Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My proposal above is to keep all the Canadian made Hurricanes for the RAF and FAA. To meet Britain's commitment to the USSR all the Buffaloes are shipped to the Soviets. No Buffaloes or Hurricanes go to Singapore. The latter, as you accurately point out are not available in time, and the former have gone to the Soviets, so Malaya is SOL.By the time you get any Hurricanes to to Singapore after the Soviet invasion it is going to be too late.
My proposal above is to keep all the Canadian made Hurricanes for the RAF and FAA. To meet Britain's commitment to the USSR all the Buffaloes are shipped to the Soviets. No Buffaloes or Hurricanes go to Singapore. The latter, as you accurately point out are not available in time, and the former have gone to the Soviets, so Malaya is SOL.
Melt them down and make Mosquitos from the aluminum.So you're sending Buffalos to the USSR when the latter is still an ally of Nazi Germany? Not gonna happen, I'm afraid. Unless your plan is to just store the Buffalos in the UK "just in case." Again, not sensible if you're at war....you'd just melt them down and use the aluminium for something more useful.
Soviet Union was not a ally of the Germany, they get a agreement on poland/baltic, this is not a alliance
and on this i'm agreeDoesn't really change the point...there's no way Britain was gifting munitions to the USSR prior to 23 June 1941.
Yes but the imports from the USSR were very important to Germany in 1940 to 22 June 1941. According to Wiki Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) - WikipediaSoviet Union was not a ally of the Germany, they get a agreement on poland/baltic, this is not a alliance
Yes but this is also a consequence of their international statusYes but the imports from the USSR were very important to Germany in 1940 to 22 June 1941. According to Wiki Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) - Wikipedia
By June 1940, Soviet imports comprised over 50% of Germany's total overseas imports, and often exceed 70% of total German overseas imports.
Main items oil products, grains and wood products.
Soviets also helped the German aux. cruiser Komet to reach Pacific through the NE Passage.
Remember the RN only got full control of the FAA in May 1939. On 5th July 1939 they issued new specs for two fighters N.8/39 (2 seater) and N.9/39 (turret fighter). By the end of the year their thinking had changed based on war experience to date, leading to all sorts of industry confusion. Long story short, Jan 1940 the design that resulted in the Firefly was chosen, the turret fighter dropped and a new design for a single seater selected from Blackburn that emerged, in completely different form from that initially envisaged and even a different role, as the Firebrand. And from that time a requirement for an interim design, based on the Spitfire also arose. But of course the RAF has priority for Spitfires, leading to an order for the Martlet from the US.OK, just sticking with the Buffalo for now, and ultimately working to having a small squadron of about six aircraft flying off HMS Hermes, some time in 1941, and leaving any issues about Hermes alone, for another day, another thread, I'm thinking this.
Right from the beginning the FAA was struggling with a fleet fighter, and a training program to expand the number of pilots. Secondly, because many of her aircraft carriers could only carry a small complement of planes, they wanted them to fulfill multi roles, the Swordfish/Albacore did this well in the TSR role, but the Skua was a failure in the dive bomber/fighter role. So first question is how early can we safely say the FAA knew they had to go down a fighter only path. I look at the Sea Hurricane and the Martlet, indicating they did want this, and then look at the purpose built Fairey Fulmar, and think they still didn't get it.
Quick look at the Buffalo, first production model, F2A-1 was in service early December 1939, but the manufacturer was beset with problems, only delivering 11, before the rest of the production run, in a modified version, went to Finland. The F2A-2 comes out, with a better engine, and a small improvement in performance, but still lacks self sealing tanks and pilot armour. I'm not sure when these were being delivered, my guess is some time in 1940.
OK, trying to keep things in chronological order, the British establish the British Direct Purchase Commission, in January 1940, creating it from the existing British Purchasing Commission, which had been in place since pre-war. So I assume they were able start work pretty quickly. Fall of France, June 1940, and importantly for this discussion, Belgium, sees the RAF appraise the 32 undelivered Belgian aircraft, which are a de-navalized F2A-2, now called the B-339, with the arrestor hook and liferaft container removed, the tail slightly extended, and most importantly an engine 200 hp less than the F2A-2, with a corresponding drop in performance. Then the RAF added their bits to it, making it even heavier and slower. And accepted secondhand rebuilt engines to spec. This was becoming a dog, but this was the RAF looking for alternative land based fighters. Our search is for a carrier based fighter.
Now, big question, can the FAA accept a fighter without armour and self sealing tanks in 1940, which is what the Skua lacked, in theatres other than the Mediterranean, as an accomplice to the Fulmer which was entering service. If so, the US version F2A-2 could have been quickly ordered, at the beginning of 1940, hopefully production running straight after the US Navy order, which as I said, being delivered in 1940.