MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
And a lot of them were supplied to the Russians as well and I would classify that as Northern Europe.
I also agree that it did a lot of the hard yards without the glory the later aircraft got.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Dave - Actually the 56FS/54th FG did have P-40s in Alaska.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.
Same for the P-39...And a lot of them were supplied to the Russians as well and I would classify that as Northern Europe.
I also agree that it did a lot of the hard yards without the glory the later aircraft got.
I'm going to put up the T-6 and the C-47.
.....
The C-47 carried goods that touched pretty much every allied country, as well as friendly combatant.
Cheers,
Biff
The C-47 had Gen Eisenhower's nomination as "most valuable item of the war"... but then he WAS a career logistics/training/planning officer.
A valuable contribution to be sure and permitted airborne and air supplied operations but a turning point? Without the C47 the war would still be prosecuted albeit with changes, other, less suitable, aeroplanes substituting and alternative logistics employed.The C-47 had Gen Eisenhower's nomination as "most valuable item of the war"... but then he WAS a career logistics/training/planning officer.
The C-46 & C-87 had significant effect in keeping China (and the US forces in China) in the war, as they flew almost all of the "Hump" cargo flights over the high mountains of north Burma and and southwest China.
Fair comment though.Beyond the strict thread topic but I would give equal strength if not more to the combination of ground radar and fighter control system that Britain pioneered that allowed the Battle of Britain to be the first ever real time managed air war.
While I agree that Japan's defeat was inevitable, the tide (in my opinion, anyway.......) reached its high-point at Coral Sea, and turned decisively at Midway. Until Coral Sea, the Japanese ran riot in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, sweeping all before them. Hindsight tells us that they could not have achieved a meaningful victory, but the Japanese Empire was clearly in the ascendant for the first 5 months of the Pacific war. My 2 cents.........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.
The Liberator gets the credit.There is a case for the VLR Liberator in Coastal Command. Certainly its impact was far greater on the Atlantic Campaign than the number deployed for that aircraft type. Closing the air gap in the central Atlantic was a crucial part of tipping that balance in favour of the Allies in the ETO.
There's valid arguments in all the replies which leads us to only one conclusion as to which plane turned the tide of WW2, all of them.
And teamwork.Right, it's the same as asking what tank or what rifle or what battleship turned the tide. None of them, because WWII was a battle of systems; that battle was between weapons, weapons-systems, economic systems, and leadership.
Agreed. Very much one piece of the complex ASW jigsaw that came together so effectively by May 1943.The Liberator gets the credit.
But the stuff that made the Liberator work gets skipped over.
And the changes in surface ASW are also glossed over.
Much of WW2 was therefore about the ability to carry 50Cal Mgs and 22mm cannon over various distances and heights?Agreed. Very much one piece of the complex ASW jigsaw that came together so effectively by May 1943.
You lost me there?Much of WW2 was therefore about the ability to carry 50Cal Mgs and 22mm cannon over various distances and heights?
Well ASW equipment was there, it was a fact that it was there on land, the Liberators ability to carry the stuff to the middle of the Atlantic and loiter there changed things, as much as the ability to make the ASW equipment did in the first place. A 50Cal or 20mm cannon didnt do anything at all for the air war until it was put in an aircraft.You lost me there?
Plenty of .50 caliber and 20mm AA guns.Well ASW equipment was there, it was a fact that it was there on land, the Liberators ability to carry the stuff to the middle of the Atlantic and loiter there changed things, as much as the ability to make the ASW equipment did in the first place. A 50Cal or 20mm cannon didnt do anything at all for the air war until it was put in an aircraft.