Why did Britain win the BoB?

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...


Snip


Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking
enemy
planes coming from above.


But this is not allowed to stand in the way of the preferred
lower altitude fighter bomber and twin engined bomber
solution.


Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos? Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.
Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.
A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.
IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.


The fact is that fighters, fighter bombers, and medium bombers out
number the heavies by quite a bit. What ever the RAF thought of thier
intial fighter bomber laugher defeats and the Luftwaffes stunning
victories; it is clear that the RAF built fighter bombers later and
used them for close support of land, sea, and air forces.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.
At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.
I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.

The RAF needs more fighters and higher readiness fighters over what
they did. Britain will still have bombers that are there.

John Freck











Geoffrey Sinclair

John Freck wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...

Snip

Yes, all the errors have to be removed so the subject
can be changed.

Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking
enemy planes coming from above.

But this is not allowed to stand in the way of the preferred
lower altitude fighter bomber and twin engined bomber
solution.

Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos? Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.

Very good, when in doubt simply define the air war as only
the missions your favourite solution is best at.

You left out marshalling yards, canals, tunnels, bridges, oil
refineries, weapons manufacturing centres etc etc.etc.

Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.

Amazing fact the fighters fought enemy aircraft, the bombers
tried to avoid fighting enemy aircraft.

A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.

As defined by the Luftwaffe pre war it was a long range heavy
fighter, a bomber destroyer and escort. The fighter bomber
idea came later.

IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.

Another piece of fiction. In 1938 hauling 1,000 pounds of bombs
had you classified as a medium bomber in the RAF, in 1943
the fighters were hauling up to 2,000 pounds and light bombers
4,000 pounds. The Zestorers ended up as day and night fighters,
and fighter bombers, using Me410s against England at night in 1944.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.

Ah, simply said, using a fact free argument that creates non
existent manufacturing abilities.

At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.

You really have zero idea about what it takes to build an
aircraft. An existing line could be pushed harder for a
while with everyone working overtime, a line nearly in
service could be rushed into service. The idea that you
could suspend Wellington production to give you more
Spitfires is a joke, especially within two to three months.

I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.

I see you rewrite current history as much as you do the events
of 60 or more years ago.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...


Snip


Flying low makes a plane vunerable to ground fire and attacking
enemy
planes coming from above.


But this is not allowed to stand in the way of the preferred
lower altitude fighter bomber and twin engined bomber
solution.


Have you heard of any success using heavies to take out tanks, trucks,
communications, radar, locomotives, railline, ships, artilllier,
straffing infantry positions, or getting low level photos?

Well yes actually on the night prior to D-Day 1211 aircraft of bomber
command attacked the German forces behind the beacheads
dropping over 5000 tons of bombs on roads , troop concentrations,
marshalling yards, radar sites, gun emplacements and railway junctions.

Or what
about taking out a pillbox? Heavies did a little bit of the above,
and medium bombers and fighter bombers did the most.
Oh, yes, and fighter bombers fought enemy fighters, fighter bombers,
destoyers, and medium bombers.

Not without dumping their bombs they didnt

A 'destoyers' is a category not used in English speaking militaries,
but it is very similar to a figther bomber.
IT is a cross between a medium bombers and a figher bomber,
conceptually.



The Zerstorer in Luftwaffe service was a failure in the
Battle of Britian


The fact is that fighters, fighter bombers, and medium bombers out
number the heavies by quite a bit. What ever the RAF thought of thier
intial fighter bomber laugher defeats and the Luftwaffes stunning
victories; it is clear that the RAF built fighter bombers later and
used them for close support of land, sea, and air forces.


The luftwaffe were mostly using aircraft like the Ju-87, Do-17
and He-111, none of which were fighter bombers, those arrived
later in the war.

For the BoB? I simply said the RAF could accelerate fighter
production more by negelcting bombers more.

And you were simply wrong

At least the RAF fighter command could get fuel, labor and tools, and
materials to boost what is there and to boost produciton of fighters.

This has been shown to be incorrect

I, at first, said the RAF needs more fighter bombers, but then after
being pointed out to that the RAF had no fighter bombers in current
production: I restated to read 'fighters'.


Which is why the RAF ordered the new factories in 1938,
by the time of the BOB it was WAY too late to switch.

The RAF needs more fighters and higher readiness fighters over what
they did. Britain will still have bombers that are there.



Bombers arent there unless you build them especially
when losses are as high as they were.

Keith