"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
|