michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The LW never recovered its bomber strength after the Battle of France throughout the whole war. If you consider the battles of Czechoslovakia Poland Norway Netherlands Belgium France and Britain as one battle of attrition then the Hurricane played by far the biggest single part, but not by any means the only part..I imagine it would have to be the Hurricane and Spitfire considering that the German loss in the Battle of Britain caused Hitler to turn his attention east. Had the Battle of Britain been lost then WW2 would have been very different.
I mean as good as the P51-D is, if it did not exist, sure the bomber casualties would have been higher but the end result of the war would have been the same. Had the Spitfire and Hurricane not existed the war would have been very different.
At the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each. All losses inflicted by the RAF in France up to Dunkerque were by Hurricanes, and other forces used Hurricanes too, Hawkers could make them faster than the RAF could take them into service. Without the Hurricane we would have had no real numbers of pilots experienced on monoplane fighters. Of course if there wasn't a "Hurricane" much more effort would have been put into other things, but that is "what if".I think the Spitfire and especially the Hurricane are great pics here. I almost couldn't decide between them and the Dauntless. I decided on the SBD but must admit to a little personal bias as my Grandfather worked at Douglas durring the war and helped build SDBs.
Agreed, maybe not by folks here but in the general public I think contribution of the Hurricane is way, way, way under apreciated.At the outbreak of the war the UK had about 130 Spitfires in service. At the fall of France there were approximately equal numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes 250 each. All losses inflicted by the RAF in France up to Dunkerque were by Hurricanes, and other forces used Hurricanes too, Hawkers could make them faster than the RAF could take them into service. Without the Hurricane we would have had no real numbers of pilots experienced on monoplane fighters. Of course if there wasn't a "Hurricane" much more effort would have been put into other things, but that is "what if".
Since joining this forum my opinion has changed from the Spitfire and Hurricane being equal partners in the conflict because I wasn't aware of what went on in France and other European countries or the state of Spitfire production and service in Sept 1939. Without Hurricanes what would the BEF have used? If they sent all Spitfires then the Battle of Britain would have been fought with bi planes. This as I said based on no Hurricane means nothing else either.Agreed, maybe not by folks here but in the general public I think contribution of the Hurricane is way, way, way under apreciated.
I must admit also of only recently becoming aware of the full extent of the contribution of the Hurricane. I always thought it was underrated and did alot more than most give it credit for but now I would go as far as to say it may have been THE most determinant aircraft of the war.Since joining this forum my opinion has changed from the Spitfire and Hurricane being equal partners in the conflict because I wasn't aware of what went on in France and other European countries or the state of Spitfire production and service in Sept 1939. Without Hurricanes what would the BEF have used? If they sent all Spitfires then the Battle of Britain would have been fought with bi planes. This as I said based on no Hurricane means nothing else either.
The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s.
But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job.
I've added more.
I'm sure they would have, but it did exist, so that kinda renders your argument moot.
The Americans would have found a way to drop the Atomic Bomb even if the B29 never existed.
Certainly the B29 was highly effective and an engineering marvel for its time. Don't think anyone would argue that but I don't think it did much to turn the tide of the war. The tide had been turned before the B29 dropped its first bombs.The B-29, specifically two particular B-29s.
Let's also not forget the capturing and reverse engineering of B-29 technology by the Soviets, which admittedly happened after the war, but was a consequence of it. This revolutionised the Soviet aviation industry. Every single modern combat aircraft that was built in the Soviet Union has a bit of B-29 DNA in it as a result. Virtually every aspect of the Soviet aviation industrial complex benifitted from the tech that was reverse engineered, from fabrics, to electronics, gunnery, to undercarriage systems, hydraulics, pressurisation, radio, radar... Everything.
The tide had been turned before the B29 dropped its first bombs.
Dammit, now you've got me thinking. The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type. The Lancaster was not going to be used by the US armed forces to carry out such an operation. No way in any form of reality. Besides, the atom bombs couldn't have fitted in the Lanc's bomb bay. Yes, the Lanc could carry a big load, but the bomb's shape, specifically Fat Man would have meant it wouldn't fit. weight was probably not the issue as you have pointed out, since the Lanc could carry a significant load, but not without considerable modification and at the expense of range. The Marianas are 1,500 miles from Japan and the B-29 was pressurised for operations at a greater height for better efficiency. I doubt you could get the Lancaster to do it, frankly, although someone with figures to hand might be able to confirm it.
I am not sure I agree as while the US would have preferred using an American aircraft they would hardly say "well we are not going to use our new wonder weapon because we would have to fly a British aircraft". Americans used plenty of British equipment in WW2.
Good points about it being more of a headache with the Lancaster but if push came to shove, there was no other option, and that's what needed to be done I'm pretty sure we would have used the Lancaster and made it work. There is ample president for the US using British aircraft like the Spitfire and we overcame bigger engineering road blocks than that involved with modification of the Lancaster to accept a wider load I believe.Dammit, now you've got me thinking. The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type. The Lancaster was not going to be used by the US armed forces to carry out such an operation. No way in any form of reality. Besides, the atom bombs couldn't have fitted in the Lanc's bomb bay. Yes, the Lanc could carry a big load, but the bomb's shape, specifically Fat Man would have meant it wouldn't fit. weight was probably not the issue as you have pointed out, since the Lanc could carry a significant load, but not without considerable modification and at the expense of range. The Marianas are 1,500 miles from Japan and the B-29 was pressurised for operations at a greater height for better efficiency. I doubt you could get the Lancaster to do it, frankly, although someone with figures to hand might be able to confirm it.