Why did Britain win the BoB?

"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

John Halliwell wrote:
In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes

The Germans needed the concealment of night to have a chance of survival
against what? The Royal Navy? Surface vessels could not survive against
determined airpower without air support of their own.


You could take Crete as a good example, where the LW had complete air
superiority but the RN still smashed the naval invasion.

The LW had about thirty HE 115 floatplanes able to drop (unreliable)
torpedoes. Level bombing of ships in open water is very inaccurate and
dive bombing requires clear weather to 8,000ft (we're talking about the
English Channel here!), even so the LW bombs (available for dive
bombing) would have struggled to penetrate the large armoured decks of
battleships.

Air support would come from Britain in the form of remnants of Fighter
Command, plus Coastal Command and Bomber Command.


Add to that Training, Army Co op and anything else the RAF can find.
Also there is the Fleet Air Arm. _. If they can sink the Koninsburg off
Norway they can make a mess of the Channel in the general all out melee
that would ensue.

The LW could indeed hammer the RN in the Channel battle but you have to
ask your self how expendable the RN was when it came to a landing and
how expendable the LW was. There were WW1 battleships around that would
have been pressed into the battle and as the losses on both sides
mounted convoy escorts would have been pulled out of the Atlantic and
Force H from Gib would have been arriving.

It is clear that little of the German Army view took into considerations
the differences between a large river crossing and open Sea.

The Convoy's of Barges would have trouble making 4 knots through the
water. Water that in places can be moving up to 6 knots over the
ground. The presence of minefields and sandbanks means that anything
with more draft than a rowing boat can't cross the channel at right
angles and the need to steer into the tides means the water distance is
greater still. Basically the minimum time has got to be at least one
tide cycle. Also at what state of tide do you want to arrive ? High or
Low water ? - the barges can't cope with significant cross tide effects
while landing. (Powered landing craft and DD tanks had problems in
Normandy!).

"John Freck" wrote in message
m...
"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?

Germany didnt do so either, they fought the BOB with bombers
such as the Do-17, He-111 and JU-88 none of which could
be classed as fighter bombers

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.

They'd have done even better with Tornado GR-4's but they
werent available either.

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?

Yes sir.

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?



Neither is an adequate substitute for the other, both
are needed.


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.


Wrong.

Consider a single relatively simple part such as an aileron.

You need dies for the press that stamps out the sheets
of aluminum that make the skin and other to stamp out
the ribs, you need a jig so that the rivet holes can be drilled
in the right place and then an assemply jig on which it can be built.

Then you need the captan lathes set up to turn out the pins
the aileron turns on.




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.


Irrelevant



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?

OK the Corsair protoype flew 3 years before it entered squadron service

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.


No sir the GM Avenger plant was producing an aircraft already
in production


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?

They didnt

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,

By placing the orders years before

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:

Not after 1910 they werent.


Every piece of a warplane could be made in the field.

What Utter tosh

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.

You are either a fool or a troll.

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.



Yep definitely a fool



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 just did

I don't happen to have Hurricane and Spitfire monthly production
counts from July, August, September, and October 1940: but I suppose
you do.

Yep

Now how do you account for the increasing counts?

That plant at Castle Bromwich which was ordered in 1938

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.


Bingo , thats exactly right.



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.


I did, you plainly dont understand.




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.


Incorrect , I have given you the location of the survey text,
go and read it.



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.



Attack yes, disrupt yes, destroy no


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.


I wont hold my breath


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.

Even better is winning with low casualties which the British and
US armies did


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.


If wishes were fishes etc



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?

No but I do wonder about you.

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.


Lots of luck trying that against a Panther



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.


Translation: I dont care about mere facts


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.


So


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.


Lack of substantive respnse noted



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.


No most were fighters




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?


That quote is from The US Strategic bombing survey that you claim to
have read


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.

Read up a little about the B-17 and Lancaster attacks on Falaise
and the German forces around Caen


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.


Incorrect, fighter bombers couldnt destroy the German rail
infrastructure and prevent reinforcements arriving, the mediums did


***** 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.


No its says the FULL effect


***** 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?


Everywhere


/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.


It sure is

Keith

In article , John Freck
writes
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.

Have a look at the performance of the Fairey Battle during the battle
for France, perhaps the closest thing to a fighter bomber the RAF had at
the time. They went up against bridges and were almost without exception
shot out of the sky, whole squadrons were lost in minutes.

--
John

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:42:46 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

[snip Freckin' idiocy]

Now how do you account for the increasing counts?

That plant at Castle Bromwich which was ordered in 1938

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.

Bingo , thats exactly right.

Much to the annoyance of the RAF Air Staff, who had been frustrated
with slow production output with Spitfires at both Supermarines in
1938-39 and Castle Bromwich in 1939-40, to the point of replacing the
management concerned in both instances. In both cases production
shortfalls were caused by the actual difficulties involved in
beginning large-scale production runs requiring major investment in
machine tools, parts manufacture, assembly processes and personnel.
The RAF wanted that buildup to actually appear in production numbers
in 1939, not the summer of 1940.

[From Price, referring to the problems getting Castle Bromwich into
production]

[Stanley Woodley, one of the Supermarine personnel brought in to revamp
things at the plant] " 'We were charged with proiducing 10 Spitfires by the
end of June 1940. We knew that in the short time available it was
impossible to meet that date from the resources at Castle Bromwich alone.
But by shipping up from Southhampton [i.e. from Supermarine] large numbers
of finished components, including some fully equipped fuselages, and working
around the clock, the magic "ten in June" was completed.'"

[Price] "The simple fact was that if modifications had to be incorporated,
and they had to be in great numbers, production with semi-skilled labour was
not possible. The answer was to use all the expensive jigs and the
semi-skilled labourers to produce all those components that could be made
that way, while the skilled labour forces at Castle Bromwich and Southampton
produced those components which could not. With this hybrid process
Spitfire production moved ahead rapidly at Castle Bromwich, with 23 aircraft
in July, 37 in August and 56 during the month of September."

[snip more loon-shooting by Keith]

And thank goodness he's got the patience -- Freck crossed my threshold of
cluelessness, beyond which I won't make the effort to correct the errors,
some ways back. He's got years of reading to bring him up to speed before
there can be a valuable conversation, and it will have to be a lot more
in-depth and technical than "The Big Picture Book of World War 2 Airplanes"
level that seems to be his current fare. But I try and be charitable; when
I was 11 years old my reading material and knowledge base was equally
limited, I didn't know what I needed to read/study/experience and couldn't
understand/interpret the technical details even if I did find the right
stuff. Hell, my first real wargame (as opposed to chess, "Stratego" and
"Dogfight") was Avalon Hill's "Luftwaffe", given to me when I was 9 or so,
and I couldn't make head or tails of it at the time.

Guy

"Ben Full" wrote in message ...
John Freck.exe failed a turing test with the following:

Why did Britain win the BoB?

SNIP:
I am puzzled. Where did my posts (2) to this thread go? I made one
point that interception of Me109s bingoing home sucking fumes would
have paid dividends. Well, one pilot made a practice of doing just
that. Joseph Frantisek, Czech pilot, highest scorer (17) during the
BoB, used to sneak off alone and bounce the 109s and whatever else he
could find over the Channel. I found this in a great book from my
local library, "A Question of Honor", by Olson and Cloud, ISBN
0-375-41197-6, copyright2003, published by Knopf. The primary subject
is the Polish airmen in the RAF, and what they did during the BoB and
after. You must read this book! (FWIW oddly enough the father of my
daughter's husband was one of them - Alexander Franzcak. Also odd is
we share the same birthday.)
Walt BJ

John Halliwell wrote in message ...


In article , John Freck
writes


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.


Have a look at the performance of the Fairey Battle during the battle
for France, perhaps the closest thing to a fighter bomber the RAF had at
the time. They went up against bridges and were almost without exception
shot out of the sky, whole squadrons were lost in minutes.



It would have been nice if the Allies had been able to surpress German
logistics riding on poontoon bridges, but as you say it was attempted
and failed badly. Germany lost more planes than the Allies during the
Fall of France. Germany lost more planes because the planes were
vunerable. What made them vunerable was flying low on ground attack.
Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking enemy
planes coming from above. It is hard to provide a picture of the
advantages a fighters has on anouther plane coming down from a higher
altitude, but it is similar to the advantages fighters had against the
Stuka during the BoB.
An RAF fighters could attack a diving Stuka starting from 1-2 km away;
the RAF would go into a much softer dive which would allow for the
pilot to track the Stuka in his guns' sights. This "plane of attack"
was stable and lasted for a long march of seconds. The RAF fighters
was firing his planes guns, however, at near maxium ranges. When a
fighters is over head of an enemy plane a similar tracking takes
place. The higher attacking fighter will have a speed boost from
gravitiy, and large evasions moves by the target mean small
adjustments by the attacker. Note only are low flying bomb ladden
fighter bombers vunerable to fighter attack there is the problem of
high quality AAA. Germany's AAA during 1940 seeming proved the point
that planes shouldn't be able to operate at low levels over a properly
run battlefield. Well, fighter bombers today run at over 30,000
typically and drop GPS bombs because ordinary AAA would ripe them up.

During WWII thousands of bombers, fighters, fighter bombers, and
transports were lost to fighters, fighter bombers, and AAA. All of
the above weapons can be brought down. Just pointing out that Axis
and Allied airforces took huge losses on missions isn't enough to
support the claim that the airplane was pointless.


John Freck

John Freck wrote in message ...

Germany lost more planes than the Allies during the
Fall of France.

RAF losses 10 May to 20 June 1940, forces in England
and France, due to enemy action, 931, includes losses
on the ground.

Luftwaffe aircraft lost May and June 1940 1,129 to enemy
action, 216 not due to enemy action.

French Losses in the region of 800 to 900. Then add the
Belgian and Dutch losses plus the RAF losses from
Norway since the Luftwaffe figures include such losses.

Germany lost more planes because the planes were
vunerable. What made them vunerable was flying low on ground attack.

The next departure from reality, the majority of the Luftwaffe
bombing sorties were medium level interdiction sorties,
level bombing. A major reason the losses were high was the
Luftwaffe was not good at escorting those strikes, the speed
bombers like the He111 were expected to be fast enough,
after all they were in Spain.

Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking enemy
planes coming from above.

But this is not allowed to stand in the way of the preferred
lower altitude fighter bomber and twin engined bomber
solution.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

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


"John Freck" wrote in message
om...


Why do you think Britain
didn't develop fighter bombers early like Germany?

Because Britain went with the light bomber idea pre war
and was on the defensive in 1940, which meant the RAF
fighter bombers appeared in 1941 versus 1940 for the
Luftwaffe.

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.

Easy the twin engined bombers like a Wellington could haul
4,000 pounds of bombs to the invasion ports, a Hurricane
fighter bomber 500 pounds when it came into service in
1941, even the Battles could do twice this.

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?

Easily, the damage being done to the invasion fleet was a
factor in the decision not to go and why it had to be dispersed.

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.

A long amount of reading into the concept of machine tools
is clearly in order here. If it was so simple then hours after
the changeover to a new model, day a Spitfire V to IX
then the entire air force should have had the new model.

Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging
and tooling

I / 339,400 / 800,000
II / 9,267 / unknown
III / 91,120 / 75,000
V / 90,000 / 105,000
VI 14,340 / 50,000
IX 43,830 / 30,000
XII / 27,210 / 16,000
VII / 86,150 / 150,000
VIII / 24,970 / 250,000
XIV / 26,120 / 17,000
21 / 168,500 / unknown
PR XI / 12,415 / unknown
Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000
Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000
Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000
Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown
Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000

Figures as of September 1943 for Supermarine works in
Southampton.

Even what looks like trivial design changes imposed
delays and loss of production.

Why didn't you use the Corsair as an example?

First flew 29 May 1940, ordered 30 June 1941 first
deliveries 3 October 1942.

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:

So if we want the 1910 model aircraft we can do this method.

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.

This is so wrong it is really funny.

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.

Ah yes, machine tools that take months to build are a snap,
and of course they are all waiting on the shelf for the declaration
of war.

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.

So please detail where all those mini mills are, since no
historian has found one.

When Germany started with this method
too, its production went up to.

So again, show the locations.

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.

It is really hard to punch through such iron clad ignorance
when you cannot see the screen because you are
laughing too much.

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.

Since you are so sure it was easy to ramp it up perhaps
you can provide production figures.

I don't happen to have Hurricane and Spitfire monthly production
counts from July, August, September, and October 1940: but I suppose
you do.

Ah I see no information but absolute certainty about what the
facts are.

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.

This sort of proves how random chance can make you
right occasionally. The explanation is completely correct
the increases in RAF fighter production in 1940 was due
to decisions taken in 1938 and 1939.

British Fighter output June to October 1940 by type, planned
and actual

Month // Beaufighter P/A // Defiant P/A // Hurricane P/A // Spitfire
P/A // Whirlwind P/A

June // 8/2 // 30/30 // 300/309 // 135/103 // 8/2
July // 14/5 // 50/56 // 220/272 // 140/160 // 4/3
August // 21/25 // 65/38 // 270/251 // 155/163 // 6/1
September // 24/15 // 65/41 // 280/252 // 175/156 // 8/3
October // 40/21 // 50/48 // 300/250 // 231/149 // 10/1

Total British aircraft production in 1940 January 802, February
719, March 860, April 1,081, May 1,279, June 1,591, July 1,665,
August 1,601, September 1,341, October 1,419, November
1,461, December 1,230.

There are two reasons for the summer peak, more good weather
for acceptance flights and people putting in large amounts of
overtime to produce as much as possible, with the inevitable
result of declining production as the workers tired. It took until
March 1941 to beat the peak monthly figure in 1940.

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?

Presumably this means fuel and the answer is the air force was
going to become larger in future years. Air forces are energy
intensive, fuelling 1,000 Lancasters is the same amount of energy
needed for 2,000 armoured division miles, say 50 miles for 40
armoured divisions.

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?

This is the usual hindsight ruling, and ignores the fact while
the RAF fighter situation became tight the pilot situation
was worse.

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.

Which sort of fiction does this show push? The RAF did not
have a fuel problem in 1940.

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.

Given the problems in shipping fuel to England the British
did take conservation measures, that is all.

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.

In that case why not go away?

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.

It is called laying down additional produciton lines, and training
the work force, which takes around as much time as the original
lines, thanks to the need for things like machine tools and
buildings.

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.

Given the basic point most of your claimed facts are fiction
there is no rason to believe what you say, provide the source
of the quote.

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.

Try again the oil targets had the heaviest flak defences, forcing
the bombers to fly at above average heights. The USAAF ETO
heavies dropped 126,191 short tons on oil targets.

Also the USAAF bomb tonnage from heavy bombers on transport
targets for the ETO comes to 226,167 short tons of bombs, this
compares with the total bomb tonnage for medium and fighter
bombers on all targets as 257,043 short tons.

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.

This leaves marshalling yards, canals and the oil industry.


Irrelevant. address the issue please , how do you propose
to destroy the German oil industry with fighter bombers

Why not?

Try the fact it is out of fighter bomber range from England.

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,

Ah we are really into the fiction here.

And how do you propose to kill the enemy infantry ?
Wave a magic wand ?

Are you a drug abuser?

I gather this is the question John Freck is frequently asked.

I don't have all the references that might be nice for accurate
detailing.
I find my level of detailing fine for conceptual development.

Yes folks, live in a fact free zone so improve the elegance of
the proposed solutions.

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.

So show us how a 17 pounder fitted in and how it could be
delivered by parachute or glider.

Medium bombers and fighter bombers made all of Normandy a major
success and not the heavies.

Actually it was the armies that won, assisted by the air forces,
including the heavies striking at important transport targets
as well as Germany in general, keeping the Luftwaffe busy
elsewhere.

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.

The medium bombers could travel further with larger bomb
loads, the USAAF bomb tonnage by delivery type 1944

Month / heavies / mediums / fighter bombers
March / 21,346 / 5,062 / 131
April / 27,576 / 9,475 / 1,489
May / 38,029 / 15,156 / 3,689
June / 59,625 / 15,701 / 10,322
July / 46,605 / 9,883 / 6,574
August / 49,305 / 10,716 / 7,745

Not a lot of fighter bomber sorties pre June 1944.

***** 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.

Try "full effects", that is there were still tanks in the vehicle parks
ready for issue as produciton declined. Try the way the Luftwaffe
was crippled by lack of fuel and losses trying to stop the heavy
bombers. Try the way the German explosive situation was so
bad rock salt was being substituted for HE.


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
John Halliwell wrote in message
...


In article , John Freck
writes


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.


Have a look at the performance of the Fairey Battle during the battle
for France, perhaps the closest thing to a fighter bomber the RAF had at
the time. They went up against bridges and were almost without exception
shot out of the sky, whole squadrons were lost in minutes.



It would have been nice if the Allies had been able to surpress German
logistics riding on poontoon bridges, but as you say it was attempted
and failed badly. Germany lost more planes than the Allies during the
Fall of France.

The Luftwaffe lost around 1200 aircraft of all type
The RAF and French lost around 1600

Germany lost more planes because the planes were
vunerable. What made them vunerable was flying low on ground attack.
Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking enemy
planes coming from above.

In fact the Luftwaffe predomiantly used level bombing from medium altitude


I t is hard to provide a picture of the
advantages a fighters has on anouther plane coming down from a higher
altitude, but it is similar to the advantages fighters had against the
Stuka during the BoB.

And yet you have been advocating the RAF adopt this strategy

An RAF fighters could attack a diving Stuka starting from 1-2 km away;
the RAF would go into a much softer dive which would allow for the
pilot to track the Stuka in his guns' sights. This "plane of attack"
was stable and lasted for a long march of seconds. The RAF fighters
was firing his planes guns, however, at near maxium ranges. When a
fighters is over head of an enemy plane a similar tracking takes
place. The higher attacking fighter will have a speed boost from
gravitiy, and large evasions moves by the target mean small
adjustments by the attacker. Note only are low flying bomb ladden
fighter bombers vunerable to fighter attack there is the problem of
high quality AAA. Germany's AAA during 1940 seeming proved the point
that planes shouldn't be able to operate at low levels over a properly
run battlefield.

And yet you have been advocating the RAF adopt this strategy


Well, fighter bombers today run at over 30,000
typically and drop GPS bombs because ordinary AAA would ripe them up.


This is infact untrue, the attack altitudes over Iraq and Serbia
was more like 10,000 ft

During WWII thousands of bombers, fighters, fighter bombers, and
transports were lost to fighters, fighter bombers, and AAA. All of
the above weapons can be brought down. Just pointing out that Axis
and Allied airforces took huge losses on missions isn't enough to
support the claim that the airplane was pointless.



It is if the missions failed, losing aircraft on a succesful mission
may sometimes be justified, if you lose the aircraft and dont
achieve the mission thats a real problem.

Keith