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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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.

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

Good idea.

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.
.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.