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

I don't know why we are discussing the theoretical capability of various aircraft in this thread. this thread is which airplane DID the most to turn the tide, not which aircraft COULD HAVE. the SBD DID turn the tide at Midway. Now if the question is which is the aircraft that outperformed expectations the most, my vote would be the Swordfish which performed valuable roles at Taranto, the hunt for the Bismark, and in antisubmarine operations in the Atlantic. Even with those successes, it falls behind the SBD in my book as a tide-turner.

Dimlee said:

Frankly, I don't consider Battle of Moscow to be major turning point (rather one of major stumbling blocks for Germany) but I fully support the reminder about importance of Moscow as very important rail hub - the most important for USSR rail network at that time.

Click to expand...

Stalin not getting captured was important too.

Shortround6 said:

The Yak-1 and IL-2 only come into play because they didn't suck as bad the I-16 and SU-2.

Click to expand...

I should not steer away off the topic... but can't resist to note that neither Su-2 "sucked bad" (all factors taken into account) nor Il-2 proved to be better aircraft.

How much it can carry is one attribute.

The "box score" of how much damage a type did to the enemy needs an awful lot of research. For the British they built 800 Albacores and 2391 Swordfish. Just the law of averages tells you the Swordfish should have caused 3 times the damage (it did far more than average).

I also prefer actual ranges rather than rough estimates if we can find them.

Wiki is a terrible source in this regard as it tends to list the maximum of everything, max speed when clean, max range with max fuel (often without bombs) max bomb load (even if the range is absurdly short) like for the B-17.

• Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
• Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
• Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)

That 17,600lbs is technically correct but it took six of the already mentioned 1600 AP bombs in the bomb bay and two 4000lb bombs under the wings on external racks to get to that weight of bombs. An almost useless payload as the range of the B-17 so loaded was barely enough to cross the channel and the two bombs have different trajectories so they can't be dropped at the same time in the same target (unless it is an area target but then why are you using AP bombs?)

A good useful bomb load does beat a lighter useful bomb load. Useless bomb loads just to reach a high number mean nothing (B-26 Marauder 5200lbs, made up of one 2000lb topedo and two 16000lb AP bombs) nice number but you have to drop the torpedo first (preferably from under 200 feet) and the climb to altitude where the 1600lb will actually penetrate armor.

perhaps the SBC2 did out range the Avenger at times but it takes a certain set of circumstances. Both planes used essentially the same engine and Wiki seems to list the last models, the 1942/43 versions of both planes used 1700hp engines (Wright had only built about 175 of the 1900hp versions by the end of Sept 1943).
The Avenger had 335 gallons of internal fuel and while the Helldiver could hold 330 (on early versions). Both could use drop tanks, at least after a while and both were also rigged to use fuel tanks mounted in the bomb bay, so total fuel load an vary considerably.
The Japanese B5N didn't have a prayer of out ranging the Avenger.
For the B6N we get back into the "it depends" arena.

The later Avengers (-3) had the 1900hp engine, it was possible to fit them with a pair of 100 gallon underwing drop tanks leaving the bomb bay clear. for "scouting" use it was possible to fit a 275 gallon tank in the bombay. Providing the proper tanks were available (and they may not have been a number of times) the Grumman wins hands down.

The Grumman was on occasion fitted with RADAR. As for scouting this was a great aid in two ways, finding an enemy fleet, and as far as the crew was concerned, finding your own.

fliger747 said:

The Grumman was on occasion fitted with RADAR. As for scouting this was a great aid in two ways, finding an enemy fleet, and as far as the crew was concerned, finding your own.

Click to expand...

SBDs in the -4 and -5 series were also generally equipped with radar. The difference is these later SBDs (despite makng up the majority of units produced) found very little service with front line units. The Swordfish first got radar in 1940, two years earlier than American naval attack planes.

The airborne radar on the Swordfish is pretty impressive. On one level, a lot of these odd-duck type of British planes seemed to have one quality in spades - versatility. And in war that is a really important one.

An Albacore may have been a bit better than a Battle in theory, but that is a pretty low bar isn't it? The Swordfish was really a fantastic, advanced aircraft for the previous war, and would have been a world beater in 1917. In 1940 it was a bit of an embarrassment in my opinion. A lot of the pilots who flew it seem to have felt that way. The problems with the Fleet Air Arm's procurement policies are perhaps worthy of another thread. But I personally find it baffling that the nation which produced the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Mosquito, the Beaufighter, the Wellington, the Lancaster, the Sunderland, the Whirlwind, the Gloster Meteor and so on - was also designing and fielding weapons like the Blackburn Roc and the Fairey Fulmar which seem to be so generally unsuitable for combat, and even to the end of the war didn't seem to be able to get viable designs into action, with the marginal success of the Firefly (even though it remained in use into the 50's) and the Barracuda.

And speaking of the 50's, what the hell is this?

The Royal Navy pilots nevertheless persevered and figured out innovative ways to make their gear work, sometimes with incredible bravery, but they were struggling with a handicap. In my opinion the triumphs of Taranto and against the Bismarck had more to do with the pluck of the men in action than the kit they had to use.

It's a bit like the nightmare with the "unlucky" American Mk 13 torpedo and the Mark 14, and Mk 15 torpedoes. How could such a massively important weapon have been so miserably botched for so long. The disadvantage to US forces in the Pacific, not only with their bombers, and once again thank God for the SBD, but in ship to ship and submarine to ship combat was incredibly tragic. Ship to ship combat when only one side could use torpedoes was not fun (thank god for radar, eventually) and submarine warfare with dud torpedoes was a nightmare.

The American navy had it's own problems with aircraft procurement too look at the SB2C, the SO3C Seamew etc.

It's fascinating to me how some bureaucratic problems are so intractable, even with the existential threats faced by every major nation in World War II. And every nation had their own problems of this type.

The SOC3 was a scouting aircraft - not an attack aircraft.
The SB2C had it's issues, but by the last half of the war, it was more than proving itself.

And again, the SBD, despite the scrutiny, did turn the tide of the Pacific war through it's efforts at Midway. There is literally no other aircraft that can hold that title.
I know it's been mentioned that it wasn't the SBD but other "factors" that turned the tide of that battle, but in all honesty, when divebombers cripple and sink a fleet's compliment of carriers by themselves, "themselves" meaning no other aircraft or surface ship was involved in the sinking, then that carries weight in the SBD's favor.

In addition, the SBD was one of the only dedicated divebombers to have a positive enemy aircraft kill ratio, ending up downing 136 enemy aircraft in combat.

It takes time to implement changes on assembly lines that are in full production. B-24s that came out of Willow Run were sent to modification centers before being issued.

Shortround6 said:

1200hp engine, can easiley carry at least an 1100lb bomb if the wing bombs are not carried, The R model had extra 33 imp gallon tanks added inside the outer wings (a 62% increase internal fuel plus the already mentioned 66imp gallon drop tanks but bomb load with full fuel may have been restricted to 551lbs, People with the manuals may differ on this. but range is substantially increased. the R started going into service in 1940 in time for at least a few to be used in Norway.

Click to expand...

Ju-87R-1, 1000 HP engine, can carry armor + 2200 lb bomb + 2x66 US gal drop tanks all in the same time:

:

Thank you, information on the "R"s is spotty and often contradictory. Some sources claiming for example that the R-1s used the Jumo 211a engine, the R-2s used 211 b (or d) and the R-4s used the 211J. Some mention internal wing tanks, some don't.

Schweik said:

And speaking of the 50's, what the hell is this?

Click to expand...

Basically a turbo prop Avenger replacement.

Which must be a mistake as the Avenger was near useless, right?

Shortround6 said:

Thank you, information on the "R"s is spotty and often contradictory. Some sources claiming for example that the R-1s used the Jumo 211a engine, the R-2s used 211 b (or d) and the R-4s used the 211J. Some mention internal wing tanks, some don't.

Click to expand...

The Ju-87R-1 was a LR version of the B-1 (1000 HP for TO both with Jumo 211A), R-2 was a version of B-2 (1200 HP for TO with Jumo 211B, probably D was also used). R-4 was probably based on Ju-87D, though the manual for the later D's (D-5 of 1944) list drop tanks facility as standard equipment.
The D-5 went at 6.5 tons max for take off, so it might be that extra internal fuel tankage was added.

added: seems like tanks of 150 L each were installed, outboard of the wing guns & ammo on the Ds, already from D-1s.

So what is the real strike range for various main versions of the Ju 87?

We're looking at probably 300-350 km for the 87B-1/B-2, 500-600 km for the R-1/R-2, and a little bit more for R-4 and 87Ds with drop tanks. Meaning, for the 'Imperial' guys, between ~200 and ~450 miles worth of radius.

Shortround6 said:

Basically a turbo prop Avenger replacement.

Which must be a mistake as the Avenger was near useless, right?

Click to expand...

In 1958 it replaced the Skyraider in the AEW role too, another of those obsolete piston engine planes.

GrauGeist said:

The SOC3 was a scouting aircraft - not an attack aircraft.
The SB2C had it's issues, but by the last half of the war, it was more than proving itself.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware the SO3C was a scout plane (and rescue, ASW etc.) but scout planes were pretty important in WW2 naval combat. Especially for the Americans who really needed their heavy gun-ships (BB's, BC's, CA's and CL's) since their torpedoes didn't work in the first year or two of the war, rendering Destroyers severely weakened in terms of effectiveness.

Also lets be real, scouting, maritime patrol and ASW were a big part of what some of the other planes we are discussing - Swordfish, Albacore, and postwar Gannett - actually did in the war. The TBF sunk some enemy ships but it too spent a lot of time in this kind of role. Certainly that's all it was good for in the 50's, I wouldn't want to see one squaring off with a Mig 15.

And again, the SBD, despite the scrutiny, did turn the tide of the Pacific war through it's efforts at Midway. There is literally no other aircraft that can hold that title.
I know it's been mentioned that it wasn't the SBD but other "factors" that turned the tide of that battle, but in all honesty, when divebombers cripple and sink a fleet's compliment of carriers by themselves, "themselves" meaning no other aircraft or surface ship was involved in the sinking, then that carries weight in the SBD's favor.

Click to expand...

I would say Coral Sea, Midway, and the Solomons campaign, not just Midway.

In addition, the SBD was one of the only dedicated divebombers to have a positive enemy aircraft kill ratio, ending up downing 136 enemy aircraft in combat.

Click to expand...

Lethal and versatile.

SBD was one of those planes that was kind of thought of as stop-gap. In a way, similar to the Ju 87. I don't think it was ever realized in the 30's what an important role the Ju 87 was still going to play in the mid 40's.

Being reliable, lethal and versatile - and a good dive bomber, meant that it was a lot more effective than most other bombers around.

Torpedo planes were only as lethal as the torpedoes they carried, but they never had a particularly good survivability ratio and usually weren't that good at much else.

TBFs and their ilk weren't very good at attacking land targets. Fighters ended up being more useful for that... for the Americans the F4U, the F6F, the P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 began taking over a lot of the Tactical bombing of ground targets in the second half of the war, and only medium bombers reconfigured as strafers and skip-bombers continued in their intended role.

SBD was a limited exception, as the A-24 and particularly in Marine hands as the SBD they proved useful in ground attack, because they could hit targets better than fighters and survive sorties about as well.

I would amend the above to note that larger, 2-3 engine land based bombers which could carry torpedoes were often quite versatile and generally useful. Ju 88, SM 79, Wellington, A-20 and G4M come to mind.

I also don't mean to denigrate ASW patrolling etc, it was a critical part of WW2, I just think generally speaking and once again, the larger multi engined aircraft were better at it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Of course Galland did. I think all pilots felt the same about their adversary's, but that still doesn't change the context of hos words, and how they are misused.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I respect your view. Not all adversaries were skilled, as I believe the RAF pilots (to include those nations that fly for England) were during the BoB. Galland also wrote of his statement many years after the fact, giving him time to review what was said.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I respect your view. Not all adversaries were skilled, as I believe the RAF pilots (to include those nations that fly for England) were during the BoB. Galland also wrote of his statement many years after the fact, giving him time to review what was said.

Click to expand...

Underestimating your adversary will get you killed...