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.