Likewise, the PT-17 didn't.The T-6 "postwar" did not turn the tide of the war.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Likewise, the PT-17 didn't.The T-6 "postwar" did not turn the tide of the war.
I think of the Fall of 1942 as the high water mark of the Axis in all Theaters. After Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Torch, and Stalingrad the Axis never had the Strategic Initiative through the end of the War. Herman Wouk called the Fall of 1942 the "Global Waterloo". IMHO that means Allied aircraft in 1942 helped turn the Tide. The Wildcat, Dauntless, Spitfire, Hurricane, Swordfish, PBY, P-40, A-20 all contributed to turning the tide.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.
As you know I am against this one.B24
For the closing of the Atlantic gap.
Agreed. The Battle of the Atlantic was won primarily by the destroyers and corvettes of the RN and RCN. You can escort convoys with surface vessels alone but not with aircraft alone. Aircraft are a force multiplier but they are not the force. The pivotal convoy battles of May 1943 were fought at night without the participation of aircraft.As you know I am against this one.
The few B-24s (and crews) did excellent/exceptional work and showed the utter stupidity (criminal?) of Harris denying resources to Coastal Command.
However the numbers don't add up well.
May 1943 was the peak of the U-boat war losses (?) with over twice of the number of boats lost in any previous month of the war and only few later months coming close or exceeding (?) it.
The B-24s only sank 4 boats during that month. Which is 4 more than Harris managed to destroy in all the months of bombing German bases and construction yards up until that time.
The B-24s may have hindered German operations to larger degree to than just the loses would indicate. They knew that from WW I, despite arguments by the strategic bombing school.
But there were other things going on. The Allies don't sink over twice the number of U-boats over the next deadliest month of the war from Sept 1939 to April 1943 just by luck. It was probably a combination of number of things. Some of which (code breaking?/Huff-duff?) were held secret for a number of years after the war.
Better weapons only accounted for a one/two sinkings each, better sensors got ships/aircraft into killing positions, Huff-duff and code breaking may have accounted for a few more. The Escort carrier got one or two which was certainly not a deal breaker by itself. Maybe better weather in May allowed for a better results from a few contacts? It was the total that was the deal breaker.
The B-24 may have been the most visible.
Here again is the British making different priorities, that are certainly dumb in retrospect.Let's not forget the Short Sunderland's contribution in the Battle of the Atlantic.
First of all I totally agree with your comments about Harris and I would add the cowardice of those above him (including Churchill) in not standing up to him. Churchill famously said that the only thing that ever really worried him, were the German U Boats. He was probably the only man who could have insisted on the transfer of Lancaster's to CC but didn't.As you know I am against this one.
The few B-24s (and crews) did excellent/exceptional work and showed the utter stupidity (criminal?) of Harris denying resources to Coastal Command.
However the numbers don't add up well.
May 1943 was the peak of the U-boat war losses (?) with over twice of the number of boats lost in any previous month of the war and only few later months coming close or exceeding (?) it.
The B-24s only sank 4 boats during that month. Which is 4 more than Harris managed to destroy in all the months of bombing German bases and construction yards up until that time.
The B-24s may have hindered German operations to larger degree to than just the loses would indicate. They knew that from WW I, despite arguments by the strategic bombing school.
But there were other things going on. The Allies don't sink over twice the number of U-boats over the next deadliest month of the war from Sept 1939 to April 1943 just by luck. It was probably a combination of number of things. Some of which (code breaking?/Huff-duff?) were held secret for a number of years after the war.
Better weapons only accounted for a one/two sinkings each, better sensors got ships/aircraft into killing positions, Huff-duff and code breaking may have accounted for a few more. The Escort carrier got one or two which was certainly not a deal breaker by itself. Maybe better weather in May allowed for a better results from a few contacts? It was the total that was the deal breaker.
The B-24 may have been the most visible.
Aircraft should be thought of as weapons systems. The B-24s effectiveness improved dramatically with the addition of centimetric radar. Also operational research had a lot to do with improved performance. Setting depth charges to lower settings, much better navigation aids, vastly improved tactics , training, training, training. The B-24 of 1943 was a much better sub killer compared to the B-24 of 1942.As you know I am against this one.
The few B-24s (and crews) did excellent/exceptional work and showed the utter stupidity (criminal?) of Harris denying resources to Coastal Command.
However the numbers don't add up well.
May 1943 was the peak of the U-boat war losses (?) with over twice of the number of boats lost in any previous month of the war and only few later months coming close or exceeding (?) it.
The B-24s only sank 4 boats during that month. Which is 4 more than Harris managed to destroy in all the months of bombing German bases and construction yards up until that time.
The B-24s may have hindered German operations to larger degree to than just the loses would indicate. They knew that from WW I, despite arguments by the strategic bombing school.
But there were other things going on. The Allies don't sink over twice the number of U-boats over the next deadliest month of the war from Sept 1939 to April 1943 just by luck. It was probably a combination of number of things. Some of which (code breaking?/Huff-duff?) were held secret for a number of years after the war.
Better weapons only accounted for a one/two sinkings each, better sensors got ships/aircraft into killing positions, Huff-duff and code breaking may have accounted for a few more. The Escort carrier got one or two which was certainly not a deal breaker by itself. Maybe better weather in May allowed for a better results from a few contacts? It was the total that was the deal breaker.
The B-24 may have been the most visible.
Here again is the British making different priorities, that are certainly dumb in retrospect.
View attachment 770381
Short Seaford, first flown in Aug 1944, production in 1945/post war.
A Sunderland with Hercules engines, a taller tail and a little fuselage stretch (?).
But Bomber command needed ALL of the Hercules engines that were not going into Beaufighters (Harris may have been gnashing his teeth at those).
Or just give 2-3 squadrons of Lancs or Halifax's to CC (losses from one bad night of BC operations) and the "gap" is closed 1-2 years early.
These are things that are hard to measure.I can see where you are coming from but I have a slightly different opinion. The value of the B24 in the Atlantic Gap wasn't so much the losses they caused, it was their presence. The escort could capture a estimate of where the U Boat might be from Radar, Huff Duff, whatever and direct the B24 to investigate. This did a few things: -
Not all round. The wingspan of the Sunderland and Seaford/Solent were exactly the same. 112ft 9.5in. The fuselage and tailplane of the Seaford were redesigned. The fuselage of the Seaford was extended by about 3ft forward of the wings. The planing bottom of the hull was completely redesigned. And the tailplane was also taller and faired into the fuselage.Post war the Seaford was civilianised as the Solent. It is a much bigger aircraft all round than the Sunderland. MoTaT in Auckland NZ have one of each side by side and the difference in size is very noticeable.
It also took until 1944 to even trial P&W R-1830s in Sunderlands. For Australia but the British were already using the same engines in Dakota's and Catalinas (for years), didn't reach operations until Feb 1945? Main difference was that with the R-1830s the Sunderland could stay in the air with 2 engines out on one side, With 2 Pegasus engines out on one side the plane steadily lost altitude. Constant speed does not always mean fully feathering.Not all round. The wingspan of the Sunderland and Seaford/Solent were exactly the same. 112ft 9.5in. The fuselage and tailplane of the Seaford were redesigned. The fuselage of the Seaford was extended by about 3ft forward of the wings. The planing bottom of the hull was completely redesigned. And the tailplane was also taller and faired into the fuselage.
upport Groups
While it is true that a number of destroyers were transferred from the Home Fleet to Western Approaches Command from March 1943, their usefulness was limited by NOT being equipped with centimetric radars (Type 271/272) OR HF/DF (ships allocated long term to Western Approaches had the priority for these equipments over Home Fleet destroyers), although some ships got these during their stint in WAC. And most of them received very little specialist AS training before embarking on their new tasking. There were other limitations. Lack of escort oilers meaning that these relatively thirsty short ranged destroyers had to be sent to ports periodically to refuel. And that also meant that the composition in the groups kept changing so practice as a team was limited.
I posted the record of escort carriers here:Escort carriers
The were only beginning to appear in the North Atlantic with only Biter & Archer operating regularly during the March - June period. (other RN escort carriers joined convoys as protection in this period during their delivery voyages to Britain, where they then had to go into refit to bring them up to RN standards - see loss of Avenger & Dasher for the reasons why amongst others).
USN
Somewhere I have some information on USN CVE operations in theis period and their changing tactics if anyone is interested. But no time tonight.
Except Harris was never in a position to deny resources to Coastal Command, he did effectively advocate for more resources for Bomber Command, mostly from February 1942 onwards, the more senior RAF people and the Government allocated resources.The few B-24s (and crews) did excellent/exceptional work and showed the utter stupidity (criminal?) of Harris denying resources to Coastal Command.
U-boat losses January to June 1942 total 11, by month July 1942 to June 1943, 12, 11, 12, 16, 14, 3, 6, 22, 17, 17, 40, 19. From Germany and the Second World War volume V2. The 40 lost in May was not matched until 41 in August 1944, then the final 2 months of the war. May came as part of a series of increased losses but without as many merchant ship sinkings. According to Lloyds the top 4 months of the war for allied and neutral losses to submarines were Nov-42, 120 ships 763,509 GRT, Jun-42, 144 ships 694,953 GRT, May-42, 130 ships 617,819 GRT, Mar-43, 104 ships 601,650. Apr-43 was 55 ships 309,875 GRT, May-43, 49 ships 260,115 GRTMay 1943 was the peak of the U-boat war losses (?) with over twice of the number of boats lost in any previous month of the war and only few later months coming close or exceeding (?) it.
Harris would point out such low returns by Coastal Command would justify using the aircraft as bombers. In 1942 Bomber Command dropped under 1,000 short tons on U-Boat yards, mostly in July, plus 260 short tons on Hamburg as city and U-Boat yards. The failure to bomb the U-boat pens while they were being constructed in France was a major error, in the end Bomber Command was ordered to area bomb them. Not sure how many U-boats were sunk by Bomber Command laid mines in 1942.The B-24s only sank 4 boats during that month. Which is 4 more than Harris managed to destroy in all the months of bombing German bases and construction yards up until that time.
On average 1941 to 1945 Britain built 999.4 Hercules each month, what Harris was mostly after in 1942 was Merlins for 970 Halifax and 711 Lancaster built to end 1942. There were 630 Stirlings built by end 1942.But Bomber command needed ALL of the Hercules engines that were not going into Beaufighters (Harris may have been gnashing his teeth at those).
Or just give 2-3 squadrons of Lancs or Halifax's to CC (losses from one bad night of BC operations) and the "gap" is closed 1-2 years early.
Sorties | hours | Average Sortie length, hours | Lost | Type |
5725 | 82065 | 14.33 | 46 | Catalina |
2069 | 16782 | 8.11 | 3 | US Catalina |
11411 | 131551 | 11.53 | 87 | Liberator |
6991 | 65740 | 9.40 | 29 | US Liberator |
14182 | 150478 | 10.61 | 95 | Sunderland |
116 | 986 | 8.50 | 5 | Lancaster |
365 | 3103 | 8.50 | 5 | BC Halifax |
3202 | 28707 | 8.97 | 39 | Halifax |
15847 | 128651 | 8.12 | 144 | Wellington |
I | II | III | V | Total | Where |
7 | 8 | 25 | 4 | 44 | CC |
4 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 13 | BOAC |
2 | 9 | 25 | 14 | 50 | UK Repair/reserve etc. |
0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 11 | En route from US |
1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 13 | Middle East/Aden/Malta |
0 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 21 | India |
0 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 21 | Canada |
14 | 56 | 67 | 36 | 173 | Strength |
11 | 16 | 13 | 0 | 40 | Lost UK |
0 | 19 | 3 | 1 | 23 | Lost Overseas |
25 | 91 | 83 | 37 | 236 | Total Delivered |
How is giving Bomber Command resources cowardice? Harris threatened people? Bomber Command units made 116 Lancaster sorties (6 attacks) July and August 1942, 365 Halifax sorties (7 attacks) October 1942 to February 1943, and 1,848 Whitley sorties (54 attacks) August 1942 to July 1943, mostly anti submarine in the Bay of Biscay.First of all I totally agree with your comments about Harris and I would add the cowardice of those above him (including Churchill) in not standing up to him. Churchill famously said that the only thing that ever really worried him, were the German U Boats. He was probably the only man who could have insisted on the transfer of Lancaster's to CC but didn't.
Changing the Sunderland engines from the Pegasus engine was considered for a long time with various mostly British engines being proposed, as a result the Twin Wasp idea was postponed while the other alternatives were worked through. The known engineering changes for the Twin Wasp Beaufort would be a consideration. There were 21 Lerwicks built.It also took until 1944 to even trial P&W R-1830s in Sunderlands. For Australia but the British were already using the same engines in Dakota's and Catalinas (for years),
Then there is the bigger picture. Planning for the Sunderland's successor had begun in 1939 with a series of Specs issued in 1939/40 and a further revision in March 1943. Shorts and Saro agreed to work jointly on the project. The product was the Centaurus powered Short S.35 Shetland, the prototype of which finally flew on 14 Dec 1944.It also took until 1944 to even trial P&W R-1830s in Sunderlands. For Australia but the British were already using the same engines in Dakota's and Catalinas (for years), didn't reach operations until Feb 1945? Main difference was that with the R-1830s the Sunderland could stay in the air with 2 engines out on one side, With 2 Pegasus engines out on one side the plane steadily lost altitude. Constant speed does not always mean fully feathering.
Basic point is that the Sunderland stayed in production from Dec 1941 to just about the end of the war with no improvement in powerplant.
The Seaford got Hercules XIX engines that were almost 70% more powerful than the Pegasus engines. But it took over 4 years.
The Lerwick got 1300hp engines (wasted them) or a bit more.
Plenty of 1375hp Hercules engines were built in in 1941-42-43 (running on 87 octane) that could have changed a bunch of things for CC and the sub war.
The few B-24s (and crews) did excellent/exceptional work and showed the utter stupidity (criminal?) of Harris denying resources to Coastal Command.. . .