"John Freck" wrote in message
m...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

Snip


No that would have been a bloody miracle since there never was such
a thing as a Hurricane Super Marine Fighter


But 'Hurrican or Super Marine Spitfire', and it is considered
exteremly poor manners to point out less that proof solid writting
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



I find it important to
note: 'tactical' and 'strategic' are not opposite. The sentence
'There are tactical variations of strategic bombing that include type
of aircraft used, altitude and speed at moment of bomb release,
maginitude, and target.' makes sense, and the inverse is true. There
are strategeis behind tactical choises. In any case, the RAF can from
July 1st, 1940 favor fighters even more than they did, and use fighter
bombers more over bombers and use bombing better.

They DID favor fighters, there was no such thing as the fighter bomber
at the time and the bomber force was being used in the tactical
role to attack the invasion barges. The strategic attack on German
industry
didnt begin in earnest until 1942.


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

YOU were the original poster

Its YOUR Post I am responding too


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

Indeed and its that I am responding to.

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 have 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

Furthermore,
you indicate strategic bombing must be "heavy" bombing as opposed
to
"light" bombing. I think you use you vocabulary differently than
me,

Thats for sure, I also know what missions RAF bomber command
flew in 1940 do you ?

I have the "The Times Atlas of the Second World War, edited by John
Keegan" open now.

I think you need to read up a little on the subject , here's a free
clue.


Is everyone rude, where you come from? Do you have that Scottish
anger of something?


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


Of the 13,000 tons of bombs the RAF dropped in 1940 only
137 tons fell on Industrial towns, the majority were on airfields,
naval targets and troop concentrations.


You really need to re-read the thread carefully. Especially, look
where I am responding to herbert Pockets responce to me. It is nice
that the entire "conversation" is preserved.


I did sir you said.

"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.




These usually count as tactical missions.

In fact raids on tactical targets exceeded those on strategic ones
until 1942.

Of the 13,000 bombs dropped in 1940 5,000 were delivered by
Wellingtons (twin engined) , 3000 by Whitleys (twin engined),
2700 by Hampdens (twin engined), 2000 by Blenheims (twin engined)
and the remainder by the single engined Fairey battle.

The RAF also procured 3,500 bombers in 1940 and 4,500 bombers in 1941
and 6,000 bombers in 1942 and 8,000 bombers in 1943.



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

Keith