"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
Snip
Why what to which line I wrote?
The one which read
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.
I have the impression that you can answer the ‘why' to each of the
statements above.
I take it then the ‘why?' was rhetorical. I don't really feel like
doing the detailed history of why Britain at first went with bombers
and fighters and no fighter-bombers. You seem interested and aware,
you are welcome to extend the discussion. Why do you think Britain
didn't develop fighter bombers early like Germany? Compare just
2-engined bombers with long ranged fighter bombers, and tell me which
would have been better for Britain to have during the BoB. Are you
willing to argue that; in a reasonable war-game, that if Britain swaps
all of her 2-engined bombers for fighter-bombers, that Britain will do
worse? Never mind alternative history POD (POint of departure)
"soundness", we are just subbing fighter bombers for bombers in a
game. Which is more important? Which can sub for what?
Snip
You can to rapidly decrease production of one plane type and
increase
production of another.
No sir you cant, retooling a factory and re-training its workforce
takes considerable time during which you produce nothing at all.
What retooling? Both use the same job description workers to a tee.
Both use riveters, welders, assemblers, fitters, cutters, pressers,
ect.
Both use the forklifts, ceiling cranes, metal cutters, grinders,
torches,
drills, ect.
Both use large open space-warehouses-with strong ceilings.
Both use the same basic raw materials in nearly identical
configurations, and many parts are only different like 28" waist pants
are different than 60" pants.
You may be thinking of a short time frame for the BoB which is just
3
months.
Given that this is the subject of the discussion that's not a reasonable
assumption
Well, clearly my response to Pocket refers to a 1947 after action
report by the USAAF for the entire WWII. And I provide a 1943
hypothetical long range raid on rail.
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.
This is simply wrong. Consider as an example the TBM Avenger
The first prototype flew in 1940, the first production models
entered service in 1942 but it took the best part of a year
for GM to produce the first Avenger .
Why didn't you use the Corsair as an example?
In this adjustment for the war-game current production models' outputs
are adjusted.
Your example involves bringing a prototype into service and not merely
adding on a new factory.
They were given a contract to build 1200 at their Eastern Aircraft plant in
Trenton, New Jersey in March 1942. The first aircraft rolled off the
production lines in March 1943. Even that was a tremendous
achievement and required Grumman to deliver TBF's assembled
with sheet metal screws rather than rivets so they could be repeatedly
assembled and dismantled by the workers in training
HOw did all aircraft production jump by tens or thousands per year
then?
All major types of aircraft, that is all fighters, bombers, fighter
bombers, and transports all taken together all were jumping up rapidly
for all sides monthly. How was this done, and how is it then that
there can be no flexibility to increase fighter bombers over bombers
from July 1st, 1940 to October 1st, 1940. Early on air bases
themselves were producing large numbers of planes in mini factories:
Every piece of a warplane could be made in the field. I have heard on
the USA's History Channel that nearly 50% of USAAF warplanes were not
made in factories at all but on or near air bases. The mini factories
had stuff like, mini-mills, diamond grinders, drills, metal scissors,
tool and die makers, ect. All of those can be made in a snap, are
common, and on the shelf. I consider it a fact that Britain set up
these mini-mills very quickly and this is a prime reason Britain had
such a high production rate. When Germany started with this method
too, its production went up to. I don't think that it is hard to
boost fighter production from July 1st, 1940 since it was boosted on
an emergency basis. By no means is fighter production structurally
limited like you indicate. Adding more assembly lines to an already
developed plane already in production is easy and quick.
The mini-mills can larger factory lines can be added fast until basic
raw material availability has been tapped. Sorry. Try harder, maybe.
Consider further the second Spitfire production plant at Castle Bromwich
in the West Midlands. On April 12,1938 a contract was placed for 1,000
Spitfires to be built at this new factory, aircraft first came off the
production line in September 1940.
And now provide further data on how fast additional production was
added.
I don't happen to have Hurricane and Spitfire monthly production
counts from July, August, September, and October 1940: but I suppose
you do. Now how do you account for the increasing counts? From you
examples, I could infer that back in 1938 Britain had pre planned the
build-up and it just so happen the BoB rolled right in just then as
things were picking up steam.
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.
No they cant, there was no shortage of fuel, the bombers mostly used
different engines and the rest of the stuff is just silly. Once more
there was no shortage of aircraft, the RAF had seveal hundred
complete spares in stock and production was running at 300 a
month by September.
If there was no shortage why were they so concerned to increase
production further?
And I never stated there is a shortage of planes, anyway. I stated
that fighters were more important than bombers in the BoB, and Britain
should have favored fighters even more over bombers than they did. AS
far a a fuel shortage? I have heard in many interviews that the RAF
was very tight on fuel. Just the other day on the Dorothy Reeem show
that what was husbanding fighters to fight "Sea Lion" was not having
fuel to head over ot the fight.
The RAF, RN, and Army were all very worried about fuel conservation.
In addition, I have read that Britain was very interested in
projecting confidence and prowess.
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?
You really are totally clueless about production engineering. An
aircraft is an incredibly complex product, even in WW2
it took around 2 years to go from prototype to production.
There is no point discussing things with a stale noodle either.
The time from first proto-type test flights to first combat plane
mass production date is irrelevant. It would be more relevant for
you to explain how production of a plane in mass production has
production boosted.
While a B-29 can deliver 20,000lbs of bombs and a Corsair 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.
Which is bloody useless if the target is over a 1000 miles away and
even if its in range you need 10 times the number of aircraft and
5 times the number of pilots. Add in the ground staff and the logistics
are impossible.
As I have noted many times for you, and you don't seem impressed.
The USAAF held in 1947 that 95% of strategic bombing missed, and only
5% was useful.
What was useful mostly at lower altitudes, which improves accuracy,
was against rail,
and was against energy. The energy raids were at a fairly low
altitude too as I recall.
The F4 can also strafe enemy trucks, bomb enemy ships, and rocket
or
bomb tanks. Heavy fighter cover can mean the enemy has vitally
100%
of trucks operating during daylight or any ground vehicle
operating
during the day in a battle destroyed. Fighter bombers are simply
the
best. Fighter bomb cant deliver supply to ground units which is
what a
transport can do and some bombers too.
Fighter bombers are an absolute requirement for ground support
but they wont demolish the oil plants which proved to be a
decisive move in WW2. Nor will they destroy the enemy's transport
infrastructure
I have seen WWII film footage from wing cameras showing Mustang
rockets killing a moving locomotive, and causing railcars filled with
munitions to explode. It is very obviously that fighter bombers can
attack bridges, trucks, rail, and ships.
Snip
Cite please, I have read the strategic bombing survey and I dot
recall that as being its conclusions
Well, I will try to get down there soon and photo-copy it.
Snip
Irrelevant. address the issue please , how do you propose
to destroy the German oil industry with fighter bombers
Why not?
I know the precise opposite. Unsupported infantry gets
chopped up without anti-tank guns and air cover. Ask
the paras who got caught at Arnhem.
It is not so well known that Red Army infantrymen were brought west
just to teach Allied infantrymen their tactics for dealing with tanks,
and yes they took heavy causatives winning which is better than taking
heavy losses and losing which in turn is better than losing and taking
light casualties, at least for the airborne. Really, in WWII ordinary
infantry units got better at dealing with tanks. Just because 100
tanks move into a contested zone that is 10mi by 10mi (100sq miles)
doesn't mean the ordinary light infantry is automatically defeated.
The infantry can do all sorts of useful defensive things. A lot
depends on the terrain. If there are good wood lines, then ambushes
of enemy trucks and troops is possible.
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.
And how do you propose to kill the enemy infantry ?
Wave a magic wand ?
Are you a drug abuser? Typically, the way light infantry kills other
infantry is by using the suite of light weapons. Among the light
infantry weapons are rifles, mortars, bazookas, pistols, grenades,
machine guns, and mines. A tank can be disabled by having a grenade
put down its barrel, hammering the machine guns, putting a chain
around the tracks, and killing off trucks that would support it.
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.
Geez you really know nothing do you.
I don't have all the references that might be nice for accurate
detailing.
I find my level of detailing fine for conceptual development.
The best British gun was the 17 pounder and the Americans
used their own 3" gun
I bet one
of those could be air delivered by glider, or parachute, or
airplane.
You'd lose, the 17 pounder weighed 2100 kg, was 4.2 m long
needed a truck to tow it and each round including packing weighed
around 50 pounds. The largest air portable AT gun
was the 6 pounder but damm few of them got into action.
The Douglas C-47 Dakota/Skytrain Weight empty 17,865lbs operational
31,000lbs
length 19.44 meters.
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.
Trouble is you are using them strategically and havent a hope of
training enough pilots to fly em all.
You are on drugs.
Snip
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.
The devil is in the details, the Mustang was NOT great in ground
attack, it was intensely vulnerable to ground fire and was not
used in that role in WW2.
What I'm reading indicates that it performed well in dive bombing and
ground attack.
It was during the Korean War that the Mustang was pulled from ground
support for the reasons you stated. Most USA fighters were fighter
bombers and robust ground attackers.
It says no such thing, take a look at its conclusions
Quote
CONCLUSION
The foregoing pages tell of the results achieved by Allied air power, in
each of its several roles in the war in Europe. It remains to look at the
results as a whole and to seek such signposts as may be of guidance to the
future.
Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe.
*****Hindsight inevitably suggests that it might have been
employed differently or better in some respects.*****
Any interesting conclusion. Did you read "findings" which detailed
above?
Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea,
its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's
greatest naval threat -- the U-boat;
***** on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor
***** of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority
***** made possible the success of the invasion.
Medium bombers and fighter bombers made all of Normandy a major
success and not the heavies.
Anything a medium bomber did during Normandy and the Normandy breakout
could have been done by fighter bombers. The prelude to the Normandy
invasion is just the sort of thing I'm taking about in terms of
tactics and weapons.
***** It brought the economy which
***** sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full
***** effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they
***** were overrun by Allied forces.
Reread, very carefully what is written above. It says that by May
1945 the effects of strategic bombing against the German economy were
not felt by frontline German troops.
***** It brought home to the German people the full
***** impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering. Its imprint on the
***** German nation will be lasting.
You will find more detailing in the findings. I might be guilty of
using ‘conclusions' when I should have used ‘findings'. In any case,
where is my paraphrasing wrong?
/Quote
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.
And vulnerable cooling system
That is interesting, friend.
John Freck
|