"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...


Snip


Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking
enemy
planes coming from above.


But this is not allowed to stand in the way of the preferred
lower altitude fighter bomber and twin engined bomber
solution.


Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos?

Well yes actually on the night prior to D-Day 1211 aircraft of bomber
command attacked the German forces behind the beacheads
dropping over 5000 tons of bombs on roads , troop concentrations,
marshalling yards, radar sites, gun emplacements and railway junctions.

Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.
Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.

Not without dumping their bombs they didnt

A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.
IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.



The Zerstorer in Luftwaffe service was a failure in the
Battle of Britian


The fact is that fighters, fighter bombers, and medium bombers out
number the heavies by quite a bit. What ever the RAF thought of thier
intial fighter bomber laugher defeats and the Luftwaffes stunning
victories; it is clear that the RAF built fighter bombers later and
used them for close support of land, sea, and air forces.


The luftwaffe were mostly using aircraft like the Ju-87, Do-17
and He-111, none of which were fighter bombers, those arrived
later in the war.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.

And you were simply wrong

At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.

This has been shown to be incorrect

I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.


Which is why the RAF ordered the new factories in 1938,
by the time of the BOB it was WAY too late to switch.

The RAF needs more fighters and higher readiness fighters over what
they did. Britain will still have bombers that are there.



Bombers arent there unless you build them especially
when losses are as high as they were.

Keith