The Merlin: The engine that saved the free world?

[PinecastleAAF]

The Jeep, the Dakota airplane, and the landing craft were the three tools that won the war."
General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander, Europe.

[51fixer]

The Jeep, the Dakota airplane, and the landing craft were the three tools that won the war."
General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander, Europe.

If any hadn't been able to be based/launched/supported from England which was saved by the mighty Merlin during the Battle of Britain...
Its the circle of life thing.

[PinecastleAAF]

If any hadn't been able to be based/launched/supported from England which was saved by the mighty Merlin during the Battle of Britain...

They'd have just come up from the MTO and England was hardly saved by the Merlin engine alone during the BoB. I like Eisenhower's take more than the Rolls Royce Trust, seems a bit more unbiased.

[51fixer]

If any hadn't been able to be based/launched/supported from England which was saved by the mighty Merlin during the Battle of Britain...

They'd have just come up from the MTO and England was hardly saved by the Merlin engine alone during the BoB. I like Eisenhower's take more than the Rolls Royce Trust, seems a bit more unbiased.

What were the assets in play during the BofB?
Mostly air fighting involved during this period. Whatever ground troops were spread out expecting an invasion but were lacking in supplies as much was left in France when they had to run away. The Royal Navy too was prepared to fight to the death and had active scrimmages in the channel but the attacks weren't as coordinated as the air attacks. Certainly the Royal Navy made its presence felt but was used as an attack asset up and down the European Coast in addition to defending the coastline of the UK.
So it seems the main thrust of the German attack in 1940 was an aerial attack on England. The anti aircraft guns fought against this threat but what was their success rate? I really don't know but it wasn't too high. The biggest match up that was constantly in play was the Fighter Command. Their assets were Hurricanes and Spitfires for the majority of the fighting. The Lancaster wasn't operating yet IIRC. There wasn't anything with much range so it was a period of defensive battle fought with aircraft powered by Merlin engines.
It kept the door open to go on the offensive several years later and the Med wasn't the soft belly of Europe. At least by having England continue to be a threat it kept the Germans from concentrating their assets on any one region. If England had fallen then imagine what we would have fought against in terms of troops as the Germans would have only has a Southern Front and an Eastern Front. A much better scenario for them.
As a soldier Ike's viewpoint was based on moving ground troops. A very needed part of fighting that war but only a part.
I think there is a big picture that defies any one engine or machine or aircraft being the one answer to this question.

[JohnB]

The Jeep, the Dakota airplane, and the landing craft were the three tools that won the war."
General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander, Europe.

I thought he said the jeep, Bazooka and the A-Bomb?

[Flat 12x2]

As has been said,it's more that one item that won the war.

But, and its a BIG but, the Spitfire & Hurricane (both powered only by the Merlin) stopped the invasion of the UK in the late summer of1940, we basically had no other fighters to defend us. Hitler was waiting for AIR superiority before launching the invasion which was waiting in the French ports.

If the UK had fallen, and the RAF (mainly Merlin powered bombers) not bombed German factorys from the UK (limiting there armament output/development)or the UK not provided Merlin powered Hurricanes to the USSR air force and more German troops been available on the Russian front, would the invasion of Russia been more successful/succeeded ?

Had the UK fallen, the USA would have invaded North Africa to then launch an invasion of mainland Europe , really ?

The B-36 would have bombed Europe from where ever, but wouldn't it have been shot out of the sky by the Me262/other German Jets being developed quicker in factorys un-disturbed by bombing ?

Lots of if's and but's, but it can be said that the RR Merlin changed the course of WWII in such a way that enabled other weapons to come into play, so saved the world ?, it could be said yes, with out it world history could have been very different.

[One-0-Wonder]

As has been said,it's more that one item that won the war.

But, and its a BIG but, the Spitfire & Hurricane (both powered only by the Merlin) stopped the invasion of the UK in the late summer of1940, we basically had no other fighters to defend us. Hitler was waiting for AIR superiority before launching the invasion which was waiting in the French ports.

If the UK had fallen, and the RAF (mainly Merlin powered bombers) not bombed German factorys from the UK (limiting there armament output/development)or the UK not provided Merlin powered Hurricanes to the USSR air force and more German troops been available on the Russian front, would the invasion of Russia been more successful/succeeded ?

Had the UK fallen, the USA would have invaded North Africa to then launch an invasion of mainland Europe , really ?

The B-36 would have bombed Europe from where ever, but wouldn't it have been shot out of the sky by the Me262/other German Jets being developed quicker in factorys un-disturbed by bombing ?

Lots of if's and but's, but it can be said that the RR Merlin changed the course of WWII in such a way that enabled other weapons to come into play, so saved the world ?, it could be said yes, with out it world history could have been very different.

Exceptionally well stated and very accurate. Well done Flat 12x2!!

[k5083]

The fallacy of assuming that the Merlin saved the UK or was needed to win the Battle of Britain is that of assuming that if the Merlin didn't exist, the situation would have been the same except for its absence. That's like saying it's a good thing Barack Obama ran for office because otherwise the US wouldn't have a president now. Of course we would have a president, just a different one. What Britain needed to win the Battle of Britain was a certain quantity of modern fighters and those fighters needed a reliable engine in the 1,000-1,200 horsepower range. Rolls, Bristol and Napier all had other such engines under development when the Merlin was under development, and they were also available from the US. Had there been no Merlin, one or more of those engines would have been developed to the point of operational reliability and been procured. The demand was there: the key to winning the battle was the decision to procure modern fighter planes in sufficient quantity, not the specific planes and engines that happened to be around to meet that need.

Bottom line, the fighters that won the Battle of Britain didn't have to be Spitfires and Hurricanes and their engines didn't have to be Merlins. And that's even before we get into the question, raised controversially by Derek Robinson in "Piece of Cake," of whether the Germans could have staged a successful cross-channel invasion and occupation of Britain even with air supremacy, which is by no means certain.

That doesn't mean we can't admire the engine as a piece of engineering and laud it for being the engine that happened to be so valuable. It does mean, however, that we can't attribute the course of history to that particular design.

August

[Mark Allen M]

.

Last edited by Mark Allen M on Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[jack973]

well, it seems that i posted a good topic this time

[51fixer]

The fallacy of assuming that the Merlin saved the UK or was needed to win the Battle of Britain is that of assuming that if the Merlin didn't exist, the situation would have been the same except for its absence. That's like saying it's a good thing Barack Obama ran for office because otherwise the US wouldn't have a president now. Of course we would have a president, just a different one. What Britain needed to win the Battle of Britain was a certain quantity of modern fighters and those fighters needed a reliable engine in the 1,000-1,200 horsepower range. Rolls, Bristol and Napier all had other such engines under development when the Merlin was under development, and they were also available from the US. Had there been no Merlin, one or more of those engines would have been developed to the point of operational reliability and been procured. The demand was there: the key to winning the battle was the decision to procure modern fighter planes in sufficient quantity, not the specific planes and engines that happened to be around to meet that need.
August

Really?
The Ministry of Defense had more engines than just the Merlin in production at that time. There were many engines under development at that time. Any of those could have been in service if they were ready at that time. But they weren't ready.
There wasn't a favoring of the Merlin over anything else nor the airframes that used the Merlin. It was just that they were ready. If they hadn't been, there probably would have been an utilization of earlier designs that were already in service. I don't know how many foreign built fighter the UK had in use in 1940 as it seems it wasn't until war was imminent that they looked to purchase from overseas. Whether a large output of foreign built fighters could have arrived in time to do any good or be effective in combat to match the German fighters would be doubtful.
IIRC Rolls developed the Merlin as a private venture. They weren't even responding to a Gov issued contract. In essence they jumped ahead of other engines under development. As it built upon earlier successful V engines and they ended up using Bearing technology licensed by Wright I believe, they ended up in that position to produce a great engine needed at that time.

[PinecastleAAF]

I think there is a big picture that defies any one engine or machine or aircraft being the one answer to this question.

I agree with you completely 51fixer.

[JohnB]

Had the UK fallen, the USA would have invaded North Africa to then launch an invasion of mainland Europe , really ?

It makes more sense than Iceland, would you prefer Sweden?

The B-36 would have bombed Europe from where ever, but wouldn't it have been shot out of the sky by the Me262/other German Jets being developed quicker in factorys un-disturbed by bombing ?

No, not with the eventual capabilities of the B-36. It flew higher than the 262...and most fighters of the 50s.
Of course, the Nazis would have been playing with technology too. Who knows, a WWII stretching into the 50s would have been something.
B-36s escorted by P-80s, dodging SAMs over Berlin.
A rush to build the B-43/45/49 or B-47 (possibly without the swept wings ) with B-29-like development speed (which is what happened but because of the USSR, not Germany).

Which is why the Manhatten project was launched I guess.

You're right about one thing, WWII history would have been very different without the UK to stage attacks and the invasion of Europe from.
But it would have been done. With or without the Merlin or RAF.

But the other poster is right, if it hadn't been the Merlin, it would have been something else. The UK had more than Rolls Royce doing engines.

[The Inspector]

Had the UK fallen, the USA would have invaded North Africa to then launch an invasion of mainland Europe , really ?

It makes more sense than Iceland, would you prefer Sweden?

The B-36 would have bombed Europe from where ever, but wouldn't it have been shot out of the sky by the Me262/other German Jets being developed quicker in factorys un-disturbed by bombing ?

No, not with the eventual capabilities of the B-36. It flew higher than the 262...and most fighters of the 50s.
Of course, the Nazis would have been playing with technology too. Who knows, a WWII stretching into the 50s would have been something.
B-36s escorted by P-80s, dodging SAMs over Berlin.
A rush to build the B-43/45/49 or B-47 (possibly without the swept wings ) with B-29-like development speed (which is what happened but because of the USSR, not Germany).

Which is why the Manhatten project was launched I guess.

You're right about one thing, WWII history would have been very different without the UK to stage attacks and the invasion of Europe from.
But it would have been done. With or without the Merlin or RAF.

But the other poster is right, if it hadn't been the Merlin, it would have been something else. The UK had more than Rolls Royce doing engines.

Sweden like Switzerland was officially neutral

[51fixer]

But it would have been done. With or without the Merlin or RAF.

But the other poster is right, if it hadn't been the Merlin, it would have been something else. The UK had more than Rolls Royce doing engines.

If we would have lost all our Allies in Europe would have we gone there? In what timeframe?
When Russia was turned on would have we (I mean US) given them arms to do this battle given that we had few options to attack Fortress UK AND Fortress Europe?
What other engine was developed and in fighter aircraft and equipped squadrons for the Brits in the late 39-41 timeframe? What fighters were they in?
The Spitfire really wasn't that wanted by the RAF originally. The Hurricane got the bigger order initially IIRC. Other attack aircraft available was the Bolton Paul Defiant, with a Merlin. It saw limited success but had horrendous losses at times.
If there wasn't the Merlin then there wouldn't have been the P-51D.