was an extremely unusual leader in the US military or for the Allies in general. There are many who can lead men in war, and who can make plans and administer, but few who can do it all and with such far sighted clarity. We are very lucky we had him at that dangerous time. He was also an expert at picking the right talent for many of the other jobs in the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Marshall was an extremely unusual leader in the US military or for the Allies in general. There are many who can lead men in war, and who can make plans and administer, but few who can do it all and with such far sighted clarity. We are very lucky we had him at that dangerous time. He was also an expert at picking the right talent for many of the other jobs in the war.


Resp:
He also deferred praise toward him, always pushing 'alocades' to men below him. As a result, history has relegated Marshall to almost obscurity. He promoted Gen Devers over Patton and Bradley at the end of WWII. Devers commanded Joint Service Forces during the Southern Invasion of France in 1944, reaching the Rhine long before Patton/Bradly. The only thing that stopped his moving into Germany was EIsenhower. Shameful decision by Ike. Marshall knew who was capable, hence, Devers' promotion to 4 Star.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

Yup, I agree with you about the Hellcat Schweik, but it proved itself superior to the current generation of carrier based fighters, for those reasons and more - it stood out was my point.



Schweik said:


> While I think Eric Brown is a good source of insight into aircraft performance, I don't think he is the last word - several of his analysis of various aircraft have been more or less debunked on this forum by various people.



Yes, he isn't the last word and the intent wasn't to offer that, but how many people are there out there who have flown that many aircraft and been in combat in at least one of them? His words, although controversial are not to be immediately dismissed and the claim that his opinions have been debunked by people on this forum is, A) a bit of a stretch and assigning a degree of importance that perhaps warrants scrutiny and B) because they are his opinions and observations, how can they be debunked?

As for the claim that the Skua couldn't have done what the Dauntless did, prove it. The Skua, despite its deficiencies was only mildly inferior in performance to the SBD, having a faster cruise speed in fact. As for not matching enemy fighters, neither did the SBD; just because examples shot down enemy fighters doesn't make it superior to the Skua. Avro Ansons also shot down Bf 109s, that doesn't make them a suitable fighter. Yes, the Skua was older, first flying in 1937 and the SBD in 1940, but its genesis goes back to the Douglas BT-1, which was of the same generation as the Skua. The RN retired the Skua because it was designed to fulfil the role of fighter/dive bomber and it was replaced by the Fulmar, which again wasn't a sparkling fighter, but that's beside the point of this discusssion - it too was mildly successful despite itself and this too is my point - the SBD and the Swordfish, despite their faults and they both had them, led successful careers, which put them among the greats of WW2.

Traits that made the Dauntless a good dive bomber and a good aeroplane? Yup, I can only agree having never flown one, and the same can be said of the Swordfish, but again, beside the point. Both aircraft were successful despite their many faults. This doesn't make them bad, but would they have been remembered as much had there been no WW2 within in which they did their deeds?

No, the Swordfish could not match the Dauntless as a dive bomber - you are missing the point. The Swordfish was a torpedo bomber, not a dive bomber and both aircraft operated in very different environments, but both were operational successes. Let's put it this way, I'd rather go to war in a Grumman Avenger or a B5N than a Swordfish. This is the point I'm trying to make. As for the Dauntless, it wouldn't have made much difference between it, the Skua or the D3A to go to war in, and as for qualities, the latter out performed both aircraft and was equally as successful in its role against Allied shipping, being responsible for the destruction of the greatest amount of Allied shipping in the Pacific theatre. If the US Navy had D3As, I'm sure it would have done just as great things with them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> My statement was that nothing in the Pacific Theater came close to constituting an existential threat to US survival. As such, it didn't matter from a strategic perspective whether the Japanese won at Midway or Guadalcanal because, in the long run, the war was simply unwinnable from a Japanese perspective.






Schweik said:


> The loss of Hawaii, or even the plausible _threat_ of Aircraft carriers launching strikes against San Fransisco or Los Angles may not have affected the ultimate outcome of the war, but they would have been a politically intolerable situation to American leadership. Far more so than anything happening in Europe.



Oddly I agree with both perspectives and you both are talking the same but different. Mark is strategically on the nail, Schweik is exactly right too. Both situations are true enough. Japan was not going to win the war, but the US was not going to allow Japan to get so close to home without a fight.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, he isn't the last word and the intent wasn't to offer that, but how many people are there out there who have flown that many aircraft and been in combat in at least one of them? His words, although controversial are not to be immediately dismissed and the claim that his opinions have been debunked by people on this forum is, A) a bit of a stretch and assigning a degree of importance that perhaps warrants scrutiny and B) because they are his opinions and observations, how can they be debunked?



I don't have a dog in that particular hunt to be honest, lets just say the folks who got real into that are not necessarily people I typically agree with on here. I like Eric Brown, think he is an interesting source and often has useful insights, but personally I don't myself take his word as gospel, not least in the sense that I wouldn't necessarily raise his evaluation over other wartime pilots who also flew the same aircraft (whether combat or test pilots). And I have read the memoirs and interviews of plenty of both. In the context of this discussion I think I explained my perception of why Eric Browns assessment of the SBD fell short of the mark.



> As for the claim that the Skua couldn't have done what the Dauntless did, prove it.



Ok, if you insist.

The Skua had a range of 760 miles. The Dauntless had a range of 1,115 miles. That is a 355 mile difference. Range is life in carrier warfare. That translates to a much wider search radius and strike range, (which is a fraction of the above numbers), also means loiter time for things like ASW.
The Dauntless had a ceiling of 5,000 ft higher. It was important to be able to fly relatively high to evade flak and fighters.
The Dauntless was 25 mph faster and had a better rate of climb. This translates into less interceptions and better evasion particularly after attacking.
The Skua had an 890 hp engine and a power-weight ratio of 0.10 vs. 1,200 hp and 0.12 for the SBD (earlier marks had less power but were also lighter).
The Dauntless was a more strongly made aircraft better able to handle high G maneuvers.
The Dauntless could carry a 1,000 or 1,600 lb semi- or fully armor piercing bomb. Vital for sinking capital warships like BBs and CAs. The Skua was limited to a 500 lb bomb maximum.
More commonly SBDs carried a 500 lb bomb and Skuas carried a 250 lb bomb. Roughly twice the damage from the SBD
Here is a big one. According to this the Skua had only marginal armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks*. The SBD was well protected and legendary for it's ability to survive damage and bring the crew home (alive).
The SBD was (arguably) better armed with 2 x .50 cal in the nose and (after Coral Sea) 2 x .30 cal defensive, vs. 4 x .303 in the wings and 1 x .303 defensive.
The SBD had a reputation for being maneuverable and a good dogfighter - it shot down 120 enemy aircraft (claimed).
The SBD and had the lowest loss rate of all carrier planes in the USN, only 80 aircraft were lost to enemy fighters. The Skua took 50% losses in at least three raids and had to be prematurely retired due to losses to enemy fighters.
The SBD had a better proven rate of accuracy in bombing.



> it too was mildly successful despite itself and this too is my point - the SBD and the Swordfish, despite their faults and they both had them, led successful careers, which put them among the greats of WW2.



I don't consider the Swordfish "_one of the greats of WW2_".



> Traits that made the Dauntless a good dive bomber and a good aeroplane? Yup, I can only agree having never flown one, and the same can be said of the Swordfish, but again, beside the point. Both aircraft were successful despite their many faults. This doesn't make them bad, but would they have been remembered as much had there been no WW2 within in which they did their deeds?



As I said before I don't think the Dauntless _had_ a lot of faults - I think it was one of the three best aircraft in it's class, in fact overall I would say it was the best in it's class for the early through mid-war.



> No, the Swordfish could not match the Dauntless as a dive bomber - you are missing the point. The Swordfish was a torpedo bomber, not a dive bomber and both aircraft operated in very different environments, but both were operational successes.



No I am not missing the point, I am well aware of their different attack regimes, I was comparing the two aircraft vis a vis attacking enemy ships, such as at Midway. Both dive and torpedo bombers were used for that mission at the same time, and both the SBD and Swordfish were contemporaries.



> . If the US Navy had D3As, I'm sure it would have done just as great things with them.



Not for very long because due to the lack of armor and fuel system protection it had a loss rate much higher than the SBD, in fact even higher than the Skua probably. It's range was also a bit inferior to the SBD and it was far less well armed.

S

* There is a grimly amusing detail to this, to do with corks. From the linked website:

"_An armoured windscreen and some armour plate behind the pilot was provided for combat squadrons in late 1940, but the poor TAG in the rear seat had no such protection and faced being roasted alive by the blow-torch flames of a burning fuel tank blown back by the airflow. It is reported that before each combat mission the TAG had to sign for a small bag which contained corks of various sizes with which he was expected to plug any bullet holes in the fuel tank!"_


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

So the capabilities of the Skua were somewhere between 60 and 80% of that of the SBD across the board, except in terms of air to air combat and survival of flak damage where it would be more like 10 or 20%. The margins of success were narrow enough at Midway that I think if equipped with a demonstrably inferior aircraft like the Skua they would have almost definitely lost, barring some miracle. Just like if the Navy VF squadrons had been flying F2As like those poor Marines were instead of the slightly better F4F-3s they also probably would have lost.

Given the grim fate of the torpedo squadrons Swordfish could have probably played the same role as the TBD adequately enough, but if they had needed them to hit and sink anything I think you'd want a different aircraft for the Pacific Theater. The delicate, gracefully slow moving, wire and canvas Swordfish would have held up to Japanese carrier based fighters about as well as cotton candy to a blowtorch.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Second El Alamein was also set up by the first El Alamein in July 42 (a draw, technically but a rare example of stopping a major push by the Afrika Korps) and during the battle of Alam el Halfa, which was really the first important British victory by their new commander Bernard Montgomery, in August of 42. Simultaneously in the MTO was the series of engagements some call collectively "the siege of Malta" - Malta holding out, kind of by the skin of their teeth, amounted to another major Allied victory. That campaign went on through the year (and well before) but ended around your tipping point of Nov 42. Having Malta as an air base meant Axis logistics were choked off - definitely contributing to victory in the Med. Here you can give credit to the Hurricane and the Spit (and before that, the Gladiator).



I agree, Malta in partcular was significant; there may not have been a turning point at El Alamein if Malta had been lost to the Axis in the Spring of '42.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Agree to all except significance of P-40 at El Alamein. If it was just P-40's then air superiority would still have been achieved, along with close air support. In the case of Hurricanes and / or Spitfires, you can't have one without the other.



It is not given that the P-40's would have achieved air superiority without the Spitfires.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

Luckily I don't think we have to debate that yet again. After mid 1942 the majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed on the ground, and air superiority was achieved primarily through B-24s and B-25s hammering showers of bombs down onto parked Bf 109s and MC.202s sitting on Axis airfields. All the P-40s had to do was protect the bombers from Luftwaffe attack, while the Spitfires protected their own bases and both types kept the Axis fighters away from marauding fighter-bombers that were going after the Afrika Korps.

Since the Luftwaffe fighter groups didn't seem to particularly relish going after the bombers very much nor were they inclined to strafe Allied tanks, I doubt it would have gone any different. A few more of the older fighter bombers lost wouldn't have changed the course of the battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 22, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> If Midway was the turning point, then the Hellcat and B-29 are late to the party; same goes if Guadalcanal was the turning point. You could make a case for the Superfortress as the 'finisher'.
> 
> If the 2nd Battle of Alamein is the turning point in North Africa (I agree it was) then the P-40 was certainly apart of the air battle, but it was hardly alone; quite a few other types were also involved.
> 
> Yaks and Sturmoviks in the Battle of Stalingrad? Could well be, it's a good bid anyway.


Resp:
Midway the Turning Point? I believe it was a psychological turning point for both sides. It showed the Japanese that they did not/could not have a free hand (Yamamoto believed long before hostilities that the US was a 'sleeping giant' that would wake up). For the Americans, it was a major success . . . that could be repeated.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

There is also a thing where yes on the one hand attrition, population size, industrial capacity has a certain inevitable logic. But if you aren't winning battles the strain can become unbearable and armies can break down.

1941 and the first three months of 1942 were bad times for the Allies. Millions of troops, thousands of aircraft, tanks, guns and other materiel were lost. The news was full of defeat after defeat. German and Japanese triumphs. New atrocities and endless slaughter. The Allies were hemorrhaging trained soldiers and equipment. Losing ground. If you are a soldier in one of those losing armies in the Philippines or Malaysia or Ukraine or Egypt, the notion that attrition and production logistics are inevitably on your side is cold comfort.

That surging Axis momentum needed to be checked, and as soon as possible. The Soviets started to stiffen up in the mid year but didn't really start turning it around until the fall of 1942. The British began turning things around in the middle of the year, also peaking around November. For the Allies in the Pacific Theater, Midway was huge. The loss of those Japanese carriers and all those flight crews meant that the avalanche was quite checked, literally over night. The armed forces suddenly, in one day, shifted rapidly toward parity, and in a more even fight, the attrition and production advantages begin to seem a lot more real for the soldier, sailor and airman.


That is also why I think the Spitfire was really necessary in the BoB. The Hurricane could shoot down the bombers quite efficiently and cause a certain amount of damage to the fighters, losing 10 to shoot down 3 Bf 109s say. But the Spitfire was even, or a little better than even. Maybe 5 for 5 or even 5 for 6. The Spitfire was where the British could say, we can best them. Not just endure them or whittle them down, but we can win.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think that is about when it started, but it took a while. Stalingrad went on until February of 43, same for Guadalcanal, serious heavy fighting in North Africa continued until March of 43 (Kasserine Pass, a substantial Axis victory, was in Feb of 43).
> 
> Second El Alamein was also set up by the first El Alamein in July 42 (a draw, technically but a rare example of stopping a major push by the Afrika Korps) and during the battle of Alam el Halfa, which was really the first important British victory by their new commander Bernard Montgomery, in August of 42. Simultaneously in the MTO was the series of engagements some call collectively "the siege of Malta" - Malta holding out, kind of by the skin of their teeth, amounted to another major Allied victory. That campaign went on through the year (and well before) but ended around your tipping point of Nov 42. Having Malta as an air base meant Axis logistics were choked off - definitely contributing to victory in the Med. Here you can give credit to the Hurricane and the Spit (and before that, the Gladiator).
> 
> ...




True Stalingrad, El Alamein, Guadalcanal lasted past Nov 42. But after Nov 42, the Axis never launched a successful Strategic Offensive for the rest of the War. Perhaps Kursk was an attempt but it was not successful. Japan continued offenses in Mainland China, but they were not Strategic in the sense that it was altering the War. The Naval battles and land battles at Guadalcanal in Nov 42 determined the US was win, it took more time for the Japanese to evacuate the island. Nov 42 was the high water mark.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

To clarify, I'm not saying the war became easy after this tipping point, I'm just saying the existential dread was somewhat lessened, the possibility of victory became more real. For the individual fighting man though, death was still very real and very likely, whether at Corregidor or Bastogne, Malaya or Arnhem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There is also a thing where yes on the one hand attrition, population size, industrial capacity has a certain inevitable logic. But if you aren't winning battles the strain can become unbearable and armies can break down.
> 
> 1941 and the first three months of 1942 were bad times for the Allies. Millions of troops, thousands of aircraft, tanks, guns and other materiel were lost. The news was full of defeat after defeat. German and Japanese triumphs. New atrocities and endless slaughter. The Allies were hemorrhaging trained soldiers and equipment. Losing ground. If you are a soldier in one of those losing armies in the Philippines or Malaysia or Ukraine or Egypt, the notion that attrition and production logistics are inevitably on your side is cold comfort.
> 
> ...



Schweik,

When did the big wing, welded wingmen give way to the pairs and finger fours? Those two types of formations, and ensuing tactics were the proverbial recipe for disaster when fighting a combat experienced adversary.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> When did the big wing, welded wingmen give way to the pairs and finger fours? Those two types of formations, and ensuing tactics were the proverbial recipe for disaster when fighting a combat experienced adversary.
> 
> ...


In a comedy only the British could produce the big wing actually came after some squadrons were using finger fours.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That is also why I think the Spitfire was really necessary in the BoB. The Hurricane could shoot down the bombers quite efficiently and cause a certain amount of damage to the fighters, losing 10 to shoot down 3 Bf 109s say. But the Spitfire was even, or a little better than even. Maybe 5 for 5 or even 5 for 6. The Spitfire was where the British could say, we can best them. Not just endure them or whittle them down, but we can win.


The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spitfire because there were more Hurricanes. how many were shot down depended almost entirely on the situation, and who bounced whom. The Spitfire was marginally better overall, better at keeping new pilots alive and marginally to be shot down in, statistically fewer pilots got burned.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> When did the big wing, welded wingmen give way to the pairs and finger fours? Those two types of formations, and ensuing tactics were the proverbial recipe for disaster when fighting a combat experienced adversary.
> 
> ...



From what I gather this happened gradually and at different rates in different Theaters. I have read (though it could be wrong) the finger four was developed originally by the Finns in the early 30's, and the Germans adapted it from them. Another version says the Germans of the Condor Legion developed it independently during the Spanish Civil War.

The Finns had this standard tactic when faced with Russian fighters as they came toward a merge: one pair goes left and up, the other pair goes right and up. Whichever pair is chased by the Russians becomes the bait, the other pair hunts the chasers and shoots them down. They said it worked over and over and over again.

I believe the British adopted the Rotte (from the Germans) in the aftermath of the BoB, but this didn't seem to have filtered out to the Med or Burma where they were still using vics, line astern, weaving "fluid pairs" and so on through 1941 and until May or June of 1942. They adopted two pairs of wingmen as a finger-four in the Med at some point in mid 1942.

They also changed from more defensive to more offensive tactics at that time. Prior to June of 42 it was common for Allied fighters to form a lufbery circle when attacked, each plane chasing the other, theoretically covering each other but in practice handing over all initiative to the enemy. This was a reaction to the superior performance of the Bf 109 and especially it's attacks from above. Later it was the same problem with the MC.202, with the same reaction. Some Axis pilots excelled at defeating these - it was Hans Joachim Marseilles favorite target. It allowed a pair or a Rotte of 4 German fighters to take turns attacking 12 Allied fighters or more.

After mid 42 though, they changed to instead do a wheeling turn of the whole squadron into an attack, guns blazing. Then after the enemy passed, they would split into 3 or 4 formations of two pairs each, one turning right, one left, and one split-Sing into a 180 degree turn. From there they fought in pairs, basically. This tactic worked much better and so long as they saw the attack coming, the bounce lost a lot of it's bite. They also actively sought out Axis fighters and attacked their bases, forcing a fight.

The Russians seem to have gradually adopted the finger four from the Germans starting some time in late 1942. By mid 1943 it seems to have become standard.

The Japanese were using Vics in the early days of the war, and didn't start switching to pairs until some time in 1943. Like the Russians they also initially had a serious shortage of radios, in early Japanese fighter units sometimes only the squadron leader had a radio. I think having the radio makes group tactics much more effective.

US Navy was training finger four ("Fighting Pair" or "Pair or pairs" as they called it) since 1940, possibly learning about it from German Spanish Civil War exploits. They also famously adopted the Thach weave which was a standard tactic also used by the Germans. The USAAF seems to have picked this up from the Navy before the war. In the Med and Pacific they were using pairs from the early days.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I am not confident a Sea Hurricane could handle a Zero. Martlet as we know is fairly comparable but I'm not sure how many they had in 1942, none seem to be involved in the Ceylon debacle.


Per _Bloody Shambles_ the few RAF Hurricanes delivered to Singapore by HMS Indomitable in Jan 1942 did well against the Nakajima Ki-43 _Hayabusa. _The A6M has similar performance to the K-43, so the Sea Hurricane should be competitive. The trick as always when dealing with the Zero is to avoid a turning match and to fight to your advantage, like the Thatch Weave.

I’ve just discovered that the Sea Hurricane was also produced in Fort William, Canada. This means fighters can be easily flown to RN carriers in Norfolk, VA or even at CFB Esquimalt. Below in Sept 1941 these Sea Hurricanes are in final assembly, during which three RN carriers are soon to be in Norfolk, VA for repairs.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't consider the Swordfish "_one of the greats of WW2_".



Well, universal opinion is that it is, Shweik, just because you don't doesn't mean it isn't.

Regarding the Skua, yes, you have provided accurate figures, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have done the job, none of it does and again, regardless of whether the SBD shot down 120 or 1200 enemy fighters, it makes no difference to the situation, circumstances were different in the combat arenas that both aircraft operated in. All you are doing is quoting figures that can't really justify why the Skua could _not_ have carried out the same job. Had the British been in the same environment then the Skua would have had to do, so again, your judgement is moot - it certainly shows that operationally the Dauntless enjoyed a longer and fuller career but it doesn't explain why the Skua could'nt have done the same. Sorry, not convinced.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Per _Bloody Shambles_ the few RAF Hurricanes delivered to Singapore by HMS Indomitable in Jan 1942 did well against the Nakajima Ki-43 _Hayabusa. _The A6M has similar performance to the K-43, so the Sea Hurricane should be competitive. The trick as always when dealing with the Zero is to avoid a turning match and to fight to your advantage, like the Thatch Weave.
> 
> I’ve just discovered that the Sea Hurricane was also produced in Fort William, Canada. This means fighters can be easily flown to RN carriers in Norfolk, VA or even at CFB Esquimalt. Below in Sept 1941 these Sea Hurricanes are in final assembly, during which three RN carriers are soon to be in Norfolk, VA for repairs.



Great photo but my info says that the Hurricane did abyssmally against the Ki 43 through the end of the war. Do you have specific examples?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Well, universal opinion is that it is, Shweik, just because you don't doesn't mean it isn't.



I don't think that is true, I wouldn't think most people outside of UK or Commonwealth countries feel that way, I don't think anyone I know does. Maybe we should run a poll?



> Regarding the Skua, yes, you have provided accurate figures, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have done the job, none of it does and again, regardless of whether the SBD shot down 120 or 1200 enemy fighters, it makes no difference to the situation, circumstances were different in the combat arenas that both aircraft operated in. All you are doing is quoting figures that can't really justify why the Skua could _not_ have carried out the same job. Had the British been in the same environment then the Skua would have had to do, so again, your judgement is moot - it certainly shows that operationally the Dauntless enjoyed a longer and fuller career but it doesn't explain why the Skua could'nt have done the same. Sorry, not convinced.



I think the key factors would be range, bomb load and the exaggerated vulnerability of the Skua.

Midway was a very close-run battle. If the Allies had been forced to use bombers with 2/3 of the range, and if they had suffered substantially higher losses, and only been able to carry half the size bombs that they actually used, I don't think they would have won it. Admittedly just my opinion, but I think there is considerable evidence to support that.

The reason I keep bringing up the 120 victory claims, is because it's quite unusual for a single-engined bomber. In fact it's higher than some US fighters managed. It's an indication that the SBD was used successfully as a "scout fighter" or perhaps more properly, an "emergency fighter". It could shoot down Japanese torpedo planes and dive bombers, it was in a desperate struggle against Zeros but it sometimes shot them down too. I don't think the Skua or the Swordfish could manage that.

If the British had been in that environment with those planes, against the Japanese, they would have lost catastrophically. Of that I am certain.

But I am comfortable with your not being convinced. I can't change your mind I can only present evidence as you requested. There is no way to definitively prove this beyond any possibility. In theory they could have won Midway using Gladiators and Fairey Battles. I just don't think it's very likely.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Not for very long because due to the lack of armor and fuel system protection it had a loss rate much higher than the SBD, in fact even higher than the Skua probably. It's range was also a bit inferior to the SBD and it was far less well armed.



Source for loss rates please? Again, no real justification in the fact that the D3A couldn't do what the Dauntless achieved if it were in US Navy hands. Let's also reassess the situation a little. The reason the SBD remained in service for as long as it did was because the SB2C Helldiver was a dog and gave the Navy all sorts of headaches. It didn't have the nickname Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class for nothing. Had it been issue free, then there's every likelyhood the SBD would have been retired sooner than it was. Regardless of its sterling career, it was getting long in the tooth even by Midway, it's finest hour, otherwise, why would the Navy be wanting a replacement? Remember the SB2C first flew in late 1940, but the Navy wouldn't accept it until changes were made.

Again though, I don't doubt your assessments of the Dauntless compared to the Skua and D3A Schweik, just that neither provide adequate reason why those types could not have done what the Dauntless did.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 22, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Source for loss rates please? Again, no real justification in the fact that the D3A couldn't do what the Dauntless achieved if it were in US Navy hands.



I already posted loss rates for the SBD. I don't know the rates for the Skua except for a few specific incidents, just that it was retired prematurely due to perceived vulnerability to enemy action, particularly fighters.

I will say the Skua was somewhat effective in early convoy action around Malta. It just didn't remain viable for long.

D3A is a good plane, but it definitely took higher losses. Again I don't have the totals handy but I do have books which show the numbers on a day by day basis for Coral Sea and Midway and the battles around Guadalcanal, and they were very high. Much higher than the SBD if the figure of only 80 lost to enemy fighters during the whole war is correct. The IJN lost more D3A than that in Coral sea and Midway alone.



> Let's also reassess the situation a little. The reason the SBD remained in service for as long as it did was because the SB2C Helldiver was a dog and gave the Navy all sorts of headaches. It didn't have the nickname Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class for nothing. Had it been issue free, then there's every likelyhood the SBD would have been retired sooner than it was. Regardless of its sterling career, it was getting long in the tooth even by Midway, it's finest hour, otherwise, why would the Navy be wanting a replacement? Remember the SB2C first flew in late 1940, but the Navy wouldn't accept it until changes were made.



I don't agree - I don't think it was long in the teeth at Midway, what other dive bomber anywhere in the world was better?

The Navy's biggest issues with the SBD was actually that the nature of the wing construction meant that they couldn't make the wings fold. Therefore you couldn't store enough of them on ships.



> Again though, I don't doubt your assessments of the Dauntless compared to the Skua and D3A Schweik, just that neither provide adequate reason why those types could not have done what the Dauntless did.



At the risk of repeating myself, the Skua definitely didn't. The range, bomb load and survivability of the SBD were all critical to the (very very tight margin of) victory at Midway and the Skua was lacking in all three areas, with the hapless gunner trying to stick corks in flaming fuel tanks, they would have gone down a day late and a dollar short. The D3A could have done it, (it too was an excellent dive bomber) but there wouldn't have been enough left (or enough aircrews surviving) for the Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands campaigns afterward.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> the exaggerated vulnerability of the Skua.



Hm, its primary vulnerability was against land based fighters, but in reality it was no more vulnerable than any other dive bomber, including the SBD, Stuka, D3A, Vengeance etc. Again, there's no saying how the circumstances might have played out. Yes, range was a factor and that the SBDs found the carriers was extraordinary and a testament to their range, there was also that little element of luck creeping in, too.



Schweik said:


> In theory they could have won Midway using Gladiators and Fairey Battles. I just don't think it's very likely.



Lucky then, that by mid-1942 the RN had Sea Hurricanes and F4Fs equipping its carriers and the RAF Spitfires as its fighters and Mosquitoes, Bostons and Mitchells replacing Battles then! I suspect a little anti-Brit bias creeping in in your argument.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The reason I keep bringing up the 120 victory claims, is because it's quite unusual for a single-engined bomber. In fact it's higher than some US fighters managed. It's an indication that the SBD was used successfully as a "scout fighter" or perhaps more properly, an "emergency fighter". It could shoot down Japanese torpedo planes and dive bombers, it was in a desperate struggle against Zeros but it sometimes shot them down too. I don't think the Skua or the Swordfish could manage that.



This secondary fighter capability is a much ballyhooed "feature" of the SDB, but I seem to recall that it was only done intentionally ONCE, I am open to correction but please give Names and date/s of the battles where SBDs were intentionally launched as anti torpedo or anti dive bomber planes? 

Let's see if can either prove or disprove this "legend"?

Part of the problem with the Skua (like many pre-early war British planes) was there was effectively no MK II version. It went into service abou 1 1/2 years before the SBD even flew for the first time and it's 890hp single speed supercharged engine was no match for the SBD-3s 1000hp two speed supercharged engine. 
Skua with 4 .303 Brownings in the wings certainly had a lot more firepower than the Val which was supposed to be used as a substitute fighter also.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2019)

Let's not forget that the Stuka had a fearsome reputation and in areas of air superiority it was unmatched, but in terms of performance, the Avro Lancaster was faster in a straight line than the Stuka. its cruise speed and maximum speed were both higher than those of the German aircraft. Kind of puts things into perspective when comparing performance figures. It doesn't always achieve the desired results and doesn't account for circumstance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, the Skua definitely didn't. The range, bomb load and survivability of the SBD were all critical to the victory at Midway and the Skua was lacking in all three areas. The D3A could have done it, (it too was an excellent dive bomber) but there wouldn't have been enough left (or enough aircrews surviving) for the Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands campaigns afterward.



Stick a 1000hp Wright R-1820 (TO) into the Skua instead of that 830hp Perseus (TO) and I wonder if the Skua couldn't have carried somewhat more fuel and and bigger bomb? 

timing counts, The Skua was older and lower powered, of course it couldn't do some of what the SBD did. But at Midway many of the SBDs that attacked the Japanese carriers used 500lb bombs and only some used 1000lb bombs, so the SBDs 1200 or 2250lb bomb load was irrelevant to the battle.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 22, 2019)

The British were also aware of the Skua's shortcomings, this is why it didn't remain on carrier decks for long. The RN's acquisition policy and ownership of fleet responsibilities between the wars makes it all a complex situation that could have been avoided and it meant aircraft like the Skua and Swordfish were in service for longer than need be and that the latter's replacement wasn't much of an improvement when aircraft like the B5N and Devastator was on carrier decks when the Albacore was in service.

The RN had put out specifications to industry for modern single-seat fighters in 1939 before the war broke out, that the Firebrand was a dog was down to the manufacturers, also the RN was very keen on a Sea Spitfire at this time too, making it clear that was what was wanted.`In 1937 a modern eplacement for the Swordfish was tendered for, as an 'all singing all dancing' dive bomber, torpedo carrier, reconnaissance type spec S.24/37, which through much prevarication over the years ended up being the Barracuda. Again, that it took so long to enter service was down to design issues.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hm, its primary vulnerability was against land based fighters, but in reality it was no more vulnerable than any other dive bomber, including the SBD, Stuka, D3A, Vengeance etc.



*Categorically incorrect. The Skua lacked any kind of fuel system protection and barely had any armor.* That means that a few bullets could set it on fire and destroy it which was the same problem that the D3A had and that all the early and mid-war Japanese aircraft suffered from. But the D3A had the benefit of being 50 mph faster than a Skua.

Regardless, with heavy armor protection for both pilot and gunner, and self-sealing fuel tanks, on top of a strongly made airframe, the SBD was one of the safest combat aircraft to fly in the Pacific. It was certainly much less vulnerable than the Skua and I'm sorry mate but that is just a fact there isn't a millimeter of subjectivity in that statement. You are wrong.



> Again, there's no saying how the circumstances might have played out. Yes, range was a factor and that the SBDs found the carriers was extraordinary and a testament to their range, there was also that little element of luck creeping in, too.



There I certainly grant your point - there was undoubtedly luck involved.



> Lucky then, that by mid-1942 the RN had Sea Hurricanes and F4Fs equipping its carriers and the RAF Spitfires as its fighters and Mosquitoes, Bostons and Mitchells replacing Battles then! I suspect a little anti-Brit bias creeping in in your argument.



I get accused of that every single time I say anything remotely negative about any British aircraft, but it is not the case. Some British aircraft were better than the US ones, the Mosquito for example was a better bomber than a Boston or a Mitchell. The Skua just wasn't one of those superlative designs. Nor the Swordfish.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This secondary fighter capability is a much ballyhooed "feature" of the SDB, but I seem to recall that it was only done intentionally ONCE, I am open to correction but please give Names and date/s of the battles where SBDs were intentionally launched as anti torpedo or anti dive bomber planes?
> 
> Let's see if can either prove or disprove this "legend"?



They were indeed. There were several cases including detailed combat accounts during Coral Sea and in the Solomon Campaigns. I do have books describing these, but in the past when I have taken the effort to transcribe this kind of data it has not resolved the discussion to any kind of reasonable conclusion, and I think if you really want to know these details you can find them yourself easily enough. I would recommend reading this book and this one.



> Part of the problem with the Skua (like many pre-early war British planes) was there was effectively no MK II version. It went into service abou 1 1/2 years before the SBD even flew for the first time and it's 890hp single speed supercharged engine was no match for the SBD-3s 1000hp two speed supercharged engine.
> Skua with 4 .303 Brownings in the wings certainly had a lot more firepower than the Val which was supposed to be used as a substitute fighter also.



But it was 50 mph slower with a lot less 'power of maneuver' so it would probably lose a dogfight with a Val anyway...


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Stick a 1000hp Wright R-1820 (TO) into the Skua instead of that 830hp Perseus (TO) and I wonder if the Skua couldn't have carried somewhat more fuel and and bigger bomb?
> 
> timing counts, The Skua was older and lower powered, of course it couldn't do some of what the SBD did. But at Midway many of the SBDs that attacked the Japanese carriers used 500lb bombs and only some used 1000lb bombs, so the SBDs 1200 or 2250lb bomb load was irrelevant to the battle.



I think the 1,000 lb bombs counted, but more importantly on the very long flights the Skua would have been limited to a 250 lb bomb. And as we have discussed before, the size of the bomb does matter when you are trying to sink big ships, especially big ships with armor.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The British were also aware of the Skua's shortcomings, this is why it didn't remain on carrier decks for long. The RN's acquisition policy and ownership of fleet responsibilities between the wars makes it all a complex situation that could have been avoided and it meant aircraft like the Skua and Swordfish were in service for longer than need be and that the latter's replacement wasn't much of an improvement when aircraft like the B5N and Devastator was on carrier decks when the Albacore was in service.



To be honest, I don't think the Devastator was that good or much better than a Swordfish really, despite having a slightly more modern appearance.



> The RN had put out specifications to industry for modern single-seat fighters in 1939 before the war broke out, that the Firebrand was a dog was down to the manufacturers, also the RN was very keen on a Sea Spitfire at this time too, making it clear that was what was wanted.`In 1937 a modern eplacement for the Swordfish was tendered for, as an 'all singing all dancing' dive bomber, torpedo carrier, reconnaissance type spec S.24/37, which through much prevarication over the years ended up being the Barracuda. Again, that it took so long to enter service was down to design issues.



The Barracuda was one of many aircraft given that dreadful multi-role mission, this was the death-knell of a lot of other attack aircraft, both during WW2 and to this very day. It's very difficult to make a plane that can be both a successful dive bomber and a torpedo bomber, and still fly with a reasonable speed and combat range. Very few designs pulled that off.

In some ways the Barracuda suffered from similar problems to the SB2C meant to replace the SBD. They made a lot of demands which resulted in a plane that was too heavy and too big to fit on the carrier elevators and they squished the tail to be too short so that it could fit, cursing it with stability problems and bad handling.

I do think the FAA had some issues with procurement policies. Their insistence on putting a low altitude rated engine in the Barracuda (and a lot of other naval aircraft) also caused a lot of problems. Similar for their demand for a second-seater on their fighters which plagued the Fulmar and the Firefly.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I do have books describing these, but in the past when I have taken the effort to transcribe this kind of data it has not resolved the discussion to any kind of reasonable conclusion,



As long as you transcribe the data correctly, there's no problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2019)

The Skua was going out of squadron service about a year before the D3A2 went into squadron service. 
The D3A1 only had about 15mph edge on the Skua


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> As long as you transcribe the data correctly, there's no problem.



Oh sometimes there is, trust me. Somebody always has a different idea of how you ought to do it. And regardless of how obviously the data refutes their claims, some people will display the courage of the genuine fanatic to resist reality.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 23, 2019)

Do you have an example?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Do you have an example?



I'm sure you can think of one if you try.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Oh sometimes there is, trust me. Somebody always has a different idea of how you ought to do it. And regardless of how obviously the data refutes their claims, some people will display the courage of the genuine fanatic to resist reality.



This is your assertion, so the onus is on you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2019)

To everyone, don’t let this next one get out of hand either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> When did the big wing, welded wingmen give way to the pairs and finger fours? Those two types of formations, and ensuing tactics were the proverbial recipe for disaster when fighting a combat experienced adversary.
> 
> ...





pbehn said:


> In a comedy only the British could produce the big wing actually came after some squadrons were using finger fours.



Big Wing did not mean welded wingman. The battle pair and finger four was being adopted piecemeal as early as May 1940. The objective of the Big Wing was to get a large mass of fighters into position to attack the enemy. Once sighted, the wing would dissolve into tactical units. It was not intended to attack masse as a wing, with everyone following one formation leader. A Big Wing would typically involve grouping squadrons together but the squadrons themselves would already be divided into finger-four sections. The Big Wing was supposed to be a large, but tactically flexible formation.

I wonder if you're confusing the Big Wing with the pre-war Fighting Area Tactics which did impose tight formation constraints with the intent of bringing an entire squadron's guns to bear on an enemy formation simultaneously. That was an unmitigated disaster which lacked tactical flexibility and removed formation situational awareness. It also presupposed a compliant adversary who would continue along a path, unperturbed, as RAF fighters lined up to shoot at him. Note that the Fighting Area Tactics only applied to squadrons: they were NOT intended for operation as a wing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 23, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Big Wing did not mean welded wingman. The battle pair and finger four was being adopted piecemeal as early as May 1940. The objective of the Big Wing was to get a large mass of fighters into position to attack the enemy. Once sighted, the wing would dissolve into tactical units. It was not intended to attack masse as a wing, with everyone following one formation leader. .


The big wing, whatever it was supposed to do spent an unacceptable amount of time forming into one formation. Once the enemy was sighted it quickly descended into what a pilot described as chaos behind the leader , they may have spread out a little but were in the same area of sky and apt for 4 pilots to go for one enemy without being aware of the others.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The big wing, whatever it was supposed to do spent an unacceptable amount of time forming into one formation. Once the enemy was sighted it quickly descended into what a pilot described as chaos behind the leader , they may have spread out a little but were in the same area of sky and apt for 4 pilots to go for one enemy without being aware of the others.



I wasn't supporting the big Wing concept, simply observing that big Wing and finger four operated together at the same time.

The chaos you describe will happen whenever there are large numbers of aircraft in the same place at the same time. Doesn't matter whether a big Wing got them there or individual flights and squadrons were introduced piecemeal as was the case with 11 Group.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Oct 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> To me the Hurricane, the Spitfire came comparatively late to the game.
> 
> The LW never recovered its bomber strength after the Battle of France throughout the whole war. If you consider the battles of Czechoslovakia Poland Norway Netherlands Belgium France and Britain as one battle of attrition then the Hurricane played by far the biggest single part, but not by any means the only part..


Resp:
The a hurricane also served well as a night fighter in ETO. Its contribution in Africa and the CBI is often overlooked.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 23, 2019)

The Lavochkin La-5 and Yakovlev Yak-9 need a nod here. Combined production of over 25,000 units and arguably the first Soviet fighters that could match or exceed the LW. Wrestling air superiority from the Germans was critical to turning the tide on the Eastern (or the Soviet Western) front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

Excellent low altitude fighters! Agreed.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s


That‘s war ending, not tide turning.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2019)

yeah, I think we covered that...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Barracuda was one of many aircraft given that dreadful multi-role mission, this was the death-knell of a lot of other attack aircraft, both during WW2 and to this very day. It's very difficult to make a plane that can be both a successful dive bomber and a torpedo bomber, and still fly with a reasonable speed and combat range.



I agree. Designed around that big lounge below the wing with its massive picture window, then everything plonked around it in a vaguely aeroplane shape, the Barra was an odd looking fish, although suffering severe tailplane buffetting to begin with before the hori stab was relocated near the top of the fin, and a rather sudden and uncommanded dive in a particular flight regime, low and slow, which our man Brown was tasked with investigating and finding a solution, it was nowhere near the SB2C in being so problematic - in fact it was appreciated in service and gave unspectacular service; being noted for being rather strong and robust. Here's what Brown thought of it (again, these are his thoughts and not last words, but they are noteworthy!)

"I was serving with the Service Trials Unit at Arbroath in September 1942, when our first Barracuda arrived. As it entered the airfield circuit, it could be seen that its contours were nothing if not unprepossessing. Here were no rakish lines such as those of its namesake, that voracious West Indian fish. Then it turned onto approach and disgorged a mass of ironmongery from the wings and fuselage transforming the pedestrian and unappealing into what could only be described as an "airborne disaster!" The old adage, 'If it looks right...' inevitable sprung to mind and I concluded that there are events that I could await with rather more pleasure than taking this quaint contraption into the air.

"A high shoulder-wing all-metal stressed-skin monoplane, the Barracuda was something of an abortion on the ground. Indeed with everything folded it gave the impression of having been involved in a very nasty accident."

Ouch! And in case you're wondering about what he thought of the Skua... Not complimentary!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 23, 2019)

He was a man who appreciated thoroughbreds.....


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 23, 2019)

Yup, he did. What he comments on as being his all round favourites are not necessarily what one might think though - from his books, his fave has to be the F4F, but then the Bf 110 and Ju 88 left strong impressions on him. He also has much fondness for some rather peculiar choices, such as the Siebel 204. In the thoroughbred camp, the de Havilland Hornet was high on his list, as well as the Me 262 and F-4 Phantom.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2019)

I saw an FM-2 flying around doing loops, split S's and stall turns at an air show, it was a surprisingly spry and sexy little thing. I guess not graceful compared to a Zero but then what was? But it certainly gave off real fighter vibes. If not a thoroughbred at least a good no B.S. quarter horse.

The Hornet was a sweet ride, definitely a thoroughbred... bit late for the war but a damn fine airplane.

Sounds like a lot of fun:

_""...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!" "The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (1,200 m/min)"..._

_"For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket-like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"_

475 mph and 4 x 20mm cannons in the nose. Climb to 20,000 ft in 4 minutes. Too bad they didn't have a few of those in 1941 eh?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2019)

Apparently they are restoring one in New Zealand, maybe we'll get to see it fly.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 24, 2019)

Yup, I'll be queueing up for that, I think!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I saw an FM-2 flying around doing loops, split S's and stall turns at an air show, it was a surprisingly spry and sexy little thing. I guess not graceful compared to a Zero but then what was? But it certainly gave off real fighter vibes. If not a thoroughbred at least a good no B.S. quarter horse.
> 
> The Hornet was a sweet ride, definitely a thoroughbred... bit late for the war but a damn fine airplane.
> 
> ...




FM2 had the 1350 HP low altitude engine making it very competitive with the Zero.
Had a Taller Tail and Rudder !

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WATU (Oct 24, 2019)

Two years into the Sea Hornet project and currently still accumulating parts. 
Pioneer Aero

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Oct 24, 2019)

P-51 Mustang, of course. I am not a fan of this warbird, but it truely turned the tide.


----------



## Hairog (Oct 24, 2019)

Lightning was outnumbered, fighting the best of the best, forced to use the wrong fuel (in the ETO), tactically tied to the bombers, not allowed to attack targets of opportunity and were flown by inadequately trained pilots. Yet they turned the tide in all three theatres of war, decimated the Luftwaffe and the Japanese air force, and saved the daylight bombing campaign.

If you consider the American daylight bombing campaign an important component in winning the war, the destructions of the Japanese air arm, saving hundreds of pilots who came home on one engine, bringing the Luftwaffe to its knees, killing Yamamoto, demoralizing Goering after it escorted bombers to Berlin, going head to head with the best enemy pilots in the war and winning with some of the most untrained pilots the USAF ever put into combat during WWII, proving that bombers needed escorts and saving many a bomber crews lives, etc. 

Some of you have seen this before…









> "The daylight bombing campaign was halted until the “Bomber Will Always get Through” cabal in the USAF was overruled. The P-38 put and end to that kind of thinking and took on the Luftwaffe and won before the Mustang showed up to the party.
> 
> The Spitfire and Hurricane gave the Germans their first defeat and prevented Britain from being invaded. The P-47 did a lot of damage to the Luftwaffe throughout the war. The Mustang and Wildcat shot down many untrained enemy pilots and destroyed a lot of planes on the ground and racked up huge kill ratios and numbers, but
> 
> ...



by Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

I concur.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2019)

Unfortunately that chart and the accompanying text may be flawed. It leaves out too much of the P-47s contribution. for example when the First P-38 goes operational in in Mid Oct of 1943 in the ETO there are 7 P-47 groups already operational. However that does not tell the whole story either. 

In Nov of 1943 water injection is not only being fitted to new P-47s on the production lines but kits have been sent to England and most existing P-47s in England will have been modified by the end of Dec.

P-47 groups in England are being expanded to 100 aircraft per group.

In Dec of 1943 P-47s in the field begin receiving paddle blade props, one squadron at a time. 

AS of Dec 31st the 8th Air Force had 2 groups of P-38s and 10 groups of P-47s. 

In Jan 1944 a program is started to equip all P-47C and Ds with racks for bombs or 108 gallon tanks under each wing.

On feb 19th 1944 the 8th Air Force has 2 groups of P-51s, 2 of P-38s and 8 groups of P-47s. 

The P-38 was a very important strategic fighter due to it's range and it figured in a lot of strategic planning. But that chart seems to be a bit biased (or more than bit).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 25, 2019)

P-38's began escorting 8th AAF bombers just about 6 weeks before p-51's arrived in the ETO. Both P-38's and P-51's participated in the escort on the first mission to Berlin, early March '44. There were about equal numbers of P-38's and P-51's during the early spring '44; there is no way that the Lightning could have 'brought the Luftwaffe to it's knees' before the P-51 arrived in numbers in the ETO.

The P-38 had a bigger impact in the MTO and the Far East; but it's contribution in the ETO was not as spectacular, as it is made out to be in post # 1247.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## WATU (Oct 25, 2019)

Not time to read the entire thread but has anyone put forward the B24 Liberators? Not the bomber versions but the Mark 1 VLR type that had a crucial role in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the ASW support it brought to convoys in mid-Atlantic none of the other aircraft could have operated in the ETO on the same scale due to lack of fuel, aircraft, munitions, spares, etc. Bit of a tease suggestion to be honest but it had a vital impact.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 25, 2019)

WATU said:


> Not time to read the entire thread but has anyone put forward the B24 Liberators? Not the bomber versions but the Mark 1 VLR type that had a crucial role in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the ASW support it brought to convoys in mid-Atlantic none of the other aircraft could have operated in the ETO on the same scale due to lack of fuel, aircraft, munitions, spares, etc. Bit of a tease suggestion to be honest but it had a vital impact.



Yes, Liberator already put forward by me for VLR.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> _ the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! _



+25psi boost is 2,053mmHg or *80.8inHg* MAP.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> +25psi boost is 2,053mmHg or *80.8inHg* MAP.



I was just quoting Eric Brown from the wiki


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Yes, Liberator already put forward by me for VLR.


And by me for VLR (ASW Atlantic) AND VLR (outside the "normal" combat zone surprise raids PTO), AND MTO, AND ETO operations. The old girl got around.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And by me for VLR (ASW Atlantic) AND VLR (outside the "normal" combat zone surprise raids PTO), AND MTO, AND ETO operations. The old girl got around.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The B-24 proved to be surprisingly useful as an airfield smasher in the MTO, I think it's the number one reason for lost Axis aircraft in that Theater in 1943.

I think it was far more suited to that kind of 'operational' bombing and the long range maritime role than to the 8th AF type Strategic raids.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2019)

The P-38 seemed to have a fairly gradual roll-out, only two FG active at a time in the Med up to the invasion of Italy and I don't think even a whole FG in the Pacific until mid 1943. 

For example the 49th FG in New Guinea which was where Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire scored most of their victories only had one squadron of P-38s in 1943 vs two of P-40s, it wasn't completely equipped with P-38s until Sept 1944.

This is what I was able to determine of P-38 units in the *PTO:*

*13th AF*
18th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s, 2 squadrons of P-39s and one of P-70 night fighters (later P-61), fully equipped with P-38s by Aug 1944
347th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s, 2 squadrons of P-39s from Feb 1943, converted to P-38 3/3 squadrons in Aug 1944
*
5th AF*
49th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s from 1942, 2 squadrons of P-40s, fully converted to P38s Sept 1944
475th FG - 3/3 squadrons P-38s, first mission in Aug 1943
8th FG - Started with P-39, then P-40, re-equipped with P-38s 3/3 squadrons from April 1943


In the* MTO* there was also a relatively light presence of P-38s until pretty late. There were 3 FG but only 2 at a time:

14th FG, basically decimated and withdrawn by Jan 43 (lost 32/54 pilots for 62 victory claims). It was replaced by the 82nd FG
1st FG doing mostly escort for B-24s
and 82nd FG which had the best record of the three, escorting both medium and hevy bombers and doing fighter sweeps.

They seemed to do better later on over Italy in late 1943 and 1944. I think maybe that is when the P-38 units racked up most of their MTO victories.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 4, 2019)

[QUOTE As to 'turning point' vs IJN the two months between Coral Sea and the end of Midway battle in early June would have to the focus. Does anybody have a better nomination than Stalingrad and Midway (and perhaps BoB in September 1940) for definable 'turning points'?[/QUOTE]

I do believe early december 1941 to be the turning point if not the high tide. With the Germans being stopped before Moskow (and Rundsted retreating Rostov a couple of days earlier if memory serves), operation barbarossa had failed. The objective was knocking out the USSR in one season, actually 6 weeks was the original schedule. Even if German advances continued in 42 the nature of the war turned into a battle of attrition.

That Pearl Harbour was the decisive battle in the pasific war has been argued before and recently, I even think in the beginning of this thread. When USA wasn't knocked out, again attritional warfare secured that Japan would eventually loose. And even if it was Hitler that actually declared war on the USA a few days later, it did considerably worsen any chance of Germany winning the war of attrition. That is probably an understatement.

Bottom line is, that I see no chance the axis could hope for even a stand off after december 1941, even if they still had an impressive run of limited successes ahead of them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Nov 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The SBD was a very good airplane but it was simply in the right place at the right time at Midway. There was no outstanding characteristic of the SBD that the results of the battle hinged on. The SBDs had NOT fought off interceptors to get to the bombing positions. It had not required a radius of action that other planes did not have, it didn't even require anything out of the ordinary in regards to bomb load.
> Yes it delivered the mortal blow to Japanese carrier aviation and so turned the tide of the war in the Pacific.


Reap:
Saw a story about an SBD pilot, LT Stanley W. "Swede" Vejtasa, who on 8 May 1942 tangled w two A6M3 initially. He knew he couldn't out run them, so resorted to jerking, jinking and tight turns to get his nose guns into play. He knew the Zero could make tight turns, so he kept at it until a Zero pilot got lazy and failed to make a tight turn after their 3rd head on pass. It was at this time that he got hits on the first Zero where he burst into flames. One down, two to go. Swede was jinking and turning constantly, so his rear gunner couldn't see straight to get a shot. Head-ons and tight turns until the second Zero fail to keep a tight turn, enabled him to get strikes on aircraft number 2, which then went straight down. His third kill resulted from a head on pass, executed after a tight maneuver by the Zero. This near collision caused the SBD's left wing tip to cut the Zero's left wing near his fuselage . . . where the wing folded up over the cockpit area. Scratch Three Zeros! He calculated that this battle last @ 17 min. Swede soon began flying F4Fs where he later shot down 7 Japanese planes in one mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Reap:
> Saw a story about an SBD pilot, LT Stanley W. "Swede" Vejtasa, who on 8 May 1942 tangled w two A6M3 initially. He knew he couldn't out run them, so resorted to jerking, jinking and tight turns to get his nose guns into play. He knew the Zero could make tight turns, so he kept at it until a Zero pilot got lazy and failed to make a tight turn after their 3rd head on pass. It was at this time that he got hits on the first Zero where he burst into flames. One down, two to go. Swede was jinking and turning constantly, so his rear gunner couldn't see straight to get a shot. Head-ons and tight turns until the second Zero fail to keep a tight turn, enabled him to get strikes on aircraft number 2, which then went straight down. His third kill resulted from a head on pass, executed after a tight maneuver by the Zero. This near collision caused the SBD's left wing tip to cut the Zero's left wing near his fuselage . . . where the wing folded up over the cockpit area. Scratch Three Zeros!


Imagine a similar event with a single Ju-87 Stuka vs. three Spitfires, or a single IL-2 Sturmovik meeting three Fw 190s. The bomber has no chance.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 19, 2019)

Good point, although there were (rather amazingly) some Sturmovik kills and Stuka kills too, especially with the D model that had the 20mm cannon. D3A Vals got a few victories too. So did Blackburn Skuas.

But the SBD does seem to stand out as a pretty good brawler as bombers go. It probably had the best record for any single engined bomber in air to air combat. It had the maneuverability of a dive bomber with a rather exceptionally sturdy and well protected construction of many US Navy planes. Part of what was needed was better training - the scout squadron SBD pilots got some air to air gunnery training but the dive bomber squadron pilots didn't so much. Swede Vejtasa himself said that his colleagues in that same action got killed because they didn't know to make hard, high G turns (and later, to do slips etc.) when first attacked by Zeros, that is how he evaded the shooting passes. IIRC he had three colleagues shot down in rapid succession at the beginning of that fight he was in.

The twin nose guns on the SBD were hard hitting and sufficient to kill Japanese single-engined aircraft. That meant the SBD could do head on passes if it could turn to face an attacker. The SBD could also turn sharply enough to evade attacks at least for the moment. This got a lot harder when multiple planes were attacking (with one able to attack if you turned left and another if you turned right). In practice, the SBD proved sufficient as an "emergency fighter" against lumbering B5N torpedo bombers and slow E-13 float plane scouts, and maybe F1M "Pete" floatplane fighters, but not much else. It wasn't really fast enough to catch G4M Bettys, or nimble enough to catch D3As (except on a couple of occasions). The Zero completely outclassed it and even aces like Vejtasa were terrified when they had to engage Zeros.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Nov 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Good point, although there were (rather amazingly) some Sturmovik kills and Stuka kills too, especially with the D model that had the 20mm cannon. D3A Vals got a few victories too. So did Blackburn Skuas.
> 
> But the SBD does seem to stand out as a pretty good brawler as bombers go. It probably had the best record for any single engined bomber in air to air combat. It had the maneuverability of a dive bomber with a rather exceptionally sturdy and well protected construction of many US Navy planes. Part of what was needed was better training - the scout squadron SBD pilots got some air to air gunnery training but the dive bomber squadron pilots didn't so much. Swede Vejtasa himself said that his colleagues in that same action got killed because they didn't know to make hard, high G turns (and later, to do slips etc.) when first attacked by Zeros, that is how he evaded the shooting passes. IIRC he had three colleagues shot down in rapid succession at the beginning of that fight he was in.
> 
> The twin nose guns on the SBD were hard hitting and sufficient to kill Japanese single-engined aircraft. That meant the SBD could do head on passes if it could turn to face an attacker. The SBD could also turn sharply enough to evade attacks at least for the moment. This got a lot harder when multiple planes were attacking (with one able to attack if you turned left and another if you turned right). In practice, the SBD proved sufficient as an "emergency fighter" against lumbering B5N torpedo bombers and slow E-13 float plane scouts, and maybe F1M "Pete" floatplane fighters, but not much else. It wasn't really fast enough to catch G4M Bettys, or nimble enough to catch D3As (except on a couple of occasions). The Zero completely outclassed it and even aces like Vejtasa were terrified when they had to engage Zeros.


Resp:
Yes, I think Vejtasa would agree w you. However, he just wasn't going to give up. The way he told it, I suspect he was a student of the Zero's capabilities . . . as he stated that he knew the A6M3 could out climb and out turn him. He also wasn't the type of pilot to give up; hence his transfer to Fighters. His two assists were that he knew his capabilities in the SBD; it's turning radius . . . and its twin 50 cal nose guns! He was glad that he transferred to fighters, never flying bombers again.


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 14, 2019)

Recently in Obituaries V2 wrote of the passing of Noble Frankland, historian, Imperial War Museum curator, founder of Duxford, etc, and mentioned his autobiography. It is well worth the read and contains some insights for those of us who are amateur armchair historians. 

Below he says why he believed that the P-51 deserves the title of this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 14, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Recently in Obituaries V2 wrote of the passing of Noble Frankland, historian, Imperial War Museum curator, founder of Duxford, etc, and mentioned his autobiography. It is well worth the read and contains some insights for those of us who are amateur armchair historians.
> 
> Below he says why he believed that the P-51 deserves the title of this thread.
> 
> ...


Resp:
With his experience and wealth of knowledge Frankland ought to know about the aircraft that influence the outcome of the war.


----------

