"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
...



At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.


Which is like saying the only thing that save the Me-109
from being a flop is that it was a good fighter.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.



I doubt it, as WW2 showed you need much more range
and payload than that for the strategic mission.

Better aircraft such as the He-111 and Do-17 failed
in that role

Keith



However both these fine aircrat, virtualy invulnerable in the Spanish
civil war and against Polish aircraft, had to face of against
spitfires and hurricanes. In this hypothetical situation our
technology would provide enough of a leap to make them immune to any
interception. The performance I mentioned, perhaps the range is a
little short, would allow attack as low as 5000 feet with freedom from
interception by biplane and with a very low chance of being hit by the
AAA of the day. Level bombing at 5000 feet even without computing
bomb sights is very accurate and at 1000 feet even moreso.

Without the need to attack at night or high altide with low accruracy
they would deliver great and accurate destruction. I've heard it said
that a squadran of Ju 87 Stukas could do more damage than a squdran of
Lancasters as long as they were either escorted or not heavily
opposed.