![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WalterM140 wrote in message ...
I wrote, Yes folks, Eaker and Hunter are the designated Black Hat wearers of the moment, all evil comes from them. I have said that it might have been beyond anyone to make such a determination. But for whatever reason, they didn't make it, didn't tumble onto it after many others had, and were sacked in large part because of it. snip pedantic rant Sample of Deleted text, which is described as a pedantic rant, the full text refutes Walter's pet conclusion, so it needs to be deleted and editorialised away. The Pacific theatre really wanted more P-38s, they were by far the biggest fans, the problems of mass producing the P-38 cannot be ignored, plus the changes made in 1943 to make the type more combat worthy helping to limit production. How about raging against the decision to convert 500 P-38s to unarmed photo reconnaissance types in 1942 and 1943, versus the 3,684 completed as fighters by the end of 1943, including the prototype. There is your "few dozen" extra P-38s. Note by the way the first 433 or so fighters were not really combat worthy, that is everything before the P-38F, and the reconnaissance versions were model F and G conversions so some 25% of the available F and G airframe ended up unarmed. Presumably Arnold will now be considered a bad captain. The USAAF wanted more P-38s in 1943, there was little the ETO could do to speed up the process. It also realised the need for high performance reconnaissance types. Only the defence of England, of all the theatres of war, had enough allied fighters at the start of 1943. So the P-47 went to Europe and even New Guinea. I'll look in later notes in the thread, but you seem to not responded to this piece of text: You see folks, Walter has a basic test for "responses", he expects one before you have actually seen the request. Then tries to imply you are ducking the issue. Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of War for Air to push for a long range fighter. Source? Williamson Murray in his book Luftwaffe, quoting Boylan, in The development of the long range fighter escort, pages 90 to 91 and 121. I find no corroboration for such a supposed statement. Walter does not bother to look for facts that disturb the preferred conclusions. "Eaker as late as October 1943 still believed the key was in the size of the bomber formations... Eaker stuck to this belief while high-ranking officers such as Chief of the Air Staff Barney Giles and commanmder of the VIII Bomber Command Fred Anderson had determined that escort was the key to victory." -- "To Command the Sky, p. 112, by McFarland and Newton "During June 1943 Assistant Secretary of War for Air Robert Lovett visited England to observe Eighth Air Force operations. He spent considerable time inspecting the VIII Fighter Command and especially the problems of escort. At an Eighth Air Force comanders' mmeeting immediately after Lovett's visit, Hunter told Eaker that he feared Lovett would insist on the use of P-38's for escort. Hunter identified the P-38 as a "wonderful ship," but preferrred to give the P-47 a "complete trial." In doing so Hunter reavealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue confronting the Eighth Ar Force in the summer and fall of 1943. The bombers needed escorts with range, bot superior fighters. The P-47 was a better dogfighter, but it did not have the legs to fly long escort missions." ibid, p. 114 I find no evidence that Eaker thought it imperitive to provide escort or that he communicated such with Lovett. So why were P-47s fitted with drop tanks and used as escorts during Eaker's period of command? You seem to have just made it up. Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history. See for example Eaker's letter to Wilfrid Freeman noting that the Munster raid of 10th October 1943 might have lost only 10 bombers instead of the around 30 lost if the escorts had been able to stay with the bombers. It is really simple, Eaker was more complicated that the cardboard black hat wearing bad guy Walter prefers. He was amongst the last to hold the unescorted bombers idea but he hedged his bets. deleted text, "By the way if Eaker was still an unescorted heavy bomber fan you can show all those sorts of missions run by the15th Air Force in 1944 when he commanded it, correct?" Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
regaining night currency but not alone | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | May 28th 04 02:08 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |