The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. (2 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

How many Hurricanes were on hand versus how many Spitfires were on hand for the Battle of Britain?

Also, the Luftwaffe wasn't beaten during the BoB, they withdrew because of a series of idiotic policies (which worked in Britain's favor).

 

[Ascent]

I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.

This is often repeated but not really true. You took on the aircraft in front of you in the one you were in.
And bombers weren't as easy a kill as some imagine, there's a lot of pilots who came a cropper by underestimating the bombers.

 

[Elmas]

N° 1 Spitfire, as it clearly show that Nazis coud be beaten , not only de facto, but also psicologically, that was even more important in that particular occasion;
N° 2 – P-51, as not being the master of its own sky is the nightmare of any Air Force: even in this case the psicological perspective was as important as the technical one.

From another post, by my personal point of view there were ten airplanes that sealed the Axis fate:

1st and most important, Spitfire. It clearly shown that Nazis could be beaten.
2nd – B24. It closed the N.A. Gap and made the Nazi submarine force useless.
3rd – Swordfish. The Taranto raid practically stopped the activity of the Italian Navy in the Mediteranean sea, on which Hitler was counting a lot, and its use against the Bismarck sealed as well the surface activity of Kriegsmarine.
4th – Lancaster. Not only for the damage inflicted, but because the thousands of 88 flak used against them could have been used very efficiently against Red Army tanks.
5th – B17. Ditto.
6th – P 51. Many German General understood, seeing a single engine fighter over Berlin, that the war was lost.
7th – P47. To hole the engine of a train that carried ammo or fuel was probably more important than trying, unsuccesfully, to destroy the factories.
8th – Typhoon. Ditto.
9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible of the air defence.
10th – C47 – Without logistic, no Army can fight.

All the others Allied planes, say Tempests, P-38s ( personally I love P-38...) etc. were "extremely useful", but they did not seal the Axis fate.

 

[pbehn]

I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.

That was a preference, in fact in many if not most cases it didn't happen. Despite being similar with the same engine they had completely different climb characteristics so one covering the other wasn't easy or wasted much time.

 

[pbehn]

Back to aircraft that won the war - looking at Europe the C-47/Dakota, the Merlin-P51 for making daylight raids covering the whole of Germany (notably the oil industry) possible, and on the Eastern Front the IL-2. In the Pacific - SBD and Hellcat.

Without the Hurricane where would you launch your raids with Merlin engine P51s from, I doubt the British purchasing commission would have ordered any P-51s, so no UK bases, and no P-51, and probably no Packard Merlins either.

 

[ykickamoocow]

9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible of the air defence.

Not entirely relevant to this topic but why wasn't the Mosquito used more than it was? I mean I read that it left for bombing runs over Berlin hours after the Lancasters did and it still made it before the Lancasters in order to mark areas for Lancasters to target. I also know that the Mosquito was far more accurate with its bombings than the Lancasters (eg Operation Jericho) so why was it that thousands more Mosquitoes were not built and them being used to target key infrastructure in Germany to cripple their war effort?

Surely the faster, and much more accurate Mosquito bomber would have been ideal for taking down the German war machine, but for some reason it didn't seem to get used nearly as much as I think it could have been, especially considering that its payload was not much worse than that of the B-17 but it had a huge advantage in terms of speed.

Are my impressions wrong, is there a reason why the Mosquito could not have been used as a strategic bomber to take out very specific targets?

 

[Husky]

Was not a plane, nor a ship, nor anything in-between. Was the American war arsenal. That's it.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Was not a plane, nor a ship, nor anything in-between. Was the American war arsenal. That's it.

No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.

 

[Husky]

No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.

Agree to some extent...but no. The US supplied the entire backbone of the entire allied effort...USSR included. Pick points and objects, sure...but, if not for the US industrial base and supplies....coulda, woulda been a different story.

 

[Husky]

The United States WAS the deciding factor.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Agree to some extent...but no. The US supplied the entire backbone of the entire allied effort...USSR included. Pick points and objects, sure...but, if not for the US industrial base and supplies....coulda, woulda been a different story.

Had the Soviets not been involved in WW2 then odds are the Germans would have won. Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then the Germans would have won. Giving all the credit to the Americans does not seem particularly accurate.

 

[Husky]

Had the Soviets not been involved in WW2 then odds are the Germans would have won. Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then the Germans would have won. Giving all the credit to the Americans does not seem particularly accurate.

A lot of 'had' there. History is what it is. The US supplied ALL. Not taking away due credit from allies, nor trying too. But, it is what is...without the US industrial base and logistical train....sorry.

 

[ykickamoocow]

A lot of 'had' there. History is what it is. The US supplied ALL. Not taking away due credit from allies, nor trying too. But, it is what is...without the US industrial base and logistical train....sorry.

The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.

As for the "had" argument, well you are doing that too, only you are saying "had the Americans not been involved then the Germans would have won"

Had the British sued for peace in 1940 before the Battle of Britain Germany would have had an extra 750,000 troops for Operation Barbarossa (250,000 that were in Norway/France to ward off British attacks, and 500,000 that were in North Africa), Germany would have also had an additional 2000 planes and some of their best pilots that were lost in the Battle of Britain and would have been able to attack the Soviets in May 1941 instead of June 1941 (since the British involvement in Greece forced a delay on the invasion of the Soviet Union).

So without the British, Germany would have had 2000 additional aircraft, 750,000 additional troops and an extra 4 to 6 weeks to invade before the Russian winter hit.

It is so easy to play the "had" game, and I don't think you should pretend that you are not playing it as well.

 

[Husky]

The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.

As for the "had" argument, well you are doing that too, only you are saying "had the Americans not been involved then the Germans would have won"

Had the British sued for peace in 1940 before the Battle of Britain Germany would have had an extra 750,000 troops for Operation Barbarossa (250,000 that were in Norway/France to ward off British attacks, and 500,000 that were in North Africa), Germany would have also had an additional 2000 planes and some of their best pilots that were lost in the Battle of Britain and would have been able to attack the Soviets in May 1941 instead of June 1941 (since the British involvement in Greece forced a delay on the invasion of the Soviet Union).

So without the British, Germany would have had 2000 additional aircraft, 750,000 additional troops and an extra 4 to 6 weeks to invade before the Russian winter hit.

It is so easy to play the "had" game, and I don't think you should pretend that you are not playing it as well.

Not gunna get into it with ya. You go play your war without the US.

 

[michael rauls]

I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?

 

[Husky]

I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?

I tend to agree. But are you constraining yourself to Europe?

 

[ykickamoocow]

I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?

I personally think

British/Soviets = possible, though the Soviets would take even more casualties
British/Americans = Again possible, but both the British and especially the Americans would take far more casualties as they would be fighting the entire German military instead of just 30% of it.
Americans/Soviets = Almost impossible since the Americans would not really have any way of attacking the Germans, or supplying the Soviets.

 

[michael rauls]

I tend to agree. But are you constraining yourself to Europe?

The other poster focused on Europe, specificaly " had the Russians not been involved the Germans probably would have won" so I was addressing that situation.
If one were to construct a situation where Japan attacks British intrests but not US so the that the US isn't fighting Japan either and it's just Britain and Russia against Japan and Germany then maybe but that scenario seems unlikely at best.
And I'm still putting my money on the Brits, Ausies, Russians,and Chinese even in that scenario.

 

[GrauGeist]

The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.

The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).
Then there was the "Destroyer for Bases" deal, where the U.S. traded 50 Destroyers to Britain in exchange for various British territories (September 1940).
The U.S. was shipping food, raw materials, and a wide range of goods to Britain.
The British purchased P-39s in 1940, B-17Cs in 1940, F4Fs in 1940 amd then the P-40, DC-2 and the list goes on...all before the U.S. entered the war.

So the U.S. was more than "remotely" involved.

 

[ykickamoocow]

The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).
Then there was the "Destroyer for Bases" deal, where the U.S. traded 50 Destroyers to Britain in exchange for various British territories (September 1940).
The U.S. was shipping food, raw materials, and a wide range of goods to Britain.
The British purchased P-39s in 1940, B-17Cs in 1940, F4Fs in 1940 amd then the P-40, DC-2 and the list goes on...all before the U.S. entered the war.

So the U.S. was more than "remotely" involved.

Most of which happened after the Battle of Britain. FDR refused to help when it looked like the British might lose.