How vital for great Britain was America WW2?

[Rroff]

With the Spitfire, bullets would fly everywhere like a scattergun.

I was under the impression the convergence could be setup identically between the Hurricane and Spitfire.

The actual position on the wing, aslong as harmonisation is possible which it was, doesn't matter much at engagement ranges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation

EDIT:

Furthermore, the physical arrangement of guns in the wing had an effect on the convergence pattern. The Spitfire's guns were spaced relatively far apart in each wing, which meant that their gunfire was more dispersed before and after the range of greatest convergence. The Hurricane's guns were closely spaced, allowing more confidence that a grouping of bullets from one wing would cause heavy damage, even if the other wing's bullets missed the target. While Spitfire squadrons might converge their wing guns at a different distance for each left–right pair, to give a deeper envelope of damage, Hurricane squadrons usually aligned the guns in each wing to shoot nearly parallel, with all gunfire coming together at the same range. As a result, the Hurricane outperformed the Spitfire in delivering damage to German bombers during the Battle of Britain.

Seems to be as much as anything down to the preferences of the different pilots between the different air planes as much as any inherent difference.

 

[Fusion]

Wasn't the US program boosted by taking on German scientists after the war?

America benefitted hugely by accepting German emigrants who saw the writing on the wall and left Germany in the 30s. Many were Jewish, and were at the top of their respective fields (many came from Gottingen University, which was regarded to be the world centre for Physics/Mathematics around that time).

As Scania said, after the war Von Braun headed up the Saturn V program, and also helped boost America's ICBM capability massively. Originally the US Navy were leading the ballistic missile program and weren't getting very far untik Von Braun came on board. This is also one reason why the Soviets beat America with Sputnik in 1957.

 

[Roar87]

Every country was vital to winning WW2, it was the combination of Britain, Russia and America that won the war. Without any one of those countries it would've been lost.

 

[Domi]

From almost the moment Germany attacked Russia they had lost the war.
Britain and by Britain I mean the British commonwealth was far too strong for Germany to actually conquer outright. (Just for Example the Indian Army had 2.5 million men in 1945) then you have Canada, Australia , South Africa etc

It has already been mentioned in this thread that Russia had pretty much started winning in the East by 1942 and this is actually before the big American lend lease push.

There is of course no doubt America played its part but Little England in 1939 was not so little and vulnerable as we are often led to believe.

I do believe though that if America had never entered the war the Russians would have beaten Germany in the East and in doing so released France, Poland etc and allowing Britain back in to the fight on the European Mainland.

 

[kitfit1]

Another well known misnomer is that Spitfires won the battle of Britain when in fact they 'helped' Hurricanes to win it.

In 1940 anyone who flew wanted to be a Spitfire pilot - it was sexier. And the legend went worldwide.
Even the Germans talked it up as a better plane. Captured Luftwaffe pilots would lie about what had shot them down, always claiming it was a Spitfire so the star quality would rub off on them.
But in truth the more numerous Hawker Hurricane did Hitler more damage.

The reason the Hurricane was popular is simple - it was a great killing machine. With four guns grouped together on each wing, the Hurricane made a much more stable gun platform than the Spitfire when shooting at enemy planes.
The set-up made it far easier for the pilot to concentrate gunfire.
With the Spitfire, bullets would fly everywhere like a scattergun. The Hurricane was also better for the kind of dogfights pilots routinely got into with the Germans.

Officials who showed journalists technological advances in the war effort took them to factories building the Supermarine Spitfire, so the public knew much more about the plane.
Thanks to this, a myth of superiority grew up about the Spitfire in playgrounds, workplaces and saloon bars.
The pilots knew the truth but even they succumbed to snobbery. Many would have claimed to be a Spitfire pilot down the pub to impress a young girl when they really had a Hurricane at home.
One of Britain's most famous ever flyers, Douglas Bader, while flying Spitfires in much of the war actually opted for Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain.

Although not entirely inaccurate, it's a bit ingenuous to say Spitfires "helped" Hurricanes to win it.
Hurricanes were normally tasked onto bringing down bombers, Spitfires were tasked to deal with the fighter escort of those bombers. Although of course Hurricanes did have dogfights with ME 109's, they were never a match for them, Spitfires though certainly were.
The real reason Hurricanes were so popular with pilots was because they could sustain very heavy damage and still get a pilot safely home. Spitfires, just like ME 109's were out and out fighters and had a very limited ability to stay in the air once hit.
Douglas Bader never "opted" for Hurricanes during BOB. He was promoted to Squadron Leader of 242 Squadron which happened to be a Hurricane Squadron. Latter when he became a Wing Commander he went back to flying Spitfires (as he had been doing before joining 242 Squadron), this was during the time Bader and Trafford Leigh-Mallory were promoting the big wing idea.

 

[Rroff]

Although not entirely inaccurate, it's a bit ingenuous to say Spitfires "helped" Hurricanes to win it.
Hurricanes were normally tasked onto bringing down bombers, Spitfires were tasked to deal with the fighter escort of those bombers. Although of course Hurricanes did have dogfights with ME 109's, they were never a match for them, Spitfires though certainly were.
The real reason Hurricanes were so popular with pilots was because they could sustain very heavy damage and still get a pilot safely home. Spitfires, just like ME 109's were out and out fighters and had a very limited ability to stay in the air once hit.
Douglas Bader never "opted" for Hurricanes during BOB. He was promoted to Squadron Leader of 242 Squadron which happened to be a Hurricane Squadron. Latter when he became a Wing Commander he went back to flying Spitfires (as he had been doing before joining 242 Squadron), this was during the time Bader and Trafford Leigh-Mallory were promoting the big wing idea.

As much as I love the Spitfire - Hurricanes are what win wars - cheaper to build, easier to build and maintain while offering a significant proportion of the same performance.

 

[kitfit1]

As much as I love the Spitfire - Hurricanes are what win wars - cheaper to build, easier to build and maintain while offering a significant proportion of the same performance.

Oh i completely agree with you Rroff. As a gun platform for bringing down bombers and for ground attack it's exactly what you want and need and was much better than the Spitfire for that. Had i been a pilot in the BOB and had an ME 109 on my tail though, i would much rather be flying a Spitfire.

 

[trigg_27]

There's no question the supplies shipped over from America helped Britain withstand Germany during the darkest days of the war.

Let's not forget that help wasn't free though - it took us more than 50 years to repay them for those supplies

 

[marl]

German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow and came quite close to defeating Russia. Had the USA not entered the War then I think a German Victory would have been the most likely outcome as they would have had a lot more resources to throw at Russia. Britain, by herself, could never have launched an invasion of continental Europe.

Had the USA not entered the war then Germany would also have had more time to develop new weapons such as jet aircraft, rockets and U-Boats.

 

[ChroniC]

The German navy was no match for the royal navy hence why they needed to win the air war.
Which they lost.

Yes but without support from the US, resources would have been to scarce to run the war effort and even a good navy is useless without a way to run it. That was my point

 

[Feek]

If you've not watched it - Jeremy Clarkson did an excellent documentary on convoy PQ17 the Russian story would likely have been very different without those resupplies.

This is actually on iPlayer now and it says that it's only available until tomorrow. I've just watched it, very good indeed.

 

[Dis86]

Yes but without support from the US, resources would have been to scarce to run the war effort and even a good navy is useless without a way to run it. That was my point

The empire...

 

[Rroff]

This is actually on iPlayer now and it says that it's only available until tomorrow. I've just watched it, very good indeed.

Its a shame Jeremy hasn't worked on more stuff like this - he does it very well.

 

[jimjamuk]

I think we're ould have fought them to stalemate after the Bob. Hitler would then have got bored and turned east anyway and we would have sued for peace.

My grandad was at Biggin hill during the Bob. Was in 610 squadron

 

[Rroff]

I think we're ould have fought them to stalemate after the Bob. Hitler would then have got bored and turned east anyway and we would have sued for peace.

My grandad was at Biggin hill during the Bob. Was in 610 squadron

I highly suspect it would still be the case today - heavily militarised borders along both sides of the channel, large parts of the world carved up between the British, German and Italian empires but with an ongoing truce and even trading, etc. a very different world.

 

[Jean-F]

Every country was vital to winning WW2, it was the combination of Britain, Russia and America that won the war. Without any one of those countries it would've been lost.

Probably true Roar,
Britain had the time,
Russia had the men,
and America had the money.

 

[Roar87]

Probably true Roar,
Britain had the time,
Russia had the men,
and America had the money.

Britains greatest contribution was the fact we actually went to war, we didn't need to, we could've sued for peace in 1941, but we stuck it out. We went to war with the greatest army the world had ever seen because we were ideologically opposed to Facism. Russia didn't choose the war, Americans wanted no part of it, we did. At the end of the war we were left bankrupt for our troubles and lost our empire while the USSR and America went on to become global super powers.

Russia lost 20 million men, this absolutely dwarfs the figures the UK and USA lost. The UK and US lost 450k and 420k respectively, so 40+ times less than Russia. Crazy.

America was the greatest industrial power on the planet, as soon as America declared war on Japan, and Germany followed suit by declaring war on the US, it was literally only a matter of time. America could out produce Germany on tanks by 10 to 1. It didn't matter that they were worse tanks, they could sustain the losses and beat them on attrition.

If Britain didn't join the war, America wouldn't have, which would've meant Germany would've had all those divisions free to attack Russia rather than keeping them in occupied France. If Germany conquered Russia then the Axis would've basically controlled the entire world. They could've invaded mainland USA some time post 1945 with the help of Japan and Italy.

If Germany didn't attack Russia, they could've conquered Britain with all the free man power to focus on conquering our home land.

If America didn't join the war, Britain would've been starved into surrendering.

 

[xxalxx]

The biggest failure for the early war for the Germans was (in part) due to its Blitzkreig success, had supply been able to keep up with the storming panzers then the BEF could have been destroyed and not evacuated. From that point forwards (in retrospect) the best outcome for the Germans vs the UK would have been a negotiated peace.

Britain's (and its Empire) production was far ahead of Germany's, and this was further compounded by the massive overkill in design and over-engineering that was commonplace in the production of their weapons and equipment. Add to that the losses of aircraft in the invasion of Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc and the situation was 'un-winnable' for Germany.

A good question would have be, what would have happened if Britain had fully committed its air power to the Battle of France, would WW2 have ended in 1940.

There is a great episode of the WW2 podcast with the author of the book : 'Alarmstart: The German Fighter Pilot's Experience in the Second World War'

 

[Angilion]

The German atom bomb project did not advance very far, despite what people think. They weren’t even close. [..]

True, but they did have a nuclear bomb project and if they weren't fighting a war on all fronts (which drained them of resources and diverted a lot of research to weapons) and having a key facility blown up repeatedly (Norwegian resistance/SOE, RAF, USAF) they would have advanced a lot more quickly. Not as quickly as the USA did, but they may well have got there.

 

[Rroff]

A good question would have be, what would have happened if Britain had fully committed its air power to the Battle of France, would WW2 have ended in 1940.

I also like to ponder further back than that - through the 1930s the Swiss for instance read the signs and quietly started to prepare - on declaration of war they mobilised 600,000 men to the border and sat out most of the war - if in other countries instead of the general complacency and denial that another war could happen more active steps had been taken instead of turning a blind eye to Germany re-arming and keeping defensive capabilities well invested in would it have ever broken out?