![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Freck" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "John Freck" wrote in message m... Snip But 'Hurricane or Super Marine Spitfire', and it is considered extremely poor manners to point out less that proof solid writing error on the usenet which is a chat environment. Look, I'm not your pupil, buddy. It is however just fine to point out egregious errors, no Spitfire or Hurricane had the range or equipment to drop bombs on Arnhem in 1940 Yes, it is true that Britain had no fighter bombers, I guess; but I did say, frankly, that my commentary becomes more relevant further down time. But its irrelevant to the topic Snip You are losing all context. I merely encouraged and elaborated upon a posters suggestion. YOU were the original poster Its YOUR Post I am responding too In my original post you will find no mention of Allied strategic bombing. Reread my response to Herbert Pocket; this is a tangential subject. The subject line should read: 'Were heavy bombers the best use of resources: Was...'. As far as the BoB goes in a SimWWII war-game? Fighter command can get cracking on fighter bombers; and get fuel, material, and manpower from bomber command The whole idea of killing off 4-engined bombers is an extension of the chat Herbert Pocket posted. Indeed and its that I am responding to. He should speak for himself, but I feel that fighter bombers would have been better for Britain to have from July 1st, 1940 than any of the bombers that they had. Of course, to have Britain without any bombers on July 1st, 1940 would require war-game that allows for a beginning before July 1st, 1940. In your earlier post you advocated producing twin engined bombers of the type the RAF actually DID procure, now you want to forgo all bomber production. Make up your mind sir. As I have already told you, I admit the bomber issue as I cast has more and more relevance further down time. Your point on Britain having a complete lack of fighter bombers is of course true, and from July 1st, 1940 it would be smart for them to get cracking. They did as soon as aircraft became available. From 1940 onwards the Hurricane transitioned into the ground attack role as did the P-40's acquired from the USA Snip No I have that English disdain for those who dont do their homework You are just a complete rude jerk. Ad Hominem noted. Snip "Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing. If Britain, and the Allies, had cut out four engined bombers in order to have a large increase in top fighters and a boost to strong, fast,and long ranged 2 engined bombers: Then Germany would have had a harder time much sooner. " You made an error sir, there were no 4 engined bombers to cut during the BOB and they were indeed producing strong fast and long ranged 2 engined bombers. Good. You are still rude. If pointing out your errors is rude so be it. Bombers were a poor use of limited resources. The US Strategic bombing survey and other indpendent sources disagree, the real debate is on how those resources are best used. And until 1942 they were predominantly twin engined types used for tactical attacks. There is indeed a case to be made that mistakes were made in the direction of aerial assets in 1942-44 but this had ZERO effect on the conduct of the BOB which is after all the subject The subject became the relative value of bombers opposed to fighter bombers generally in W.W.II. You are acting like a military officer who tries to dominate as a form of leadership. Your inability to answer the point is noted. I suppose you think there will be a bright future for humanity if Israel-USA-UK jointly occupy the whole Middle East too, and you don't car much for those who differ. Changing the subject doesnt help much either. Keith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"John Freck" wrote in message om... TEN-HUT! Knock off the 'ad hominem' crap; save that for direct commnication. You're boring me and every one else. I commend "A Question of Honor", a new book by Olsen and Cloud, ISBN 0-375-41197-6, published ths year by A. Knopf. It covers the Polish Air Force and their airmen, from the get-go through service in the RAF up to the triumph of Solidarity. Highly interesting, in that the highest scoring fighter squadron in the RAF during the BoB was the Kosciuszko Squadron RAF# 303.) The highest scorer was Joseph Frantisek, a Czech AF pilot, (17 kills), who was known to sneak out over the Channel and bounce low-on-fuel 109s heading home. All y'all interested in fighters should read this book. Walt BJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
George III of Britain vs. George II of America | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 5 | July 5th 04 08:36 AM |
U.S. airmen playing hardball as American game grows in Britain, By Ron Jensen, Stars and Stripes | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | May 24th 04 03:30 AM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
Battle of Britain fighters | Tony Williams | Military Aviation | 1 | February 14th 04 07:46 AM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |