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

[Kevin J]

On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.

All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time

The Hurricane held the line until larger numbers of Spitfires became available, and American aircraft arrived in the hundreds of thousands.

 

[WJay]

Considering the question...
I submit the aircraft is the DC-3/ C-47.
I know this aircraft as The Goony Bird in Vietnam.

 

[pbehn]

On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.

All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time

That was basically my point. Spitfire production was much lower than Hurricane production until the new factory started producing which was during the BoB. There were two month between the fall of France and August 17 1940.

 

[Barrett]

I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.

 

[pbehn]

I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.

Which Hurricane wing? Until just before the war they were dope covering a metal lattice frame, the last were changed to metal skinned in 1940.

 

[Norman]

I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.

C-47.

 

[Norman]

I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.

C-47.

 

[Graeme]

I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.

Going by Len Deighton (Blood, Tears and Folly - pp353)...

"By the time war came, 299 Spitfires had been built using 24 million man-hours while 578 Hurricanes had been produced for only 20 million man-hours".

 

[wingnuts]

Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.

 

[The Basket]

If you look at say the DC-3 then you could say DC-5 or C-46 or Lockheed Lodestar so important as the DC-3 was it was not unique as there were alternatives.

Ju-52 was more important as Germany had less ability and less capability to design and build a rival.

Again with the Zero if a Diet Zero has only half the range then you only perform half the mission. So the Pacific war would have been very different. No Midway no Pearl Harbour and probably less expansion in the Pacific. So probably all good points for the Japanese. The Japanese would still have a naval fighter but probably something worse.

 

[nuuumannn]

Wingnuts; waaay ahead of you, mate. Take a look here:

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

 

[Juha3]

According to BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION by Michael M. Postan, HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR UNITED KINGDOM CIVIL SERIES, early Spitfire Is 15,200 man-hours vs Hurricne Is 10,300. This about Jan 1940.
And IMHO the reason of the greater part of the difference was that Hawker was a big aircraft manufacture, used to some sort of mass production, it had built 2,000+ Harts/Audaxes/Hinds in 30s. Supermarine on the other hand was much smaller manufacture, having build mostly small series of flying boats before the WW2. When Castle Bromwich got its production running its produced Spitfires clearly more effectively than the mother factory, in 1941 10,400 man-hours for Spit V.

 

[wingnuts]

Wingnuts; waaay ahead of you, mate. Take a look here:

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

I just posted the photo to show what was possible with the Lanc. I did not have time to read all the posts on the subject

 

[wingnuts]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet as I have not read all the posts, but one unlikely aircraft that really did a lot of useful work was the Fairy Swordfish, AKA the Stringbag. Although not turning the tide it did rather spoil things for the other side. Crippling the Bismark, The raid on Taranto, the battle of Cape Matapan, and numerous U Boat sinkings. and sank a greater tonnage of enemy ships than any other allied aircraft, even though it was regarded as obsolete by the start of the war it did last longer than the Fairey Albacore that was designed to replace it.

My top picks for the aircraft that did the most would be the Spitfire/Hurricane combination, the SBD Dauntless, and the DC-3/C47. I am sure the B-17, B-24 and the Lancaster would be quite high in the list.

 

[michael rauls]

C-47.

Thats a good pick. I think alot of people don't realize how important the c47 was.
To me a turning of the tide would be more of say a pivotal battle like Midway or El Alemien. But a case could certainly be made for a longer more all inclusive timeframe for turning of the tide so I'm certainly not going to try and talk you out of it...............Especially since I love the C47

 

[nuuumannn]

I just posted the photo to show what was possible with the Lanc.

Yup, and within the thread you'll see documentation poduced during the war on trials carried out with a modified Upkeep carrying Lancaster and its effect on its performance. All the information provided should give you a clear indication of the Lancaster's performance based on load carrying capability and fuel available operating at its MTOW with given engine power outputs.

As has been discussed, yes, the Lancaster 'could' carry a Little Boy (but only a Little Boy, not a Fat Man), but it could not carry out the atom bomb attacks as they were owing to insufficient performance, the reasons for which are readily available in the thread.

 

[wingnuts]

Yup, and within the thread you'll see documentation poduced during the war on trials carried out with a modified Upkeep carrying Lancaster and its effect on its performance. All the information provided should give you a clear indication of the Lancaster's performance based on load carrying capability and fuel available operating at its MTOW with given engine power outputs.

As has been discussed, yes, the Lancaster 'could' carry a Little Boy (but only a Little Boy, not a Fat Man), but it could not carry out the atom bomb attacks as they were owing to insufficient performance, the reasons for which are readily available in the thread.

Thanks for that, although I'm not really into "what might have beens". I spent most of my time in the RAF between 1965 and 1970 on Avro Shackletons, a descendant of the Lanc, they were able to carry nuclear torpedos but they were much smaller than the Little Boy and Fat Man.

 

[nuuumannn]

Ooo the Shackleton! Welcome Wingnuts, any stories you have, feel free...

Yup, we trade on the 'what might have beens' on this forum and a lot can be learned, particularly about what we think we know. Before the suggestion in this thread I had no idea about the Lanc being talked about as a nuclear bomber, none at all, and by the end of it, we now have considered, thoughtful input from so many individuals that has brought a peculiar and little known aspect of the Lancaster to life.

 

[wingnuts]

Ooo the Shackleton! Welcome Wingnuts, any stories you have, feel free...

Yup, we trade on the 'what might have beens' on this forum and a lot can be learned, particularly about what we think we know. Before the suggestion in this thread I had no idea about the Lanc being talked about as a nuclear bomber, none at all, and by the end of it, we now have considered, thoughtful input from so many individuals that has brought a peculiar and little known aspect of the Lancaster to life.

Apart from a short time, about 2 months, on Hunters in Aden (Khormaksar) after our Shack squadron disbanded and about 4 months on Argosys in Bahrain ( Muharraq) I spent most of my time in the RAF between 1965 and 1970 on Shacks, starting at RAF Kinloss in Scotland on T4s with MOTU, then on to Mk3s with 206 Sqn, then to Khormaksar on 37 Sqn and after Bahrain to RAF Ballykelly on the Handling and Rectification Flight (H&R). The best think about being on Shacks was the number of detachments we had, regularly to Norway, Iceland and all the bases in the Med, plus longer 3 month detachments to Majunga in Madagascar, Sharjah and Masirah in the Gulf, Changi in Singapore and a Westabout wold trip through Canada, the US and across the Pacific via Hawaii, Wake and Guam to Changi and then back to the UK via Gan and the Middle East.

 

[Stig1207]

having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.

All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time

The Hurricanes taking on the bombers and the Spitfires the escort fighters might have been the plan, but I think it seldom worked out that way. Being there in larger numbers than the Spitfire is the Hurricanes major contribution and also the main reason for the higher number of victories.