The mid Atlantic gap was a gap in coverage in the air, not on the sea itself. The significance of that is another part of the discussion, that gap could only be closed by an aircraft.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The mid Atlantic gap was a gap in coverage in the air, not on the sea itself. The significance of that is another part of the discussion, that gap could only be closed by an aircraft.There was post about the B-24 solving the mid-Atlantic gap and thus the battle of the Atlantic.
I don't know when those stories started but we do know a lot more about the code breaking and Huff-Duff and some of the side stuff now than we did in the 50s and 60s when the old books were written.
It was a lot more complicated than a few squadrons of B-24s were finally used for air cover and the problem was "solved" and if (insert stupid general/air marshal here) had only used a few squadrons of B-24s earlier the problem would have solved earlier.
The air coverage helped.The mid Atlantic gap was a gap in coverage in the air, not on the sea itself. The significance of that is another part of the discussion, that gap could only be closed by an aircraft.
Same bomb. The US renamed the bomb T-10With all the words in the English language to choose from how on earth did the Americans and British end up with two different bombs called "Tallboy" in 1945?
If the LW had gained Air Superiority in the UK, the invasion still would have not been possible because of the RN.I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.
I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.
Could do Okinawa to Japan, but even 2 stage Merlins might not get you to a safe height and Fat Man couldn't be carried internally, but Little Boy could.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.
Good analysisAlright, let's look at some numbers. The Lancaster B.I Special that carried the Grand Slam had a maximum range of 1,550 miles carrying a 22,000lb load at an all up weight of 72,000lbs.
A standard unmodified B-29 Superfortress had a maximum range of 5,830 miles and a gross weight of 105,000 lbs.
You might be underestimating a few things here. I'm looking at performance charts for the Lanc right now and I suspect you haven't taken into consideration reduced performance as a result of tropical conditions and extra drag from the modifications required to fit a Little Boy, let alone a Fat Man aboard the aircraft. Firstly, the bog standard Lanc Mk.I's performance suffers considerably in tropical conditions at maximum weight (66,500lbs max take off weight), it would be even worse at 72,000 lbs modified. Cruise altitude in tropical conditions becomes 17,000 ft at a speed of 162 mph. Range as a result would decrease as fuel consumption increases. The Specific air range drops from 1.01 ampg (air miles per gallon) to 0.95 ampg, fully supercharged in tropical conditions.
From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf
I'm still examining this so haven't come to a conclusion yet as to whether it might or might not be able to do it...
Weight is certainly not the issue as I identified earlier. It's the bombs' shape and the effect that carrying them would have on drag. The Lanc is much less powerful and less capable than the B-29 and as a result it's performance would suffer considerably in tropical conditions.
Agree, but 8AF made the contribution of destroying the LW by providing the bait for escorts. Though RAF escorted by P51s late war too.Right. And you think that USAAF 8th AF precision bombing was actually precise?
Their accuracy was probably not much different to the Lancasters at night.
Also, when Lancasters were sent against the German oil industry they needed fewer sorties to knock the facilities out than did B-17s.
Wellington raid on Berlin provoked Hitler to attack cities?Hurricanes and Spitfires were crucial in winning Battle of Britain, unlike the Wellingtons, Battles or Blenheims.
T-6 was used postwar for primary training; no need for PT's.I still say, for the US it was the PT-17. There would be no pilots for the AT-6, B-24, B-29 or B-36 otherwise. There were other PTs but not enough; PT-25, PT-19 & a few more, but the PT-17=N2S made the most pilots and therefore was the most important US airplane. The PT-17 contributed to the navigator and bombardier pools.
The entire idea from the onset, was to get Britain to negotiate for a peace - Hitler's ultimate goal nwas to quickly neutralize Europe so he could turn full force to the east.If the LW had gained Air Superiority in the UK, the invasion still would have
It's not just about sinking the uboats.The air coverage helped.
In 1943 the Germans lost 18 boats in Feb, 15 boats in March, and 17 boats in April. They lost 44 in May alone and they pulled out of the North Atlantic and deployed elsewhere, at least temporarily.
The first escort carrier showed up late May of 1943, I think they damaged one boat and sank other so the Escort carrier didn't "end" the problem either.
There were 4 (?) aircraft ship combos in May.
It looks like 18 aircraft kills (?) but only 4 are by B-24s.
Ships scored 14(?) in May. Feb/March/April saw ships sink 18 in the 3 months. Something else was going on? Or B-24s were that good at directing surface ships to the subs?
Except for the many nations who were not American and were otherwise engaged in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (read from 1932 for China). For example the Soviet Union which became quite busy in 1941.I still say, for the US it was the PT-17. There would be no pilots for the AT-6, B-24, B-29 or B-36 otherwise. There were other PTs but not enough; PT-25, PT-19 & a few more, but the PT-17=N2S made the most pilots and therefore was the most important US airplane. The PT-17 contributed to the navigator and bombardier pools.
The RN experienced a number of problems introducing Hedgehog to the escort fleet which lasted into 1944 and meant it wasn't a very popular weapon until then.The Hedgehog showed up in 1942, but similarly it didn't score a kill until Nov 1942 and didn't really become a problem for the U-boats until sometime in 1943.
The T-6 "postwar" did not turn the tide of the war.T-6 was used postwar for primary training; no need for PT's.
Exactly. There were too many events in too many disparate locations / times for any particular one to be the most important.The problem with this thread is that there wasn't a single tide that turned. There were multiple.
In 1940, Hitler's western offensive stalled and ultimately failed after the fall of France. That was due, in no small part, to the success of RAF Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Then we have North Africa where the tide turned in October 1942 after the second battle of El Alamein.
In the Pacific, there were multiple battles that could be said to have turned the tide. Guadalcanal and Midway spring immediately to mind but there's also the Battle of Kohima for Burma and probably others that I'm missing.
Then there's the Eastern Front where Stalingrad was a clear turning point.
I think each of these should be considered in isolation because, in many respects, they weren't really connected.
Well the 7th of June French Air Force Farman NC223.4 air raid on Berlin did not.Wellington raid on Berlin provoked Hitler to attack cities?
Greetings Warspite63,Further to the previous couple of posts, I think we need to agree on a definition of 'turning the tide'. To me, it means:
1. War is going generally against the Allies
2. The aircraft is deployed
3. War is henceforth going generally for the Allies
This excludes aircraft that might have had a major impact in prosecuting (or even hastening the end of) the war, such as the B29. It also excludes aircraft that performed a specific, important mission (shooting down Yamamoto, ferrying Japanese surrender delegations to their surrender ceremonies. This is not to say that these aircraft weren't important - but they did not turn the tide - the tide was inexorably rolling in already
From my (admittedly Atlantic-centric) perspective, I'm thinking of the Hurricane (BoB) and/or the B24 (closing the Atlantic Gap). The B24 also has the bonus of performing vital functions in other theatres
My 2 cents.....
...all valid. You're looking at the question from a more 'macro' perspective - which is pretty interesting. Well playedGreetings Warspite63,
I appreciate the sensibility of this. The argument I've made previously is that the aircraft that did the most to change the course of the war was not actually on the winning side, but was essential to a strategy and course of action that ultimately did determine the outcome of the war, the A6M Zero. My logic is this:
That's my two cents.
- The Zero was designed with sufficient range so as to be able to strike the enemy without fear of counterstrike due to the opponent's lack of range, especially enemy fighters. The Zero's range was a fundamental planning factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor. As a side note, it was the range of the Kate torpedo bomber that was most limiting and necessitated the Japanese fleet launching the attack from around 200 miles NW of Oahu. It is highly unlikely that the Japanese would have attacked Pearl Harbor directly without having the tactical advantage that the A6M represented.
- Pre-Pearl Harbor, Soviet intelligence had become aware of Japanese intentions and recognizing that war with Japan unlikely relocated sufficient forces from the Siberian front to mount a winter counteroffensive, stopping the German advance and regaining critical territories. This is Germany's first major setback on the ground and ensures that the USSR will not collapse and surrender.
- The Attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the United States in a way that an attack on the Philippines could not. This is the true tide turn of the war as it fully mobilizes US industry to the war effort. Not only does this bring the US in as a combatant, but its material capacity as well.