The Merlin: The engine that saved the free world?

[PinecastleAAF]

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.

I don't think the German's would have been able to mount successful cross-channel invasion even if the Merlin never existed. The Royal Navy has an excellent track record vs. the Kriegsmarine and I think they would have shot it out in the channel and prevented most of the German's from hitting the beach. And I take Winston at his words that they would fought them on the beach with whatever it took to win.

[JohnB]

Sweden like Switzerland was officially neutral

You didn't see the perhaps?
(Where's the sarcasm button when you need one?)

Really, my wife drives a new Volvo. It has one forward speed and 4 neutrals. (BTW: That was a joke...).

Last edited by JohnB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JohnB]

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.

As I thought I (and others) made clear, without the UK in the war, it winning would have been a very longtime process. And much more costly to the USA.
I don't see America ever bombing the UK, since I think they would have been politically neutralized rather than invaded.

And the UK did have other engines, radials and other inline designs..Bristols like those used in prewar Gladiator fighters, Napiers, Armstrong Siddleys...
Asking about other in-line engines in othe RAF fighters is silly because the Merlin worked so well, none were developed. That's like asking about other small Ford "muscle cars" other than the Mustang. They weren't built because the Mustang was a hit.
Many weren't developed because the Merlin worked so well.
And remember, the Merlin wasn't a "clean sheet" design, it was a scaled up Kestrel. Since that was a successful engine, I can't imagine it not working in some form.
Rolls had a line of in-line engines other than the Merlin, though some, like the Vultures, turned out to be duds.

The Defiant wasn't an attack aircraft, it was a fighter. The Whirlwind was more of an attack aircraft inasmuch as it was designed as a fighter-bomber. It was powered by a Merlin...it's failure had nothing to do with the engine, rather the concept of the turret-equipped fighter.

I can't agree with your assessment that the Air Ministry wanted the Hurricane more than the Spitfire.
The prototype first flew in March of 1936 and the RAF ordered 310 in June. Sounds like they wanted it to me. Like many wartime aircraft, it went through many changes before being built, in the Spitfires case there were two Air Ministry speciifications before the one that produced the prototype.
The Spitfire was seen as a more modern fighter, but the RAF bought the Hurricane in part because of the success of past Hawker fighters like the Fury, while Supermarine had never built a fighter before and was seen as more technically daring. Certainly, Supermarine's design was going to be more difficult to build. Remember too, that Supermarine was a small firm and had never built 310 of anything, though part of the larger Vickers-Armstrong group.
It certainly wasn't a sitution like the US bomber competition where the USAAC ordered the B-18 because the B-17 was too expensive. And it certainly wasn't a case like the P-51 where it was adopted through the back door.

One aircraft the RAF didn't want at first was the Mosquito...they didn't believe in it and didn't have a specification for it but were quickly converted.

And on your final point, if there was no Merlin, I'm sure Allision/Packard/P&W/Wright/Chrysler...would have come up with something.

Last edited by JohnB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[andyman64]

yes the allies would have invaded captured Europe from Africa and won the war by setting Europe on fire from crashed b-36,s from engine fires! really i mean really stupid arrogant Americans the Merlin was and always will be the engine that won world war 2 just through its longevity and variety of use!!you guys are still sore that it took a British engine to make an American plane work!!!!

[PinecastleAAF]

yes the allies would have invaded captured Europe from Africa

That's absolutely correct. Use your google machine and check out Operations Husky and Shingle. The allies were on European soil in Jan. of 44.

As for the rest of your comments well...........not very nice.

[JDK]

As for the rest of your comments well...........not very nice.

Quite. It's an interesting discussion, so let's keep it well mannered, please.

[muddyboots]

yes the allies would have invaded captured Europe from Africa and won the war by setting Europe on fire from crashed b-36,s from engine fires! really i mean really stupid arrogant Americans the Merlin was and always will be the engine that won world war 2 just through its longevity and variety of use!!you guys are still sore that it took a British engine to make an American plane work!!!!

In reality of course the Russians would have overrun Western Europe and finished the job of starving the UK to death had the US not entered the war. You do realize that right? Your all powerful, world beating, death defying, levitating, fireball throwing Merlin didn't stop a single Uboat from sinking a ton of UK shipping past in the North or West Atlantic. We did that. And we fed you at a tremendous loss of lives until WE could reopen your shipping routes to your colonies. You were literally starving to death and had spent your gold reserves before you came begging us for food and weapons. In addition, you were so busy losing the war in the Desert (due to horrible tactics like charging entrenched lines of anti tank defenses with cruisers and "the Box") before our shipping and especially the tanks we had designated for our first heavy tank division, which were diverted to replace the horrendous loses your bad tactics had caused, actually saved your bacon.

You certainly didn't have the strength to resist Germany had we not stepped in to save you. And even if you had somehow miraculously dealt with the mass starvation just around the corner, and managed a temporary peace with Hitler (he would have invaded eventually without us backing you) then the Russians would have eaten Poland, and Germany, and France, and then guess who was next? What, you think the Channel would have stopped Stalin? Good luck buddy.

[JohnB]

James,

Did I get my UK powerplant & Hurricane & Spitfire history correct in my reply to "51fixer"?

Unlike some folks here, I'm here to learm...




PS. andyman 64...please tell us about the war-winning Canadian engines...

[JDK]

Muddy, andyman's in Canada not the UK, and his comment is best ignored.

And we don't need another thread going to the lock because people can't demonstrate good manners.

John, there's a bit to come on your comments, but laterrr as someone else says here.

regards,

[JDK]

PS. andyman 64...please tell us about the war-winning Canadian engines...

Let's not start a pointless nationalistic fight because one person can't behave, so others think it's OK to chuck mud at his whole country, hmmm?

[51fixer]

I don't see America ever bombing the UK, since I think they would have been politically neutralized rather than invaded.

I think we would. We bombed France, Denmark, Netherlands, Philippines, Monasteries in Italy. If the Germans dug in we would have gone after them. There would also be the chance that it would be the Russians doing the bombing.

And the UK did have other engines, radials and other inline designs..Bristols like those used in prewar Gladiator fighters, Napiers, Armstrong Siddleys...

And I ask which other engines were in production in the UK in the 39-40 timeframe and what British fighter were they installed in? What was their performance? How did it compare to the Hurricane or Spitfire? and the BF109? The Merlin wasn't developed at the exclusion of other engines so their should be another engine that would have replaced it if the Merlin didn't exist. A radial would need 2-300 more HP to match an inline's performance when installed to overcome the drag induced. Trading an 1100 hp inline for a 1100HP Radial would result in decreased performance.

Asking about other in-line engines in othe RAF fighters is silly because the Merlin worked so well, none were developed.

I didn't specify Inline only. Of course the Merlin worked well. That is why this whole discussion started as some people think it was the more important aircraft engine of the war.

The Defiant wasn't an attack aircraft, it was a fighter.

I didn't say it wasn't a fighter. When it was used to attack the enemy it had limited success and at times suffered horrendous losses. It failed compared to the Hurricane and Spitfire. It was also powered by the Merlin so it's not allowed in pool of replacements for the Spit and Hurricane that I am trying to figure out existed in 39 and 40.

I can't agree with your assessment that the MoD wanted the Hurricane more than the Spitfire.

Not a case of wanted but a case of the politics of the MOD system. The MOD issued a specification for a fighter using the Merlin. Hawker developed the Hurricane in response to win this contract. The Spitfire was initially a Private Venture of which the MOD issued a contact specification to match its existing design. One of the reasons that in the start of the war to 1940 timeframe there were more Hurricanes that had been built than Spitfires. Particularly at the start of the BofB. The Hurricane had a more politically correct start early on. The Spit had to play catchup.

And on your final point, if there was no Merlin, I'm sure Allision/Packard/P&W/Wright/Chrysler...would have come up with something.

This seems an opinion with a North American Bias. The British weren't interested in foreign engines or aircraft until 1939 when the war was upon them. It would have been too late to help in the BofB. P-40s went into service in North African in 1941. I don't know if they would have been able to overcome the technological divide with the Germans at that point in time of the BofB without the Merlin. The P-51 would had limited success compared to how it performed with the Merlin.

Good grief, I was hoping JDK or a UK resident would step up and set us straight. I only work on a Spitfire. It doesn't even have a Merlin so this timeframe of the war isn't my best subject.

[muddyboots]

Muddy, andyman's in Canada not the UK, and his comment is best ignored.

And we don't need another thread going to the lock because people can't demonstrate good manners.

John, there's a bit to come on your comments, but laterrr as someone else says here.

regards,

Is my history messed up? Wasn't Canada the UK's "property" at that point, like 'Stralia and India and half the rest of the world? I'm just lumping him under the whole "the Sun never sets on the Empire," thing... I'm not saying England didn't have a horse in the fight, I'm just saying that without us they'd be speaking Russian right now. The Merlin was a great engine. But it didn't win the war. The Russians did that, and might actually have done so without any help. The amount of divisions and manpower Germany shunted to fight our fronts was nothing when compared to what they were losing in Russia. We just made the kill quicker. Think about it: They were actually moving troops from the West to the East right up to DDAY and even after that; defending against Russia while trying to get us to switch sides against Russia was their game plan. How many times have you read about German troops shaking their head and pointing at Russia as the real enemy?

What the US and England really did wasn't win the war in Europe. It was to prevent Russia from taking over the world because Adolf overreached. Had he not invaded Russia we might easily have seen the UK and her allies, and the US, joining Germany to beat Russia when they invaded the west. Which was always Joe's intent, I think.

Poor supposition, of course, but you have to remember that Germany had powerful American supporters (including GH Bush's daddy) right up to the point Japan clobbered Pearl without discussing it with Hitler first. Things could easily have gone differently. It was only after Pearl that we really started feeding England goodies, and beat off the wolfpacks. What would have happened if Hitler had convinced the Japanese to hold off, or even to avoid confronting us in favor of beating the British in the East? You can bet had he known about Pearl he would have tried for sure.

The Merlin was important. It powered the aircraft that held Germany off of the UK long enough for us to be drawn into the war. It certainly helped prevent Germany, and then Russia, from walking over Western Europe. But it by no means won the war. It was more complicated than that.

[JohnB]

This seems an opinion with a North American Bias.

No bias about it, you misunderstood my point.
My comment about American engines was in response to your comment:
"If there wasn't the Merlin then there wouldn't have been the P-51D".
I wasn't suggesting American engines to the UK...though they did use some in the Sunderland (were there any other UK-designed types powered by American engines ..other than Packard-built Merlins?) .
Simply if the Merlin were magically not available, I'm sure Allison, et al, would have come up with something.

And there probvably would have been a P-51D, only not with Merlins...

[JohnB]

muddyboots

Germany had its supporters here...the daughter of FDR's ambassador to Germany slept her way through the ranks of Nazi bigshots, then became a spy for the USSR.
Joe Kennedy was also seen as more pro-German than pro-UK.
Most of the "supporters" were average German Americans who felt some loyalty to the home country, but weren't Nazi sympathizers. Far from it.
The German American Bund, pro-Nazi group got a lot of press but was hardly representative.
Today, various people label anyone who was pro-isolationist or (probably more to the point) anti-FDR a "Nazi/German sympathizer".

The USSR had many more powerful supporters in the halls of power than Germany did...FDR and his gang didn't see Stalin as a threat.
Look at the way FDR and Hollywood went after people like Lindbergh while lionizing the USSR.
Perhaps somewhat natural at the time because they were part of the allies, but many Americans severely misread Stailn's intentiions.

[WIXMOD-Baker]

I thought I'd drop in to politely request that this thread not become a political fight. It hasn't yet, and I really hope it won't, but it has the potential to get ugly. We really don't want that.

Many thanks.