IOTL Belgium and Yugoslavia built Hurricanes under licence. ITTL they built Spitfires under licence. That picture would have been plausible if the Germans captured the factories intact.
wehraboo wank
IOTL Belgium and Yugoslavia built Hurricanes under licence. ITTL they built Spitfires under licence. That picture would have been plausible if the Germans captured the factories intact.
wehraboo wank
Hurricanes were still needed for overseas use, and, by time it was clear that UK will be allright since Germany has turned East, there was IIRC just one factory making them, since Gloster was switching to Typhoon production. UK was still stretched thin in N. Africa and Far East.
I'd say that past some time late 1942, Hurricane production should've been winding down, and phased out by Spring of 1943? So instead of making ~3400 of Hurricanes past 1942, make just perhaps 600-700?
I agree with @Salamander and go further by repeating that as this is a wank there should be a one-to-one substitution of Spitfires for the Hurricanes that were built IOTL. See what I wrote in Post 3.Why? People keep saying this, but why are Hurricanes needed outside the UK? Build enough Spitfires, with a decent range on them and with 20mm cannon, and use them through out the empire. That way you don't have the idiotic "lower threat level" mindset that had clapped-out and/or obsolete aircraft in places like Malta, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand and South-East Asia when the excrement impacts the rotary air impeller. To get the numbers up, encourage Vickers & Bristol to set up factories in Canada, Australia and India to build the damn things. Ditto with other equipment if possible.
Rough field capability is valuable.Why? People keep saying this, but why are Hurricanes needed outside the UK? Build enough Spitfires, with a decent range on them and with 20mm cannon, and use them through out the empire. That way you don't have the idiotic "lower threat level" mindset that had clapped-out and/or obsolete aircraft in places like Malta, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand and South-East Asia when the excrement impacts the rotary air impeller. To get the numbers up, encourage Vicker & Bristol to set up factories in Canada, Australia and India to build the damn things. Ditto with other equipment if possible.
And for some strange reason in one of the pre war RAF Fighting Area Attack formations. (That didn't work)They were repainted for a recreation of the Battle of Britain for an airshow in the late 1940s. A mixture of high and low back mk 16Es.
What if the Merlin was designed with the possibility of a motor cannon? Having anti-bomber capabilities like the 30 mm Bf109s or the 37/45 mm Yaks?
What if the Merlin was designed with the possibility of a motor cannon? Having anti-bomber capabilities like the 30 mm Bf109s or the 37/45 mm Yaks?
This could be a cooperation with Hispano-suiza, with ultimately an improved French HS engine.
Have people read Decisive Duel by David Isby?
While searching for information on the Spitfires manufacture I came across a quote attributed to that book.
It claimed that the Spitfire was a fighter that would not have been built by any other country due to how difficult manufacture was.
Does anyone know the context for that claim? Did he supply more details?
I have read, though I forget where, that the Spitfire was very nearly cancelled due to production difficulties. Only the lack of a suitable replacement saved it.Have people read Decisive Duel by David Isby?
While searching for information on the Spitfires manufacture I came across a quote attributed to that book.
It claimed that the Spitfire was a fighter that would not have been built by any other country due to how difficult manufacture was.
Does anyone know the context for that claim? Did he supply more details?
First flight in 1943 and 27 reach units in the last days of 1944 before their defeatI don't think the Germans if they decide to copy the Spitfire after capturing a few examples in 1940 will make a wholly 100% copy, but after extensive testing they will make improvements, remove defects, substitute parts and keep everything they liked. I imagine they will get a similar evolution from the Mk.II to Mk.IX with the bubble canopy as they wanted one for the 109.
What engine would it use though? DB605, 603 or Jumo 213?
There was a point in 1938 where Supermarine was told that the initial order of 310 was going to be all the Spitfire would get. Supermarine would be building beaufighters on a license basis.I have read, though I forget where, that the Spitfire was very nearly cancelled due to production difficulties. Only the lack of a suitable replacement saved it.
Small bit but I'd say earlier on buy the license to produce the M2 Browning in .50BMG. Or ideally have the Browning 13.2mm version get developed slightly earlier and have RAF license produce it. Wonderful gun.
Can anything be done to improve the rough field capability of the early Spitfires without degrading their performance?Rough field capability is valuable.
Apart from the money, what's to stop the proper airfields being built sooner? Plus money spent on more proper airfields sooner would save money in the long term as fewer proper airfields would be needed later.No Hurricane outside the UK but Hurricane until proper airfields are built.
I think we haven't either.Also I don't think we have seen a proper suggestion for simplifying manufacture so that a 1:1 replacement is viable. The Spitfire wasn't easy to make 15000 man hours in manufacture1940 (compared to 10,000) for a Hurricane.
Astrodragon mentioned something like that earlier in this thread but didnt provide any details so there probably is something out there. I couldn't find anything obvious and I read through a couple of old threads.This may be a false memory.
In a previous better RAF in WWII or improve the Spitfire thread someone suggested that the purchase of a commercially available machine tool would have reduced the number of man hours required to build the Spitfire considerably. IIRC (and I am by no means certain that I do remember correctly) said machine tool would have made the leading and trailing edges of the wing easier to produce.
Does that ring a bell with any of you?
This may be a false memory.
In a previous better RAF in WWII or improve the Spitfire thread someone suggested that the purchase of a commercially available machine tool would have reduced the number of man hours required to build the Spitfire considerably. IIRC (and I am by no means certain that I do remember correctly) said machine tool would have made the leading and trailing edges of the wing easier to produce.
Does that ring a bell with any of you?
Does improved tactics count?IOW, make the success story even a greater one
Required is a much greater number of them produced, to be even more capable and earlier, including in weapon-lifting capacity, improvement in different roles, new roles, new users etc. Reduce the man hour count required. Lower the drag, improve the horsepower. All on tech of the day, of course.
Axe what you don't find useful, or don't like, to boost the Spitfire footprint on the ww2 and beyond.
I'll start the ball rolling with the Spitfire III being adopted, thus making LW's (as well as Italian and Japanese) task after the late 1940 much harder.