Most influential aircraft of ww2

Roel, l indidated that it started out a a bullfight, and the subject was conveniently changed for political means-something l first became awae when l read an article on the h subject on a Spanish Republican newspaper published in New York , many years ago...and something which was verified by many Spanish Republicans, veterans of the civil war. including a former member of teh Catalan government..Be that as it may, given the fact that you stated that Guernica was not a valid target , while l point out that indeed there were arms manufacturing facilities there, as in most Basque towns, where copies of American pistols and revolvers were manufactured-something l verified eresonally while travelling throuh that region many years ago.. l woull say that l am more at home in the history of Spain..
Best REgards! 8)

 

A closer comparison is the English Electric Canberra, a sort of 'jet Mosquito' which was immensely successful (some still flying last I heard) and was made in the USA as the Martin B57.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

The RAF still uses a couple for a variety of tasks - mostly Electronics testing, IIRC.
I went to Uni in Norwich, in the fine county of Norfolk, where some of these beauties are based, and was lucky enough to see Canberras flying overhead on several occaisions (this was between 1998 - 2002)

So why was the arrival of the Fw190 so disasterous for the RAF...

 

Of course my knowledge of Spain and Spanish history will be overshadowed by that of virtually anyone else (especially you). However, it seems to me that if many Basque towns have their own weapons manufacturing plant, then Guernica is no more of a tactically justified target than any other city. Also, generally speaking, to hit the enemy's production facilities is strategical, not tactical, so again there is more reason to draw a comparison with Allied strategic bombing raids.

KBO: whatever Hartmann and other German Aces said about their plane is a distorted view, since obviously they were the ones who could handle the plane. I wouldn't go after their views simply because it is one-sided and the answer is obvious. Does "I downed 352 enemy aircraft in this plane, but I would have preferred just any different one!" sound like a likely quote?

 

The C46, C47, and the C54 are my picks for the most influential. The changes in warfare caused by the practical air transport of men and freight changed how many campaines were run. The C54 could carry more and able to fly anywhere in the world with fuel stops. Look on how we use air transpotion today. I will admit there were other transports but these three were built in the numbers to make this a way of fight a war practical.

 

Good call Skip - though was the Junkers Ju52 more influential, as it basically showed the way...

 

On the other hand, the paratrooper is all but extinct nowadays because of the huge casualties involved in landing a large amount of men behind enemy lines. WW2 was the war of such operations but thereafter it was hardly ever used (only in its more modern guise of airlanding by helicopter).

 

1) (pedant alert) the topic was on 'most influential of WW2'
2) paratroops were widely used by the French in Indo-China (during which conflict the helecopter gunship was also born, but that is off topic).
3) transport planes have far more roles than simply dropping parachutists...

 

I was only pointing out that one of the most important roles of the transport aircraft in WW2 was almost entirely abandoned afterwards. I can't argue with any of the rest.

 

Most important?
How often were paratroops used?

Most important was the movement of supplies...

 

2) paratroops were widely used by the French in Indo-China (during which conflict the helecopter gunship was also born, but that is off topic).

Yes, but this was the last large scale deployment of Paratroops, and most of the operations against the Viet-Minh suffered disasterous casualties.

Most important was the movement of supplies...

Yes and no, the story of air-supply in WW2 is both a success and failure story, on the one hand you have the likes of the successful air-supply of units in South-east Asia, and it is worth mentioning that most of the fuel for the early B-29 strikes against Japan was flown in by converted B-29 tankers and Curtiss C-46s, however on the otherhand you have the disasterous "Air-bridge" Stalingrad and the failed attempts to resupply the Afrika Korps by air. Many of the campaigns that relied on air-transport failed because of the vulnerability of the transport planes.

Logistics is an often overlooked aspect of warfare, but I'd like to bet that sea and rail were far more important in terms of movement of supplies than air.

Possbily the most influential for me were the Aichi D3A "Val" and Douglas SBD Dauntless, these two between them really revolutionised the whole nature of naval warfare, showing the vulnerability of even the biggest capital ships to a small single engined two or three seater aircraft.

 

Oh, you had to bring awkward facts into this, didn't you...

Oh yes, airborne logistics is never going to be comparable to sea & rail in terms of volume. However, WW2 was the war in which transport aircraft were first exploited on a large scale. Naturally many disasters were had as people discovered the hard way that their transport aircraft were inadequate, or too vulnerable...
I would like to point to the India-China run as a great success of WW2 air-transportation. Yes, it did not deliver enough supplies as the Chinese would have liked, but it did get them there. And without WW2 as the development phase, would the Berlin airlift have worked? Would modern armies have quite the same 'rapid response' potential that they do?

Now, would you include the Swordfish for the exploits at Toranto?
Or are you following the fact that Naval types believed that Taranto proved nothing as the battleships were not at sea at the time?

 

Now, would you include the Swordfish for the exploits at Toranto?
Or are you following the fact that Naval types believed that Taranto proved nothing as the battleships were not at sea at the time?

That would be basically my argument yes, apart from the fact that Taranto prompted the Japanese to plan Pearl Harbour it influenced things very little. If it wasn't for the fact that the Pacific fleet lost it's Battleships at Pearl Harbour they still would have been the weapon of choice for the Pacific war, it was just that the USN was forced into using Carriers for the first year that they really appreciated their worth.

And without WW2 as the development phase, would the Berlin airlift have worked? Would modern armies have quite the same 'rapid response' potential that they do?

Very true, however I still think that the use of naval air power has proved more influential to modern navies than air transport has to modern armies.

Oh, you had to bring awkward facts into this, didn't you...

Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.

 

I think it's a myth that Taranto inspired the raid on Pearl. The Japanese thinking was already well advanced in this regard although I'm sure that they examined the raid closely.

Taranto should have been very influential. After all the British made an attack on a harbor that unlike Pearl knew it was at war. With a very modest force (21 swordfish) they put out of action 3 battleships for the lost of only 2 planes. It was probably histories most cost effective offensive.

For centuries harbors had been a save place for warships to rest. In the act of airpower they became sitting targets.

Tarantos importance is ultimately over shadowed by the destruction of Force Z but neither the less it is far from irrelevant.

 

Of course my knowledge of Spain and Spanish history will be overshadowed by that of virtually anyone else (especially you). However, it seems to me that if many Basque towns have their own weapons manufacturing plant, then Guernica is no more of a tactically justified target than any other city. Also, generally speaking, to hit the enemy's production facilities is strategical, not tactical, so again there is more reason to draw a comparison with Allied strategic bombing raids.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was one and simple: that the arms factories and shops made Guernica a valid target...

 

But still strategical.

 

Now, pedantic quibbles aside...

How extensive was the bombing at Guernica?
How many planes, and what types?

 

I believe the bombing of Guernica is regarded with such significance because it was the first example of terror bombing. Regardless of the value or validity of the target I understand (and stand ready to be corrected) that as a means to destroy the target, i.e. the facility to produce weapons, the civilian population were deliberately targetted by the bombing aircraft.

Was Guernica influential? Yes, but not in a positive way. The panic and terror of Guernica was wrongly used to predict the devastating impact of bombers in the forth-coming war convincing pre-war planners on all sides that mass formations of bombers would wipe out cities causing millions of deaths within the first few weeks of war and wiping out the enemy's civilisation through mass revolts of the surviving populace. Turned out this was a massive over-estimation.

As for the types involved, I'm not sure, but the main German Bomber types used in Spain were Ju52/3ms, He111Bs, Do17s, Ju86s and He70s. I think Stukas were there too, but could be wrong.

 

Am beginning to think Ricky is right when h calls you pedantic..hey! isnt' the Latin root for the word pedantic the same as for "To break wind" ( "petare" . from which the term "petard" is derived)- It does follow-

Didn't the Japanese bomb chinese cities TRhomas mentiones HE-111 and Ju- 52 3/ms priior to Guernica, because Guernica, aside from its arms factories (the existence of which the Reds deny even today! (l argued this point with a veteran from teh "Abraham Lincoln Batallion some years ago...) High Thomas in his "Spanish Civil War" points out that the town was a military target since it it wasa comunications center close to the front... According to a far more sch lasctic woek (l refer to Jesus Salas Larrazabal "La Guerra en Espana desde el Aire, Ediciones Ariel, Barcelona, 1969) (l believe this work was translated into Eglish in the late 1970s as "Air War Over Spain" "The Condor Legion " was assigned of task of destroying the lines of communication in and around Guernica, since the Republican Armies defending te Northern Front (e,g, the Basque Provinces) were about to collapse under the National offensive. The Condor Legion was given the task of destroying the Guernica bridge over which Republican reinforcements were pouring through....
Thimas indicates that HE -11s and Ju 52 3/ms were used, though it is safe to conclude that Do 17s were invoved as well The trio of Junkers Ju -87As did not arrive in Spain until the later half of 1937. The attack on Guernica ocurred on 26 April of that year

Best Regards gentlemen!
P.S. you too Roel

 

Thanks gents.

To me, the reason the impact of bombing upon Guernica was so massive was that people were not expecting it. After all, aside from limited bombing of Briain in WW1 (a few Zepplin raids on London, and the occaisional seaplane bombing the occaisional seaside town) and events out in China (about which nobody outside of China seemed particularly bothered about), the bombing of population centres had not happened. So - no shelters, no sensible advice, no precedent.
Which equals high casualties.
Which is where the doom & gloom prophecies come from.
Did you know that the British government reckoned that if the Germans started bombing urban areas, we would have 600,000 deaths per year (civilians). They stockpiled huge numbers of death certificates & cardboard coffins in readiness.
However (thankfully), the British Isles only lost 300,000 civilians during the whole war. (still 300,000 too many )