Beauty, Blinder, Backfire; still on the drawing board, but you don't design your defenses only for current threats, you have to plan for the future.What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?
Cheers,
Wes
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Beauty, Blinder, Backfire; still on the drawing board, but you don't design your defenses only for current threats, you have to plan for the future.What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?
Have the Soviets all of the sudden left without nuclear bombs in the 1950s?
What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?
If you look at the original NAA Mitchell and compare it with the HP Hampden then there's no reason the Hampden couldn't have been as good as the actual Mitchell produced, and who loved it the most why Kenney's 5th Air Force in the SW Pacific and the Russians.
True but a cost to be considered in 1940s UK was if you don't keep 500 competitive planes and pilots in service your cities ports and industries will be systematically wrecked.
I was referring to changes from before that, from the penny packet purchases and standards of the mid 1930s suddenly factories were being built everywhere regardless of cost in comparison. Instead of limiting the weight of bombers they just employed a team of up to 60,000 people laying concrete runways everywhereWell, yes. But cost of procurement was still an object: you had to be able to get resources to build and keep those 500 planes in service and still perform all those other activities of government: roads, law enforcement, feeding people (those war widows and orphans, maimed soldiers, and civilians injured by bombing, ....), and so on.