The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[PAT303]

And of these two the Hurricane made the greatest difference.

The Hurricane shot down more aircraft for the simple fact there was more of them but in turn all being equal pilots of Hurricanes were more likely to be shot down and killed than Spitfire pilots, they complimented each other would be a better way to explain the contribution they both made in winning the BoB

 

[NevadaK]

By the time of Pearl Harbor, there were less than 400 A6Ms (all types) in service.

The A6M was not a consideration for the planning of Pearl Harbor. The fact that Kido Butai being Japan's front line carrier force was first to transition to the A6M, saw them in force.

The A5M, which was still a capable fighter, would have been employed as cover if the A6M had been delayed or not worked up in numbers. The A5M continued in service until May '42, when sufficient numbers of A6Ms had been delivered fleet-wide.

It was politics that put the attack in place, not the hardware.

Greetings GrauGeist,

Policy and Technology have a way of informing one another. I admit my argument is a bit hyperbolic, but it is intended to respond to the OP's question rather than be a full summation of the events that transpired in 1941. In some ways this reminds me of how the F-117 informed/affected strategy and policy making the late 80's early 90's. We can say our response in Kuwait was politics, but it was politics also enabled by hardware.

Best, Kk

 

[yulzari]

The Hurricane shot down more aircraft for the simple fact there was more of them but in turn all being equal pilots of Hurricanes were more likely to be shot down and killed than Spitfire pilots, they complimented each other would be a better way to explain the contribution they both made in winning the BoB

I agree that the Spitfire complemented the Hurricane but the key thing about the Hurricane was simply that it was there in greater numbers.

 

[Elvis]

Wasn't it Dwight D. Eisenhower who said that the most important factors in winning the war were: The C-47 Dakota, te Willy's Jeep and the 2 1/4 ton truck? So let's consider the enormous importance of logistics in warfare. I recommend the C-47.

The quote actually pertains to the ETW and the African campaign. While mentioning it, he says the vehicles that mattered the most were; The Jeep, the 2 1/2 ton truck, The Bulldozer, The DUKW and the Dakota airplane.
I've heard The Landing Craft, too, but I've seen the quote from his book and it's never mentioned. However, the LST was, just not in the list.
So actually, Eisenhower feels SIX vehicles were important to our success in Europe and Africa.

 

[yulzari]

The quote actually pertains to the ETW and the African campaign. While mentioning it, he says the vehicles that mattered the most were; The Jeep, the 2 1/2 ton truck, The Bulldozer, The DUKW and the Dakota airplane.
I've heard The Landing Craft, too, but I've seen the quote from his book and it's never mentioned. However, the LST was, just not in the list.
So actually, Eisenhower feels SIX vehicles were important to our success in Europe and Africa.

One might equally say that the Canadian lorry industry kept the war going until the USA entered the war against fascism in the fourth year by keeping the Commonwealth forces mobile. Not so not did it allow them to advance faster than the German army who were, overall, reduced to foot/horse speed but one definition of a strategic withdrawal is a rout with transport.

 

[MiTasol]

Your four years was actually 2 years, 3 months, 8 days.

The European war started on Sept 1, 39 and the US joined in on December 8th, 41, Australasian, Asian and European time (or 7th North and South American time).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

One might equally say that the Canadian lorry industry kept the war going until the USA entered the war against fascism in the fourth year [....]

Arithmetic much?

 

[Greg Boeser]

'39, '40, '41, '42.
Yeah. The USA contributed nothing before then.

 

[WARSPITER]

Stop with the numbers. You're doing my head in, not to mention adding facts as well.

 

[ThomasP]

~2.25 years

 

[SaparotRob]

~2.25 years

English or metric?

 

[RCAFson]

One might equally say that the Canadian lorry industry kept the war going until the USA entered the war against fascism in the fourth year by keeping the Commonwealth forces mobile. Not so not did it allow them to advance faster than the German army who were, overall, reduced to foot/horse speed but one definition of a strategic withdrawal is a rout with transport.

Canada built more trucks than the entire Axis combined.

Peter Shawn Taylor: The trucks that beat Hitler

A little-known way Canada helped win the Second World War.

nationalpost.com

 

[RCAFson]

The Hurricane shot down more aircraft for the simple fact there was more of them but in turn all being equal pilots of Hurricanes were more likely to be shot down and killed than Spitfire pilots, they complimented each other would be a better way to explain the contribution they both made in winning the BoB

I don't doubt that the Hurricane had a higher loss rate than the Spitfire, all being equal, but during the BofB the Hurricane predominated in 11 Group which was closest to the coast and thus 11 Group squadrons were most likely to be bounced by Me109/110s.

 

[pbehn]

English or metric?

Metric obviously, Imperial would be 2 Years and 8/32nds

 

[Elvis]

Your four years was actually 2 years, 3 months, 8 days.

The European war started on Sept 1, 39 and the US joined in on December 8th, 41, Australasian, Asian and European time (or 7th North and South American time).

Anytime anyone mentions the start of WWII ('39), my mind always flashes to the cover of a magazine series that Time-Life put out in the 70's called "World at War". I'm sure some of you have the entire collection.
Amazing how much a magazine cover can impact one's memory, even after so many years.

 

[Elvis]

One might equally say...

Certainly, one might....but then, they wouldn't be quoting Dwight Eisenhower, now would they.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anytime anyone mentions the start of WWII ('39), my mind always flashes to the cover of a magazine series that Time-Life put out in the 70's called "World at War". I'm sure some of you have the entire collection.
Amazing how much a magazine cover can impact one's memory, even after so many years.

I think 1937; the first of the four major components of WWII started that year in China.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think 1937; the first of the four major components of WWII started that year in China.

July 1937 to be exact.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

July 1937 to be exact.

Right, the other three major components being dragging UK and France into war in 1939, Germany invading the USSR in 1941, and finally the Japanese attack on the Allies at the end of that year.

That's not to say that, say, the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece, or the Burma theater weren't important. They were. But Japan invading China, Germany instigating the western European war and then the eastern European war, and then Japan dragging America into the whole mess were in my mind the four key acts. Burma, Greece, and North Africa, for example, are to my thinking ancillary rather than causative to the war. The poor folks there dealt with the fallout all the same.

Without trying to get too puritan, calling Sep 39 the beginning of WWII really ignores the Chinese experience, which was indeed dreadful.

 

[Elvis]

I think 1937; the first of the four major components of WWII started that year in China.

It's always been my understanding that the Japanese first invaded China in 1929, but then, their feud goes back farther than that.
...however...
My quote of WWII starting in 1939 is where the publication starts...with the invasion of Poland.