Why did Britain win the BoB?

rec.aviation.military


"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...



Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some.
Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses.



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? ...



It reads fine to me.



Snip



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.



Production did double. You maintain this was strictly due to
structural decisions made in 1938 bearing fruit and overtime.
You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials,
fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either. I do
believe that structural decisions of the near and far past have
explanatory power, for sure! I do think that overtime, and expanded
purchasing of goods, services, and materials form abroad can also
explain how an increase in production adn strenght is possible.
Either you or Keith stated that "overtime" was a major reason
production soared in the short-term. Historically, Britain's RAF did
manage an emergency expansion of fighter production. By taking
workers, materials, floor space from bombers over to fighters it seems
to me as if this historical artifact of doubling fighter production in
months can be increased. It is after all, a historical fact of the
earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII.



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.



Why can't they tap the USA machine tools' market, and other commercial
stocks. USA machine tools are right up with Germany and Sweden, and
they are for export too.



Snip



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.



Historians are a lot like journalists. There is just too much going
on... Important angles get missed. If an angle is esoteric, not
glamours, or uncomfortable to the core audience, then important angles
and information can be missed altogether.


Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small
factories near or on W.W.II air bases



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 air bases, 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 Horny



If you read them and your knowledge, attitude, and general awareness
is coming from the goofs who wrote those books, then be ill-informed.
Today, the USA has just the sort of operations I recall hearing of in
documentaries on the History Channel--look up jet engine parts
manufacturing. There were more companies in the past than today to
boot.


As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support
Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe.
Important, on-topic, material missed by writers of books--what's next!
That's life. Books about the past are inherently incomplete;
similar to news reports about the day. It is even possible news
reports of severe fuel conservation in Britain after July 1st, 1940
were over-stated hot air intended to sell papers, or something other
than the square truth. Maybe, the British and Common Wealth readers of
military histry place biasing demands on history writers to
demonstrate a powerful, competent, confident Britain and Common
Wealth. Come on--you believe that Britain and the Common Wealth were
fully equal partners with the USA, and not that the UK and Common
wealth became "vassal" to USA power and interests. I think it is a
fact that Britain became a vassal power to the USA, and you don't!



http://www.warships1.com/German_amphibs.htm
http://www2.arnes.si/~gbasia/dtm/dtm.htm



The barges existed, were well used, and even Rommel liked them well
enough to have them ship fuel right up near the front. Those nasty
1,000+ mile fuel runs across the desert are greatly in error. They
used f)c&ing huge landing crafts and delivered right to the front
line. I know, many "logistical" military historians missed them all
together.



Snip



How can you write such drivel?



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.



The fact that the Allies didn't do something doesn't automatically
mean they could not have done it. You see, if you didn't understand
the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next
sentences. If the Allies cut way back on heavy bombers, this will
allow them to spend more elsewhere, such as spending a lot more on the
airborne. The suggested improvement is for a 100,000 troop airborne
with 2x spending per troop over the actual historical spending. This
means 17 pounders are delivered in the imagined SimWWII. This is a
difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from
the historical W.W.II. If you still don't understand the first
sentence, then goodnight.




John Freck