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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I saw an FM-2 flying around doing loops, split S's and stall turns at an air show, it was a surprisingly spry and sexy little thing. I guess not graceful compared to a Zero but then what was? But it certainly gave off real fighter vibes. If not a thoroughbred at least a good no B.S. quarter horse.

The Hornet was a sweet ride, definitely a thoroughbred... bit late for the war but a damn fine airplane.

Sounds like a lot of fun:

""...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!" "The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (1,200 m/min)"...

"For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket-like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"

475 mph and 4 x 20mm cannons in the nose. Climb to 20,000 ft in 4 minutes. Too bad they didn't have a few of those in 1941 eh?
 


FM2 had the 1350 HP low altitude engine making it very competitive with the Zero.
Had a Taller Tail and Rudder !
 
P-51 Mustang, of course. I am not a fan of this warbird, but it truely turned the tide.
 
Lightning was outnumbered, fighting the best of the best, forced to use the wrong fuel (in the ETO), tactically tied to the bombers, not allowed to attack targets of opportunity and were flown by inadequately trained pilots. Yet they turned the tide in all three theatres of war, decimated the Luftwaffe and the Japanese air force, and saved the daylight bombing campaign.

If you consider the American daylight bombing campaign an important component in winning the war, the destructions of the Japanese air arm, saving hundreds of pilots who came home on one engine, bringing the Luftwaffe to its knees, killing Yamamoto, demoralizing Goering after it escorted bombers to Berlin, going head to head with the best enemy pilots in the war and winning with some of the most untrained pilots the USAF ever put into combat during WWII, proving that bombers needed escorts and saving many a bomber crews lives, etc.

Some of you have seen this before…




by Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

I concur.
 
Unfortunately that chart and the accompanying text may be flawed. It leaves out too much of the P-47s contribution. for example when the First P-38 goes operational in in Mid Oct of 1943 in the ETO there are 7 P-47 groups already operational. However that does not tell the whole story either.

In Nov of 1943 water injection is not only being fitted to new P-47s on the production lines but kits have been sent to England and most existing P-47s in England will have been modified by the end of Dec.

P-47 groups in England are being expanded to 100 aircraft per group.

In Dec of 1943 P-47s in the field begin receiving paddle blade props, one squadron at a time.

AS of Dec 31st the 8th Air Force had 2 groups of P-38s and 10 groups of P-47s.

In Jan 1944 a program is started to equip all P-47C and Ds with racks for bombs or 108 gallon tanks under each wing.

On feb 19th 1944 the 8th Air Force has 2 groups of P-51s, 2 of P-38s and 8 groups of P-47s.

The P-38 was a very important strategic fighter due to it's range and it figured in a lot of strategic planning. But that chart seems to be a bit biased (or more than bit).
 
P-38's began escorting 8th AAF bombers just about 6 weeks before p-51's arrived in the ETO. Both P-38's and P-51's participated in the escort on the first mission to Berlin, early March '44. There were about equal numbers of P-38's and P-51's during the early spring '44; there is no way that the Lightning could have 'brought the Luftwaffe to it's knees' before the P-51 arrived in numbers in the ETO.

The P-38 had a bigger impact in the MTO and the Far East; but it's contribution in the ETO was not as spectacular, as it is made out to be in post # 1247.
 
Last edited:
Not time to read the entire thread but has anyone put forward the B24 Liberators? Not the bomber versions but the Mark 1 VLR type that had a crucial role in the Battle of the Atlantic. Without the ASW support it brought to convoys in mid-Atlantic none of the other aircraft could have operated in the ETO on the same scale due to lack of fuel, aircraft, munitions, spares, etc. Bit of a tease suggestion to be honest but it had a vital impact.
 

Yes, Liberator already put forward by me for VLR.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
And by me for VLR (ASW Atlantic) AND VLR (outside the "normal" combat zone surprise raids PTO), AND MTO, AND ETO operations. The old girl got around.
Cheers,
Wes
Click to expand...

The B-24 proved to be surprisingly useful as an airfield smasher in the MTO, I think it's the number one reason for lost Axis aircraft in that Theater in 1943.

I think it was far more suited to that kind of 'operational' bombing and the long range maritime role than to the 8th AF type Strategic raids.
 
The P-38 seemed to have a fairly gradual roll-out, only two FG active at a time in the Med up to the invasion of Italy and I don't think even a whole FG in the Pacific until mid 1943.

For example the 49th FG in New Guinea which was where Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire scored most of their victories only had one squadron of P-38s in 1943 vs two of P-40s, it wasn't completely equipped with P-38s until Sept 1944.

This is what I was able to determine of P-38 units in the PTO:

13th AF
18th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s, 2 squadrons of P-39s and one of P-70 night fighters (later P-61), fully equipped with P-38s by Aug 1944
347th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s, 2 squadrons of P-39s from Feb 1943, converted to P-38 3/3 squadrons in Aug 1944

5th AF
49th FG - 1 squadron of P-38s from 1942, 2 squadrons of P-40s, fully converted to P38s Sept 1944
475th FG - 3/3 squadrons P-38s, first mission in Aug 1943
8th FG - Started with P-39, then P-40, re-equipped with P-38s 3/3 squadrons from April 1943


In the MTO there was also a relatively light presence of P-38s until pretty late. There were 3 FG but only 2 at a time:

14th FG, basically decimated and withdrawn by Jan 43 (lost 32/54 pilots for 62 victory claims). It was replaced by the 82nd FG
1st FG doing mostly escort for B-24s
and 82nd FG which had the best record of the three, escorting both medium and hevy bombers and doing fighter sweeps.

They seemed to do better later on over Italy in late 1943 and 1944. I think maybe that is when the P-38 units racked up most of their MTO victories.
 
[QUOTE As to 'turning point' vs IJN the two months between Coral Sea and the end of Midway battle in early June would have to the focus. Does anybody have a better nomination than Stalingrad and Midway (and perhaps BoB in September 1940) for definable 'turning points'?[/QUOTE]

I do believe early december 1941 to be the turning point if not the high tide. With the Germans being stopped before Moskow (and Rundsted retreating Rostov a couple of days earlier if memory serves), operation barbarossa had failed. The objective was knocking out the USSR in one season, actually 6 weeks was the original schedule. Even if German advances continued in 42 the nature of the war turned into a battle of attrition.

That Pearl Harbour was the decisive battle in the pasific war has been argued before and recently, I even think in the beginning of this thread. When USA wasn't knocked out, again attritional warfare secured that Japan would eventually loose. And even if it was Hitler that actually declared war on the USA a few days later, it did considerably worsen any chance of Germany winning the war of attrition. That is probably an understatement.

Bottom line is, that I see no chance the axis could hope for even a stand off after december 1941, even if they still had an impressive run of limited successes ahead of them.
 
Reap:
Saw a story about an SBD pilot, LT Stanley W. "Swede" Vejtasa, who on 8 May 1942 tangled w two A6M3 initially. He knew he couldn't out run them, so resorted to jerking, jinking and tight turns to get his nose guns into play. He knew the Zero could make tight turns, so he kept at it until a Zero pilot got lazy and failed to make a tight turn after their 3rd head on pass. It was at this time that he got hits on the first Zero where he burst into flames. One down, two to go. Swede was jinking and turning constantly, so his rear gunner couldn't see straight to get a shot. Head-ons and tight turns until the second Zero fail to keep a tight turn, enabled him to get strikes on aircraft number 2, which then went straight down. His third kill resulted from a head on pass, executed after a tight maneuver by the Zero. This near collision caused the SBD's left wing tip to cut the Zero's left wing near his fuselage . . . where the wing folded up over the cockpit area. Scratch Three Zeros! He calculated that this battle last @ 17 min. Swede soon began flying F4Fs where he later shot down 7 Japanese planes in one mission.
 
Imagine a similar event with a single Ju-87 Stuka vs. three Spitfires, or a single IL-2 Sturmovik meeting three Fw 190s. The bomber has no chance.
 
Good point, although there were (rather amazingly) some Sturmovik kills and Stuka kills too, especially with the D model that had the 20mm cannon. D3A Vals got a few victories too. So did Blackburn Skuas.

But the SBD does seem to stand out as a pretty good brawler as bombers go. It probably had the best record for any single engined bomber in air to air combat. It had the maneuverability of a dive bomber with a rather exceptionally sturdy and well protected construction of many US Navy planes. Part of what was needed was better training - the scout squadron SBD pilots got some air to air gunnery training but the dive bomber squadron pilots didn't so much. Swede Vejtasa himself said that his colleagues in that same action got killed because they didn't know to make hard, high G turns (and later, to do slips etc.) when first attacked by Zeros, that is how he evaded the shooting passes. IIRC he had three colleagues shot down in rapid succession at the beginning of that fight he was in.

The twin nose guns on the SBD were hard hitting and sufficient to kill Japanese single-engined aircraft. That meant the SBD could do head on passes if it could turn to face an attacker. The SBD could also turn sharply enough to evade attacks at least for the moment. This got a lot harder when multiple planes were attacking (with one able to attack if you turned left and another if you turned right). In practice, the SBD proved sufficient as an "emergency fighter" against lumbering B5N torpedo bombers and slow E-13 float plane scouts, and maybe F1M "Pete" floatplane fighters, but not much else. It wasn't really fast enough to catch G4M Bettys, or nimble enough to catch D3As (except on a couple of occasions). The Zero completely outclassed it and even aces like Vejtasa were terrified when they had to engage Zeros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
460
eagledad
E
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register