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

[michael rauls]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hurricane and Spitfire joint effort.

 

[ykickamoocow]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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

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..

 

[michael rauls]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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".

 

[michael rauls]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

 

[ykickamoocow]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

I've added more.

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.

 

[ykickamoocow]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

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]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

 

[ykickamoocow]

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]

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]

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]

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!