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

michael rauls · Mar 31, 2019

bbear said:
"So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive."
Or denied the same to Axis powers? Or secured Oil supply routes? See Operation Countenance 1941. Anglo Soviet Invasion of Iran securing both the Persian Route and the Abadan refinery (8 million tons in 1940).
Or used up the oil the Axis had in operations? Meaning the Western Desert, air operations over Western Europe, U boat fuel, E boat fuel, . . .
Or used up time? Time for the Axis powers to make the critical mistake that would provoke America into full commitment as an ally at war.

You may believe in oil supply specifically or trucks supply or any other specific item being critical in offence. OR Aircobras, or Yaks or some other airframe being critical to later offensive and defensive battles. Alternatively you may believe that "American $ and Soviet blood" is a sufficient and necessary general summary of the critical aspects of an aggressive formula for victory. You may believe any some or all of those things. If you do so believe then it follows that the stemming of the Axis tide before routes are shutdown resources taken and too much blood spilt is also critical. To mount a good offence we must have a good enough defence in time to survive the initial onslaught.

Survival of the initial onslaught for the required time requires British territorial integrity, for the Arctic convoys and the Persian Route and Abadan and the bulk of the first year's supplies . Which in turn means contesting the Battle of the Atlantic, the Western desert campaign and the defense of Malta.

Which for the Western Theaters would make the Spitfire the plane that did the most to turn the tide of war. But it's all arguable, I don't think there is a right answer. There my be some wrong ones.

Yes I don't think there's a specific right answer to the thread title. When I started the thread I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion aside from the usual" which plane is best" at fill in the blank here.
As you suggested while there is no one right pick here there are, imho, plenty of wrong ones. Some for obvious reason that they were unsuccessful designs but also many great designs that simply came to late to contribute to any turning of the tide as it had already been turned in a given theater months or years earlier.
I think the F6F and the P51 are two good examples of great designs that made huge contributions that nonetheless came to late to do any tide turning as it had been turned about a year before there existence in any numbers in there respective main theaters of oparation.

Schweik · Mar 31, 2019

Esvees said:
Interesting points, all of them.

I may be wrong in placing the Yak's overall above the P39 over Russia. Many of the VVS's top aces scored a huge number of kills in the P39 and it contributed massively during the massive air battles over Kuban in 1943. The LA 5 FN and to a smaller extent the LA 7 were also major ace makers. The Yak 3 by contrast seems to have arrived at a time when what few Luftwaffe the aircraft still had were increasingly being used in the West.

However, over Stalingrad, there were not many P39's yet. I believe the vast majority were still Lagg 3's, Yak 1B's, Yak 7's, maybe a very small number of Yak 9's. At Stalingrad, the failure of the Luftwaffe to supply even enough for minimum survival to the encircled 6th army was a very important factor in the loss. And while the weather, number of aircraft and fuel all played a part, they were able to supply far less than they had to the smaller pocket at Demyansk earlier in 1942. The major factor seems to have been losses of aircraft to Soviet fighters, even forcing the Germans to keep fighters inside the pocket, which would in turn gobble up valuable supplies.

But the Germans were far from beaten in 1943, so the P39 and Lavochkins have a serious claim too.

On the reliability of numbers, I don't think the German numbers deserve any more credibility than the Soviet ones do. They would equally fudge production numbers or over claim kills and fail to record damaged or written off aircraft in some cases. German generals after the war would also frequently overstate the numbers they faced on the Eastern front to make themselves look better. So the true numbers probably lie between the claims of both sides.

On the importance of the theatres, the biggest factor in Germany and Japan's loss was probably oil. Most of the world's supply was in the US, with the other major supplier being the Soviet Union. The Middle East had no infrastructure yet. The German army kept growing in size right up until 1943 and was not actually that low on tanks. But they were having to increasingly rely on horses and struggling to keep their tanks and aircraft fueled as time wore on. The Soviet Union may have collapsed if the Germans had captured and held onto the Caucasus oil fields and/or they could block Soviet supplies up the Volga. So probably any major battle and attrition that meant a major disruption of oil supply was decisive.

Very good points I think, particularly about Stalingrad.

Schweik · Mar 31, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
So back again to the oilfields of Rumania, and the B24 pops up again as it has so many times in this thread.
Cheers,
Wes

Except the earlier raids on Ploesti etc. were not as effective as thought and suffered so many losses (due to tactics chosen / required, and also the aircraft used). So it's hard to argue they were decisive as a turning point, the effect of the Ploesti raids (both by US and Soviet bombers) was more attritional and I think the effect was felt more later in the war.

Also I know I will get a lot of argument / hate for saying this but I do believe Mosquitoes would have been better for that mission. They didn't have enough in the area or in place so it's a moot point. But I believe they would have been far more effective.

Schweik · Mar 31, 2019

Shortround6 said:
That is a much more useful load than the max load I listed.
A 500GP bomb actually has more explosive than a 1600lb AP bomb and it doesn't have to dropped from a height thousands of feet higher than torpedo dropping height to be effective.
Of course you don't need a bomb that will go through 5-6 in of armor deck when dealing with a carrier either.

Also pretty pointless for a level bomber like a B-26 Marauder to carry AP bombs since they almost never managed to hit ships with any kind of bombs other than skip bombs, and I don't think B-26's specifically sank or hit a lot of ships regardless. B-25s and A-20's seem to have done better in that role.

There were hundreds of B-17 and later B-24 raids against Japanese shipping and almost no hits. Kenney gave up on level bombing early on for his mediums and switched to the strafing + skip bombing tactic right away.

BiffF15 · Mar 31, 2019

Gents,
Still standing by the T-6/Harvard (more Allied pilots got their wings on it, I think, than any other).
Second place still going with the ubiquitous DC-3/C-47.
Cheers,
Biff

Dimlee · Mar 31, 2019

Esvees said:
maybe a very small number of Yak 9's

As far as I know, this number was zero.

Esvees said:
The Soviet Union may have collapsed if the Germans had captured and held onto the Caucasus oil fields and/or they could block Soviet supplies up the Volga.

I agree with this assumption.
Just one small correction: Azerbaijan oil fields (Baku area) were the most important with about 75% of total USSR output in 1940. Krasnodar and Grozny (the latter located in Northern Caucasus indeed) - another 15%.

Greyman · Mar 31, 2019

Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but what about the twin-engine trainers?

What was the US equivalent of the Anson?

fubar57 · Mar 31, 2019

I believe one was the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat.

Wiki

Esvees · Apr 1, 2019

Schweik said:
Also I know I will get a lot of argument / hate for saying this but I do believe Mosquitoes would have been better for that mission. They didn't have enough in the area or in place so it's a moot point. But I believe they would have been far more effective.

If you asked me what the best all-round warplane was for WWII, I'd probably say the Mosquito. It certainly caused plenty of German attrition, but maybe not enough to be decisive. However, it does deserve massive props as the ultimate Nazi-trolling aircraft and aircrews with the biggest balls. Highlights include strafing/bombing several downtown Gestapo HQ's and interrupting one of Goehring's speeches.

There's only 1 aircraft I can think of with a similar combination of speed and versatility, although not quite as good, namely the Petlyakov Pe 2. There were lots of them and I think they did actually bomb the Ploiesti oil fields with some success, but not consistently.

michaelmaltby · Apr 1, 2019

I am going to throw my hat into the ring with the B-25 Mitchell ... used by all Allies on every front (the Russians had 3 or 4 by December '41) ... the AC was highly modifiable as bomber and gun ship ... and in the Pacific it was the Warthog of its era. While it never served as a night fighter as the Boston, Mosquito and Beaufighter did, the 8 nose-mounted 50s scored a number of kills on Japanese AC in air combat.
B-25s had their down-side ... with the heavy gun load they lacked the power to fly long on one engine ... and operating at the 25' to 200' level that they did in the Pacific an engine loss to AA fire was almost always fatal.
But a very reliable, all metal, flexible war weapon the B-25 was, IMO.

Schweik · Apr 1, 2019

fubar57 said:
I believe one was the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat.

View attachment 533915
Wiki

See also Beechcraft 18 aka C-45

And I think the Lockheed Hudson etc. as well

Schweik · Apr 1, 2019

michaelmaltby said:
I am going to throw my hat into the ring with the B-25 Mitchell ... used by all Allies on every front (the Russians had 3 or 4 by December '41) ... the AC was highly modifiable as bomber and gun ship ... and in the Pacific it was the Warthog of it's era. While it never served as a night fighter as the Boston, Mosquito and Beaufighter did, the 8 nose-mounted 50s scored a number of kills on Japanese AC in air combat.
B-25s had their down-side ... with the heavy gun load they lacked the power to fly long on one engine ... and operating at the 25' to 200' level that they did in the Pacific an engine loss to AA fire was almost always fatal.
But a very reliable, all metal, flexible war weapon the B-25 was, IMO.

I wasn't aware that the B-25 had trouble running on one engine, that is a big 'ding' against it. Do you know if that was just with the heavier gunship variants or all variants?

B-25 was important for the Med, and of course the Pacific, and to some extent CBI. For the Soviets it was mostly relegated to night bombing as they found it too vulnerable to AAA. And of course it didn't see that much use in NW Europe.

Shortround6 · Apr 1, 2019

For trainers the US (being the profligate wastrels that we are) also use the Curtiss AT-9

and the Fairchild AT-13, 14 , 21 series

Now please note that some of these were pilot trainers and some were crew trainers, a distinction not made with the Anson.

The AT-9 was purposely designed to be difficult to fly and and was about the only US aircraft that was not sold surplus to civilians although some were sold/given to mechanics/ground schools

michaelmaltby · Apr 1, 2019

I don't think it was just gunships that were vulnerable ... it was the low altitude that they operated at, not just as straffers but as skip bombers.

michael rauls · Apr 1, 2019

Schweik said:
See also Beechcraft 18 aka C-45

View attachment 533971

And I think the Lockheed Hudson etc. as well

Have an interesting( at least to me) personal story about the Beach 18. When I was a kid my friends dad, Pat Milstead, was Mohahmed Alis private pilot.
Mr Ali owned a small collection of Beach 18s( at least 3 that I know of) and on several ocassions I got a chance to ride on them. Always from Long Beach to Roubeydux( ya probably misspelled).
Anyway I never did get to meat Mr Ali but it was really something to get to ride on his planes when I was about 12 years old.

Fighterguy · Apr 4, 2019

In all actuality, there's no one aircraft that can assume this title. It's a combination of the various aspects they all brought to the table, coupled with operational doctrine and proper application. Where one airframe did particularly well at some missions, it may not be suited for other, equally important tasks.

chipieal · Apr 4, 2019

ykickamoocow said:
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.

With a nod to our British contributors, I beleieve that what was going on just under the surface in WW II woud have not allowed the use of a Lancaster instead of a B - 29. Whether anyone wants to admit it, what was engineered by FDR. was to strip Britian as a superpower. That is why when FDR. offered the lend/ lease destroyers, what he got in return was the promise to divest itself of all areas of the British Empire. Why do you think we could not continue using the Merlin unless we paid for it? Also, the US military, in the 1930's, had a battle plan to fight Great Britian. So, we were not all chummy as history has made out. As with all great countries and civilizations throughout history - they all operate out of self interest. Also, we had the B - 32 Dominator as a backup to the 29.

Glider · Apr 4, 2019

I'm not so sure about this as in 1942/3 serious consideration was given to the UK building their own version of the B29. A team was sent to the USA to gauge how practical the idea was but it was decided not to proceed as the resources needed would have been too detrimental to other projects.
I will dig around and find more details

ClayO · Apr 4, 2019

It's a trick question; the answer is "none of the above." What turned the tide in the Battle of Britain was not just the airplanes, but the men willing to fly them, in spite of the odds being against them. We also need to give credit to the detection and communication network the British put in place, along with the courage of the men and women operating that equipment, even while under attack.
Combined with that was the British spy network, which had turned all of the German spies in Britain into double agents. They kept feeding the German high command false information about the rate of British fighter production, making them believe the battle was almost won, when in fact the LW was slipping behind, bit by bit. (Read Double Cross by Ben MacIntyre for the full story.)
The Battle of the Atlantic was turned by Polish and Alan Turing's code breakers, who told the British Navy where to go looking for U-boats.
In the early days, we'd have been nowhere in the Pacific if the American code breakers hadn't hacked the Japanese Purple code - but that would have been for nothing without the fortitude of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at Midway, Guadacanal, Coral Sea, etc.
But none of that would have worked if it weren't for British and American industry and civilians cranking out ships, airplanes, tanks, trucks, etc. faster than our enemies could knock them down. If I had to name a single factor that turned the tide, that would be it.

sdmodeller · Apr 4, 2019

Why not go with the one the Axis said? P-51? Goering said when he saw them over Berlin he knew the war was lost.
The case against Spitfire and Hurricane- stopped Germans, but did not turn the tide of war. 1942-43 were a mess for the allied bombing effort. Germany was intact economically and militarily. More important than the role of both was the damn poor judgment of Nazi leadership, as it is difficult for anyone who has looked at the BoB to say the RAF could have held out if the Germans had continued striking airfields instead of London.
The case against SBD (a personal favorite) did not serve in Europe, and the Japanese navy was hurt not broken. The Japanese did replace the losses at Midway and SBD, like all US naval aircraft were tactical, not strategic. The fact the Japanese had 2-3000 aircraft stowed away at the end of the war awaiting the US invasion shows that Japan still had lots of fight left.
The war was two fronts, and realistically I don't think one plane affected both fronts, but the P-51 allowed allied air power to win in Europe which then made the defeat of Japan possible.

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

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

General

Recruit

Colonel

Banned

Banned

Major General

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Airman

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Recruit

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads