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

pbehn said:

I am not an expert on Stalingrad but I thought the Russian tactic was to keep so close to the Germans that air power was largely nullified so aircraft weren't a major part of the battle.

Click to expand...

Readily agreed. But it was not just aircraft, possibly everything except transport were shared between East and West. I would need to check. It's a new thought, to me at least. Also a greater number of aircraft would enable an even more spectacular and cheap advance to that point, possibly carrying the tide across the Volga leaving Stalingrad isolated. I am no expert on anything, but if I was a Soviet General facing the onslaught I think I would be pleased to hear that the Brits had reduced by say 10 to 50% the forces approaching me.

Eastern Front.
Discussing Soviet counter attacks in 1941 and 1942, at Smolensk or elsewhere, please do not forget about the outcome.
On one hand - they delayed German advance. On the other hand - they left Red Army almost completely destroyed in 1941 and exhausted it in 1942 up to the limit. 14 year old boys were sent to trenches when Army Group A has broken into Caucausus. USSR's resources were huge but not limitless.

When it comes to Stalingrad specifically, also remember that the battle had to distinct phases. First there was the German attack as part of Fall Blau (Case Blue), August 23 - 18 November, during which the Soviets forced their troops to fight as hard as possible while giving ground (intentionally or otherwise) but holding on to the city and forcing the Germans to commit more and more and more troops.

During the first phase the Soviets held back most of their best resources, especially in their best tanks and katyusha rocket launchers and so on, but even down to rifles and bullets. They even moved food out of the city before the attack started (but left the civilians there). They also fought a very intense air battle but with many squadrons held in reserve.

Then the second phase, the Soviet counter-offensive called Operation Uranus was launched on November 19 1942. This included the great pincer movement that isolated the massive German 6th army, ultimately dooming them. With the start of Operation Uranus. This is where the Soviets committed most of their reserves, including almost 900 of their best tanks (T-34s and KVs on a scale the Germans had never seen before), most of the Katyusha rocket launchers they had, and 1,000 new aircraft, mostly against the hapless Romanian and other Axis troops that were all that was left defending the shoulders of the salient.

The air battle was very hard fought in both phases of the engagement. During Fall Blau, the Soviets struggled to fend off German fighters and were ineffective at stopping their deadly Stukas. The Germans smashed the city with bombs, and the VVS were so badly beaten by the Luftwaffe they eventually had to halt daylight operations. But once Uranus had started in November, with the additional units the VVS was back with a vengeance and were able to contest Air Superiority in an endless series of extremely bloody engagements, and prevented even the limited amount of air-resupply promised by Goering from saving the 6th Army. The Germans lost 495 transport planes at Stalingrad and 248 bombers. Soviet air support became a factor in the subsequent collapse of German forces and the Il2's destroyed many German tanks.

One significant factor in the air war at Stalingrad, is that at just about the worst possible time in early November, significant Luftwaffe assets were moved to North Africa to deal with the situation in Tunisia etc. So that is an interesting side note. Soviet air operations at Stalingrad were mostly fought with Soviet planes - Yak 1Bs, Yak-7s, La-GG 3s, I-16s, Il-2s, Pe-2s and so on, and toward the end some La 5s. They also had some P-39s and P-40s though I don't think enough to make a big difference.

According to Soviet sources I've read however, the real tipping point for Air Superiority was after Stalingrad, during the Battle of Kuban which went on for most of 1943. This is when the Luftwaffe was dam,aged in the East to a sufficient extent that the Soviets were able to achieve local Air Superiority. Units like 16 GIAP (mostly equipped with P-39's, as well as some P-40s) did well against the Germans.. This is where Aces like Pokryshkin made their bones. They did also have Spitfire Mk V's in the Kuban, which puts them in an important part of the fight, but they did not have a particularly good record and were withdrawn due to heavy casualties. The Germans lost 148 aircraft from April to May 1943, the Soviets lost 439. More importantly though the Luftwaffe halted operations in the area on June 7, due to losses.

It still overall looks to me like the Yak fighters and Il-2 ground attack planes may have been among the most important aircraft in the Soviet-German war in WW2, along with the Me 109 and the Stuka. I think for the Soviets, the P-39 was also quite important, followed by the P-40 and the Hurricane, and probably the A-20 bomber.

bbear said:

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

Click to expand...

Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.

As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.

The bottom line is that the Soviet-German war was decided in the Soviet Union mostly by Soviet pilots flying Soviet aircraft. The Lend Lease and other Anglo-American planes played a role, but the most important of those was definitely the P-39. As critical as it was during certain periods of the war, I'm not sure we can argue that it was more important for overall victory than the Yak and La types. It is possible though if you concentrate on that tipping point moment.

As for the Spit V, it was a very important fighter - the best Allied fighter in 1942 I would say. But it had it's own substantial limitations - it did not have sufficient range, it could not cope with the Fw 190, and did not do well as a frontal aviation fighter in Russia. The Spit IX was perhaps more important, and played a vital role as an interceptor capable of contending with any Axis aircraft. But it too was best used as an interceptor and had limits, Spitfires never played a key role in the Pacific and in Russia they were relegated to Air Defense - an important job but not war-winning.


We are left with the debate as to whether the BoB was a key moment in the war or THE key moment in the war. I would contend the former, it was very important, the RAF saved us all from doom probably, but it did not change the trajectory of the war. If the Germans had defeated the Soviets England would definitely have fallen, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

Schweik said:

Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.

As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.

The bottom line is that the Soviet-German war was decided in the Soviet Union mostly by Soviet pilots flying Soviet aircraft. The Lend Lease and other Anglo-American planes played a role, but the most important of those was definitely the P-39. As critical as it was during certain periods of the war, I'm not sure we can argue that it was more important for overall victory than the Yak and La types. It is possible though if you concentrate on that tipping point moment.

As for the Spit V, it was a very important fighter - the best Allied fighter in 1942 I would say. But it had it's own substantial limitations - it did not have sufficient range, it could not cope with the Fw 190, and did not do well as a frontal aviation fighter in Russia. The Spit IX was perhaps more important, and played a vital role as an interceptor capable of contending with any Axis aircraft. But it too was best used as an interceptor and had limits, Spitfires never played a key role in the Pacific and in Russia they were relegated to Air Defense - an important job but not war-winning.


We are left with the debate as to whether the BoB was a key moment in the war or THE key moment in the war. I would contend the former, it was very important, the RAF saved us all from doom probably, but it did not change the trajectory of the war. If the Germans had defeated the Soviets England would definitely have fallen, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."
That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.

Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.

Understood.

For the record, I too am attempting to answer the question in the OP: "The Airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war" so if you are indeed focusing on that same question, you are WRONG to suggest that I am addressing something different.

I think you - and many others, are overstating the importance of the BoB here, but I agree in your specific case it means we are defining the "turn the tide of the war" aspect differently, and in that sense we are taking a different approach. Please keep in mind though, this angle isn't unique - this particular discussion is only one of dozens on this site over very similar topics and this is page 40 of this one. You are only one of many people who have made this same assertion about the BoB.

The debate in this thread for the last 40 pages has been a mixture of (to me less helpful) attempts to "beat" the question in the OP by coming up with some clever concept that trumps everything else, vs. (to me more helpful due to a higher signal to noise ratio) attempts to really drill down into some of the key moments of the war to better understand their significance on a Tactical, Operational or Strategic level, and get into the numbers and the details in a way that better illuminates the realities. We did this with the SBD in the Pacific, squashing spurious attempts to claim that it wasn't significant there (such as the assertion that the Vought Vindicator could have done the same job). We also delved into tank warfare in the Soviet-German War.

Both approaches however do trip over the same fundamental problem of which Theater and which particular moment "turned the tide of the war". The SBD probably was the aircraft that did the most to turn the tide of the Pacific War, but where does the Pacific War fit into the overall puzzle of WW2. With Russia, you can look for precursors all over the place, to the earliest battles in 1941, to the Winter War, to the Spanish Civil War, to the Russian Civil War, back to WW I, to the Franco Prussian or Napoleonic Wars, or back to the Teutonic Knights, Alexander Nevsky and the Mongols. I enjoy learning about those other periods and know a lot about some of them, but I think though it's kind of pointless when you are talking about the WW2 air-war. Everything in history is affected by what came before but if you don't make a rational cut-off point you are starting to count angels on the head of a pin.

Here are the facts. From ~1936- mid 1942, the Fascists and what became the Axis powers were winning all over the world. All over Europe, in the Middle East and Africa, in China and the Pacific. In the air and on the ground. They lost some battles and experienced some setbacks, but ultimately they prevailed again and again.

Then from some time in the third or fourth quarter of 1942 they started losing, pretty much all over the world. So to me, that is the tipping point.

I think the British victory in the BoB was significant but to suggest it was the tipping point of the whole war is a bridge to far if you'll forgive the analogy.

bbear said:

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."
That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.

Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.

Click to expand...

The TL : DR is that you haven't made a good case for why the Spit V or the Wellington turned the tide of the war. Since it's an outlier position you'd be obligated to make that case well.

Schweik said:

Civilian bombing of city centers, "De-housing" theories notwithstanding, did little to affect the war effort. The Wellington was a good versatile aircraft useful in many fronts, but it was not a key factor in winning the war.

As for Russia, they already had substantial numbers of P-39s in the field by Mid-1942. They also had P-40s and Hurricanes, and some Spitfires which had a disappointing record in combat. Their own Yak-1B and La 5 were available in numbers in 1942, as were the excellent Pe-2 bomber and the often doomed but deadly Il-2 attack plane. The Yak-9 came out toward the end of the year.

The bottom line is that the Soviet-German war was decided in the Soviet Union mostly by Soviet pilots flying Soviet aircraft. The Lend Lease and other Anglo-American planes played a role, but the most important of those was definitely the P-39. As critical as it was during certain periods of the war, I'm not sure we can argue that it was more important for overall victory than the Yak and La types. It is possible though if you concentrate on that tipping point moment.

As for the Spit V, it was a very important fighter - the best Allied fighter in 1942 I would say. But it had it's own substantial limitations - it did not have sufficient range, it could not cope with the Fw 190, and did not do well as a frontal aviation fighter in Russia. The Spit IX was perhaps more important, and played a vital role as an interceptor capable of contending with any Axis aircraft. But it too was best used as an interceptor and had limits, Spitfires never played a key role in the Pacific and in Russia they were relegated to Air Defense - an important job but not war-winning.


We are left with the debate as to whether the BoB was a key moment in the war or THE key moment in the war. I would contend the former, it was very important, the RAF saved us all from doom probably, but it did not change the trajectory of the war. If the Germans had defeated the Soviets England would definitely have fallen, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

Click to expand...

In the first 5 months of 1942, it was the Hurricane that was the most numerous allied lend lease fighter available. 1588 Hurricane IIb's were shipped to them in 1941/42. From the end of 1941 came the first deliveries of P-40's, and a few P-39's for evaluation and bug sorting. The P-39 only comes into prominence in 1943/44 with the delivery of 1097 N's and 3291 Q's, there being only 648 deliveries in 1941/42. If the Germans had defeated the Soviet, England wouldn't have fallen because the Americans could never allow that to happen as Nazi Germany would have become an existential threat not just to them but all the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

bbear said:

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. I am answering, trying to answer, a slightly different question. My question is the one literally stated. "
The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war."
That is different from the airplane that that won, or pushed back most, or that took the biggest tally. For me the tide turns at the point where it's movement becomes zero. No aircraft introduced after that point can cause the tide to come to zero. So all the Uranus aircraft are ruled out, for me, according to the exact question I'm addressing. A cause must precede the effect. I am saying the BoB did change the course of the war by allowing the RAF to support aggressive acts and posture, thus holding down assets which could have been thrown at the Soviets, causing a different turn point on the map and the calendar and imperiling Uranus and the rest of the OTL. I concede that I have yet to prove this.

Again and so there is no misunderstanding: I have no objections or protests to your approach to the question and your conclusions seem fine to me according to your interpretation.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

For clarity the two questions I refer to are the same word for word, it's just as I see it the word 'turn' means something different in each. My 'turn' has happened when the highest extent of the tide is reached that is when the tide stops. So the cause of that stop must come before that point.

So you understand my interest:
I'm trying, by discussion and research, to see whether it can be shown that broadly the Axis was brought to a halt before superior craft were manufactured in significantly larger numbers than the Axis possessed. I believe that as soon as any fascist armed force came up against an equal or near equal force, they lost, and when faced withb a numerically bigger a and better armed force they lost heavily. No magic Rommel, no magic Krupps arsenal, no Aryan superiority, no supermen, no 'strength' in merciless butchery.

I'm saying that achieving that equality took until June - September 1942.. The equality being built partially by manufacture of inferior types in the UK but because the power houses of war production in USSR and USA moved so decisively to out produce the Axis with superior weapons like the T34 and Sherman, the P39 and P51 the "signal" of fascist inferiority as a military doctrine is lost in the "noise" of American dollars.

I'm counting the Hurricane 1, Wellington Spitfire I and TBD as inferior to later types. I'm ambivalent about the IL2 and Yak.

I accept this is an outlying position and accept my obligation to prove my case is reasonable.. I have produced numbers from online sources. I am checking against a small stack of books. I am asking for time and criticism to help me with this obligation. If you are willing to take up the challenge of criticism I look forward to addressing the details with you once my checks are complete.

Thanks again for your time.

I for one am certainly not a believer in the inherent superiority of German anything, or that wearing a black shirt or shooting prisoners makes you tougher.

However, we can overstate the revision too. German pilots were good, German planes were good, and their tactics were effective. I agree with you that Allied forces reached parity and then the tide certainly turned, but it took a while didn't it? Lets also not forget that the Soviets all too gleefully joined the Germans in their brutal, murderous invasion and partition of Poland and the Baltic States, aggressively invaded Finland, mercilessly purged their own civilian population and military leadership, and were themselves generally just as inclined to engage in policies of Total War as the Germans were. These were generally in vogue in the late 30's. Even the Anglo-Americans had little problem rationalizing the "de-housing" and mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany alone in the Strategic Bombing campaigns, not to mention Japan and other places just caught in the middle.

More pertinent to your point, the 'tide' didn't change in 1940 - the Germans and Italians went on to conquer Greece and Yugoslavia in 1941, invade and capture Crete in 1941, conquer much of the Middle East, invade and brutally devastate the Soviet Union, coming very close to conquering them as well... the Japanese in the Pacific went on from China and Manchuria to the conquest of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and much of the South Pacific, and did not even slow down until Coral Sea in 1942.

The tide, in other words was still a flow tide to put it in nautical terms. To stretch the analogy, the BoB represented a functional shore break which prevented Britain being inundated by the initial flood. And that certainly did have knock-on consequences. But I don't think it changed it to an ebb tide.

That said, I appreciate your polite tone and you have as much right as anyone to develop your theories on here. That is what the forum is for.

S

If you are inclined to podcasts I really recommend Dan Carlin's "Logical Insanity" podcasts on the pre-war theories about Total War and as it relates to bombing and the use of air power.

Hardcore History 42 – (BLITZ) Logical Insanity

Kevin J said:

In the first 5 months of 1942, it was the Hurricane that was the most numerous allied lend lease fighter available. 1588 Hurricane IIb's were shipped to them in 1941/42. From the end of 1941 came the first deliveries of P-40's, and a few P-39's for evaluation and bug sorting. The P-39 only comes into prominence in 1943/44 with the delivery of 1097 N's and 3291 Q's, there being only 648 deliveries in 1941/42. If the Germans had defeated the Soviet, England wouldn't have fallen because the Americans could never allow that to happen as Nazi Germany would have become an existential threat not just to them but all the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

Click to expand...

This is wrong.

Read the article I linked. P-39s arrived in Russia in Dec 41 / Jan 42. They went through a 3-4 month workup up until April of 42, and this extended workup almost certainly contributed to the success these units had with the type. By June 1942 the P-39 "cobra" as the Russians called it was deployed in large numbers on the front and had a high success rate. As a fighter with good armor, working radios, and arguably as fast or faster at low altitude than all the existing fighters on the front on both sides, at least at combat altitudes they were fighting in, it was a major shot in the arm for them. I'm not sure precisely how many they had in combat in 1942, but even ~ 600 planes on the front, if they were considerably better than the I-16s, MiG-3, LaGG-3 and early Yak-1 and Yak 7 types that made up the vast bulk of Soviet fighter forces, was a major help.

Note for example the 28 GIAP, active from 30 June 1942 until Sept 1942. With 20 P-39s, they claimed 64 enemy aircraft for 8 aircraft and 3 pilots lost. Even if you don't believe their claims (which were backed up by identity planes from the crashed aircraft, with aircraft crashing inside German lines not counted) the very low loss rate for this period in the VVS in three months of fighting stands out like a sore thumb - many other Soviet fighter squadrons were 'reduced' to non-flying status in just 2 or 3 weeks in the same period.

They also had substantial numbers of Hurricanes and a substantial number of Tomahawks in 1942, but they did not have as much success with these. Both Hurricanes and Tomahawks shipped to Russia were often battle weary machines already used in combat in the Middle East or elsewhere, with 'clapped out' airframes and engines. They had a lot of problems adapting the aircraft and engines to the field conditions in Russia, particularly Winter conditions, and the Russians themselves have said that in particular they did not like the Hurricanes as combat aircraft. The Tomahawks and Kittyhawks were better but suffered badly from mechanical problems especially burnt out engines, so they were only useful for a short time.

That said, you are correct to point out they got a lot of Hurricanes and they were in use in front line squadrons, notably up in Finland for example, and the Soviets did have some Hurricane Aces. They may not have been as bad as they said they were.

There were many more P-39s in 1943 but by then the Soviets had their own capable planes in large numbers: the Yak-1B, Yak-9, and La 5 and 5FN. Those few Lend Lease planes they had in 1942 were almost certainly more critical to the war effort.



A few stats on deliveries from here:

Aircraft Deliveries

quote:

"In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machine tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. "

and also:

"Some American aircraft types were simply irreplaceable and very highly appreciated on all levels during the war, e.g. P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft."

bbear said:

Thank you.

For clarity the two questions I refer to are the same word for word, it's just as I see it the word 'turn' means something different in each. My 'turn' has happened when the highest extent of the tide is reached that is when the tide stops. So the cause of that stop must come before that point.

So you understand my interest:
I'm trying, by discussion and research, to see whether it can be shown that broadly the Axis was brought to a halt before superior craft were manufactured in significantly larger numbers than the Axis possessed. I believe that as soon as any fascist armed force came up against an equal or near equal force, they lost, and when faced withb a numerically bigger a and better armed force they lost heavily. No magic Rommel, no magic Krupps arsenal, no Aryan superiority, no supermen, no 'strength' in merciless butchery.

I'm saying that achieving that equality took until June - September 1942.. The equality being built partially by manufacture of inferior types in the UK but because the power houses of war production in USSR and USA moved so decisively to out produce the Axis with superior weapons like the T34 and Sherman, the P39 and P51 the "signal" of fascist inferiority as a military doctrine is lost in the "noise" of American dollars.

I'm counting the Hurricane 1, Wellington Spitfire I and TBD as inferior to later types. I'm ambivalent about the IL2 and Yak.

I accept this is an outlying position and accept my obligation to prove my case is reasonable.. I have produced numbers from online sources. I am checking against a small stack of books. I am asking for time and criticism to help me with this obligation. If you are willing to take up the challenge of criticism I look forward to addressing the details with you once my checks are complete.

Thanks again for your time.

Click to expand...

Thanks once again. I will certainly take an interest i the podcast.

Just to be quite clear, I won't be tempted into moralising war as such. I don't think that's what we do here. I have declared my interests. That is all. I'm not in he least implying that you are tempting me, just that the primrose path to ideology is there and I'm giving it a wide berth - to mangle my metaphors grossly.

I am trying to answer the question as asked. My interest is caught by the nuance in the word 'turn' and the slant that the answer is an inferior type. Because of what that would mean for democracy vs fascism. But that's strictly my cup of poison. As far as what I believe we do on this site, I'm really interested in the range of different answers that can be defended and what cannot be defended as rational.

I hope that's ok.

Schweik said:

This is wrong.

Read the article I linked. P-39s arrived in Russia in Dec 41 / Jan 42. They went through a 3-4 month workup up until April of 42, and this extended workup almost certainly contributed to the success these units had with the type. By June 1942 the P-39 "cobra" as the Russians called it was deployed in large numbers on the front and had a high success rate. As a fighter with good armor, working radios, and arguably as fast or faster at low altitude than all the existing fighters on the front on both sides, at least at combat altitudes they were fighting in, it was a major shot in the arm for them. I'm not sure precisely how many they had in combat in 1942, but even ~ 600 planes on the front, if they were considerably better than the I-16s, MiG-3, LaGG-3 and early Yak-1 and Yak 7 types that made up the vast bulk of Soviet fighter forces, was a major help.

Note for example the 28 GIAP, active from 30 June 1942 until Sept 1942. With 20 P-39s, they claimed 64 enemy aircraft for 8 aircraft and 3 pilots lost. Even if you don't believe their claims (which were backed up by identity planes from the crashed aircraft, with aircraft crashing inside German lines not counted) the very low loss rate for this period in the VVS in three months of fighting stands out like a sore thumb - many other Soviet fighter squadrons were 'reduced' to non-flying status in just 2 or 3 weeks in the same period.

They also had substantial numbers of Hurricanes and a substantial number of Tomahawks in 1942, but they did not have as much success with these. Both Hurricanes and Tomahawks shipped to Russia were often battle weary machines already used in combat in the Middle East or elsewhere, with 'clapped out' airframes and engines. They had a lot of problems adapting the aircraft and engines to the field conditions in Russia, particularly Winter conditions, and the Russians themselves have said that in particular they did not like the Hurricanes as combat aircraft. The Tomahawks and Kittyhawks were better but suffered badly from mechanical problems especially burnt out engines, so they were only useful for a short time.

That said, you are correct to point out they got a lot of Hurricanes and they were in use in front line squadrons, notably up in Finland for example, and the Soviets did have some Hurricane Aces. They may not have been as bad as they said they were.

There were many more P-39s in 1943 but by then the Soviets had their own capable planes in large numbers: the Yak-1B, Yak-9, and La 5 and 5FN. Those few Lend Lease planes they had in 1942 were almost certainly more critical to the war effort.



A few stats on deliveries from here:

Aircraft Deliveries

quote:

"In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machine tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. "

and also:

"Some American aircraft types were simply irreplaceable and very highly appreciated on all levels during the war, e.g. P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft."

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that they only had the British Cobras fighting in mid 42, about 200, the American ones P-39D-1/K appeared in time for the air battle over the Kuban.

Without the Battle of Britain being won there would be no German losses at Malta, there would be no North Africa conflict. There would be almost no need for any German military in Western Europe, all could be concentrated in the east. There would be no 1000 bomber raids on Germany or need to defend against them with aircraft and guns. There would be no "air gap" in the Atlantic and no lease lend supplies to Russia across the Atlantic. All military equipment sent from the UK to Russia could be sent to the eastern front for the Germans. There are all sorts of "what iffs" about what could have happened if the BoB was lost, it is certain that things would have changed radically and not for Russias benefit.

pbehn said:

Without the Battle of Britain being won there would be no German losses at Malta, there would be no North Africa conflict. There would be almost no need for any German military in Western Europe, all could be concentrated in the east. There would be no 1000 bomber raids on Germany or need to defend against them with aircraft and guns. There would be no "air gap" in the Atlantic and no lease lend supplies to Russia across the Atlantic. All military equipment sent from the UK to Russia could be sent to the eastern front for the Germans. There are all sorts of "what iffs" about what could have happened if the BoB was lost, it is certain that things would have changed radically and not for Russias benefit.

Click to expand...

The terms of the armistice with the French was that their navy should return to French ports. Without these units Operation Sea Lion would certainly fail. Admiral Darlan was of course not going to let the Germans get their hands on them. The British made sure they wouldn't. Even if the RAF lost the BoB, the Germans couldn't get across the channel.

bbear said:

Thanks once again. I will certainly take an interest i the podcast.

Just to be quite clear, I won't be tempted into moralising war as such. I don't think that's what we do here. I have declared my interests. That is all. I'm not in he least implying that you are tempting me, just that the primrose path to ideology is there and I'm giving it a wide berth - to mangle my metaphors grossly.

I am trying to answer the question as asked. My interest is caught by the nuance in the word 'turn' and the slant that the answer is an inferior type. Because of what that would mean for democracy vs fascism. But that's strictly my cup of poison. As far as what I believe we do on this site, I'm really interested in the range of different answers that can be defended and what cannot be defended as rational.

I hope that's ok.

Click to expand...

It's OK with me, and even if it wasn't, I don't own the site or the forum.

I think the main reason for the initial advantages of the Germans and Japanese in particular, less so the Italians, is that they had determined to start a war earlier than the other States which became involved as the main players in the war. The Germans shook out a lot of their gear and figured out what they needed to fine-tune, what they needed to drop etc., in the 1930's in the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese in Manchuria. One of the things that "Logical Insanity" get's into is the immense impact that was still being felt from WW1 particularly in Europe. Part of the reason for the seemingly crazy doctrines of total war from the air, ala Guernica etc. in it's early incarnations, was as a theory of how to avoid the long bloody stalemate of Trench Warfare. The early doctrine actually included the use of poison gas against civilian centers, on the premise that this escalation would bring the war to a far swifter conclusion and therefore save countless lives.

It was a faulty conclusion though because just like the maxim machine gun, modern artillery, the war plane and every other innovation of war in the last 150 years, humans adapt even when the horrors go far, far beyond the pale of what most of us today (or more generally, most people who have lived in peace) think we could endure. When total war includes annihilation of civilians especially, the will to resist can firm up under the abuse, no matter how brutal. We have seen this over and over all over the world. The US bombing campaign in North Korea as just one example, was incredibly unrestricted, and yet it did not win the war.

I'm not straying into ideology or moralism mind you, at least not far - the flaws in these doctrines led to negative outcomes.

The Germans were smarting from their ill treatment in the wake of WW I and many of them - especially among the faction that took over, wanted another chance to win it. This influenced their determination to go to war again, which many of the other European powers thought was unthinkable, and by the time they accepted the reality that another, even worse Total War was on the horizon, the Germans and Japanese (for slightly different reasons) were already well along the road to developing their militaries for serious purposes.

The Soviets should have known better since they actually helped the Germans redevelop the Luftwaffe on Soviet territory in the 30's, allowing them to evade Versailles Treaty monitoring.

Ultimately the decisions made by Germany in the 1930's were very bad for Germany and for the German people. Which is probably why they don't seem very warlike today compared to some other States.

Kevin J said:

The terms of the armistice with the French was that their navy should return to French ports. Without these units Operation Sea Lion would certainly fail. Admiral Darlan was of course not going to let the Germans get their hands on them. The British made sure they wouldn't. Even if the RAF lost the BoB, the Germans couldn't get across the channel.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to, the Germans didn't invade all of France, they didn't capture Paris.

Something interesting about this is the difference in degree of consensus in different theaters. It seems that there is a consensus, at least for the most part, that for the Pacific theater the SBD was probably the aircraft that did the most to turn the tide but in other theaters opinions seem to varry much more.
On the other side of the world there are more different engagements that could be thought of as turning points; Stalingrad,BOB, El Alemien etc. It's a tough call. Looking at it in realative terms i.e. which aircraft did the most to turn the tide not which aircraft turned the tide I think against the German/ Italian part of the Axis I would have to go with the Spitfire/Huricane combination. They stopped the Wermacht in the BOB then played substantial roll in pushing them back everywhere from North Africa to Western Europe, and to a lesser degree even in Russia. That's the way it looks to me anyway.

Schweik said:

Note for example the 28 GIAP, active from 30 June 1942 until Sept 1942. With 20 P-39s, they claimed 64 enemy aircraft for 8 aircraft and 3 pilots lost. Even if you don't believe their claims (which were backed up by identity planes from the crashed aircraft, with aircraft crashing inside German lines not counted)

Click to expand...

So the Soviets method of confirming victory claims was more credible and effective than that of the other airforces, Allied and Axis?