Why did Britain win the BoB?

In article , WaltBJ
writes
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.

One of your posts very similar to the one below appears in
rec.aviation.military.naval not sure if that's what you mean? There's
also an earlier one you posted about bingoing fuel.

Interestingly one of my posts appeared in one ng, when I'd thought I'd
posted it in another? This thread is running in about half a dozen
groups, sometimes multiple times within them group.

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.)

--
John

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...


Snip


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.


Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos? Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.
Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.
A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.
IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.


The fact is that fighters, fighter bombers, and medium bombers out
number the heavies by quite a bit. What ever the RAF thought of thier
intial fighter bomber laugher defeats and the Luftwaffes stunning
victories; it is clear that the RAF built fighter bombers later and
used them for close support of land, sea, and air forces.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.
At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.
I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.

The RAF needs more fighters and higher readiness fighters over what
they did. Britain will still have bombers that are there.

John Freck











Geoffrey Sinclair

John Freck wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

Snip

Yes, all the errors have to be removed so the subject
can be changed.

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.

Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos? Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.

Very good, when in doubt simply define the air war as only
the missions your favourite solution is best at.

You left out marshalling yards, canals, tunnels, bridges, oil
refineries, weapons manufacturing centres etc etc.etc.

Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.

Amazing fact the fighters fought enemy aircraft, the bombers
tried to avoid fighting enemy aircraft.

A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.

As defined by the Luftwaffe pre war it was a long range heavy
fighter, a bomber destroyer and escort. The fighter bomber
idea came later.

IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.

Another piece of fiction. In 1938 hauling 1,000 pounds of bombs
had you classified as a medium bomber in the RAF, in 1943
the fighters were hauling up to 2,000 pounds and light bombers
4,000 pounds. The Zestorers ended up as day and night fighters,
and fighter bombers, using Me410s against England at night in 1944.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.

Ah, simply said, using a fact free argument that creates non
existent manufacturing abilities.

At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.

You really have zero idea about what it takes to build an
aircraft. An existing line could be pushed harder for a
while with everyone working overtime, a line nearly in
service could be rushed into service. The idea that you
could suspend Wellington production to give you more
Spitfires is a joke, especially within two to three months.

I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.

I see you rewrite current history as much as you do the events
of 60 or more years ago.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...



John Freck wrote in message ...



Keith Willshaw wrote in message ...


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.



Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more than
other options?



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.



Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters
(fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers,
and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers? If
Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had
bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more
planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to
do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall. I'm just
providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor
and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials.



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.



Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers
can defend against bombers and fighter bombers.



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, metal benders, 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.



We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts,
and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing
accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first
months mass production. Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production. Did the Spitfire stay on production
targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940,
or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an
American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by
government and corporate economists.



Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models



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



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



This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane
production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how? It might somehow be
relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it
relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from
July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great
detail!



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.



I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are
cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on
manufacturing in W.W.II.



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 United States military very robust maintenance of machines during
W.W.II. On board every large aircraft carrier there were, and still
are, factories capable of making any mechanical part needed for any
airplane the aircraft carrier carries. The scale of Allied, and Axis,
repair and mantenicen was huge and sophisticated. YOu might be a
historian, and as such you might not realize that people have been
making planes in small garages for a long time.
The repair and maintenance made complete airplanes in W.W.II. You
need to have your nose out for the sort on information in relaying to
you. There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii who pontificate on the
Axis logistical situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943. The
book he liked to quote had no mention of German, and Axis, military
barges augmenting Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and near air bases during
W.W.II. You will just have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I suppose you don't think
that a mini-mill can even exist.



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.



Friend, the Hurricane's production was augmented this way, and repair
and manitience was upgrade very quickly as to allow them to make
planes. What machine tool for the Hurricane can't be made very fast?



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.



You have never come across one in books you read
because the historian who write them are ignorant of them.
The exist today, as yesterday, on board every capital class
USN aircraft carrier, and still today on large air force bases.
Look, why don't you invest more time called me dumb, and then
I might be more motivated to show you I'm right. Or you can look
for, or nose for, a documentary on the B-26 which repeats fairly
often on the US History Channel.



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



So again, show the locations.



You have to provoke me more. Provoke me like, Phillip McGregor,
provoked me into proving that the Axis used military barges to supply
its armies and air forces in Africa. He never knew they built 700
very large landingcrafts, barges, that could deliver on most any beach
on the shores of Africa, or Black Sea, or Baltic Sea. He would rant
about trucks rolling thousands of miles to deliver fuel and other
stuff from ports in Libya. His book's author had it that way. Buddy,
Allied and Axis both used mini factories for weapons' repair to the
scale as allowing for new construction near the action. I have met
gunsmiths, former soldiers, who have very small furnaces in garages.
The can make, literally, an M-16, their own bullets, or a host of
metal parts. If you keep a look out you will discover what I'm
talking about. I'm sure it didn't peak your interest, and that's all.



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.



It is really sad in your case.



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.



Now, it is whether, it was ‘easy' or ‘hard' to have production
sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate
economists! Ok, we can break horns here, if we're not careful. How
do you like this? ‘It is hard, very hard and difficult, for brave
smart Brits to have fighter production sky-rocket past the projections
of government and corporate projections.'



What is easy, is for me to suggest 60+ years latter that Britain
should have put even more effort into making that sky-rocket happen
sooner, or harder, or more intensely. They should have put even more
pressure on bomber command for resources.



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.



As this debate goes on I might show that USA production exceed
economists projections. I don't feel like doing the homework. If I
had an aid, I might assign her to do some research, but this is chat.



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 // Beau fighter 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.



Production doubled. Well, I have it that aviation production
expansion was faster than projected by far, maybe this is a USA
artifact and not a Brit thing after all. Are you positive that RAF
front line strength was unaffected by on-or-near base manufacturing?
And that this on-ronear-base manufacturing was rapidly expanded?
Since you are interested, here is a related problem: How to boost the
French's readiness. If you were to prepare the French's air force
from January 1940, what would you spend on? How would you spending
work? How would it be similar to Britain's better preparedness?


So, you have it that production numbers were right in line with
economic projections from 1938-? To when? When did, if ever, did
British aircraft production exceed projections, and I don't mean
monthly, fringing projections!



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.


Bomber production was going up according to my atlas, and rapidly.




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.




Why were resource husbanded long after any serious military analyst
thought Sea Lion was any threat at all. Even when all the top
commanders and top insider intelligence staff officers who know that
was real feared an invasion, Germany did very little other than BoB to
prepare of Sea Lion. Germany during Britain's greatest anxiety was not
doing logical preparation for an invasion: But still Britain husbanded
resources vigorously, really strenuously. Britain was in a
conservation mode to the hilt and this was not just propaganda.


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.



NO. Britain was not simply conserving. It done with great sense of
emergency, top national priority, for the survival of the nation, all
sectors had inspectors and enforcers. The government mean business,
there was tremendous mass media attention. You write the fiction
according to the people who lived it and fought the BoB. Britain will
tremendous dramatic energy--conserved energy like victory of defeat
hung in the balance, and the top and inside, and the bottom and
outside all thought it was the truth. Your emotional casting is
Monday morning quarterbacking for a winning team; and this QB cares to
cast the tight game as "effortless." You are understating a situation
you didn't live though, and the people who did live thru it don't like
the way you cast the situation.


Snip



In that case why not go away?



It is somewhat fun to debate. You see, I know that in your hardest
heart you really do think, project, that Britain simply went with some
conservation measures. And you think, and write with complete ablam.
Well, the USA military history reader demands differently than you,
and will win since the American emotional reaction is accurate. Your
emotional reaction is s form of denial.



John Freck

(robert arndt) wrote:

Britain won the BoB because Churchill bombed Berlin and spoofed Adolf
into diverting the the airfield assaults onto London. EOS.

Grantland

Let me add that it was a lone German bomber that ditched its bombs
over London that caused the British reprisal raid on Berlin and change
of tactics that: relieved Fighter Command, enabled the airfields and
manufacturing plants to be repaired, and assured the Brits that the
German battle for air supremacy would fail now that civilian targets
were being hit instead of military ones. EOS indeed!

Rob

Well I could dispute the provenance of the "ditched" bombs, and the
absolute *need* to take heat off the airfields.. but Keith would chide
me. 'Can't have that.

Grantland

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...


Snip


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.


Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos?

Well yes actually on the night prior to D-Day 1211 aircraft of bomber
command attacked the German forces behind the beacheads
dropping over 5000 tons of bombs on roads , troop concentrations,
marshalling yards, radar sites, gun emplacements and railway junctions.

Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.
Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.

Not without dumping their bombs they didnt

A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.
IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.



The Zerstorer in Luftwaffe service was a failure in the
Battle of Britian


The fact is that fighters, fighter bombers, and medium bombers out
number the heavies by quite a bit. What ever the RAF thought of thier
intial fighter bomber laugher defeats and the Luftwaffes stunning
victories; it is clear that the RAF built fighter bombers later and
used them for close support of land, sea, and air forces.


The luftwaffe were mostly using aircraft like the Ju-87, Do-17
and He-111, none of which were fighter bombers, those arrived
later in the war.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.

And you were simply wrong

At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.

This has been shown to be incorrect

I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.


Which is why the RAF ordered the new factories in 1938,
by the time of the BOB it was WAY too late to switch.

The RAF needs more fighters and higher readiness fighters over what
they did. Britain will still have bombers that are there.



Bombers arent there unless you build them especially
when losses are as high as they were.

Keith

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...



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.



Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more than
other options?


Because the theory that almost eveyone subscribed to that
the bomber would always get through proved false. What
was a great shock was the efiiciency of the German light
flak.



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.



Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters
(fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers,
and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers? If
Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had
bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more
planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to
do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall.

You recall incorrectly. The RAF were giving maximum priority
to fighters and bomber command had only 500 or so bombers
ready for operations in 1940 and many of those were obsolete
types like the battle and whitley

I'm just
providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor
and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials.


It already had the highest priority but you cant fit a Hercules Radial
engine from a bomber into a fighter or use the geodesic airframe
line for the Wellington to build Spitfires.



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.



Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers
can defend against bombers and fighter bombers.


Please provide us with details of the number of raids
land based fighter bombers made against German
Naval bases.



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, metal benders, 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.



We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts,
and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing
accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first
months mass production. Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.

No it was IN mass production

Did the Spitfire stay on production
targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940,
or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an
American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by
government and corporate economists.


True but that happened as a result of massive investment years
before production started



Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models



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



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



This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane
production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how? It might somehow be
relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it
relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from
July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great
detail!



No new fighter factory produced aircraft in less than 18 months

No existing production line be retooled over night



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.



I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are
cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on
manufacturing in W.W.II.


Quote ONE historian who states that airbases produced their
own aircraft during WW"


Keith

This will probably appear in the wrong spot, thanks to
a malfuncitoning news server.

John Freck wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

John Freck wrote in message ...

Keith Willshaw wrote in message ...

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.

Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more than
other options?

Could you consider using english as the method of
expression? The straight answer to what I think is
your question was the light bomber idea was proved
expensive, while a purpose designed airframe could
carry more bombs it was more vulnerable than fighters.
In 1944 this would not have mattered for the allies but it
did in 1941 when production priorities were set. It also
meant fewer types of aircraft to produce and maintain.

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.

Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters
(fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers,
and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers?

Not to replace bombers striking the invasion fleet.

If
Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had
bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more
planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to
do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall. I'm just
providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor
and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials.

You have zero idea of how long it takes to switch production
of different types and have invented a non existent fuel crisis.

Actually fighter command had a high pre war priority, partly
due to the fact the aircraft and their airbases cost less.

It would be good for you to consider checking out the actual
strength of Bomber Command in 1940. A big raid was
100 aircraft, the average number of aircraft flown was less
than 100 per day.

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.

Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers
can defend against bombers and fighter bombers.

Fine so show us the fighter bomber strikes on ships
in harbour, how many they sank and how many
fighter bombers were lost. Then show us how well
the fighter bombers did at night strikes.

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, metal benders, 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.

We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts,
and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing
accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first
months mass production.

You still do not get it do you, to accelerate production requires
significant effort throughout the supply chain. And it seems
you intend to keep trying to pretend a new production line
could be set up nearly instantaneously.

Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.

The Spitfire was in major production in 1940, the problem
was the second, larger factory, had not come on line as
planned.

Did the Spitfire stay on production
targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940,
or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an
American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by
government and corporate economists.

It has been your impression, from what figures can anyone
ask? The Spitfire production was behind projections
until at least the end of 1940, thanks to the initial problems
building it and the problems starting the second production
line.

Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models

putting it back in to prove someone cannot count, maybe
it will get through the jigging and tooling costs are for
setting up a production line.

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

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

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

This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane
production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how?

You are the one who suggested people look at Corsiars
so tell us yourself.

It might somehow be
relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it
relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from
July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great
detail!

On your current output you do not have a clue.

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.

I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are
cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on
manufacturing in W.W.II.

No I prefer to go with the idea some users of the internet are
not all they are cracked up to be, and the historians are
much more likely to be correct.

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 United States military very robust maintenance of machines during
W.W.II. On board every large aircraft carrier there were, and still
are, factories capable of making any mechanical part needed for any
airplane the aircraft carrier carries.

Oh my ribs, I cannot laugh this much, Does any mechanical
part include wing spars, tyres, fuselage sections or do we
have someone confusing minor repairs with major production.

It is a wonder we do not see the aircraft production total of
say the USS Essex. What is the current output of F-18s
from the USS Nimitz?

The scale of Allied, and Axis,
repair and mantenicen was huge and sophisticated. YOu might be a
historian, and as such you might not realize that people have been
making planes in small garages for a long time.

Fine I would like 1,000 Spitfires from your garage and within
2 months of now. Start immediately, you should be able to
have the tools in by the end of the week, given your claims
about their availability, and then crank out the aircraft.

Show us the great flexibilty, Bf109 day one, Fw190 day two,
Hurricane day three, P-47 day four, P-38 day five and a
Hayate day six, then rest, the following week a mixture of
Lancasters, Ju-88s, G4M1, B-24s, Pe2s would be nice.

The repair and maintenance made complete airplanes in W.W.II. You
need to have your nose out for the sort on information in relaying to
you.

This is quite funny, apparently all those RAF Civilian Maintenance
Units were not only back yard affairs but made their own parts,
not fitting parts like spars sent from the manufacturers. The salvage
units did sometimes put written off aircraft back into the air, by
creatively using their stock of salvaged parts.

There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii who pontificate on the
Axis logistical situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943. The
book he liked to quote had no mention of German, and Axis, military
barges augmenting Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and near air bases during
W.W.II. You will just have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I suppose you don't think
that a mini-mill can even exist.

Yes the laughter value is quit high, the fleet of low freeboard
barges supplying Rommel across an Ocean. The need to
simply state over and over there were aircraft manufacturing
plants on airbases, plants no one else has ever heard of,
and when asked for proof, simply restate the claim and go
boating.

I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,

Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Hornby

And for the UK fuel situation,

Oil; a study of war-time policy and administration, by Payton-Smith.

They all make it clear the aircraft were built in factories
that took years to bring to full production and that the RAF
was not short of fuel.

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.

Friend, the Hurricane's production was augmented this way, and repair
and manitience was upgrade very quickly as to allow them to make
planes.

Try and provide proof instead of simply repeating fiction.

What machine tool for the Hurricane can't be made very fast?

It depends on what part of the aircraft you are talking
about, the engine or airframe for example. For the
airframe it is the jigging and tooling to produce the
components accurately.

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.

You have never come across one in books you read
because the historian who write them are ignorant of them.

Translation there is no evidence they exist as a method
of producing aircraft, only the truth bringer has seen them.

The exist today, as yesterday, on board every capital class
USN aircraft carrier, and still today on large air force bases.

So how many F-18s does the average USN carrier
produce a year? What is the production rate of the
standard USAF airbase?

Look, why don't you invest more time called me dumb, and then
I might be more motivated to show you I'm right.

Yes folks, it is easier to be fact free so why take the effort
to learn, or even back up statements.

Or you can look
for, or nose for, a documentary on the B-26 which repeats fairly
often on the US History Channel.

So tell us all how many B-26s were made at USAAF airbases?

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

So again, show the locations.

You have to provoke me more.

Yes folks no facts.

Provoke me like, Phillip McGregor,
provoked me into proving that the Axis used military barges to supply
its armies and air forces in Africa. He never knew they built 700
very large landingcrafts, barges, that could deliver on most any beach
on the shores of Africa, or Black Sea, or Baltic Sea. He would rant
about trucks rolling thousands of miles to deliver fuel and other
stuff from ports in Libya. His book's author had it that way.

The only problem with barges, sending them across the ocean,
bad move that. Supplying Rommel with barges from Italy is
another losing strategy.

It seems after being shown as being so wrong by one person
the only thing to do is go into another area and try to pretend
to be right.

Buddy,
Allied and Axis both used mini factories for weapons' repair to the
scale as allowing for new construction near the action.

Ah I see the ability to make basic repairs is turned into the
ability to make whole machines. So every backyard
mechanic can turn out vehicles in numbers, silly then to
create mass production lines, go back to the craft system.

I have met
gunsmiths, former soldiers, who have very small furnaces in garages.
The can make, literally, an M-16, their own bullets, or a host of
metal parts. If you keep a look out you will discover what I'm
talking about. I'm sure it didn't peak your interest, and that's all.

Tell me how many bridges and canyons did they sell
you after the demonstration?

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.

It is really sad in your case.

I am having too much fun.

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.

Now, it is whether, it was ‘easy' or ‘hard' to have production
sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate
economists! Ok, we can break horns here, if we're not careful.

I just love the rhetoric, hard to lock horns with those who
have crashed and burnt.

How do you like this? ‘It is hard, very hard and difficult, for brave
smart Brits to have fighter production sky-rocket past the projections
of government and corporate projections.'

Oh my ribs, no production figures just a slogan, wow, the
good old marketing approach, use a slogan shouting success
to cover failure.

What is easy, is for me to suggest 60+ years latter that Britain
should have put even more effort into making that sky-rocket happen
sooner, or harder, or more intensely. They should have put even more
pressure on bomber command for resources.

This is really funny, the absolute hindsight historian now in full
retreat to motherhood statements, that the RAF could have
ramped up production earlier, how about 1930?

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.

As this debate goes on I might show that USA production exceed
economists projections. I don't feel like doing the homework. If I
had an aid, I might assign her to do some research, but this is chat.

I doubt anyone is holding their breath for facts from John Freck.
It seems the fact one country can exceed production targets in
an area means all countries can do so quickly and easily.
Remember apparently the British can change production in
a matter of days.

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 // Beau fighter 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.

Production doubled. Well, I have it that aviation production
expansion was faster than projected by far, maybe this is a USA
artifact and not a Brit thing after all.

Note by the way "he has it" but will not share it.

Are you positive that RAF
front line strength was unaffected by on-or-near base manufacturing?

Positive, there was no on or near base manufacturing.

And that this on-ronear-base manufacturing was rapidly expanded?

There was zero, nil, none, near or on base manufacturing.

Since you are interested, here is a related problem: How to boost the
French's readiness. If you were to prepare the French's air force
from January 1940, what would you spend on? How would you spending
work? How would it be similar to Britain's better preparedness?

How about you actually detail with supported facts and
references your claims about the British first. Since it
is clear you have no idea of what actually happened
and what could be done. It is a waste of time to repeat
the same absurdities about the French.

So, you have it that production numbers were right in line with
economic projections from 1938-? To when? When did, if ever, did
British aircraft production exceed projections, and I don't mean
monthly, fringing projections!

Are we talking about a particular type, a particular category
or the overall total? Why not look up the references on how
the RAF armed for war? The histories I mentioned earlier
have pages of tables on projected and actual aircraft
production, including the times production was ahead of
projections and when it was behind.

Then there are the many studies on how the RAF mobilised
before WWII.

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.

Bomber production was going up according to my atlas, and rapidly.

Your atlas? Medium bomber production for 1940 January
96, peaked at 242 in July, back to 166 by December, light
bombers in January 86, peaked at 177 in August back to 134
in December.

In 1939 the Gloster Hurricane production line came into
service, 32 in 1939, 1,211 in 1940. The second Wellington
line produced 3 aircraft in 1939 and 487 in 1940.

In 1940 the Halifax, Manchester and Stirling production lines
came into service, as did the second Spitfire line, the Whirlwind
line, the Beaufighter line and the third Wellington line.

I should add production went down in the third quarter due to
plant dispersal.

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.

Why were resource husbanded long after any serious military analyst
thought Sea Lion was any threat at all.

Ah I see, the British keep fuel reserves because of the
unpredicability of war equals a fuel shortage that can
effect operations. Try the UK oil history.

Even when all the top
commanders and top insider intelligence staff officers who know that
was real feared an invasion, Germany did very little other than BoB to
prepare of Sea Lion. Germany during Britain's greatest anxiety was not
doing logical preparation for an invasion: But still Britain husbanded
resources vigorously, really strenuously. Britain was in a
conservation mode to the hilt and this was not just propaganda.

Please provide a reference that shows RAF operations were
hampered by a lack of fuel in 1940. By the way according to
the British history on oil avgas consumption in England was
always below expectations except for a period in 1944.

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.

NO. Britain was not simply conserving. It done with great sense of
emergency, top national priority, for the survival of the nation, all
sectors had inspectors and enforcers.

Hey how about that, not only was there rationing but there
were rationing inspectors.

Please show where the RAF was hampered by a lack of fuel.

The government mean business,
there was tremendous mass media attention. You write the fiction
according to the people who lived it and fought the BoB.

Ah I see, I report what the people did and that is fiction.

Britain will
tremendous dramatic energy--conserved energy like victory of defeat
hung in the balance, and the top and inside, and the bottom and
outside all thought it was the truth.

Inside and out, back to front, cliche to cliche and fact free as well.

Your emotional casting is
Monday morning quarterbacking for a winning team; and this QB cares to
cast the tight game as "effortless." You are understating a situation
you didn't live though, and the people who did live thru it don't like
the way you cast the situation.

Ah I see I am watching someone who went through it or
else claims to know large numbers of people who did.

Snip

In that case why not go away?

It is somewhat fun to debate. You see, I know that in your hardest
heart you really do think, project, that Britain simply went with some
conservation measures.

Ah I see, the idea the British rationed fuel automatically
equals a shortage so bad it affected RAF operations.

And you think, and write with complete ablam.

Complete ablam, zowie, kaboosh, pow, zap.

Well, the USA military history reader demands differently than you,
and will win since the American emotional reaction is accurate. Your
emotional reaction is s form of denial.

I see all those visits to psychiatrists have given you the jargon.
By the way emotional responses are when no facts are given
just repeated I am right, note John, all you have done is keep
saying you are right without presenting facts.

I see the grand plan now, I can repair a row boat therefore I
can build battleships, if I ration fuel then I must have had to
cancel opearations for lack of fuel, not cut out non essential
fuel use, I can sail along the coast in barges therefore I can
supply an army across an ocean by barge.

We still await how many 17 pounders were delivered by air,
how fighter bombers were to attack oil plants in 1943 and
early 1944 and indeed how many fighter bomber attacks
were done on economic targets, and so on, it is interesting
to see how much has been deleted from the non reply.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

rec.aviation.military


"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...



Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some.
Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses.



Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more
than other options?



Could you consider using english as the method of
expression? ...



It reads fine to me.



Snip



You still do not get it do you, to accelerate
production requires significant effort throughout
the supply chain. And it seems you intend to
keep trying to pretend a new production line
could be set up nearly instantaneously.



Production did double. You maintain this was strictly due to
structural decisions made in 1938 bearing fruit and overtime.
You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials,
fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either. I do
believe that structural decisions of the near and far past have
explanatory power, for sure! I do think that overtime, and expanded
purchasing of goods, services, and materials form abroad can also
explain how an increase in production adn strenght is possible.
Either you or Keith stated that "overtime" was a major reason
production soared in the short-term. Historically, Britain's RAF did
manage an emergency expansion of fighter production. By taking
workers, materials, floor space from bombers over to fighters it seems
to me as if this historical artifact of doubling fighter production in
months can be increased. It is after all, a historical fact of the
earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII.



Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the
Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.



The Spitfire was in major production in 1940, the problem
was the second, larger factory, had not come on line as
planned.



Why can't they tap the USA machine tools' market, and other commercial
stocks. USA machine tools are right up with Germany and Sweden, and
they are for export too.



Snip



No I prefer to go with the idea some users of the internet are
not all they are cracked up to be, and the historians are
much more likely to be correct.



Historians are a lot like journalists. There is just too much going
on... Important angles get missed. If an angle is esoteric, not
glamours, or uncomfortable to the core audience, then important angles
and information can be missed altogether.


Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small
factories near or on W.W.II air bases



There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii
who pontificate on the Axis logistical
situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943.
The book he liked to quote had no mention
of German, and Axis, military barges augmenting
Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and
near air bases during W.W.II. You will just
have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I
suppose you don't think that a mini-mill
can even exist.



Yes the laughter value is quit high, the fleet of low freeboard
barges supplying Rommel across an Ocean. The need to
simply state over and over there were aircraft manufacturing
plants on air bases, plants no one else has ever heard of,
and when asked for proof, simply restate the claim and go
boating.



I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,



Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Horny



If you read them and your knowledge, attitude, and general awareness
is coming from the goofs who wrote those books, then be ill-informed.
Today, the USA has just the sort of operations I recall hearing of in
documentaries on the History Channel--look up jet engine parts
manufacturing. There were more companies in the past than today to
boot.


As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support
Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe.
Important, on-topic, material missed by writers of books--what's next!
That's life. Books about the past are inherently incomplete;
similar to news reports about the day. It is even possible news
reports of severe fuel conservation in Britain after July 1st, 1940
were over-stated hot air intended to sell papers, or something other
than the square truth. Maybe, the British and Common Wealth readers of
military histry place biasing demands on history writers to
demonstrate a powerful, competent, confident Britain and Common
Wealth. Come on--you believe that Britain and the Common Wealth were
fully equal partners with the USA, and not that the UK and Common
wealth became "vassal" to USA power and interests. I think it is a
fact that Britain became a vassal power to the USA, and you don't!



http://www.warships1.com/German_amphibs.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~gbasia/dtm/dtm.htm



The barges existed, were well used, and even Rommel liked them well
enough to have them ship fuel right up near the front. Those nasty
1,000+ mile fuel runs across the desert are greatly in error. They
used f)c&ing huge landing crafts and delivered right to the front
line. I know, many "logistical" military historians missed them all
together.



Snip



How can you write such drivel?



We still await how many 17 pounders were delivered by air,
how fighter bombers were to attack oil plants in 1943 and
early 1944 and indeed how many fighter bomber attacks
were done on economic targets, and so on, it is interesting
to see how much has been deleted from the non reply.



The fact that the Allies didn't do something doesn't automatically
mean they could not have done it. You see, if you didn't understand
the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next
sentences. If the Allies cut way back on heavy bombers, this will
allow them to spend more elsewhere, such as spending a lot more on the
airborne. The suggested improvement is for a 100,000 troop airborne
with 2x spending per troop over the actual historical spending. This
means 17 pounders are delivered in the imagined SimWWII. This is a
difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from
the historical W.W.II. If you still don't understand the first
sentence, then goodnight.




John Freck

John Freck wrote in message ...


"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some.

Translation, unable to respond to facts so delete them and go
post the same claims elsewhere.

Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses.


cut and past makes it easy.


You still do not get it do you, to accelerate
production requires significant effort throughout
the supply chain. And it seems you intend to
keep trying to pretend a new production line
could be set up nearly instantaneously.

Production did double. You maintain this was strictly due to
structural decisions made in 1938 bearing fruit and overtime.

Correct, "strictly" is too strong, but almost all is correct. Average
day shift working week in July 1940 63.6 hours, the night shifts
worked even longer weeks.

You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials,
fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either.

Parts of the 1938 decisions related to purchasing of materials
from overseas. By the way UK machine tool exports doubled
in 1938 and 1939 compared with 1937 thanks to large orders
from the USSR.

There was trade going on, the UK was importing machine tools
from many countries, during WWII the US supplied around half
the UK imports.

I do
believe that structural decisions of the near and far past have
explanatory power, for sure! I do think that overtime, and expanded
purchasing of goods, services, and materials form abroad can also
explain how an increase in production adn strenght is possible.
Either you or Keith stated that "overtime" was a major reason
production soared in the short-term. Historically, Britain's RAF did
manage an emergency expansion of fighter production. By taking
workers, materials, floor space from bombers over to fighters it seems
to me as if this historical artifact of doubling fighter production in
months can be increased.

Since you intend to keep deleting the basic facts there is only
so much people can do to point out you do not have a clue
about what you are talking about.

There is no easy way to switch production of something as
complex as an aircraft. It takes years to build up production
lines. There is no way converting a bomber factory to a
fighter factory would happen in the time it took to fight the
Battle of Britain. It takes thousands of hours to set up for
a production run.

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.

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, partly
thanks to the dispesal of plants.

Also total fighter production was April 256, May 325, June 446,
July 496, August 476, September 469. The "new" production
lines, Beaufighter and Whirlwind, help the production figures,
June 4, July 8, August 26, September 18. Then add the new
Spitfire factory coming on line, producing 125 Spitfires between
6 June and 30 September. So in all June to September the
British produced 1,885 fighters, 181 or 10% from the new
production lines. Then add the Glosters Hurricane line coming
into full production, since it started in late 1939.

It is after all, a historical fact of the
earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII.


I believe the machines you want are the Star Trek replicators.

Mass production of the Hurricane had been
established by July 1st, 1940 and the
Spitfire was on immediate path
for start-up to mass production.

The Spitfire was in major production in 1940, the problem
was the second, larger factory, had not come on line as
planned.

Why can't they tap the USA machine tools' market, and other commercial
stocks. USA machine tools are right up with Germany and Sweden, and
they are for export too.

The UK was importing US machine tools, the problem which
does not seem to register is the time it took to create a
production line.

Snip
No I prefer to go with the idea some users of the internet are
not all they are cracked up to be, and the historians are
much more likely to be correct.

Historians are a lot like journalists. There is just too much going
on... Important angles get missed. If an angle is esoteric, not
glamours, or uncomfortable to the core audience, then important angles
and information can be missed altogether.

I see, the claimed "fact" that airbases could and did manufacture
large numbers of aircraft and that aircraft carriers could to the
same thing, is "esoteric". That is the numbers are supposed to
be so small as to be insignificant. Alternatively the details have
been suppressed by "dark forces" and only the truth bringer knows
about them.

Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small
factories near or on W.W.II air bases

Translation, all the unanswerable facts deleted.

There is a moderator of soc.history.wwii
who pontificate on the Axis logistical
situation in the Mediterreans from 1940-1943.
The book he liked to quote had no mention
of German, and Axis, military barges augmenting
Axis supply in Africa--but they existed, as do
mini-mills and small aircraft factories on and
near air bases during W.W.II. You will just
have to keep a nose out. It is really sad how
ignorant some "experts" are around here. I
suppose you don't think that a mini-mill
can even exist.

Yes the laughter value is quit high, the fleet of low freeboard
barges supplying Rommel across an Ocean. The need to
simply state over and over there were aircraft manufacturing
plants on air bases, plants no one else has ever heard of,
and when asked for proof, simply restate the claim and go
boating.

I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,

Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Horny

If you read them and your knowledge, attitude, and general awareness
is coming from the goofs who wrote those books, then be ill-informed.

I doubt this will matter, but try and read the following British
histories,

Design and Development of weapons, by Postan, Hay and Scott
British War Production by Postan
British War Economy Hancock and Gowing.
Factories and Plant by Hornby

And for the UK fuel situation,

Oil; a study of war-time policy and administration, by Payton-Smith.

They all make it clear the aircraft were built in factories
that took years to bring to full production and that the RAF
was not short of fuel.

Today, the USA has just the sort of operations I recall hearing of in
documentaries on the History Channel--look up jet engine parts
manufacturing. There were more companies in the past than today to
boot.

Yes folks just remember because an aircraft plant in Australia
makes ailerons for Boeing that plant can churn out 747s, 767s,
B-52s, etc. to order with only a short delay.

Maybe the clue will eventually be noticed and the difference
between manufacture and assembly will be understood plus
the idea of sub contracting.

As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support
Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe.

Ah I see, you should have said you obtain your information
from reading the toilet paper, the dolphins do have some
quite wise sayings.

Important, on-topic, material missed by writers of books--what's next!
That's life. Books about the past are inherently incomplete;
similar to news reports about the day. It is even possible news
reports of severe fuel conservation in Britain after July 1st, 1940
were over-stated hot air intended to sell papers, or something other
than the square truth.

All you have to do now is tell us where these reports of
the severe fuel shortages are, since the UK history on
oil, that is a whole book devoted to the subject of liquid
fuels, makes no mention of severe fuel shortage in
England during the war. And certainly no mention of
fuel problems cramping RAF operations.

Maybe, the British and Common Wealth readers of
military histry place biasing demands on history writers to
demonstrate a powerful, competent, confident Britain and Common
Wealth.

Ah I see when unable to provide evidence simply
announce everyone else is a liar.

Come on--you believe that Britain and the Common Wealth were
fully equal partners with the USA, and not that the UK and Common
wealth became "vassal" to USA power and interests. I think it is a
fact that Britain became a vassal power to the USA, and you don't!


This is quite funny, in 1942 the US in Europe was the second
banana, it beacome number 1 in 1944. As for vassal states
it is clear the need for an off topic rant has become urgent to
detract from the lack of facts. Last time I checked the US is
so powerful it can obtain its own way much more easily than
anyone else, but not everything everytime.

http://www.warships1.com/German_amphibs.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~gbasia/dtm/dtm.htm

The barges existed, were well used, and even Rommel liked them well
enough to have them ship fuel right up near the front. Those nasty
1,000+ mile fuel runs across the desert are greatly in error. They
used f)c&ing huge landing crafts and delivered right to the front
line. I know, many "logistical" military historians missed them all
together.

Ah I see the idea some supplies were sent by barge along the
coast (Hear of the RN inshore squadron by the way?) means
none were sent by truck. As opposed to the quartermasters
using both methods of transport as appropriate.


Snip

How can you write such drivel?

Yes folks the only way to respond is to delete the text and then
put in the editorial about how bad it was. Some of the deleted
text.

"So how many F-18s does the average USN carrier
produce a year? What is the production rate of the
standard USAF airbase?"

"Ah I see the ability to make basic repairs is turned into the
ability to make whole machines. So every backyard
mechanic can turn out vehicles in numbers, silly then to
create mass production lines, go back to the craft system."

"I doubt anyone is holding their breath for facts from John Freck.
It seems the fact one country can exceed production targets in
an area means all countries can do so quickly and easily.
Remember apparently the British can change production in
a matter of days."

"Why not look up the references on how
the RAF armed for war? The histories I mentioned earlier
have pages of tables on projected and actual aircraft
production, including the times production was ahead of
projections and when it was behind.

Then there are the many studies on how the RAF mobilised
before WWII."

We still await how many 17 pounders were delivered by air,
how fighter bombers were to attack oil plants in 1943 and
early 1944 and indeed how many fighter bomber attacks
were done on economic targets, and so on, it is interesting
to see how much has been deleted from the non reply.

The fact that the Allies didn't do something doesn't automatically
mean they could not have done it.

Yes we are heading for the end game.

You see, if you didn't understand
the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next
sentences.

Translation, no facts so time to jump to a new topic.

If the Allies cut way back on heavy bombers, this will
allow them to spend more elsewhere, such as spending a lot more on the
airborne. The suggested improvement is for a 100,000 troop airborne
with 2x spending per troop over the actual historical spending. This
means 17 pounders are delivered in the imagined SimWWII.

Yes folks apparently having twice the number of US paratroops
means the C-47 can fit and drop a 17 pounder gun. So if we
go to 4 times the paratroops it can trop say a 155mm gun,
at 10 times the number of paratroops presumably the C-47
can then carry a Pershing and so on.

On the other hand maybe the paratroops drop with their own
mini mill and make the guns themselves after deployment,
or maybe make C-130s to fly in the guns.

We will just ignore the fact that airforces and armies are not
interchangable, the air forces use much less manpower but
more industry per man. We will also just ignore the problems
paratroopers had in combat, they needed support from the
regular ground forces if the enemy had heavy weapons present,
except the HG Parachute Panzer division of course, always
wondered how they could ever paradrop a Panther.

This is a
difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from
the historical W.W.II.

So a game with fictional abilites is the truth and the histories
are the fiction.

If you still don't understand the first
sentence, then goodnight.


Ah they have arrived with your sedative I gather.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.