"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



"John Freck" wrote in message
m...



Snip



But 'Hurricane or Super Marine Spitfire', and it is considered
extremely poor manners to point out less that proof solid writing
error on the usenet which is a chat environment. Look, I'm not
your
pupil, buddy.



It is however just fine to point out egregious errors, no Spitfire
or Hurricane had the range or equipment to drop bombs
on Arnhem in 1940



Yes, it is true that Britain had no fighter bombers, I guess; but I
did say, frankly, that my commentary becomes more relevant further
down time.


But its irrelevant to the topic



Snip



You are losing all context. I merely encouraged and elaborated
upon a
posters suggestion.



YOU were the original poster
Its YOUR Post I am responding too



In my original post you will find no mention of Allied strategic
bombing.
Reread my response to Herbert Pocket; this is a tangential subject.
The subject line should read: 'Were heavy bombers the best use of
resources: Was...'.
As far as the BoB goes in a SimWWII war-game? Fighter command can get
cracking on fighter bombers; and get fuel, material, and manpower from
bomber command



The whole idea of killing off 4-engined bombers
is an extension of the chat Herbert Pocket posted.



Indeed and its that I am responding to.



He should speak for himself, but I feel that fighter bombers would
have been better for Britain to have from July 1st, 1940 than any of
the bombers that they had. Of course, to have Britain without any
bombers on July 1st, 1940 would require war-game that allows for a
beginning before July 1st, 1940.



In your earlier post you advocated producing twin engined bombers
of the type the RAF actually DID procure, now you want to forgo
all bomber production. Make up your mind sir.


As I have already
told you, I admit the bomber issue as I cast has more and more
relevance further down time. Your point on Britain having a
complete
lack of fighter bombers is of course true, and from July 1st, 1940
it
would be smart for them to get cracking.



They did as soon as aircraft became available. From 1940
onwards the Hurricane transitioned into the ground attack
role as did the P-40's acquired from the USA



Snip



No I have that English disdain for those who dont do their homework



You are just a complete rude jerk.


Ad Hominem noted.


Snip



"Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing. If
Britain, and the Allies, had cut out four engined bombers in order to
have a large increase in top fighters and a boost to strong, fast,and
long ranged 2 engined bombers: Then Germany would have had a harder
time much sooner. "



You made an error sir, there were no 4 engined bombers to cut
during the BOB and they were indeed producing strong fast
and long ranged 2 engined bombers.



Good. You are still rude.

If pointing out your errors is rude so be it.

Bombers were a poor use of limited
resources.


The US Strategic bombing survey and other indpendent sources
disagree, the real debate is on how those resources are best used.



And until 1942 they were predominantly twin engined types used
for tactical attacks. There is indeed a case to be made that mistakes
were made in the direction of aerial assets in 1942-44 but
this had ZERO effect on the conduct of the BOB which is
after all the subject



The subject became the relative value of bombers opposed to fighter
bombers generally in W.W.II. You are acting like a military officer
who tries to dominate as a form of leadership.

Your inability to answer the point is noted.


I suppose you think there will be a bright future for humanity if
Israel-USA-UK jointly occupy the whole Middle East too, and you don't
car much for those who differ.



Changing the subject doesnt help much either.

Keith