P-40 vs. Hurricane

[Lightning Guy]

I wouldn't call the Hurricane the dominate fighter of the BoB. It was numerically the most important to the RAF. I think it is fair to say it won the battle. But both the 109 and the Spit were better fighters.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree and at the same I time I believe the Hurricane could not have done with out the Spitfire and the Spitfire surely could not have done it without the Hurricane in numbers.

[Lightning Guy]

Perhaps. But I think if the Spits were replace by an equal number of Hurricanes, the result of the Battle would have been the same. RAF losses might have been a bit higher. But I still don't think Germany could have won.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, Germany would not have won the BoB but not because there aircraft were not capable. Rather because of stupid mistakes that they made anyhow like changing there targets.

[Lightning Guy]

And the greatest RAF advantage (radar) would not have been affected.

[Soren]

It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight.

In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering. The funny thing is, that this change in tactics was as a retaliation to a British miss-drop over Germany, and it would lead to the Germans actually losing the BoB.

The Irony of war.

[Lightning Guy]

I will say this before any of the British fellows do. The RAF would not have 'given up the fight.' They may have lost or been beaten/annihilated, but they would not have 'given up.'

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I will say this before any of the British fellows do. The RAF would not have 'given up the fight.' They may have lost or been beaten/annihilated, but they would not have 'given up.'

Very true LG. The would have fought to the end.

[Soren]

To a degree your right LG, as it would take a hell of alot to make the British actually "Give up", but eventually they would infact have "Given up", as decisions for this were already being discussed during the darkest period of the BoB.

Think about it, what would the RAF have done with no airfields ? The answer is simple, they would have given up, cause anything else would've been nonsense. (The British weren't led by a leader as fanatic as Hitler after-all)

[Lightning Guy]

The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England) or the pilots and crews would have become infantry and awaited the beaches.

Churchill might not have been as fanatic as Hitler, but he was every bit as determined. Remember, Churchill coined the phrase "You can always take one with you." The Home Guard provides the perfect example of fighting to the end even if out-manned and out-gunned.

I also think, that had England actually been invaded the US would have stepped up it's activity in the war.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England)

The logistical support would be hampered in a rather significant way as a/c would have to be scattered all over the place, and that would have serious consequences for the RAF, which already was short on pilots.

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

or the pilots and crews would have become infantry and awaited the beaches.

Which equals "No more RAF", which means the RAF has given up.

Churchill might not have been as fanatic as Hitler, but he was every bit as determined. Remember, Churchill coined the phrase "You can always take one with you." The Home Guard provides the perfect example of fighting to the end even if out-manned and out-gunned.

LG, there's a fine line which separates the 'Fanatic' from the 'Determined'.

Without the RAF, Churchill would have given in, he wasn't a fool after-all.

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I also think, that had England actually been invaded the US would have stepped up it's activity in the war.

This I agree with.

[Lightning Guy]

A couple of things to keep in mind about Churchill.

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

"If you're going through hell, keep going."

And finally . . .

"Never, never, never give up. "

It is my personal conviction that Churchill was the greatest national leader during WWII and that only death would cause him to stop his fight.

[Lightning Guy]

Sorry, can't believe I forgot this one...
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

[Soren]

Listing comments doesn't really prove anything, and despite how determined Churchill might have been, after seeing the casualties his people would have to endure, he would have eventually given in. (Any sane man would)

Without the RAF the British armed forces would've been bombed to smithereens, and Churchill would know this. Churchill might not have given up immediately without an airforce, but eventually he would have to.

Fighting the German army in WW2 without any airforce, would be suicidal at best.

[Lightning Guy]

Listing comments does reveal something about the attitude of the man. And, in general, he did speak for the British people. Can you find me any comments of Churchill suing for peace? Or suggesting a conditional surrender?