Why did Britain win the BoB? How could have the Allies have done even better? Homework help!

"Herbert Pocket" wrote in message ...


Agreed, it is hard to pick out any outstanding Allied failures at the
macroscopic level, though this is probably a consequence of knowing (with
20:20 hindsight) that the Allies were ultimately victorious.


Snip


In no particular order:


A) Earlier recognition of aerial bombing inaccuracies, and development of
improved assessment, equipment & training (with reference to the RAF's poor
performance in early bombing missions and the general misbelief that the job
was being well done).


Herbert Pocket,

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. Hopefully, I'm not reading to much into your
sugggestion, I have long put forward similar notion that most of the
strategic bombing was a waste, or it could have been done with much
less and even better. During the Summer of 1940 the Allies could have
had more fighters and more fuel, and have had the bombers on lower
level missions cutting up Germans energy and transport.

All strategic bombing could have, and should have, been done by long
ranged fighter-bombers, and fast 2-engined bombers, and 100% of the
effort shoud have been against German military targets, energy, and
transport. IN 1947 the USAAF stated that 95% of startegic bombing
reasouces were wasted, only 5% of the strategic bombing effort was
worthwhile. But Christ, that 5% was a knock-out! Viturally, all the
crippling damage done by strategic air attack was done by long-ranged
fighter bombers and 2-engined bombers attacking at low altitude, and
almost no serious damage was done by the wasteful other line.

One hundred Mustangs each with a single 1,000lbs bomb, flying in low
in order to lay down 50+ direct hits on railline is very troublesome
to the GErmans, and did I mention the destoyed and badly damaged
locomotives, loads, and other equipment, and the need for Germany then
to disperse AAA? The Allies can put down 500 fighter-bomb sorties
like that a day in the Rhur by 1943 and sleep in to boot.




John Freck

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Herbert Pocket" wrote in message
...


Agreed, it is hard to pick out any outstanding Allied failures at the
macroscopic level, though this is probably a consequence of knowing
(with
20:20 hindsight) that the Allies were ultimately victorious.


Snip


In no particular order:


A) Earlier recognition of aerial bombing inaccuracies, and development
of
improved assessment, equipment & training (with reference to the RAF's
poor
performance in early bombing missions and the general misbelief that
the job
was being well done).


Herbert Pocket,

Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing.

There were no strategic bombers in 1940

RAF bomber command was almost exlusively equipped
with light day bombers such as the Blenheim and Battle.
The handful of 'heavies' available were twin engine types
such as the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden.

Keith

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message


Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The
Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing.

Snip


There were no strategic bombers in 1940

I was getting beyond the time frame I began with, July 1st 1940.
My commentary gets more and more relevant from July 1st, 1940,
however.
IMO, the RAF had strategic bombers if the strategically bombed. To me
then,
'strategic bomber' is any plane dropping bombs on a strategic mission
bombing run.
This then begs the question what is 'strategic bombing'. If on July
1st, 1940 a single Hurricane Super Marine
Spitfire drops a single 1,000lbs bomb on a railroad line near Arnhiem,
then a strategic bombing mission occured. 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.



RAF bomber command was almost exlusively equipped
with light day bombers such as the Blenheim and Battle.
The handful of 'heavies' available were twin engine types
such as the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden.

You are telling me that the RAF had no heavy bomb load capacity
4-engined bombers yet by July 1st, 1940, or not many. Furthermore,
you indicate strategic bombing must be "heavy" bombing as opposed to
"light" bombing. I think you use you vocabulary differently than me,
and that we need to understand our idiomatical difference and develop
from there carefully.


John Freck

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


Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The
Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing.

Snip


There were no strategic bombers in 1940

I was getting beyond the time frame I began with, July 1st 1940.
My commentary gets more and more relevant from July 1st, 1940,
however.
IMO, the RAF had strategic bombers if the strategically bombed. To me
then,
'strategic bomber' is any plane dropping bombs on a strategic mission
bombing run.
This then begs the question what is 'strategic bombing'. If on July
1st, 1940 a single Hurricane Super Marine
Spitfire drops a single 1,000lbs bomb on a railroad line near Arnhiem,
then a strategic bombing mission occured.

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

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.



RAF bomber command was almost exlusively equipped
with light day bombers such as the Blenheim and Battle.
The handful of 'heavies' available were twin engine types
such as the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden.

You are telling me that the RAF had no heavy bomb load capacity
4-engined bombers yet by July 1st, 1940, or not many.

Exactly that, not one 4 engined bomber was in service.

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 ?

and that we need to understand our idiomatical difference and develop
from there carefully.


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

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.

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.

Keith

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.


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


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?


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.


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.


John Freck







Keith

"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

Bah.
The question was - what could have been done better.
Guy, don't tell me selected pilots (Poles; they would have loved the
task) could not have been used to attrit the minimum fuel 109s fleeing
for home, using the one pass haul ass tactic. Once the LW realized
what was going on - and this would happen at squadron level pretty
quick - 109 pilots would have raised the bingo fuel level markedly,
leaving their escorted forces in the lurch.

As for the off-subject topic of using fighter-bombers - lots of luck
with 109s and radar eying them.

The biggest miss of the bombing campaign was ignoring the electrical
grid. Those big transformers in the distribution yards do not grow on
trees and indeed are not heavily stockpiled. Nor are the turbines,
generators, etc - they're built to order, not on spec.
Walt BJ

"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.



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.



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.


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. Bombers were a poor use of limited
resources.



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.
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.



John Freck





Keith