War.... who started what?
Discussion
Just a quickie before I fly off back to work: I was just reading various threads on the subject of who won which war, who let what down etc....
1.) Chamberlain was trying to do what most of us are doing now: avoiding a punch-up. There has to be an element of trust with such an enemy. Oh, but we hadn't had such an enemy before...
2.) The Yanks came into WW2 because someone (not us, supposedly, but we'll be for it if the conspiracy theorists are correct!) torpedoed one of their cruise ships. We were actually winning at that point, thanks to Mr. Hitler deciding it would be a good idea to take on Russia as well. It would have taken longer, but we'd have still done it. Just with the Russians, instead.
3.) The D-Day invasion was dreamed up by a Brit. So was the Bouncing Bomb, the Jet engine, RADAR, the Harrier Jump-Jet and a few other little bits of military technology that I forget. Oh, the Spitfire. The Yanks had the P51 Mustang, of course, but it only really worked properly with a British engine in it...
4.) We tend to send small teams of highly-trained troops into a situation and minimise losses. The US have something of a history of throwing huge numbers of troops into jungles... I mean situations... (we'll forget pre-mechanised conflicts where manpower was necessary so we'd be guilty there too: you'd think some folk would have learned from history though...)
That's it, watch the fires start - I'm off to work!
Ian
1.) Chamberlain was trying to do what most of us are doing now: avoiding a punch-up. There has to be an element of trust with such an enemy. Oh, but we hadn't had such an enemy before...
2.) The Yanks came into WW2 because someone (not us, supposedly, but we'll be for it if the conspiracy theorists are correct!) torpedoed one of their cruise ships. We were actually winning at that point, thanks to Mr. Hitler deciding it would be a good idea to take on Russia as well. It would have taken longer, but we'd have still done it. Just with the Russians, instead.
3.) The D-Day invasion was dreamed up by a Brit. So was the Bouncing Bomb, the Jet engine, RADAR, the Harrier Jump-Jet and a few other little bits of military technology that I forget. Oh, the Spitfire. The Yanks had the P51 Mustang, of course, but it only really worked properly with a British engine in it...
4.) We tend to send small teams of highly-trained troops into a situation and minimise losses. The US have something of a history of throwing huge numbers of troops into jungles... I mean situations... (we'll forget pre-mechanised conflicts where manpower was necessary so we'd be guilty there too: you'd think some folk would have learned from history though...)
That's it, watch the fires start - I'm off to work!
Ian
2.) The Yanks came into WW2 because someone (not us, supposedly, but we'll be for it if the conspiracy theorists are correct!) torpedoed one of their cruise ships. We were actually winning at that point, thanks to Mr. Hitler deciding it would be a good idea to take on Russia as well. It would have taken longer, but we'd have still done it. Just with the Russians, instead.
Ian
Maybe , but instead of the Berlin wall it would have been the Calaise wall
You could also argue that the americans perfected precision bombing to minimise "collateral damage" (see "Norden Bomb Sight") whereas we Brits decided the sure-fire way to destroy a specific target was to flatten the entire city in which the target was located. And you'd be right and wrong in about equal measure.
The P51 was also was also designed to a British Air ministry design brief. North American hadn't done a fighter before and wanted "in".
It was good, but not brilliant at first with its American V12 up front (Allison?). Then somebody at Rolls Royce fitted it with a spare Merline they had lying around and the rest as they say was history.
Andy 400se
It was good, but not brilliant at first with its American V12 up front (Allison?). Then somebody at Rolls Royce fitted it with a spare Merline they had lying around and the rest as they say was history.
Andy 400se
I think we were outnumbered at waterloo by about 3:1 and of our side only about 10% were acually really english (officer class natch)
Similarly agincourt - 10 to 1 outnumbered !
and Crecy
Am I right in thinking the cruise ship was the Lucitania ?
or is that archduke franz ferdinands wars
Similarly agincourt - 10 to 1 outnumbered !
and Crecy
Am I right in thinking the cruise ship was the Lucitania ?
or is that archduke franz ferdinands wars
That would actually be WWI. Pearl Harbour brought them into WWII.
2.) The Yanks came into WW2 because someone (not us, supposedly, but we'll be for it if the conspiracy theorists are correct!) torpedoed one of their cruise ships. We were actually winning at that point, thanks to Mr. Hitler deciding it would be a good idea to take on Russia as well. It would have taken longer, but we'd have still done it. Just with the Russians, instead.
andymadmak said: It was good, but not brilliant at first with its American V12 up front (Allison?). Andy 400se
It was good alright Andy, the P51 was pivotal in the air war as it was the first fighter to have the range to support the bombers there and back. Performance wise it was every bit as good as the later model Spits, both had their strong points. The P51 was possibly the best fighter of the war but this will always be open to contention
Ah but it doesn't have the looks of a spitfire does it? Rich...
apache said:The P51 was possibly the best fighter of the war but this will always be open to contention
p.s. mindfull of a different thread, anyone know of a 2 x seater Spitfire? There used to be one belonging to Charles Church - him of house building fame but he smashed it up, killing himself in the process - shame... R...
apache said
It was good alright Andy, the P51 was pivotal in the air war as it was the first fighter to have the range to support the bombers there and back. Performance wise it was every bit as good as the later model Spits, both had their strong points. The P51 was possibly the best fighter of the war but this will always be open to contention
Quite right. But it only got that range when fitted with the RR Merlin. Before that it had only been used as a low level fighter/bomber. The original engine ran out of puff much above 15k feet. Altitude was needed if it was to support the bombers. It had the benefit of far greater internal fuel storage than the Spit, plus many of the lessons learned from the Spit in terms of high speed ariel combat were applied to the P51, which resulted in a superb aircraft. Some question the looks, but as an example of Anglo American cross breeding it was about as good as you could get operationally. (does this bode well for the coming JSF?)
Equiped with the Supercharged Merlin unit and some drop tanks and it suddenly became the "Cadillac of the Skies", capable of supporting the bombers over long range, and most importantly, able to fight along the way without fear of running out of fuel.
Andy 400se
Yertis said: You could also argue that the americans perfected precision bombing to minimise "collateral damage" (see "Norden Bomb Sight") whereas we Brits decided the sure-fire way to destroy a specific target was to flatten the entire city in which the target was located. And you'd be right and wrong in about equal measure.
Thought it was the other way around?
Yertis said: Do people question the looks of the P51? I've always considered it a handsome aeroplane - well proportioned, and from the D onwards the most "modern" looking of the piston-engined fighters.
Actually I'd have to argue that with you Yertis. I've just been looking at some very late mark Spits and I think they make all Mustangs look a bit weedy.
Then again a Tempest V makes them all look girly.
Hi all,
Very interesting thread! Both the Spitfire and the P-51 were superb fighters and British influence in it's development and contribution of the pivotal RR Merlin cannot be denied. I once had the opportunity to fly a P-51 (one of my lifelong dreams) and it was incredible. The Merlin engine simply responds so smoothly and it sounds like no other aircraft in the world. Like most combat aircraft, it flies so close to the edge, that it's always a challenge, especially before the dorsal fuel tank is emptied, as it is off it's center of mass with the weight of that fuel. Airmen always consumed this supply first, before reaching the combat theatre to insure proper maneuverability 'on station'. I understand that the Spitfire was equally skittish, another aircraft I would trade my soul to fly (not likely however
).
The ME-262 'Swallow' was a good short range interceptor, but due mainly to early jet technology, required too much ground support and was way too thirsty to be of much use in large numbers, especially to a country which was fuel starved as Germany was. In fact, of the 14 ME-262's lost in enemy action, 9 succumbed to the guns of a P-51, the rest being 'Lucky' shots by allied bomber crews. The 'Mustang', in a power dive from 30,000 feet did actually hit the trans-sonic range of 0.92 Mach and this approach was used to attack the 'Swallow' as it made it's landing approaches. A very interesting matchup would have been the 'Swallow' and the Glouchester 'Meteor', but these were retained within the UK to counter the threat posed by the V-1 Buzzbomb.
There are several credible studies which purport that the Bombing Campaign, especially after 1942, was waged simply as a pretext to lure the Luftwaffe into the air so it could be destroyed by Allied fighter cover in advance of the Allied invasion.
Once relieved on station by the bombers, Allied pilots were encouraged to seek out targets of opportunity on their return to base, especially airfields. Many more Luftwaffe planes were destroyed on the ground by these raids than were ever destroyed in air combat, resulting in very little fighter/bomber opposition over the Normandy beaches...Jim'85TE
Very interesting thread! Both the Spitfire and the P-51 were superb fighters and British influence in it's development and contribution of the pivotal RR Merlin cannot be denied. I once had the opportunity to fly a P-51 (one of my lifelong dreams) and it was incredible. The Merlin engine simply responds so smoothly and it sounds like no other aircraft in the world. Like most combat aircraft, it flies so close to the edge, that it's always a challenge, especially before the dorsal fuel tank is emptied, as it is off it's center of mass with the weight of that fuel. Airmen always consumed this supply first, before reaching the combat theatre to insure proper maneuverability 'on station'. I understand that the Spitfire was equally skittish, another aircraft I would trade my soul to fly (not likely however
). The ME-262 'Swallow' was a good short range interceptor, but due mainly to early jet technology, required too much ground support and was way too thirsty to be of much use in large numbers, especially to a country which was fuel starved as Germany was. In fact, of the 14 ME-262's lost in enemy action, 9 succumbed to the guns of a P-51, the rest being 'Lucky' shots by allied bomber crews. The 'Mustang', in a power dive from 30,000 feet did actually hit the trans-sonic range of 0.92 Mach and this approach was used to attack the 'Swallow' as it made it's landing approaches. A very interesting matchup would have been the 'Swallow' and the Glouchester 'Meteor', but these were retained within the UK to counter the threat posed by the V-1 Buzzbomb.
There are several credible studies which purport that the Bombing Campaign, especially after 1942, was waged simply as a pretext to lure the Luftwaffe into the air so it could be destroyed by Allied fighter cover in advance of the Allied invasion.
Once relieved on station by the bombers, Allied pilots were encouraged to seek out targets of opportunity on their return to base, especially airfields. Many more Luftwaffe planes were destroyed on the ground by these raids than were ever destroyed in air combat, resulting in very little fighter/bomber opposition over the Normandy beaches...Jim'85TE
jmorgan said:
Yertis said: You could also argue that the americans perfected precision bombing to minimise "collateral damage" (see "Norden Bomb Sight") whereas we Brits decided the sure-fire way to destroy a specific target was to flatten the entire city in which the target was located. And you'd be right and wrong in about equal measure.
Thought it was the other way around?
That's a commonly held, but erroneous, belief. My understanding is that precision bombing was very much more central to the US philosophy. Later in the war we made use of some very accurate bomb aiming equipment but it was only used by a couple of specialist squadrons (9 and 617) if memory serves.
It was always my understanding that the Hawker Hurricane did a lot of the "heavy lifting" in the BoB. To me the Hurricane is also a beautiful airplane (even though my office is adorned with paintings and prints of Spits - including a print of Barrie A.F. Clark's masterpiece of course).
Didn't the Hurricane use a Merlin or a derivative as well?
If nothing else, British aircraft have always been some of the best looking: Spit, Hurricane, Typhoon, Vulcan, Lightning and one can see the influence on the Tornado as well. Kind of like the British car industry - consistently attractive product
Cheers
ErnestM
Didn't the Hurricane use a Merlin or a derivative as well?
If nothing else, British aircraft have always been some of the best looking: Spit, Hurricane, Typhoon, Vulcan, Lightning and one can see the influence on the Tornado as well. Kind of like the British car industry - consistently attractive product
Cheers
ErnestM
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff