"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...



"John Freck" wrote in message
m...



Keith Willshaw wrote:



Snip



Hardly, the first 4 engined bomber, the Short Stirling didnt
enter service until 1941 and the fighters had absolute priority
on production in 1940. Canceling all 4 engined bomber production
would have made no difference at all to the BOB



The RAF had bomber production going during the BoB. Yes, the RAF
did
think fighters were more important than bombers. I would for the
sake
of the game eliminate new bomber construction, or only go with the
hottest 2-engined bombers that are in fact or could nearly be top
fighter bombers if configured that way.



Why ?



Why what to which line I wrote?



You cant rapidly switch factories building Whitleys or Wellingtons
to building Spitfires and Hurricanes and new shadow factories
for those aircraft were already entering production, the RAF
had no shortage of airframes in any event.



You can to rapidly decrease production of one plane type and increase
production of another.
You may be thinking of a short time frame for the BoB which is just 3
months. During W.W.II USA production jumped hugely in time measured
in months. Some planes were discontinued and others started up with
pretty high numbers off the bat. When a plane was discontinued the
numbers produced dropped to zero in a day, and the factory would be
open the next day getting started making whatever was next, and the
numbers of the new plane jumped up pretty quickly as I recall. Yes,
the 3 month time frame of the BoB is very tight, and this is why I say
my commentary in response to Herbert Pocket's is really more for down
stream. But, without hesitation fighter command can take fuel from
bomber command, spare engines, sheet metal, knobs, and such, and raw
materials. Building a whole new factory to make fighters can be done
in weeks, transferring workers can be done in weeks, diverting raw
materials can be done in 1 day, and the machines used to make fighters
and bombers and all the same, just different patterns of the same
thing. It is really no different that having more shirts and less
pants. You must admit that operationally fighters and bombers consume
pretty much the same stuff in terms of material, skilled workers, and
management. Yes?



I could go down to the library get direct quotes from the 1947
USA
Almanac. The assessment in 1947 lead to the USAAF, USN, USMC,
and
USA Army spending very heavily in other directions than
strategic
bombers, not that the strategic bomber is absent even today.



The USAAF ceased to exist in 1947 and from that date on
the US Army has not operated significant numbers of fixed
wing aircraft



The United States Army Air Force = The United States Air Force = The
United States of America
Air Force The USAAF merely changed its name to USAF and became a full
independent branch of the US military establishment.



The USAF and Strategic Air Command on the other hand ordered
and operated large numbers of strategic bombers including the
B-29, B-50, B-36, B-47, B-52, B-1 and B-2



The B-29 pre-dates 1947. The total number of bombers produced of
B-50, B-36, B-47, B-52, B-1, and B-2 don't add up to 1,000, I don't
believe. The number of fighter bombers built since 1947 is over
10,000 as I recall. The ratio is about the same as I recommend for
SimWWII. I cut back and not out.


Perhaps
the 4-engined bombers were most effective when deployed at low
altitude. What sort of altitude were the attacks on Germany's oil
production carried out at? Of course, 4-engined bomber can run
low.
It is just that it is better to use 1 and 2-engined planes. There
are
awesome things the Allied could have done if 4-engined bombers are
cut
back around 75% or more.

And awesome things they couldnt have done, fact is a single heavy bomber can
carry more bombs than 6 fighter bombers of WW2 and do so over a
longer distance



While a B-29 can deliver 20,000lbs of bombs and a Coursair only 1
2,000lbs bomb, and yes,
the B-29 can fly 3,000+ miles and the F-4 only 1,000+ miles, the F4
can deliver the bomb more accurately.
The F4 can also strafe enemy trucks, bomb enemy ships, and rocket or
bomb tanks. Heavy fighter cover can mean the enemy has viturally 100%
of trucks operating during daylight or any ground vehicle opeating
during the day in a battle destoyed. Fighter bombers are simply the
best. Figther bomb cant deliver supply to ground units which is wht a
transport can do and some bombers too.


For example, what-if the the Allies funded, resourced, the dreams
of
the airborne generals. In some alternative history story or
war-game
we can explore 100,000 strong airborne armies backed by thousands
of
transport planes. Imagine D-day with a lot more and better
supported
airborne troops!

Airborne troops dont do well against armoured formations, see
Arnhem for an example.

The USAAF stated that 95% of strategic bombing missions were useless,
and that only 5% of the runs made a difference, and that those sorts
of runs can be better done by fighter bombers. They then followed up
and built fighter bombers in greatest numbers: I think the USA
military has more transports than bombers, I just think that to be the
case. US Army tank units didn't do that well against German armor
either. Ordinary light infantry did get better and better against
armor, as I'm sure you know. For highly motivated infantry dealing
with tanks that have had protecting infantry killed there are many
methods where-by ordinary infantry can disable an enemy tank. In this
war-game the airborne have not only more men, but more money and
resources per man. The airborne will have more supply and heavier
supply. What were those best Allied anti-tank guns called? The 7
pounders, or was it 75 pounders? They were 75 mm, I think. I bet one
of those could be air delivered by glider, or parachute, or airplane.
This idea would be an interesting thread by itself; a really, really
robust and huge airborne Allied army with huge air support for close
fire support and logistical support. You have to dream a little for
an interesting war-game variation. That would be 100,000 troops with
2x the real world's funding, and heavy support from the Air Force too.
In addition, Allied fighter bombers were a major anti-tank weapon.



Snip



But 500 fighter bomber sorties will deliver only 10% of the bomb
load
of a 1000 bomber Lancaster raid and in any event neither the USSAF
nor the RAF had 500 P-51's in 1943.

My little book of W.W.II Aircraft indicates that the P-51 was in
Europe
from 1942.


In small numbers as the Mustang I with an Allison engine in RAF service,
I suggest you rely on something a little less lightweight than the
'little book of WW2 aircraft'

My specifics are less important than the overview point, which is that
fighter bombers can bomb very effectively. I could have used just
‘Allied fighters' and not ‘Mustang' or ‘Hurricane' or ‘Hurricane Super
Marine fighter'. The generalize point is the subject. My book states
that the Mustang was in service in 1942, and my book states that the
Mustang was great on ground attack, and it could carry a 2,000lbs
bomb.


Any way, the 500 fighters cost something like 1/8 the cost of the
1,000 bombers, and the real bomb load of a Mustang (Ok, my stats
are
for a D) is 2,000lbs.


So you spend more money per ton of bombs dropped and risk 5 times
as many pilots. RAF losses per ton of bombs dropped were
lowest for the Lancaster bomber and highest for the light bombers.


The USAAF in 1947 states in an after action review of Allied bombing
of German that fighter bombers worked best.


Losses on the famous precision raids such as those by Mosquito's
on the prison at Amiens and the Shell centre in Copenhagen
varied between 20 and 40 percent. German flak was too good
to routinely operate large numbers of bombers at low level
attacking defended targets

Evaluation of the attrition factors indicates that fighter bombing was
the most effective bombing method in W.W.II.


The Mustang also has 6 50cals for ground
attack, say for peppering a locomotive. 500*2000=1,000,000 and
1,000*4,000=4,000,000. Plus the fighters will be much much harder
to
shoot down, and their bombing will be more accurate as extremely
low
altitude bombing is possible which is very accurate.


You are in error once more, review the data for aircraft losses
in the ground attack role and you'll find Mustangs suffered heavily
due to their liquid cooling system.

I read it from a book. The Mustang is considered a potent ground
attack weapon: it was not a failure as a weapon as you state by my
book. Please provide evidence that the Mustang was a failed ground
attack weapon in W.W.II. These details are irrelevant, perhaps, to a
war-game that might only have ‘fighters'. I would imagine that a
future SimWWII would allow for details such as you mention to be
relevant. A Mustang also escorted bombers, but not on all days, and
the Mustang has very good range.

The P-47 was far better suited to the ground attack role
but NEITHER was well suited to strategic roles such as
the oil campaign..

.... Fighter bombers devastated fuel farms in W.W.II... Fuel farms
give in to the bombs of bombers and well to the bombs of fighter
bombers.

John Freck