Isnt stopping the Germans turning the tide compared to what would have happened if the Germans hadnt been stopped.
The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Barrett
Senior Airman
I think I responded early on but will risk a repetition: yes! The SBD won the Pacific War, with the F4F in close attendance. (For those who doubt it, consider the options: fighting 1942 with SB2Us and F2As.) A couple of years ago I wrote a Naval History article titled "The Plane that Won the War" which upset some B-17 fans although none could describe how the Flying Fortress outdid the SBD in the first year of the war on any front. Others that finished "on the podium" of course were the F6F and B-29. Thing is tho: WW II was by far & away too vast to say that any single "platform" won the whole shootin' match, which is why it's helpful to distinguish between Pac and Lant/Med.
Break-break
Point's well taken here about the Hurrybox being underappreciated given the 2-1 numerical advantage over the Spit (limiting RAF FC to the single-engine types only.) But however grim things appeared in 40, the fact is that the Wehrmacht lacked the 'phib capability to stage D-Day in reverse. Quite apart from lacking air and naval superiority, Germany did not possess anything remotely comparable to LSTs or smaller bow-ramp landing craft to put heavy equipment (tanks-trucks) on the beach. Therefore, had Sea Lion become more than a staff study, it would've been necessary to seize two or more ports intact, and that simply was not going to happen. Therefore, with all due credit to the skill and valo(u)r of the RAF, neither the Spit nor the Hurricane were war-winning aeroplanes.
Break-break
Point's well taken here about the Hurrybox being underappreciated given the 2-1 numerical advantage over the Spit (limiting RAF FC to the single-engine types only.) But however grim things appeared in 40, the fact is that the Wehrmacht lacked the 'phib capability to stage D-Day in reverse. Quite apart from lacking air and naval superiority, Germany did not possess anything remotely comparable to LSTs or smaller bow-ramp landing craft to put heavy equipment (tanks-trucks) on the beach. Therefore, had Sea Lion become more than a staff study, it would've been necessary to seize two or more ports intact, and that simply was not going to happen. Therefore, with all due credit to the skill and valo(u)r of the RAF, neither the Spit nor the Hurricane were war-winning aeroplanes.
Last edited:
ssmith996
Recruit
How about the IL-2?
- Thread starter
- #764
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Absolutely true, no one aircraft or any other piece of equipment turned the tide alone.
That is why the question/thread title are asked in realative terms and not as an absolute.
bbear
Airman 1st Class
Thanks for the repeat. I don't disagree with your choices of P-51 Mustang in the West, SBD and F4F in the East. Could you say why war winning is the same as tide turning for you, as you seem to imply? Could I tempt you to say which of your tide turners you think did most and by what means. That is where, when and how did tide turning happen in the West and East and which was more critical and which aircraft most critical to that more critical turn?
thanks
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
- 751
- May 1, 2016
I go back to a post I made around sheet 15. November 42 represented a global Waterloo for the Axis.* Stalingrad, Torch, El Alamein, Guadalcanal. After November 42 the Axis never won a Strategic victory. IMHO that was the Month the tide was turned. So pick your aircraft that were crucial in that period.
*The term was coined by Herman Wouk.
SPYINTHESKY
Airman
Simple fact is that had the Battle of Britain not been won the war would almost certainly have either been 'won' by the Axis or though a fair bit less likely the Russians. The US would not have entered the European War (they only did so because Germany declared war on them specifically to be able to starve Britain) and anyway without Britain the US had no way of even doing so and Germany fully expected them to be fully occupied by the Pacific War. That was their very logical, if ultimately failed plan. The crucial moment there was that Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that the WAR WOULD BE WON in EUROPE and that took precedence, which surely affects the debate here, unless people prefer to think better than they. Thats the decision that defeated Hitler and turned the War but only the BoB enabled that decision to be taken.
In 1938 the Germans were estimated to be 2 years ahead of anyone else in developing the Atomic Bomb. The initial allies atomic bomb development came out of the British efforts being carried out in Canada (Jacob Bronowski involved in it, stated that very fact himself). Had the Battle of Britain been lost, no American economic machine to develop those efforts would have been triggered at that time, or it would have been delayed substantially, very possibly without that vital early British work, had the Nazis threatened retribution in Britain. So that in itself says the Hurricane/Spitfire not only turned the war but most likely prevented the war being lost. Even if the US had beaten Germany to the bomb (and British efforts delayed the latter considerably in various ways in European operations) the simple fact is that they had no way to deliver it upon Germany in that timespan, whereas German missile technology was already maturing to be able to deliver a nuclear bomb on the US within a year or two of the war ending most like. If the BoB had been lost and the Russians managed to turn the tide, when could they have defeated the Axis? Certainly not in 1945 probably not in 1946 and certainly if any later than that, German technology, which itself would have been far more developed and numerous no doubt without the mass UK/US Bombing raids surely, would have been ready to turn any tide there again. Having dealt with the Russians they could turn their attentions to subduing the US with threats of nuclear destruction with the means to actually deliver it and eventually in time the Japanese would fall too, leaving them as World Masters either with the US turned to wasteland or as subdued lapdogs. The 'Man in the High Castle' though nothing can be described as certain, is probably a very accurate description upon events had the BoB been lost, so yep the Hurricane and the Spitfire fight it out for this crown in my opinion.
As for the Pacific War the Japanese could only win if the Germans won, for the US economic potential would always win out, it was simply a matter of time. Oh and the B29 was always planned to be the tool for the delivery of the bomb. Had it not existed the Lancaster or another option would have been modified to do so in the 2 years available to have done so if necessary to sustain the nuclear option, so at most a delay would have been the problem not the actuality. Fundamental difference to a weapon that changed the course of the war and one that simply dictated the time of it ending when its already won. If that isn't relevant to the question asked here then what is I wonder.
Last edited:
SPYINTHESKY
Airman
They didn't actually need to invade they just needed for Britain to submit with the offer of keeping their Empire blah blah which is the offer in fact that was made. Without Churchill that would have happened, Lord Halifax who was offered the premiership before him remember openly admitted that to the House at the time with the full implications. Without Britain staying in the war and operating as an Aircraft Carrier then all the events I layout elsewhere here would come to pass almost certainly, so your premise I'm afraid simply does not stand up as it precludes all the other realities that would have taken place had Britain been knocked out of the War at that moment. Fact is German technology or Russian numbers (allied to that tech had they won as happened post war anyway) would have prevailed. Remember nearly all the post war super developments were based on German and indeed in some cases British technology by both the Russians and the US which saved them up to a decade or more of their own learning curve no matter the potential of the Industrial base.
Kevin J
Banned
P-40, P-40, P-40 and P-40. That's the common denominator.
Some of the early British efforts were done in what is now my local community centre. It was originally a very large house in the countryside, owned by one of the top managers of ICI who had all the refineries on Teesside. Much early research involved distillation of "heavy water" which was done more in refineries than physics labs. One of the rooms was completely lined with lead.
bbear
Airman 1st Class
I couldn't find your post but on Page 10 I think Schweik is making a similar point.
Can I clarify please? I think you are saying :
First that these engagements are both significant in themselves, taking advantage of topography or position with respect to supply routes or some other specific feature of the contest in each location
and
secondly that this time marks the point where the Allies have enough force ratio allowing for all factors to move successfully on to the offensive
and
in relation to the second point that despite the "Europe First" political agreement this happened everywhere pretty much simultaneously?
If so would the growth in number of operational squadrons of each type give us an objective answer? That is to say, if more IL2's had been built and squadrons equipped than any other type compared with the beginning of the war, then they were the aircraft that most changed the force ratio in the air.
thanks
Aside from the people who try to outsmart the question that started the thread (talking about trucks or trains or liberty ships), and thus completely miss the point- There seems to be a American answer to this question which is all about the B-29 and the P51, and then there is a British answer which is all about the Battle of Britain and the Spitfire and Hurricane.
Of the two the BoB probably has a little bit more merit because it certainly was a turning point, but it wasn't a major turning point because the Axis did not go from winning to losing. They just went from winning an overwhelming way to still winning but slightly chastened.
To me the American version of this is ridiculous. Goering may have said that he knew the war was lost when he saw p-51s over Berlin. But Goering was out of touch and delusional during the Battle of Britain four years earlier in 1940, completely miscalculated Stalingrad in 1942, and it was all downhill from there. By the time P-51s are flying over Berlin, even if we had never produced a single P-51 or for that matter any airplanes after that point, there's absolutely no way the Germans could have won the war.
I give it to those who pointed out the turning point happened in 1942. That is to say if you have to narrow it down to a single Turning Point or pivot.
The SBD is The logical candidate for the Pacific. It's correct that Brewster buffaloes and Vought vindicator's could not have done the job. Neither could swordfish and fulmars.
But the real turning point in the war against the Germans did not really involve the Americans or the British as we have pointed out many times. It was Stalingrad. We can talk about trucks and tanks and trains and we have done quite a bit. But the question was about the airplanes. Which airplane made the real difference. Which ones most contributed to the turning point in the war. Not which factor decided the outcome of the war definitively or any other variation on the question.
Of the two the BoB probably has a little bit more merit because it certainly was a turning point, but it wasn't a major turning point because the Axis did not go from winning to losing. They just went from winning an overwhelming way to still winning but slightly chastened.
To me the American version of this is ridiculous. Goering may have said that he knew the war was lost when he saw p-51s over Berlin. But Goering was out of touch and delusional during the Battle of Britain four years earlier in 1940, completely miscalculated Stalingrad in 1942, and it was all downhill from there. By the time P-51s are flying over Berlin, even if we had never produced a single P-51 or for that matter any airplanes after that point, there's absolutely no way the Germans could have won the war.
I give it to those who pointed out the turning point happened in 1942. That is to say if you have to narrow it down to a single Turning Point or pivot.
The SBD is The logical candidate for the Pacific. It's correct that Brewster buffaloes and Vought vindicator's could not have done the job. Neither could swordfish and fulmars.
But the real turning point in the war against the Germans did not really involve the Americans or the British as we have pointed out many times. It was Stalingrad. We can talk about trucks and tanks and trains and we have done quite a bit. But the question was about the airplanes. Which airplane made the real difference. Which ones most contributed to the turning point in the war. Not which factor decided the outcome of the war definitively or any other variation on the question.
Kevin J
Banned
If you want to argue Stalingrad, then I must argue earlier. Smolensk between the 10th of July and the 10th of September 1941. Okay the Russians didn't win, but they did counterattack. From then on, German hope of victory in 3 to 4 months was lost. From then on, the war for Germany was lost.
Battle of Smolensk (1941) - Wikipedia
No
Historians like Richard Glantz have pointed out that the intensity of the constant Soviet counter attacks even quite early in Barbarossa were on a much bigger scale than previously thought. I certainly agree with him and more generally with the revisionists of this school. He does talk about Smolensk.
But Stalingrad was still the tipping point. Certainly the attrition was ramping up, and our narrative of a weak Soviet collapse is somewhat inaccurate. But Stalingrad was the moment when the Soviet 'boxer' knocked his German pursuer down decisively, and while the German got up, he never recovered the initiative and never won another major battle.
And regardless of whether you put the pivot at Smolensk in August or Moscow in November or Stalingrad in December - the pivot point for the Germans in World War Two was at some point in the Third or Fourth quarter of 1942, and it was somewhere in Russia.
Which means that for the most part German and Russian planes are what mattered, as well as some Lend Lease or other Allied planes like the Hurricane, P-40, A-20 and so on, and a few Italian or other minor Axis powers aircraft. However I think it is pretty obvious that the turning point in the Soviet German War in 1942 did hinge at least to some extent on Soviet aircraft.
So I'm really not sure why you disagreed with my last post.
I don't discount the Battle of Britain, but I don't think it changed the momentum, it lessened the surging momentum of the German / Axis onslaught, but it didn't stop them launching new invasions, winning many battles and killing a whole lot more people. It did not send them from winning over and over to losing over and over like Stalingrad or Midway or El Alamein.
The turning point for the British - German war was indeed probably in North Africa and also in later 1942. The only question is how important was that Theater, I do think it was more important than people tend to think. Certainly much more important to the actual outcome or course of the war than P-51s over Berlin in 1944. But it was on a smaller scale than the Russian Front.
German and Italian forces in 2nd El Alamein had 116,000 men, 547 tanks, 480 serviceable aircraft, vs. Anglo-American-Commonwealth forces of 195,000 men, 1029 tanks, 530 serviceable aircraft
Stalingrad was German + Axis forces 270,000 men, 500 tanks, 402 operational aircraft vs. 187,000 men, 400 tanks, 300 aircraft.
So that is actually somewhat similar in scale. However casualties at El Alamein were ~ 40,000 men for the Axis and ~13,000 men for the Anglo-American-Commonwealth
Stalingrad was ~ 700,000 German and ~1,130,000 Soviet so that shows you a much more brutal battle.
Kevin J
Banned
What I'm saying is that the dye was already set in 1941. Smolensk is the pivot point which eventually led to the defeat of the Germans. Its the time when Army Group Centre was split, one part going North to Leningrad which was never taken, the other part South to destroy the Soviet armies at Kiev. There was also the stiff resistance and evacuation at Odessa and Sevastopol holding out for 260 days. The German plan to defeat the USSR in 3 to 4 months had clearly failed in 1941. The Germans needed oil, they had to go south to the Caucasus, Von Paulus had to hold Stalingrad to allow their army group in the Caucasus to evacuate and to prevent oil transport up the Volga. The rot set in, in 1941 at Smolensk, and no matter what the Germans did after that, they simply couldn't win a strategic victory, and at Smolensk it was all done with Soviet equipment and men.
bbear
Airman 1st Class
Excuse me, I think perhaps we are missing something.
What followss is speculative and substandard "online/wiki research based" so feel free to ignore it or drop on it from a great height
I say the turning point is around June - October 1942. Counter attack at Smolensk to being held at Stalingrad. [4]
The bulk of additional airframes were British made Wellington, Spitfire V and Hurricane II [3]
Note no 8th AF or other US units operational in NWE or Med. theatres until late in the frame.
Also Russian production was a fraction of the UK's until later
Logic to explain why those three UK aircraft are the shortlist:
The BoB allowed the UK to adopt an aggressive posture (bomb raids at night, Rhubarbs by day, operation Jubilee, Bruneval raid, Desert, Taranto . . . ) requiring extensive defences and counter attack. With about 2,600 aircraft going to Russia at that time while perhaps an equal number were engaged in France, Germany, Norway and the Desert.[5] The flak guns to defend German airspace we know about. The BoB did not just deal with a risk of invasion, it meant that Luftwaffe dare not mount fighter/attacker sweeps of it's own in daylight. So taking out Wellingtons and Hurricanes on the ground never happened much. Thus the Wellngton's were free to bomb Germany by night, from airfields close to the coast and however ineffectual and cost;ly that ,might be German high command kept some of the flak/anti-tank batteries back
If not for the BoB the airforce attacking Russia could have been double what it was, and the air power sent against Stalingrad perhaps tripled.
The same would go for tanks etc [6],7]. All this comes about because the UK was swiftest to move it's economy and people to total war. For example the first year of Lend Lease supply to Russia was made in Britain. Which totality It's people might have lacked the commitment for before the BoB and the later night Blitz.
*see the armour for Barbarossa
Therefore for that and for Malta, the answer is Spitfire V.
References
on overall production [1] Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
and this on on aircraft produced per year [2] World War II aircraft production - Wikipedia
and this on RAF squadrons June 1942 [3] RAF Squadrons 1942
with this timeline [4] Timeline of World War II (1942) - Wikipedia
this about luftwaffe dispositions September 1942 [5] Luftwaffe Orders of Battle September 1942
armour for Barbarossa vs that kept back [6] Barbarossa, 1941
UK tanks for Russia [7] Soviet Tank, British Tank, USA Tank, Matilda Tank, Valentine Tank, Matilda II, The USSR
Note : from the fall of France and flank attack by hidden Matilda I's on the German supply line May 1940 it is known that they are immune to frontal 3.7cm fire, the largest available on Panzer3 at that time, though not in 1942. Barbarossa had relatively less 'Panzer IVs than III's and II's there were even some I's
Last edited:
