Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.
That was a preference, in fact in many if not most cases it didn't happen. Despite being similar with the same engine they had completely different climb characteristics so one covering the other wasn't easy or wasted much time.I actually saw that argument as well and I am not sure I agree as while the Hurricane was obviously very important, it was the plane that took on the bombers more often than not, so on average the Hurricane's kills were easier than the Spitfire's who almost exclusively focused on the 109's.
Without the Hurricane where would you launch your raids with Merlin engine P51s from, I doubt the British purchasing commission would have ordered any P-51s, so no UK bases, and no P-51, and probably no Packard Merlins either.Back to aircraft that won the war - looking at Europe the C-47/Dakota, the Merlin-P51 for making daylight raids covering the whole of Germany (notably the oil industry) possible, and on the Eastern Front the IL-2. In the Pacific - SBD and Hellcat.
9th – Mosquito. To know that your enemy is capable to violate your airspace any time and practically with impunity is a nightmare for the responsible of the air defence.
Was not a plane, nor a ship, nor anything in-between. Was the American war arsenal. That's it.
No offence but that is just American revisionism. Germany would have been defeated either way since Operation Barbarossa was not going to succeed, with or without American war materials. Sure American war materials certainly helped both the Soviets and British, but it was not the deciding factor.
Agree to some extent...but no. The US supplied the entire backbone of the entire allied effort...USSR included. Pick points and objects, sure...but, if not for the US industrial base and supplies....coulda, woulda been a different story.
Had the Soviets not been involved in WW2 then odds are the Germans would have won. Had the British sued for peace in 1940 then the Germans would have won. Giving all the credit to the Americans does not seem particularly accurate.
A lot of 'had' there. History is what it is. The US supplied ALL. Not taking away due credit from allies, nor trying too. But, it is what is...without the US industrial base and logistical train....sorry.
The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.
As for the "had" argument, well you are doing that too, only you are saying "had the Americans not been involved then the Germans would have won"
Had the British sued for peace in 1940 before the Battle of Britain Germany would have had an extra 750,000 troops for Operation Barbarossa (250,000 that were in Norway/France to ward off British attacks, and 500,000 that were in North Africa), Germany would have also had an additional 2000 planes and some of their best pilots that were lost in the Battle of Britain and would have been able to attack the Soviets in May 1941 instead of June 1941 (since the British involvement in Greece forced a delay on the invasion of the Soviet Union).
So without the British, Germany would have had 2000 additional aircraft, 750,000 additional troops and an extra 4 to 6 weeks to invade before the Russian winter hit.
It is so easy to play the "had" game, and I don't think you should pretend that you are not playing it as well.
I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?
I would respectfully disagree with both notions. There's no way the Germans were going to beat the Brits and the Russians even without the US. Ditto the US and British even without Russia.
The Wermacht possessed no way to put troops effectively across water and no way to strike at US industry at all.
The Nazis couldn't beat the British one on one in the Battle of Britain. How were they going to beat the Brits plus the Russians or the Brits plus the US?
The other poster focused on Europe, specificaly " had the Russians not been involved the Germans probably would have won" so I was addressing that situation.I tend to agree. But are you constraining yourself to Europe?
The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).The US were not remotely involved during the Battle of Britain. The US in fact refused to get involved as they thought the British were going to lose and it was the Battle of Britain and the British winning that caused Hitler to turn his attention to the Soviets.
The U.S. was involved with the British, just not in a military capacity. There were USAAC pilots who volunteered to fly with the RAF and then the Lend-Lease act (December 1940).
Then there was the "Destroyer for Bases" deal, where the U.S. traded 50 Destroyers to Britain in exchange for various British territories (September 1940).
The U.S. was shipping food, raw materials, and a wide range of goods to Britain.
The British purchased P-39s in 1940, B-17Cs in 1940, F4Fs in 1940 amd then the P-40, DC-2 and the list goes on...all before the U.S. entered the war.
So the U.S. was more than "remotely" involved.