More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Not quite that simple, if you want to base them close to the U.S. daytime units. Who's going
to use the grass strips 2 Gp. would be giving up? The heavies aren't.

Ironically they did have to operate heavies from grass strips in
1940-42 with all that that suggests in terms of all-weather
operational effectiveness,

I know they did, and they seem to have abandoned the idea at the first opportunity.

I know, but I was working with an earlier conversion-to-daylight frame
in mind, namely the summer of 1943, ideally before Hamburg gives
Harris some unchallengeable success to rentrench his preferred
night/area bombing strategy.

Okay, I was working on ACM Kramer's timeline, where the decision to switch was definitely fall '43.
Note that this wasn't based on the actual situation, more an "if we decided to to make this change,
what would such a decision entail?

snip

I just don't see the point of converting 2 Gp. to heavies with all the disruption that would
cause, when you still want a day medium bomber force.

Yes, I was talking about 3 Group re-equipping with Liberators there.
Some of their ex-Wellington bases (like Feltwell, Methwold, etc)
weren't concreted by the summer of 1943, and they need bases with
concrete runways for the Libs.

Okay, that clears up the confusion.


3 Gp. needs to convert from Stirlings in
any case, which are no longer participating in the main offensive, and thus (from Butch's point of
view) are almost completely ineffective.

Again, I think you're working with a later point of departure from the
existing historical timeline than me.

Yes.

In the summer of 1943 the
Stirling force was actually scheduled to expand by another couple of
new squadrons. Now that you've brought them to mind, they might be
useful in shallow-penetration heavily-escorted daylight raids with
their bombload.

Only for targets with light flak defenses, similar to those the mediums would go after. At least they
have dual controls, but they'd already been taken off day ops over France back in 1941?, and I don't
think the defenses had gotten any lighter since. BTW, do you have any idea why they didn't put some
extended tips on the Stirlings, as they did for the Halifax? Maybe it just would have taken too much of
a change to get them up to reasonable heights.

[B-25 ops]

Yes, but not a hell of a lot worse than the "Daylight Lanc" fantasy, I
mean, operational evaluation platform. I'm certain the B-25 carried
more than 3,000lbs, but maybe only over shorter distances.

Not internally, it didn't. The B-25 bomb bay was smaller than the B-26's. Allowable loads were 1
x 2,000 lb., or 2 x 1,000/1,600 lb., or 6 x 500 lb. or some larger number (8/10/12? I forget) of
250 lbers.

The figures I have are 15,000ft loaded cruise and a 4,000lb bombload
which 2 Group were using from 1943 into 1944 from the references I've
seen. Obviously, this was for targets in France, so deeper
penetration might reduce the bombload, but it seemed to have the best
range/bombload/defensive armament characteristics of the available
bombers in 2 Group: frankly, intermediate-level penetration raids
with Bostons or Venturas (the alternatives) are a non-starter.

Absolutely, which is why Embry wanted to go all B-25/Mosquito.

At some point around 1944 they realized that the 2,000 lb. station was essentially
never used, so it was removed and that made enough room for them to carry 1 extra 1,000 lb. bomb.

Bowyer claims the very first Mitchell raid in 2 Group in January 1943
(escorted by Mustang Is, interestingly enough) featured a bombload of
2 x 1,000lb and 4 x 500lb per aircraft. If this is correct, I think
you're underestimating the possible bombload, or I'm underestimating
the impact of increased fuel loading for more distant targets.

I suppose that load just might be possible, depending on the arrangement of the bomb racks. I don't
have a diagram of the B-25 bomb rack arrangement, and it's been awhile since I saw one up close. Plays
hell with accuracy though, carrying a mixed load like that. Max. load, internal and external, is
quoted as 5,200 lb. It's never been clear from the sources available to me whether you could carry 500
lbers externally on the wing racks the heaviest bombs specifically mentioned as carried there are 325
lb. depth charges. And a torpedo on the centerline, but I think we can ignore that. BTW, what was the
target of that first attack? Are we talking a "just nip across the channel to Calais and back" sort of
thing?

The B-26 bomb bay could carry 2 x 2,000 lb. (and occasionally did), or 4 x 1,000 lb., or 8 x 500
lb., etc. Early models (B-26, B-26A and I think some early B-26Bs) had an additional aft bomb bay
usable for small bombs, but this had first been sealed shut as being of more use for other
purposes, and then deleted from production altogether.

The British only got one allocation, initially of about 50 Marauders
in 1942, which were used in the MTO, so we'd need to come up with come
convincing operational justifications to grab those USAAF production
allocations. I'm not sure, if my figures are correct, there's any
need to replace the B-25 which after all is being operated by 2 Group
already with a very low wastage rate. Easier to expand an existing
resource than demand a new one entirely.

Oh, I wasn't implying that we switch 2 Gp. to B-26s, as the production capacity isn't there in any case
(what with Omaha switching over to B-29s). The B-25 is fine. It's odd that the USAAF and RAF wound up
using different a/c exclusively in the ETO, when you'd think it would have been far simpler to
concentrate on a single type. Both forces uses both of them in the MTO, but the B-26 benefited most
from the shorter supply lines and better infrastructure in the ETO, as the B-25 required less
maintenance and could be flown from worse airfields.

snip 2 Gp. ops areas of agreement

I'm not sure that the flak threat in '45 _was_ higher. Even the heavies average bombing altitude

decreased considerably in 1945, down to the mid teens.

Not over the big targets, though. Hitting smaller towns with rail
junctions as part of the transport plan, or smaller factories in
semi-rural areas wasn't the same as tackling the Ruhr or Leipzig.

Some of that is likely due to a shift to
more tactical (and thus less well-defended) targets, but not all of it. I imagine the disruption
in production and more especially transport was affecting ammo supply, C2 was failing/being
seriously degraded, and morale was undoubtedly collapsing as well. While the percentage of damage
to flak compared to fighters was increasing, I haven't seen any evidence that it was due to
increased effectiveness of the former; rather, it seems to be due to the ever-decreasing
effectiveness of the latter.

My impression is that the overall flak threat on major target
complexes increased.

In number of guns often true, but the C2 was worse.

I see them hitting targets in Belgium, Holland and on the fringe of
the German Bight and the Ruhr. I think that's credible: the
Luftwaffe in 1943 could have given them a hard time, but only at the
expense of ignoring the heavies which would be right behind them.

Fine by me. The B-26s were hitting targets there (not the Bight or the Ruhr); weren't the
Mitchells?

Not often enough accordng to me, but then you're the man in charge of
Fighter ops administration.

I know they were bombing the same targets in France (and presumably coastal Belgium)
as the B-26s were. As you can see, my knowledge of 2 Gp. ops is limited.

They and the 9th hit the same kind of targets: mostly western
Holland, western Belgium and northern France, going deeper as time
progressed and the invasion period began. I want them bombing
airfields like Jever and Rheine, attempting to hit the fighter force
which will come up to dispute the path of the 8th AF.

Yes, those, Deelen and Twente etc. would all be useful.

snip more noxious agreement

I thought we were resorting to ridiculously hyperbolic stereotypes for
comic effect. I can't see anybody disputing this*. Which reminds me,
time for a large wet.

That will give me just enough time to slip out and get an ice cream cone then, and drink a couple
of bottles of coke on the way back. This silk underwear certainly does keep the thighs from
chafing -- What, you thought we wanted the stuff for some vicarious sexual thrill? ;-)

J. Edgar Hoover, eat your heart out.

We draw the line at accessorizing with earrings and pearl necklaces; supposedly he didn't.

snip story confirming tea as vital to the British war effort

Guy