|
warspite1 -> RE: Fairy Fulmar (7/16/2011 6:35:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
My understanding is that the Fulmar was a variant of the proto type that resulted in the "Battle" light bomber. What were they thinking? "Ok, it's a lousy bomber (it got massacred in the French campaign) so let's try it as a fighter?"[&:]
The Empire was broke before the war and had a real challenge on its hands as it accumulated wartime debt. My memory is the last of the debt was paid off in the 70s.
Warspite1
I think it was only about four/five years ago that we paid off the final installment, not the 70's.
You are indeed correct. Last installments made to the US and Canada in 2006. Almost 60 years...
Warspite1
The price of freedom eh? [:(]
Probably. The more interesting question to me is should Britain have borrowed more to provide better equipment to reduce wartime losses while further burdening its surviving citizens with debt? I have come to the opinion that the wartime leadership achieved a reasonable balance given the constraints of a chronically weak economy. Very tough decisions that are little comfort to those who lost family members in undersized cruisers or bombers with almost no ability for the crew to escape once hit.
Warspite1
I agree, I think what the United Kingdom achieved given her straightened financial position and her Empire strategic overstretch was a bloody good performance. Fact was, the combination of the two made her position most uncomfortable. She had to have a large navy, but could not really afford what she had in 1939 - even though that was not anywhere near what she needed given her commitments!
Across all services there were some dogs (and some dog ideas), there were some brilliant successes, but for the most part, it was a case of make do and muddle on through.
As far as "could she have borrowed" more was concerned? No. The UK was a democracy, and in the depressed inter-war years - the Jarrow marches, people living in real poverty etc - I do not think additional military spending for a possible future war was ever a remote possibility; hence the bizarre 10 year plan and the understandable enthusiasm for the naval treaties.
Once the threat from Hitler was truly realised in the late thirties and spending increased, it was too late in the day to reverse the position, given the long lead times to build ships, develop aircraft etc. For example, the Royal Navy had ships designed and built in anticipation of future reductions being agreed at the next naval treaty [X(] e.g. 14-inch gunned battleships which could not be changed once Japan refused to ratify.
As a result, the RAF went into action with Fairey Battles, the Royal Navy were using too many First World War vintage ships, and the army remained largely an "Empire policeman".
|
|
|
|
