Why did the Brits persist with the Seafire until the end of WWII and beyond?

Kevin J · Jul 26, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Problems with that path is that it would take too long, neither country had the number of workers needed, or factories in existence and the majority of machine tools would have to come from the US anyway. (England was buying machine tools from the US to equip the shadow factories with, in addition to buying machine tools from Switzerland and Germany)

Of course if all our colonials were working in the factories they wouldn't be available for active service. Maybe more could have been made in the Empire. Perhaps the Miles M20 in India, even the Martin-Baker MB5.

wuzak · Jul 26, 2019

Kevin J said:
Of course if all our colonials were working in the factories they wouldn't be available for active service. Maybe more could have been made in the Empire. Perhaps the Miles M20 in India, even the Martin-Baker MB5.

The MB5 would not have been available until late in the, if at all.

And where would you get the engines from? There weren't too many Griffons built during the war, to supply them for MB5's would be difficult.

Shortround6 · Jul 26, 2019

India is often under appreciated in the schemes of the Empire. It not only supplied troops but there was an arms industry there. Not just small arms but some artillery.

MycroftHolmes · Jul 26, 2019

MiTasol said:
For the best and most accurate summary read 1940: Myth and reality by Clive Ponting.

Ponting is about as reliable as Mosier.

Why did the Brits persist with the Seafire until the end of WWII and beyond?

More options

Kevin J

Banned

wuzak

Captain

Shortround6

Major General

MycroftHolmes

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads