I have quite a strong interest in Aviation,particularly during the two World Wars.I would be interested to hear from fellow forum members which particular aircraft,they thought had the greatest impact on the war and why ??. Steven
Steven, Where shall we begin? Hurricane and Spitfire for Battle of Britain, siege of Malta, Air Defence of GB, etc. Hellcat and Corsair for the carrier war in the Pacific - amazing kill to loss ratios of 11:1 and 13:1 Mustang for long range escort on daylight bombing raids over Germany Swordfish for its ASW work ( read John Kilbracken's classic Bring Back My Stringbag), and Taranto. Mosquito for pathfinding and precision work Lancaster for shouldering the main burden of the night bombing offensive Typhoon - tank buster par excellence Sorry I couldn't restrict myself to one! But this lot might get the discussion going. Look forward to it! Regards, David
David. Some of your choices i didn't think of myself,but yes your right on them all.You have picked the one i was thinking off and thats the Mustang for it's long range and ability to escort the bombers on the daylght bombing raids.Their contribution helped to stem the horrific losses that the bombers and their crews were suffering. Second place (cheating now,as i did say one) and that would be the Lancaster for the reasons you state and it's ability to carry those enormous bomb loads and still get off the ground.Am i right that the largest bomb it ever carried was 22,000lb in weight ??. Steven
Steven, Don't want to distract the discussion away from the aircraft but you did say "greatest impact" and that has to be, in conventional terms, the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam! I wonder if any one knows how many were dropped? Regards, David
Barnes Wallis produced the 12,000-lb Tallboy, also known as the earthquake bomb. Tallboy was 21" long, with an overall diameter of 3'8", while the bomb body itself was 10'4" long and 3'2" in diameter. It weighed a total of 11,855 pounds, of which 5,200 pounds was Torpex D1 explosive. The weight of the case was thus a high proportion of the weight of the bomb. Dropped from 20,000 feet, a Tallboy made a 80ft deep crater, 100ft across. The bomb had a high terminal velocity, variously estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 feet a second [much faster than sound], and at these speeds it could go through 16ft of concrete. It was used for attacks on tunnels, V-1 Flying Bomb launch sites, and other high-priority targets. Its most important use was in the sinking of the German battleship Tirpitz at anchor in Norway, on 12 November 1944. Over 700 Tallboys were dropped during the War. In 1945 Barnes Wallis developed the 22,000lb Grand Slam, which remains the largest conventional bomb ever used in action. The 10 ton (22,000 pound) "Grand Slam" was 26-feet, 6-inches long. Its hardened casing was cast in a single piece in a sand mold, using a concrete core. The "Grand Slam" could reportedly penetrate though 20+ ft of concrete. The first one was dropped on Germany on 14th March 1945. It hit the ground about 80 feet from the target, but it created a crater over 100 feet deep. This bomb was used with great effect against viaducts or railways leading to the Ruhr and also against several U-boat shelters. In one raid on 27 March 1945 against the U Bootbunkerwerft "Valentin" submarine pens near Bremen, two Grand Slams penetrated 7 meters (23 feet) of reinforced concrete, bringing down the roof. In total, 41 Grand Slams were dropped during the war. Aye MalcolmII
And now back to the aircraft! Anyone have any thoughts about German, Russian, Italian, or Japanese types? Regards, David
Being macheavellian :ph34r: Also imortant as well as the ones mentioned already. The Gloster Gladiator which helped save Malta. No Malta, lost North Africa............................. The Liberator, Catalina and Short Sunderland for closing the air-gap in the Battle of the Atlantic. Aye MalcolmII
Originally posted by David Seymour@Mar 23 2004, 04:48 PM And now back to the aircraft! Anyone have any thoughts about German, Russian, Italian, or Japanese types? Regards, David Well,for it's impact in the early stages of the war when Germany had the upper hand,The Stuka for it's use in Blitzkreig (Lightning War).Devastatingly effective against in experienced troops. Not so later in the war,especially as the Allies started to take control of the skies and it's defensive armanent was found to be woeful. Steven
The greatest impact on the Eastern front was made by the Yaks which every variant could match German fighters, the Yak-9D being the best. European Front, I'd say the Mustang had the greatest impact because it could see the bombers there and back. Which was a great asset. It also was the Jet Killer, which on many occasions showed the ME262 who still ruled the skies. The FW190 came as a great shock to the Western Allies early on, and Britain had almost continous sorties going up to stop these things attacking Britains coastline. Apparently though the British did 6:1 sorties of the FW190s, that's very wasteful. The Mosquito, brilliant aircraft, in my opinion the best of the war. It was so talented in all of its roles, it could fly high, fast, pack punch and drop massive amounts of bomb load for its size. The variant carrying the 57mm cannon was succesfully used against German shipping in the North Sea. In recon it was probably near best for the job. It could handle itself in a dog fight with the best of them. In bombing, it was brilliant. It was so precise, it even helped in a prison breakout by blowing up the walls. The Lancaster, well, we all know the feats of the Lancaster in my opinion the Dambuster role was enough to put them high in the history books, but they almost have a perfect track record.
Greatest impact..hmm so many possibilities, so many basis for judging this... surely it has to be the B29.. 2 atomic bombs ended the war in the Pacific and saved the horrendous casualties (for both sides) that would have resulted from Operation Olympic after that Id suggest you need 2 aircraft per country.. a fighter type and a bomber type as Im unsure how you can say which had the greater impact.. stopping the enemy does not win wars but not stopping him loses them. Soviets .. The Il 2 vast numbers built.. helped wear down the Germans throughout the war and once the Soviets had gained air suoperiority helped destroy the backbone of the German defence by reducing the effectiveness of their artiilery and mobile forces. Yak series fighters as they eventually held the German luftwaffe Italians.. The SM 79, an effective torpedo bomber and a reasonable level bomber.. compared with other Italian aircraft. MC 202 as the first italian fighter at least equal Allied fighters and so enable the Italians to undertake their deired missions. Japanese.. A6M Zero for making the Japanese advances across the Pacific possible. bomber .. harder one this. Maybe the Mitsubishe Ki 46 for enabling the Japanese to collect recce information over a wide area Germans.. Ju 87 for the moral impact it had on enemy nations in the early years of WW2 boosting the image of the german armed forces as "invincible". Also it was very effective against a variety of targets ion the right conditions. Bf 109 for serving with such success throughout the war. Although outclassed in several ways by the FW 190 and later Allied fighters it was always there when needed and was still a dangerous oppnent in 1945. Also consider the JU 52 role as a paratroop aircraft as well as a logistical suport..the successful supplying of eg Demyansk Uk ...Hurricanes were the backbone of the defence of the UK in summer 1940, Lancasters the backbone of the bombing of Germany. Any a/s aircraft helping making the convoy routes safe.. no convoys would have eventually resulted in no effective UK armed forces USA...(after the B29) B24 for its part in closing the air gap, use over Germany AND extensive use in the Pacific P 51 Mustang for enabling the American bombers in the Pacific and Germany to function. enjoy the discussion.
A limited selection, with reasons. Britain, fighter: I would have to say the Spitfire. While I don't want to belittle the Hurricane's part in the Battle of Britain, it was to a certain extent a generation behind the Spitfire, with nowhere near the growth potential. The Spitfire was at the start of the war, and stayed throughout the war, a front-line fighter/interceptor. The Hurricane was quickly relegated to support/ground attack (I will not enter the fighter vs. 'ground pounder' "which is more vital" debate). Britain, bomber: My vote has to go to the Lancaster, for reasons already stated. Its load carrying capability was only equalled by the B-29, which it predated by a significant margin, and which really was the "next generation." A pity about the defensive armament fit. A couple of fifties in a belly turret would have done wonders... USA, fighter. The P-51 with the Merlin engine. No contest, in my mind. Makes the Spitfire with the same engine look rather slow, but in fairness to the Spitfire, the P-51 is about five years younger (and more advanced) at a time when five years meant everything in aircraft evolution. USA, bomber: The toss-up is between the two popular heavies (B-17 and B-24) and the B-29. My vote goes to the B-29 because of the technological ground that it broke (pressurisation in a large bomber, remote control armament, etc). I think it was also the fastest heavy bomber of the war. The Lancaster might, conceivably, have carried the A Bomb (it handled "Grand Slam" after all), but nowhere near as well as the -29 did. Germany, fighter: A toss up between the Bf-109 (so many built, soldiered on for so long) and the FW 190 (excellent performance and armament, multi role capability, the growth potential leading from the -D9 variant to the Ta-152 series), with honourable mention to the Me-262 for breaking new ground in a meaningful fashion (the Meteor technically entered squadron service first, but the Meteor never engaged a piloted enemy aircraft in WW2). Germany, bomber: Ju-88. Overlaps with fighter for obvious reasons. Germany's Mosquito. Go anywhere, do anything. Honourable mention to the Arado 234, the world's first (dedicated) jet bomber (I believe that at least one four-engined prototype variant saw action in a reconnaisance role...).
What about the Dakota, doing all the unglamorous work behind the scenes. Not much would have been achieved if it hadn't been for them.
Good point, and likewise the Ju52/3m etc... but then we get into the controversy of combat vs. logistic support aircraft AND then the fighter vs. bomber, fighter vs. ground attack debate, etc. etc. etc. I think it was generally understood that front-line combat aircraft were the subject of this post, but you have certainly raised a valid alternative. Those who favour combat aircraft would contend that the transports cannot survive without escorts. A stark example is the interception of German transport aircraft in the Mediterranean theatre by American B-26 bombers carrying forward-firing 'package guns' originally implanted for flak suppression/ground attack. Nothing is slower or more vulnerable than a transport aircraft, especially because their armament (where fitted) is generally inadequate. Yes, the Me323 Gigant was bristling with guns (especially since the troops it carried could shove their MG34s into specially provided mounts), but its slowness and unmanoeuvrability probably outweighed the armament factor.
Originally posted by David Seymour@Mar 23 2004, 08:09 PM Steven, Don't want to distract the discussion away from the aircraft but you did say "greatest impact" and that has to be, in conventional terms, the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam! I wonder if any one knows how many were dropped? Regards, David Excellent info on the Tallboy, Grand Slam and other WWII bombs on this site: http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml
USA, fighter. The P-51 with the Merlin engine. That only came about because it was requested by the RAF! :ph34r: :ph34r:
Originally posted by morse1001@Aug 7 2004, 07:59 AM USA, fighter. The P-51 with the Merlin engine. That only came about because it was requested by the RAF! :ph34r: :ph34r: But what a request,look how it turned out !!. Stephen :P
There were many dimensions but summing up,it was technology,technology and technology coupled with a high efficiency manufacturing base.Minimum time to swing from a civilian economy to a war machine economy. Ideas and innovation,design, having raw materials,having manufacturing and production know how and skills.Then minimum time of delivery to the battlefield. Give us the tools and we'll finish the job. WSC
I don't really take to the "best", "greatest", etc. debates, because how do you compare say a DC3 with a B29 or a Meteor? What I think we can say is that between 1939 and 1945 aviation was transformed out of all recognition, laying the ground for both military and civil aviation as we know it today and, of course, for space exploration.
I tend to agree with Angie 999 , not for the least reason that at start of war you had aircraft flying around with wooden fixed pitch props , and by wars end jets !. Each year would have to be taken individually at the very least , but as a different approach , I think the ones that were there at the start , and were still there at the end ( albeit in vastly different variants ) would have had the greatest inpact . The few that come to mind in the seconds writting this are ofcourse , the 109 ..the Spit , the 110 ( o.k...cheating a bit as it became a n/fighter) , and also the 87 ( lived a long life as a tank buster ) . Phil.
