Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, but it was a similar viewpoint that resisted the adoption of submachineguns for the British Army, especially the proven Thompson M1928, because they were "gangster guns"! When, in 1938, the Air Ministry ordered the American and quite excellent Lockheed Hudson for coastal patrols, there was equal uproar, with letters to the Times accusing the Air Ministry of "treason".
But the Allies didn't really have to worry about the HE177 because they tended to catch fire by themselves! Indeed, the most common Luftwaffe day bomber the Western Allies faced from 1941 onwards was the Junkers 88, for which four .50 Brownings was more than adequate and six was ample.
This is pure hind sight. Until the decision was made by the RAF to switch to cannon the LW was making as much progress as the UK and USA was. RAF pilots armed with rifle calibre guns were "alarmed" to say the least at the destructive power of German cannon.
Well, yes and no. The Air Ministry had already specified the Hispano 20mm as the "ideal" bomber-killer, but they already had intelligence that the Luftwaffe was concentrating on building tactical bombers like the Heinkel 111 and Junkers 88. Goering was a numbers man, and he argued he could build two tactical bombers for the price in time and materials as a four-engined strategic bomber. That was great as long as the Wehrmacht just needed the Luftwaffe to supply tactical support, but a real problem when the problem was one of strategic bombing. General Weaver was the only man in the early Luftwaffe with the interest in strategic bombing and really in a position of power to influence matters. When he died so did the Ural Bomber. The poor Heinkel 177 was cursed by Goering's love for dive-bombing and the DB606 "twinned" engine. By the time the idea was properly resurrected in 1942, in the Amerika Bomber project, it was already too late for the over-stretched German aircraft industry. MI6 had long been aware of the economic problems facing Germany pre-War, which is one of the reasons many in Whitehall simply failed to believe that Hitler would go to war in 1939. Hence, no need to worry about a German equivalent to the B-17.
If the non aggression pact had continued or Hitlers invasion of Russia had been successful all previous bets and intelligence are "off".
By the time you see the flash of your 303's on the enemy plane and press the button for your 20mm the firing solution will have already changed and the 20mm will miss.
Too true! But then Hitler didn't have to invade Poland either. He could have avoided war with France and Britain by using his allies in south-eastern Europe such as Romania to attack Russia, or invaded via Finland. Invading Poland set up a confrontation with the Allies. Invading the USSR via Romania would probably have brought quiet support from the UK at least, though the French probably would have got a bit hysterical. So, let's imagine Hitler doesn't invade Poland in 1939, he waits until May 1941 and invades the USSR from Finland and Romania. There is no Mediterranean campaign because Italy would never have gone to war. The attack on the USSR doesn't threaten the British Empire, it actually promises to remove an enemy of the Empire. Poland would be ambivalent because it would be quite happy to see the USSR defeated. Britain might even sell Germany the long-range bombers to do the Ural Bomber role when the Luftwaffe realised they needed them. No combat losses from Norway and the Low Countries or the Battle of Britain, no three week delay due to the Greek campaign. I'd say Germany would have taken Moscow easily, especially if Hitler could persuade the Japanese to attack the USSR instead of Pearl Harbor.
It was all about oil, just like today. The Caucasus had oil. The East Indies had oil. The Germans and the Japanese had none.
True, but the Germans did have the Romanian oilfields, and if they had not had to fight the Western Allies, they could have concentrated on capturing the Caucasus oilfields. If they had captured Baku, and had strategic bombers to destroy the remaining Soviet oilfields in the Urals, then the Soviets would have been the ones desperate for fuel. It does beg the interesting question; if the West was not at war with the Nazis, would the USA ship fuel to the Soviets?
We did ship fuel to the Soviets, but it was aviation fuel. The Nazi's lost because they were Nazi's. Perhaps a better way for the Germans to have become the masters of Europe would have been through trade.
Perhaps a better way?
Correct. I call the EU, the Fourth Reich.
True but also true that the vast majority of ammunition fired never hit anything.
