The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. (2 Viewers)

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

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!

End of story.

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

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?


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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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).
 

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.
 
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'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kevin J said:
You've got to wonder why we built this system facing France not Germany.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Shortround6 said:
This is using steel as a somewhat arbitrary indicator of industrial might.
.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
853
Jabberwocky
J
Is it possible to access the MAG-23 War Diary online?
Replies
5
Views
69
fubar57
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register