"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