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.