The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. (1 Viewer)

[WARSPITER]

So after going back and thinking about this, I don't think we can nail down a single aircraft that turned the tide of the war. Why? There were so many different aircraft and so many different roles. To say one had a greater impact over the other is pretty much impossible.

What if the Soviets did not have the Sturmovick?

What if the British did not have the Spitfire (the German's may not have been able to launch an invasion, but they did not know that at the time, and it was still instrumental in winning the BoB)?

What if the US dis not have the P-51 to escort the bombers?

What if the US did not have the Dauntless in the Pacific?

What if the US did not have the B-17 or B-24 and had to bomb Germany with B-18s?

What if the allies had not had the PBY or Sunderlands in the Battle of the Atlantic?

Just my two cents…

If we inflate this and add the other 98 cents ;

Would the Dauntless have had the run it did at Midway if the torpedo bombers had been behind rather than coming in first ?

Would the P-51 had such an effect if the four engined bombers were not with it to force the Luftwaffe to come out ?

The list goes on but aircraft were generally part of a whole - combined arms etc.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If we inflate this and add the other 98 cents ;

Would the Dauntless have had the run it did at Midway if the torpedo bombers had been behind rather than coming in first ?

Would the P-51 had such an effect if the four engined bombers were not with it to force the Luftwaffe to come out ?

The list goes on but aircraft were generally part of a whole - combined arms etc.

Agreed 100%

Its fun to talk about, but I don't think a single aircraft type can be nailed down as the one that most turned the tide.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.

B-29 # 44-86292

 

[GrauGeist]

B-29 # 44-86292

The first Atomic bomb got the Japanese leader's attention, but they were still resolute about fighting to the end.

It was the second Atom bomb that caused them to reconsider thier idea about fighting to the bitter end.

 

[pbehn]

Again, I'm simply observing that the Wehrmacht didn't need to invade. My scenario is improbable but far from impossibole.




I said nothing about night raids. The only reason daylight raids were prohibitively expensive was because of Fighter Command's radar-enabled C2 networks. Picture the concerted attacks on Chain Home that took place in August 1940 becoming the first priority for the Luftwaffe in early July 1940, or even sooner if Hitler kept moving after the fall of France. Even a modest break in Chain Home coverage would have significantly reduced Fighter Command's warning time, significantly reducing the effectiveness of RAF fighter interceptions while enabling the Luftwaffe relative freedom of manoeuvre inland, including taking out 11 Group airfields. Without early warning, Fighter Command's only option would be to maintain continuous patrols which are incredibly expensive in aircraft and still aren't effective against concerted, organized attacks.

Hitler only issued the Barbarossa order in December 1940 and no assets were diverted to that purpose until 1941. There's plenty of time for the Luftwaffe to significantly attrit Fighter Command's capabilities, potentially making 11 Group's airfields untenable.

All of that is possibly true but mostly based on post war knowledge. At the time, chain home was hard to knock out, if you look at the map you need to knock out at least 3 stations completely to make any sort of hole in the south east corner, and you never know if you have made a hole until you try it. German estimates of RAF losses and RAF training and production led them to believe they were winning, despite their own losses. While some were telling Goering the RAF was down to their last 50 fighters, those who were doing the fighting knew that was not the case. When Goering switched to Londons docks as a target all issues came together, he was running out of bombers and running out of daylight and decent weather and while the RAF may have been weaker in terms of quality, numerically it was stronger than ever, with a single "big wing" of circa 50 aircraft.

 

[Juha3]

I'm really late to the table
but
Gotta disagree about the Spit and Hurricane. Their role in The Battle is of course legendary bordering on mythic
but
THE WEHRMACHT NEVER CAME CLOSE TO AN AMPHIBIOUS CAPABILITY IN 1940.
Didn't even have bow-ramp landing craft, so offloading heavy equipment would've required seizing at least two Channel ports intact.
And that
was
just
not
going
to
happen.

My nomination: the Douglas SBD Dauntless.
Imagine 1942 without them...
At which point nominations are closed!

In fact Germans had bow-ramp ships, mostly improvised designs and swimming Pz IIs and underwater Pz IIIs and IVs, which could travel underwater up to a depht of 7m. Of course they needed to seize port(s) for longer term logistics but if the succeeded to form a beachhead, and this is a big if, they could attack ports from land side with armour support.

 

[special ed]

PT-17/N2S - Without pilots the other planes can't fly.

 

[PAT303]

Without the Spitfire and Hurricane there would have been no need for anything that came after because there wouldn't have been a base to launch them from.

 

[Jugman]

PT-17/N2S - Without pilots the other planes can't fly.

I agree with the sentiment, but would says the AT-6 deserves the honor. Really were plenty of aircraft that could serve as primary trainers not that many that could function as advanced trainers.

 

[Elvis]

What if the US did not have the B-17 or B-24 and had to bomb Germany with B-18s?

Expounding on that particular theory, how would Martin have further developed the B-10, to help compliment the B-18?

 

[GrauGeist]

Martin was involved with the Project A request by the USAAC, and proposed the XB-16 (Model 145) but it never went any further.

As an aside, the cannon tests conducted with the B-18 led to the cannon armed B-25.

 

[Shortround6]

What if the US did not have the B-17 or B-24 and had to bomb Germany with B-18s?

Well to show the "value" of the B-17 and B-24, if no B-17s then the US might have been using these

Last one (Out of 38 built) delivered in Sept 1940 so the Sept 1942 version would have looked like???
The US was fortunate to have the B-17, but the US would NOT have gone to war in 1942 with B-18s.
The Bombing campaign may have been delayed around a year (?) but good aircraft would have been built to do the job by late 1943.

 

[wuzak]

B-29 # 44-86292

You could argue that the B-29 and atomic bomb ended the war, but the tide of war had long since turned against the Japanese.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You could argue that the B-29 and atomic bomb ended the war, but the tide of war had long since turned against the Japanese.

The tide turns for Japan at At 7:56 AM on Dec. 7, 1941, one minute after their attack on Pearl Harbor commences. So, we could argue that the aircraft that turned the tide for Japan's war was the IJNS' Kate and Val bombers. Their attack on Pearl Harbor kicked a bickering, isolationist-leaning and complacent US Congress, industry and people into a focused mass of retributive destruction. If you kick a beehive, your boot may think it has an advantage, but you've just turned the tide and awakened the swarm.

 

[GrauGeist]

That can also be said of the Battle of Britain, the moment Luftwaffe bombers attacked population centers.

The result was immediate and sealed Germany's fate.

 

[Just Schmidt]

This one sure is a tricky one.

I agree with those who has observed that the tide didn't turn on one spesifik day because of one specific air action. But here goes.

The metafor with the turning tide refers to the high water mark. On the maps that can be said to have occured in late 42, though Germany in desember 41 had been closer to Moscow, and the Japanese would advance considerably in china in 44. But by and large, the push back or stalemate, in most thearters, started then.

This high tide is visible on the maps, and that is a point. Airpower did not decide the outcome in splendid isolation. If I have to choose one plane, I'd pick the P-40. I have to admit I was never that fond of this plane. To me the air intake on the later models looks just wrong, no matter how well it lend itself to shark mouth motives. The earliest models i consider to be far more harmonious in outlook. But i digress.

In my opinion the impoertanse of the plane is that it was there from relatively early on, and it was available in numbers. I will not go into the debate whether it was the best US fighter at any time, but it had few rivals, maybe the P-3...8? but it was more ready than this, and it served in all major theaters except northern Europe. Had it not been available, either less or worse fighters would have had to be used in the Pacific, East Asia and North Africa in especially 42. I'm not damning with faint praise, I just don't think it was the all round best fighter in any airforce at any time. Possibly excepting the Chinese.

As the tide was on the ground, it is impoertant that it lent itself well to ground attack. again maybe not ideal, but it did make for more adequate airframes to throw in during the important years where the axis were slowly blunted and the offensives ran out of steam. Even with a few thousand less allied fighters of decent ability around before the end of 1942, the allies would still have won the war, but the tide may have turned a little later. Of course other planes contributed as well, but few of them in as many theaters. The Hurricane may have served nearly as widely, and at least up to a point in larger numbers (I'd like to know if there were more operational Hurricanes than P-40's around in november 1942?), but I do consider the P-40 the superior plane. I know, only up to a point. The allies needed all the fighters they could get, and the lack of any (or at least all that served in meaningful numbers) would have been sorely missed.

But all in all, for the reasons here stated, I consider the P-40 a very good candidate.

 

[GrauGeist]

...and it served in all major theaters except northern Europe...

However limited, it did serve in Northern Europe.

The first USAAF victory over a Luftwaffe aircraft, was by a P-40C that crippled a Fw200 in 1942 near Iceland. The Fw200 was finished off by a P-38F.

In British service, the Tomahawk was based out of England for a short time in early 1941 with the RAF ACC for low level recon and served with No. 403 Sqdn. RCAF.

So the P-40 actually served in every theater and every continent (except Antarctica) during WWII.

 

[BiffF15]

I'm going to put up the T-6 and the C-47.

The first was used to teach a tremendous number of pilots from many nations. The result was it was invaluable in the production of pilots used to fly the planes that tried to hold the line, that held the line, and the ones that pushed the line back.

The C-47 carried goods that touched pretty much every allied country, as well as friendly combatant.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm going to put up the T-6 and the C-47.

I also like that the C-47 was copied and then produced by both the Soviets and Japanese. It must have been good. Is there any other Allied aircraft that can claim to be produced by both an Axis and two Allied nations? I'm surprised the Germans didn't copy the C-47 as well. They liked it postwar.

And everyone loved the Harvard/Texan.

 

[pbehn]

I'm going to put up the T-6 and the C-47.

In addition to teaching pilots it also taught NAA themselves about designing and producing metal monoplanes. It also gave NAA the British as a customer for their planes, which may not have been fighters but were soundly made aircraft which the British and Commonwealth were receiving from late 1938, a massive head start on many other manufacturers. Without that relationship and mutual understanding the first order for Mustang Mk Is may not have been made.