Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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).
So perhaps figure out which type was the champion of a particular theater or mission profile?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Resp: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 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