Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Sorry, Glider, can't agree with you, all the points you made are perfectly valid; game changing, innovative, but not revolutionary. A revolution is an immediate and sweeping change to the status quo it that field, with far reaching influence. None of these things you listed brought about all that, with the possible exception of the B-29. All of the aircraft you mention did have considerable influence in their field, but they were conducted alongside their contemporaries; more like a better way of doing something. Like I said with the Mossie. it didn't change the way strategic bombing was conducted - the Atom Bomb did, however - because heavy bombers worked alongside Mosquitoes. You could argue that in their pathfinder role the Mossies had a bigger impact since they assisted in improving accuracy, but the Germans did this first.

Like Shortround stated, the Beaufighter was a combination of factors that brought about a successful night fighter, but it was neither the first, nor did it change the state of the art. The Defiant wasn't actually a stop gap; it was intended as a night fighter from the outset; its specification stipulated that it was to perform both duties and it did; one significantly better than the other. As for turrets, the Northrop P-61 springs to mind. Let's also remind ourselves of this quote made by William Sholto Douglas wrote on 10 July 1940: "the problem of the night fighter is still far from being solved. The Blenheim is too slow and the pilot's view is bad. The Beaufighter may possibly provide the solution, but at present it is a not very promising night fighter." Obviously Sholto Douglas was a little wide of the mark, but the quote proved thoughts on things were different back then.

If you are going to contest the turret idea, I'll advise you that in Deceomber 1940, four months after the Defiant had been removed from day fighter duties - the Air Ministry had a specification for a night fighter to replace the Defiant that was released in October (F.18/40) rewritten to include a turret. The Beaufighter was put forward and actually fitted with a Defiant turret in early 1941, but it was found to be slower than the aircraft it was intended to replace. We often forget the role the turret played in British thinking at the time because of the preceived failure of the Defiant's concept during the day. By night however, the turret proved its worth; it meant the attacker could approach its victim from any position and fire at it. German nightfighter tactics are renown for the Schragemuzik idea of obliquely firing guns up into the belly of their foe, but Defiant gunners did this in practise first, although obviously the guns weren't fixed.

The specification was not fulfilled because the Mosquito proved to be a worthy night fighter, although its introduction into service was later than expected.
 
Last edited:
bobbysocks said:
how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.
Click to expand...

That whole generation of fighter aircraft, top speeds above 300mph, wing mounted armament, armour, engines above 860hp, all more or less developed at the same time, completely changed the nature of air warfare. Me 109 was one of the best, but not the first.

As part of a group of a particular era of se fighters emerging just before the war, i would say, most certainly. As an individual aircraft type, I think its harder to argue it being a revolution on its own.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Not necessarily revolutionary, more ingenius than anything else.
Click to expand...


I would list the swordfish as revolutionary, but not because of its technology , but because of what it did to naval warfare. before the swordfish, zealots like Billy Mitchell had espoused the value of airpower, and how it had rendered all other engines of war obsolete. But I think the world at large remained sceptical of that claim. For good reasons I might add. Then the Swordfish came along, along with the war. Until then the claims by the flyboys about the Battleship being knocked off its perch had been just that....claims. The Swordfish put the runs on the board, it sank battleships, and with that, came a seismic shift in the way naval power was measured. It was, in short, a revolution.
 
The Swordfish put the runs on the board, it sank battleships, and with that, came a seismic shift in the way naval power was measured. It was, in short, a revolution.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Parsifal, even after the Swordfish was retired from use as a torpedo bomber - after the Channel Dash, which was its last throw in that role, capital warships still had considerable mileage in them. Besides, the idea that aircraft could sink capital ships using torpedoes dates back before the Great War. The Royal Navy was the first to introduce and fire torpedoes from military aircraft; the Short 184 seaplane in the hands of Australian Arthur Longmore in 1914 was the first firing of a torpedo from a service aircraft, but Churchill was an advocate for concepts for the use of torpedoes from aeroplanes throughout the war. It's biggest advocate was Murray Sueter, who instigated the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo bomber, the Sopwith Cuckoo, which at the time there were no aircraft carriers, but the fact it was a land plane as opposed to a seaplane made the difference. Sueter was rewarded, owing to his persistence - and to get him out of the admiralty's hair, with the command of a Short 310 torpedo seaplane unit at Otranto with the specific intent of attacking the German battlecruiser Goeben.

Following from this the Admiralty raised specifications for Sopwith torpedoplanes for a raid against the High Seas Fleet in their own anchorage on the Shillig Roads. training for this actually commenced before the Armistice and the carrier Argus was specifically designated a torpedo aircraft carrier within the fleet. Post war, there were many advocates for the end of the battleship, including Sir Percy Scott and Sueter, whose book Airmen or Noahs is highly critical of the RN's continued use of them.

Cuckoos remained in service until 1923, when they were replaced by Blackburn Darts. A year previous, 210 Sqn's Cuckoos carried out a mock attack using dummy torpedoes fired at heavy units on exercise of the Gosport coast. Several ships were sunk in the exercise. By the time the Swordfish came about and the Taranto raid went ahead, the idea had been around for some time. It was not the harbinger of the revolution. It could be argued that it was the aircraft carrier, rather than specifically the carrier based torpedoplane that brought about the demise of the big gun battleship.
 
I can only go back to the example I used of HMS Dreadnaught. None of the technology was new but you will not find a naval historian of any nation that didn't consider it to be a revolution. What it did was put all the various pieces together into one vessel which worked and that caused the revolution. The same applies to the Beaufighter, the Avenger AEW and the B29. They had all the component parts put together for the first time in a package that worked and following developments followed that trend.

You seem stuck to the notion that the Mosquito was not a revolution because it didn't replace the strategic bomber, but it was never supposed too.

As for the turret on the P61 I can only point out that the early versions sometimes had the turret removed, no other nation at the time or since has had a turret and finally the length of service also supports the idea.


As for the quote made by William Sholto Douglas wrote on 10 July 1940: "the problem of the night fighter is still far from being solved. The Blenheim is too slow and the pilot's view is bad. The Beaufighter may possibly provide the solution, but at present it is a not very promising night fighter." Obviously Sholto Douglas was a little wide of the mark, but the quote proved thoughts on things were different back then. I wonder what his thoughts were in July 1941 or later.

The specification was not fulfilled because the Mosquito proved to be a worthy night fighter, although its introduction into service was later than expected .
Click to expand...
The specification wasn't fulfilled because the idea was a bad one and not followed up.
 
Glider said:
...no other nation at the time or since has had a turret and finally the length of service also supports the idea...
Click to expand...
And yet:
Airborne Laser System (ABL) YAL 1A - Airforce Technology

Nothing new under the sun
 
I can only go back to the example I used of HMS Dreadnaught. None of the technology was new but you will not find a naval historian of any nation that didn't consider it to be a revolution.
Click to expand...

I can name a few; Sir Percy Scott, modern historian Anthony Preston. This quote from Preston: " She was a logical step in British battleship design rather than a sudden departure..." Conway's All the world's battleships 1960 to the present.

You seem stuck to the notion that the Mosquito was not a revolution because it didn't replace the strategic bomber, but it was never supposed too.
Click to expand...

That's not the only reason. It didn't bring about sweeping change in the way Bomber Command carried out bombing operations, despite its considerable influence. You seem to be stuck on the fact that it did.

As for the turret on the P61 I can only point out that the early versions sometimes had the turret removed, no other nation at the time or since has had a turret and finally the length of service also supports the idea.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it was a bad idea at the time or it wouldn't have been implemented.

The specification wasn't fulfilled because the idea was a bad one and not followed up.
Click to expand...

According to whom? You? Never seen that anywhere else.

Still not convinced Glider, you'll have to do better!
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget that the P-61 was designed to a specification for a 'joint' night fighter for US and British forces. How much input the British had I don't know but the turret does look a bit suspicious

The Night fighters claimed a bit over 20 victories in April of 1941, a considerable increase over what they had been doing previously but then the bulk of the Luftwaffe departed for the eastern front so nobody knows what a continuation of the German night bombing campaign would have looked like.

As far as the Dreadnought goes, yes, in a way it was evolutionary but it was so different that it created not only a new class of ships but a new class of nations. Those that had Dreadnoughts and those that didn't. The Number of old style battleships( a single big gun turret at each end) didn't count anymore. It created a new way to rate naval power. It caused major changes in infrastructure to accommodate it. New building slips, new docks, extra dredging of of harbors/anchorages, and was a partial reason for widening the Kiel Canal.
Not too shabby for for ship that was merely evolutionary (granted other navies were working towards the same result, just slower)
 
nuuumannn said:
I can name a few; Sir Percy Scott, modern historian Anthony Preston. This quote from Preston: " She was a logical step in British battleship design rather than a sudden departure..." Conway's All the world's battleships 1960 to the present
Click to expand...
Which is why as has been commented by Shortround, that all navies capital ships instantly became pre dreadnaughts or Dreadnaughts and even the slightly later vessels were known as Super Dreadnaughts.
That's not the only reason. It didn't bring about sweeping change in the way Bomber Command carried out bombing operations, despite its considerable influence. You seem to be stuck on the fact that it did.
Click to expand...
I believe they did. The LNSF was a unique force, the daylight bombing of targets deep in Germany often unescorted was a unique tactic both of which would be suicide in any other bomber. Plus as mentioned earlier the concept of an unarmed bomber was unique and continued with other successful bombers, something you haven't denied.
Re the Turret 'Doesn't mean it was a bad idea at the time or it wouldn't have been implemented.'
Click to expand...
If it was a good idea it would have been implemented before on some of the designs it was tried on such as the Beaufighter or Mosquito, or it would have been used in other designs. It is fair to say that the two air forces with the most experience of night fighting were the Luftwaffe and the RAF. However neither implemented the idea of a turret on any of their operational aircraft post the Defiant. It was a rotten idea.

Still not convinced Glider, you'll have to do better!
Click to expand...

I will not convince you. If you cannot accept that a weapon system such as the Dreadnaught as revolutionary then you will never accept anything as revolutionary.
 
Last edited:
To be honest Glider, I was being facetious about the Dreadnought. You laid down a challenge and I brought it to the table Sorry.

You are right and I do actually agree with you about the Dreadnought; out of all the things you have listed as revolutionary, it was the only one that was, because of the profound and immediate change it had. So, while Preston - and others in fact, Peter Padfield, Siegfried Breyer, Richard Hough all say the same thing, is because the idea of all-big gun armament was one whose time had arrived, that was evolutionary, also if you look at the last pre-dreadnought class of battleship, the Lord Nelsons, they look like mini dreadnoughts. This is what the historians are saying; its design and concept was evolutionary.

Needless to say though, to combine all-big gun armament (although the USS South Carolina was laid down before the Dreadnought and she had superimposed turrets - Dreadnought was finished first), steam turbine propulsion - the big revolutionary aspect here, advanced fire control, all in a big hull was a revolution as, like you said, it changed everything. Capital warships were redefined because of its existence.

This has been my point all along; none of the aircraft you listed did the same. Not the Mosquito, not the Beaufighter and not the Il-2. Conventional warfare continued apace exactly as it had done after they entered service as it had before these aircraft appeared. They introduced innovations, but these were not roundly and immediately adopted by everyone else, resulting in their predecessors becoming obsolete overnight. They didn't introduce sweeping and immediate change. No one considered their contemporaries to be obsolete, in fact, in the case of the Beaufighter, there was the Defiant and the Mosquito and the Mossie proved a better night fighter than the beaufighter in RAF service, not to forget the Bf 110 etc in Germany.

Compare the impact the Dreadnought had on naval warfare with these aircraft and you will understand why I contest them being a revolution.
 


Intersting stuff, but the evidence that navies thought the Battleship was not the chif measure of naval power is simply not there before 1940. Aircraft were considered capable of scouting, spotting for the big guns, finishing off cripples, but not capable of defeating capital ships outright. After taranto, Bismark, Pearl Harbour and the destruction of Fce Z, nobody beleived battleships could operate except where airpower was either not available, or prevented from operating due to weather or daylight.

No dispute that a lot of work was done before the Swordfish, but the achievements of the Swordish was the watershed that marked a change in the thinking and a passing of the baton as to what class of warships were the new capital ships. No longer was it the Battleship that was considered the final arbiter of naval power and force projection. These were still useful ships, but they had lost their position in the hierarchy, due in large measure to the success of that one anachronistic aircraft. Does that make it revolutionary. well not in the sense of technology, but certainly in the sense of the order of naval priorities, and what made operations possible.
 
Aircraft were considered capable of scouting, spotting for the big guns, finishing off cripples, but not capable of defeating capital ships outright.
Click to expand...

Of course they could. You have no evidence that they couldn't. Why would firing a torpedo from an aeroplane be any different from a U-boat sinking a battleship with a torpedo? I'm sorry Parsifal, I'm not convinced that the Swordfsih represented the shift in priorities of navies and I've never seen that mentioned anywhere else. The ideas for sinking capital ships with air launched torpedoes was around and definitely in the thoughts of naval stategists prior to the advent of Taranto and the Swordfish, otherwise why have aircraft carriers equipped with torpedo bombers? To take out stragglers? Again, show me the proof.


You can also include carrier based dive bombers in there too, so again, although the Swordfish carried out the first sinking of battleships by aircraft, the Swordfish itself was not responsible for the shift in naval priorities. There's no reason to believe that any torpedo plane of its day couldn't have done the same thing, whether it was a Sopwith Cuckoo or a Blackburn Ripon. The Repulse and Prince of Wales were the first capital ships sunk at sea by torpedo carrying aircraft; these were twin engined long range land based bombers.

Does that make it revolutionary. well not in the sense of technology, but certainly in the sense of the order of naval priorities, and what made operations possible.
Click to expand...

The revolution you are specifying was the aircraft carrier, not specifically the Swordfish, to be honest. It was in the right place at the right time. If the RN had Blackburn Sharks, they would have taken the glory and were no less capable than the Swordfish. It was going to happen, Swordfish or not.
 
The revolution that I was primarily referring to was the use of radar on strike aircraft to see through poor visibility and extend their horizon to the limit of their sensors - this ensured the dominance of strike aircraft over surface(d) warships. As a secondary factor it gave the FAA an ace up it's sleeve that no other navy possessed at the time.

The Swordfish also demonstrated the ability of TBs to effectively deny/destroy enemy capital ships; this confirmed the theory of aerial power projection via CVs.
 
Last edited:
A bit cheeky to claim the defiant was designed as a night fighter, it was in the spec but it was in the spec for hurricane and spitfire too
Click to expand...

Gotta get it when you can when you have the reputation of the Defiant!

Not really, Pbehn, but I see where you are coming form. The Derfiant spec was for a day and night fighter - not specifically the latter and yes, other fighters were also specified for night ops, but the Defiant proved more successful than the Spit and Hurri in the role. The Hurricane could be flown at night without inducing pilot fatigue far more successfully than the Spitfire, but with a crew of two, the Defiant was better suited to the role.
 
Fairly easy.

Me-109 - first successful monoplane fighter, all monocoque, etc.
Me-109 - first real successful single engined fighter bomber. Nearly all other fighter bombers were 2nd line aircraft and relegated to the FB role. The 109 when it dropped its bomb was a fighter again, the Germans did it in 1940, took the British until late 1942 to do the same......
Me-110 - first fighter bomber, (just pipped the 109).
Spitfire - first plane with advanced aerodynamics and hence became the most expandable fighter of the war (hence it could match the 109 climb and speed n the Bob with a greater weight with about the same or even less engine power).
Mustang - first true long range (actually VLR) fighter (and the first to utilise the Meredith effect fully to reduce radiator drag by 90%, compared to the 50%+ of the Spit and 109, though the Mossie wasn't that far behind)
Zero - first true high performance, long range (LR) carrier fighter aircraft.
Mosquito - first true schnellbomber (plus a lot of other things).
Beaufighter - first true nightfighter (though the Me-110 wasn't that far behind, the Beau gets my award as the first).
Me-262 - first combat jet fighter.
Ar-234 - first combat jet schnellbomber (and other things too like recon).

Wellington conversion - first AWAC in the World.


Other Honorable mentions:
Fw-109 - first plane to have really good ailerons (and best through WW2) to create 'rapid transient' manouevres (though it took decades for Boyd to systematically work out why that was so important).
P-47 - US's first real competitive fighter, albeit really only at high altitudes.
Sunderland - first true LR anti-sub aircraft platform (that worked that is).
B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.
Hurricane - first 8 gun fighter (the comparable 109 of the time had 4, with 2 being slow RoF). A biplane to monoplane conversion that actually worked and could be easily built by those used to the wood and canvas and tube construction methodologies of the '30s.
Ilyushin Il-2 - first true CAS plane (instead of using an obsolete fighter).
 

Thats what I meant nuuuuman , all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar (probably not even thought of when the spec was issued)and provide an extra pair of mince pies.
 
Oh, boy!!!
OldSkeptic said:
Fairly easy.
Click to expand...

Me-109 - first successful monoplane fighter, all monocoque, etc.
Click to expand...
Russians and the I-16 may dispute that one.


Actually quite a few fighters from the 1930s were fighter bombers, just with smaller bomb loads, a fair number of fighters in WW I were also fighter bombers with four 20lb bombs but then they only had 110-200hp engines.

Me-110 - first fighter bomber, (just pipped the 109).
Click to expand...

See above

perhaps

Mosquito - first true schnellbomber (plus a lot of other things).
Click to expand...
Might be the first successful schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber.

Beaufighter - first true nightfighter (though the Me-110 wasn't that far behind, the Beau gets my award as the first).
Click to expand...

Here we hit the difference between first and first successful. The Blenheim being the first radar equipped night fighter and while not very successful that was due, in part to the faults of the early radar systems, lack of experience in night fighter crews, lack of experience of ground controllers in night interceptions (early radars having much less range than normal eyesight during daylight). When the Beaufighters show up they are able to take advantage of the months of experience provided by the Blenheims to go with the increase performance and armament. If the Beaufighters had been introduced much earlier with the first radar sets and inexperienced crews it would have taken them a number of months to show much in the way of results.

Me-262 - first combat jet fighter.
Ar-234 - first combat jet schnellbomber (and other things too like recon).
Click to expand...

No real arguement


Wellington conversion - first AWAC in the World.
Click to expand...

OK


Other Honorable mentions:
Click to expand...

P-47 - US's first real competitive fighter, albeit really only at high altitudes.
Click to expand...

Kind of leaves out the P-38?

Sunderland - first true LR anti-sub aircraft platform (that worked that is).
Click to expand...
Back to evolution or revolution?

Felixstowe F.2A
Granted it could only fly about 6 hours but what do you want from 700hp? Most fighters of the time were good for about 1 hour in the air. Anti-sub success is hard to measure in that sub kills don't correspond to Merchant ships not sunk in a linear fashion.

B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.
Click to expand...

The idea wasn't revolutionary, just get a long range plane that you weren't using for other things and assign it to long range over water patrol. an extension of an idea that had been around for over 20 years.


8 gun fighter yes ( or first aircraft with heavy armament although French with 20mm gun through prop may disagree) but it was NOT a biplane to monoplane conversion (please show the bi-plane Hurricane prototype or drawings). The Fury may look a bt like a Hurricane but I doubt much in the way of pieces/parts were interchangeable. Only wood used in the Hurricane were fairing strips to bulk out the fuselage to the desired shape from the square section of the tube truss frame. The wood bore NO structural load.

Ilyushin Il-2 - first true CAS plane (instead of using an obsolete fighter).
Click to expand...

Well, if you don't like the Junkers J. I. how about the Sopwith Salamander



Almost 500 built even if the end of the war prevented actual combat use. Forward fuselage was a 605lb armoured box which isn't bad with a 230hp engine. Built in parallel with the Sopwith Snipe so, no, it wasn't using an obsolete fighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
681
GTX
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Barrett
B
War Weary
Replies
14
Views
834
Snautzer01
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
460
fubar57
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
Menu
Log in
Register