Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You cannot need what you cant have. Lend Lease allowed the allies to prosecute a different war. British production was top heavy with 4 engined bombers, but they were needed for the combined bomber offensive. Also maybe too many short range interceptors (Spitfires) but they were protecting all UK and USA assets in UK.Nevertheless, British manufacturing output was still not able to produce all the aircraft it needed for the British Commonwealth/Empire to prosecute the war - otherwise how to explain the 31,000 aircraft imported from the USA as Lend-Lease?
You cannot need what you cant have.
By the same token the Japanese and Germans needed a dozen more carriers each and a few thousand heavy bombers..Sure you can. The US desperately needed more carriers in autumn 1942, but simply could not have them until the next year. Likewise, the Ukrainians desperately need both artillery and SAM systems, but those needs are only being met far too slowly. I have a friend who died of liver failure because, while he needed a transplant, he could not get one.
Unmet needs have always been a thing.
By the same token the Japanese and Germans needed a dozen more carriers each and a few thousand heavy bombers..
it just goes into what if territory.Right, and they were nowhere to be found. So needs and reality don't always match up.
it just goes into what if territory.
In any situation. Germany just needed a few thousand more tanks and Me 262sThat particular question, sure.
And like today, a couple of billion barrels of Russian oil and gas. The Germans never learn, it seems.In any situation. Germany just needed a few thousand more tanks and Me 262s
Again, that some needs are unmet is a fact of real life. I've given you three examples already. I could go on with many more drawn from history.In any situation. Germany just needed a few thousand more tanks and Me 262s
Was Supermarine a high performance organisation, or was it an organisation with Reginald Mitchell in it?What king of fighters should've Supermarine been designing after the icon? Say, work starting some time past 1941. One or two engines, piston or jet engines. Obviously, several designs will be required to cater for the ever-changing state of the art and operational requirements. Requirments are that of performance, firepower, range/endurance (once that is starts to be required, talk 1944 and on), economics/production/sell-ability, safety, handling. Naval fighters can also apply. All while using engines and aerodynamics available for the designers in the UK.
Task spans from 1941 to 1955. Existing designs - from Spiteful onwards - can be axed so something better can be 'designed'.
Was Supermarine a high performance organisation, or was it an organisation with Reginald Mitchell in it?
Another tailless-delta design that enjoyed an important German input in its aerodynamic design was the Concorde.
So, my Doberrmann was German descent... how is Concorde relevant?
Was Supermarine a high performance organisation, or was it an organisation with Reginald Mitchell in it?
Not all Deltas were copies of German designs.
What happened after the spitfire, well...
In some ways the airframe makers were at the mercy of the engine makers.
And the airframe makers could not sit on their hands waiting for the engine makers. They had to produce and sell something or go out of business.
If they'd been asked from the onset to make a amphibian fighter I'd like to think Supermarine could have made something like the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" rather than the below.I think its easy to undersell Supermarine based on its post-WW2 aircraft, which were not world beaters and worse case scenario were rubbish, but the firm was one of the established British aviation firms, whose primary bread and butter was flying boats.
Why?If they'd been asked from the onset to make a amphibian fighter I'd like to think Supermarine could have made something like the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" rather than the below.
View attachment 676032