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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
In article , WaltBJ
writes I am puzzled. Where did my posts (2) to this thread go? I made one point that interception of Me109s bingoing home sucking fumes would have paid dividends. One of your posts very similar to the one below appears in rec.aviation.military.naval not sure if that's what you mean? There's also an earlier one you posted about bingoing fuel. Interestingly one of my posts appeared in one ng, when I'd thought I'd posted it in another? This thread is running in about half a dozen groups, sometimes multiple times within them group. Well, one pilot made a practice of doing just that. Joseph Frantisek, Czech pilot, highest scorer (17) during the BoB, used to sneak off alone and bounce the 109s and whatever else he could find over the Channel. I found this in a great book from my local library, "A Question of Honor", by Olson and Cloud, ISBN 0-375-41197-6, copyright2003, published by Knopf. The primary subject is the Polish airmen in the RAF, and what they did during the BoB and after. You must read this book! (FWIW oddly enough the father of my daughter's husband was one of them - Alexander Franzcak. Also odd is we share the same birthday.) -- John |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
John Freck wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote in message ... Why do you think Britain didn't develop fighter bombers early like Germany? Because Britain went with the light bomber idea pre war and was on the defensive in 1940, which meant the RAF fighter bombers appeared in 1941 versus 1940 for the Luftwaffe. Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more than other options? Compare just 2-engined bombers with long ranged fighter bombers, and tell me which would have been better for Britain to have during the BoB. Easy the twin engined bombers like a Wellington could haul 4,000 pounds of bombs to the invasion ports, a Hurricane fighter bomber 500 pounds when it came into service in 1941, even the Battles could do twice this. Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters (fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers, and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers? If Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall. I'm just providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials. Are you willing to argue that; in a reasonable war-game, that if Britain swaps all of her 2-engined bombers for fighter bombers, that Britain will do worse? Never mind alternative history POD (POint of departure) "soundness", we are just subbing fighter bombers for bombers in a game. Which is more important? Which can sub for what? Easily, the damage being done to the invasion fleet was a factor in the decision not to go and why it had to be dispersed. Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers can defend against bombers and fighter bombers. No sir you cant, retooling a factory and re-training its workforce takes considerable time during which you produce nothing at all. What retooling? Both use the same job description workers to a tee. Both use riveters, welders, assemblers, fitters, cutters, pressers, ect. Both use the forklifts, ceiling cranes, metal cutters, metal benders, grinders, torches, drills, ect. Both use large open space-warehouses-with strong ceilings. Both use the same basic raw materials in nearly identical configurations, and many parts are only different like 28" waist pants are different than 60" pants. A long amount of reading into the concept of machine tools is clearly in order here. If it was so simple then hours after the changeover to a new model, day a Spitfire V to IX then the entire air force should have had the new model. We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts, and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first months mass production. 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. Did the Spitfire stay on production targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940, or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by government and corporate economists. Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models Why didn't you use the Corsair as an example? First flew 29 May 1940, ordered 30 June 1941 first deliveries 3 October 1942. This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how? It might somehow be relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great detail! HOw did all aircraft production jump by tens or thousands per year then? All major types of aircraft, that is all fighters, bombers, fighter bombers, and transports all taken together all were jumping up rapidly for all sides monthly. How was this done, and how is it then that there can be no flexibility to increase fighter bombers over bombers from July 1st, 1940 to October 1st, 1940. Early on air bases themselves were producing large numbers of planes in mini factories: So if we want the 1910 model aircraft we can do this method. I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on manufacturing in W.W.II. Every piece of a warplane could be made in the field. I have heard on the USA's History Channel that nearly 50% of USAAF warplanes were not made in factories at all but on or near air bases. This is so wrong it is really funny. The United States military very robust maintenance of machines during W.W.II. On board every large aircraft carrier there were, and still are, factories capable of making any mechanical part needed for any airplane the aircraft carrier carries. The scale of Allied, and Axis, repair and mantenicen was huge and sophisticated. YOu might be a historian, and as such you might not realize that people have been making planes in small garages for a long time. The repair and maintenance made complete airplanes in W.W.II. You need to have your nose out for the sort on information in relaying to you. 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. The mini factories had stuff like, mini-mills, diamond grinders, drills, metal scissors, tool and die makers, ect. All of those can be made in a snap, are common, and on the shelf. Ah yes, machine tools that take months to build are a snap, and of course they are all waiting on the shelf for the declaration of war. Friend, the Hurricane's production was augmented this way, and repair and manitience was upgrade very quickly as to allow them to make planes. What machine tool for the Hurricane can't be made very fast? I consider it a fact that Britain set up these mini-mills very quickly and this is a prime reason Britain had such a high production rate. So please detail where all those mini mills are, since no historian has found one. You have never come across one in books you read because the historian who write them are ignorant of them. The exist today, as yesterday, on board every capital class USN aircraft carrier, and still today on large air force bases. Look, why don't you invest more time called me dumb, and then I might be more motivated to show you I'm right. Or you can look for, or nose for, a documentary on the B-26 which repeats fairly often on the US History Channel. When Germany started with this method too, its production went up to. So again, show the locations. You have to provoke me more. Provoke me like, Phillip McGregor, provoked me into proving that the Axis used military barges to supply its armies and air forces in Africa. He never knew they built 700 very large landingcrafts, barges, that could deliver on most any beach on the shores of Africa, or Black Sea, or Baltic Sea. He would rant about trucks rolling thousands of miles to deliver fuel and other stuff from ports in Libya. His book's author had it that way. Buddy, Allied and Axis both used mini factories for weapons' repair to the scale as allowing for new construction near the action. I have met gunsmiths, former soldiers, who have very small furnaces in garages. The can make, literally, an M-16, their own bullets, or a host of metal parts. If you keep a look out you will discover what I'm talking about. I'm sure it didn't peak your interest, and that's all. I don't think that it is hard to boost fighter production from July 1st, 1940 since it was boosted on an emergency basis. By no means is fighter production structurally limited like you indicate. Adding more assembly lines to an already developed plane already in production is easy and quick. The mini-mills can larger factory lines can be added fast until basic raw material availability has been tapped. Sorry. Try harder, maybe. It is really hard to punch through such iron clad ignorance when you cannot see the screen because you are laughing too much. It is really sad in your case. Consider further the second Spitfire production plant at Castle Bromwich in the West Midlands. On April 12,1938 a contract was placed for 1,000 Spitfires to be built at this new factory, aircraft first came off the production line in September 1940. And now provide further data on how fast additional production was added. Since you are so sure it was easy to ramp it up perhaps you can provide production figures. Now, it is whether, it was ‘easy' or ‘hard' to have production sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate economists! Ok, we can break horns here, if we're not careful. How do you like this? ‘It is hard, very hard and difficult, for brave smart Brits to have fighter production sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate projections.' What is easy, is for me to suggest 60+ years latter that Britain should have put even more effort into making that sky-rocket happen sooner, or harder, or more intensely. They should have put even more pressure on bomber command for resources. I don't happen to have Hurricane and Spitfire monthly production counts from July, August, September, and October 1940: but I suppose you do. Ah I see no information but absolute certainty about what the facts are. As this debate goes on I might show that USA production exceed economists projections. I don't feel like doing the homework. If I had an aid, I might assign her to do some research, but this is chat. Now how do you account for the increasing counts? From you examples, I could infer that back in 1938 Britain had pre planned the build-up and it just so happen the BoB rolled right in just then as things were picking up steam. This sort of proves how random chance can make you right occasionally. The explanation is completely correct the increases in RAF fighter production in 1940 was due to decisions taken in 1938 and 1939. British Fighter output June to October 1940 by type, planned and actual Month // Beau fighter P/A // Defiant P/A // Hurricane P/A // Spitfire P/A // Whirlwind P/A June // 8/2 // 30/30 // 300/309 // 135/103 // 8/2 July // 14/5 // 50/56 // 220/272 // 140/160 // 4/3 August // 21/25 // 65/38 // 270/251 // 155/163 // 6/1 September // 24/15 // 65/41 // 280/252 // 175/156 // 8/3 October // 40/21 // 50/48 // 300/250 // 231/149 // 10/1 Total British aircraft production in 1940 January 802, February 719, March 860, April 1,081, May 1,279, June 1,591, July 1,665, August 1,601, September 1,341, October 1,419, November 1,461, December 1,230. Production doubled. Well, I have it that aviation production expansion was faster than projected by far, maybe this is a USA artifact and not a Brit thing after all. Are you positive that RAF front line strength was unaffected by on-or-near base manufacturing? And that this on-ronear-base manufacturing was rapidly expanded? Since you are interested, here is a related problem: How to boost the French's readiness. If you were to prepare the French's air force from January 1940, what would you spend on? How would you spending work? How would it be similar to Britain's better preparedness? So, you have it that production numbers were right in line with economic projections from 1938-? To when? When did, if ever, did British aircraft production exceed projections, and I don't mean monthly, fringing projections! There are two reasons for the summer peak, more good weather for acceptance flights and people putting in large amounts of overtime to produce as much as possible, with the inevitable result of declining production as the workers tired. It took until March 1941 to beat the peak monthly figure in 1940. Bomber production was going up according to my atlas, and rapidly. I have heard in many interviews that the RAF was very tight on fuel. Just the other day on the Dorothy Reeem show that what was husbanding fighters to fight "Sea Lion" was not having fuel to head over ot the fight. Which sort of fiction does this show push? The RAF did not have a fuel problem in 1940. Why were resource husbanded long after any serious military analyst thought Sea Lion was any threat at all. Even when all the top commanders and top insider intelligence staff officers who know that was real feared an invasion, Germany did very little other than BoB to prepare of Sea Lion. Germany during Britain's greatest anxiety was not doing logical preparation for an invasion: But still Britain husbanded resources vigorously, really strenuously. Britain was in a conservation mode to the hilt and this was not just propaganda. The RAF, RN, and Army were all very worried about fuel conservation. In addition, I have read that Britain was very interested in projecting confidence and prowess. Given the problems in shipping fuel to England the British did take conservation measures, that is all. NO. Britain was not simply conserving. It done with great sense of emergency, top national priority, for the survival of the nation, all sectors had inspectors and enforcers. The government mean business, there was tremendous mass media attention. You write the fiction according to the people who lived it and fought the BoB. Britain will tremendous dramatic energy--conserved energy like victory of defeat hung in the balance, and the top and inside, and the bottom and outside all thought it was the truth. Your emotional casting is Monday morning quarterbacking for a winning team; and this QB cares to cast the tight game as "effortless." You are understating a situation you didn't live though, and the people who did live thru it don't like the way you cast the situation. Snip In that case why not go away? It is somewhat fun to debate. You see, I know that in your hardest heart you really do think, project, that Britain simply went with some conservation measures. And you think, and write with complete ablam. Well, the USA military history reader demands differently than you, and will win since the American emotional reaction is accurate. Your emotional reaction is s form of denial. John Freck |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"John Freck" wrote in message om... "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ... Because Britain went with the light bomber idea pre war and was on the defensive in 1940, which meant the RAF fighter bombers appeared in 1941 versus 1940 for the Luftwaffe. Well, then: Why did they like the line up they went with more than other options? Because the theory that almost eveyone subscribed to that the bomber would always get through proved false. What was a great shock was the efiiciency of the German light flak. Compare just 2-engined bombers with long ranged fighter bombers, and tell me which would have been better for Britain to have during the BoB. Easy the twin engined bombers like a Wellington could haul 4,000 pounds of bombs to the invasion ports, a Hurricane fighter bomber 500 pounds when it came into service in 1941, even the Battles could do twice this. Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters (fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers, and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers? If Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall. You recall incorrectly. The RAF were giving maximum priority to fighters and bomber command had only 500 or so bombers ready for operations in 1940 and many of those were obsolete types like the battle and whitley I'm just providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials. It already had the highest priority but you cant fit a Hercules Radial engine from a bomber into a fighter or use the geodesic airframe line for the Wellington to build Spitfires. Are you willing to argue that; in a reasonable war-game, that if Britain swaps all of her 2-engined bombers for fighter bombers, that Britain will do worse? Never mind alternative history POD (POint of departure) "soundness", we are just subbing fighter bombers for bombers in a game. Which is more important? Which can sub for what? Easily, the damage being done to the invasion fleet was a factor in the decision not to go and why it had to be dispersed. Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers can defend against bombers and fighter bombers. Please provide us with details of the number of raids land based fighter bombers made against German Naval bases. No sir you cant, retooling a factory and re-training its workforce takes considerable time during which you produce nothing at all. What retooling? Both use the same job description workers to a tee. Both use riveters, welders, assemblers, fitters, cutters, pressers, ect. Both use the forklifts, ceiling cranes, metal cutters, metal benders, grinders, torches, drills, ect. Both use large open space-warehouses-with strong ceilings. Both use the same basic raw materials in nearly identical configurations, and many parts are only different like 28" waist pants are different than 60" pants. A long amount of reading into the concept of machine tools is clearly in order here. If it was so simple then hours after the changeover to a new model, day a Spitfire V to IX then the entire air force should have had the new model. We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts, and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first months mass production. 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. No it was IN mass production Did the Spitfire stay on production targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940, or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by government and corporate economists. True but that happened as a result of massive investment years before production started Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models Why didn't you use the Corsair as an example? First flew 29 May 1940, ordered 30 June 1941 first deliveries 3 October 1942. This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how? It might somehow be relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great detail! No new fighter factory produced aircraft in less than 18 months No existing production line be retooled over night HOw did all aircraft production jump by tens or thousands per year then? All major types of aircraft, that is all fighters, bombers, fighter bombers, and transports all taken together all were jumping up rapidly for all sides monthly. How was this done, and how is it then that there can be no flexibility to increase fighter bombers over bombers from July 1st, 1940 to October 1st, 1940. Early on air bases themselves were producing large numbers of planes in mini factories: So if we want the 1910 model aircraft we can do this method. I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on manufacturing in W.W.II. Quote ONE historian who states that airbases produced their own aircraft during WW" Keith |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
This will probably appear in the wrong spot, thanks to
a malfuncitoning news server. John Freck wrote in message ... "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ... John Freck wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote in message ... Why do you think Britain didn't develop fighter bombers early like Germany? Because Britain went with the light bomber idea pre war and was on the defensive in 1940, which meant the RAF fighter bombers appeared in 1941 versus 1940 for the Luftwaffe. 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? The straight answer to what I think is your question was the light bomber idea was proved expensive, while a purpose designed airframe could carry more bombs it was more vulnerable than fighters. In 1944 this would not have mattered for the allies but it did in 1941 when production priorities were set. It also meant fewer types of aircraft to produce and maintain. Compare just 2-engined bombers with long ranged fighter bombers, and tell me which would have been better for Britain to have during the BoB. Easy the twin engined bombers like a Wellington could haul 4,000 pounds of bombs to the invasion ports, a Hurricane fighter bomber 500 pounds when it came into service in 1941, even the Battles could do twice this. Don't you kind of think, however, that Britain needed fighters (fighter bombers can fight fighters, shoot down bombers, destroyers, and transports) during the Battle of Britain more than bombers? Not to replace bombers striking the invasion fleet. If Britain had the same number of a additional fighters as Britain had bombers, then Germany would do even worse. Germany would lose more planes faster. From July 1st, 1940 there are still bombers around to do stuff by the hundreds if not thousands, as I recall. I'm just providing to fighter command even a higher priority for fuel, labor and tools, manufacturing, maintenance, and materials. You have zero idea of how long it takes to switch production of different types and have invented a non existent fuel crisis. Actually fighter command had a high pre war priority, partly due to the fact the aircraft and their airbases cost less. It would be good for you to consider checking out the actual strength of Bomber Command in 1940. A big raid was 100 aircraft, the average number of aircraft flown was less than 100 per day. Are you willing to argue that; in a reasonable war-game, that if Britain swaps all of her 2-engined bombers for fighter bombers, that Britain will do worse? Never mind alternative history POD (POint of departure) "soundness", we are just subbing fighter bombers for bombers in a game. Which is more important? Which can sub for what? Easily, the damage being done to the invasion fleet was a factor in the decision not to go and why it had to be dispersed. Fighter bombers did well against naval targets, and fighter bombers can defend against bombers and fighter bombers. Fine so show us the fighter bomber strikes on ships in harbour, how many they sank and how many fighter bombers were lost. Then show us how well the fighter bombers did at night strikes. No sir you cant, retooling a factory and re-training its workforce takes considerable time during which you produce nothing at all. What retooling? Both use the same job description workers to a tee. Both use riveters, welders, assemblers, fitters, cutters, pressers, ect. Both use the forklifts, ceiling cranes, metal cutters, metal benders, grinders, torches, drills, ect. Both use large open space-warehouses-with strong ceilings. Both use the same basic raw materials in nearly identical configurations, and many parts are only different like 28" waist pants are different than 60" pants. A long amount of reading into the concept of machine tools is clearly in order here. If it was so simple then hours after the changeover to a new model, day a Spitfire V to IX then the entire air force should have had the new model. We are discussing increase current model monthly production counts, and not as you insist over and over and over, that we are discussing accelerating the time from prototypes first test flight to first months mass production. 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. 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. Did the Spitfire stay on production targets projected from March 1938, or September 1939, or January 1940, or June 1940, or December 1941? It has been my impression as an American that new airplane production surpassed all projection by government and corporate economists. It has been your impression, from what figures can anyone ask? The Spitfire production was behind projections until at least the end of 1940, thanks to the initial problems building it and the problems starting the second production line. Snipped 50+ lines on trasnistioning to newer models putting it back in to prove someone cannot count, maybe it will get through the jigging and tooling costs are for setting up a production line. Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging and tooling I / 339,400 / 800,000 II / 9,267 / unknown III / 91,120 / 75,000 V / 90,000 / 105,000 VI 14,340 / 50,000 IX 43,830 / 30,000 XII / 27,210 / 16,000 VII / 86,150 / 150,000 VIII / 24,970 / 250,000 XIV / 26,120 / 17,000 21 / 168,500 / unknown PR XI / 12,415 / unknown Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000 Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000 Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000 Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000 Why didn't you use the Corsair as an example? First flew 29 May 1940, ordered 30 June 1941 first deliveries 3 October 1942. This Corsair information is relevant to increasing Hurricane production from July 1st, 1940, exactly how? You are the one who suggested people look at Corsiars so tell us yourself. It might somehow be relevant to increasing Tempest production for July 1st, 1940. Is it relevant to Spitfire productions exceeding economists projections from July 1, 1940? Please, give me a clue, and just go into some great detail! On your current output you do not have a clue. HOw did all aircraft production jump by tens or thousands per year then? All major types of aircraft, that is all fighters, bombers, fighter bombers, and transports all taken together all were jumping up rapidly for all sides monthly. How was this done, and how is it then that there can be no flexibility to increase fighter bombers over bombers from July 1st, 1940 to October 1st, 1940. Early on air bases themselves were producing large numbers of planes in mini factories: So if we want the 1910 model aircraft we can do this method. I think you need to understand that historians are not all they are cracked up to be, you missed some interesting information on manufacturing in W.W.II. 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. Every piece of a warplane could be made in the field. I have heard on the USA's History Channel that nearly 50% of USAAF warplanes were not made in factories at all but on or near air bases. This is so wrong it is really funny. The United States military very robust maintenance of machines during W.W.II. On board every large aircraft carrier there were, and still are, factories capable of making any mechanical part needed for any airplane the aircraft carrier carries. Oh my ribs, I cannot laugh this much, Does any mechanical part include wing spars, tyres, fuselage sections or do we have someone confusing minor repairs with major production. It is a wonder we do not see the aircraft production total of say the USS Essex. What is the current output of F-18s from the USS Nimitz? The scale of Allied, and Axis, repair and mantenicen was huge and sophisticated. YOu might be a historian, and as such you might not realize that people have been making planes in small garages for a long time. Fine I would like 1,000 Spitfires from your garage and within 2 months of now. Start immediately, you should be able to have the tools in by the end of the week, given your claims about their availability, and then crank out the aircraft. Show us the great flexibilty, Bf109 day one, Fw190 day two, Hurricane day three, P-47 day four, P-38 day five and a Hayate day six, then rest, the following week a mixture of Lancasters, Ju-88s, G4M1, B-24s, Pe2s would be nice. The repair and maintenance made complete airplanes in W.W.II. You need to have your nose out for the sort on information in relaying to you. This is quite funny, apparently all those RAF Civilian Maintenance Units were not only back yard affairs but made their own parts, not fitting parts like spars sent from the manufacturers. The salvage units did sometimes put written off aircraft back into the air, by creatively using their stock of salvaged parts. 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 airbases, 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 Hornby And for the UK fuel situation, Oil; a study of war-time policy and administration, by Payton-Smith. They all make it clear the aircraft were built in factories that took years to bring to full production and that the RAF was not short of fuel. The mini factories had stuff like, mini-mills, diamond grinders, drills, metal scissors, tool and die makers, ect. All of those can be made in a snap, are common, and on the shelf. Ah yes, machine tools that take months to build are a snap, and of course they are all waiting on the shelf for the declaration of war. Friend, the Hurricane's production was augmented this way, and repair and manitience was upgrade very quickly as to allow them to make planes. Try and provide proof instead of simply repeating fiction. What machine tool for the Hurricane can't be made very fast? It depends on what part of the aircraft you are talking about, the engine or airframe for example. For the airframe it is the jigging and tooling to produce the components accurately. I consider it a fact that Britain set up these mini-mills very quickly and this is a prime reason Britain had such a high production rate. So please detail where all those mini mills are, since no historian has found one. You have never come across one in books you read because the historian who write them are ignorant of them. Translation there is no evidence they exist as a method of producing aircraft, only the truth bringer has seen them. The exist today, as yesterday, on board every capital class USN aircraft carrier, and still today on large air force bases. So how many F-18s does the average USN carrier produce a year? What is the production rate of the standard USAF airbase? Look, why don't you invest more time called me dumb, and then I might be more motivated to show you I'm right. Yes folks, it is easier to be fact free so why take the effort to learn, or even back up statements. Or you can look for, or nose for, a documentary on the B-26 which repeats fairly often on the US History Channel. So tell us all how many B-26s were made at USAAF airbases? When Germany started with this method too, its production went up to. So again, show the locations. You have to provoke me more. Yes folks no facts. Provoke me like, Phillip McGregor, provoked me into proving that the Axis used military barges to supply its armies and air forces in Africa. He never knew they built 700 very large landingcrafts, barges, that could deliver on most any beach on the shores of Africa, or Black Sea, or Baltic Sea. He would rant about trucks rolling thousands of miles to deliver fuel and other stuff from ports in Libya. His book's author had it that way. The only problem with barges, sending them across the ocean, bad move that. Supplying Rommel with barges from Italy is another losing strategy. It seems after being shown as being so wrong by one person the only thing to do is go into another area and try to pretend to be right. Buddy, Allied and Axis both used mini factories for weapons' repair to the scale as allowing for new construction near the action. Ah I see the ability to make basic repairs is turned into the ability to make whole machines. So every backyard mechanic can turn out vehicles in numbers, silly then to create mass production lines, go back to the craft system. I have met gunsmiths, former soldiers, who have very small furnaces in garages. The can make, literally, an M-16, their own bullets, or a host of metal parts. If you keep a look out you will discover what I'm talking about. I'm sure it didn't peak your interest, and that's all. Tell me how many bridges and canyons did they sell you after the demonstration? I don't think that it is hard to boost fighter production from July 1st, 1940 since it was boosted on an emergency basis. By no means is fighter production structurally limited like you indicate. Adding more assembly lines to an already developed plane already in production is easy and quick. The mini-mills can larger factory lines can be added fast until basic raw material availability has been tapped. Sorry. Try harder, maybe. It is really hard to punch through such iron clad ignorance when you cannot see the screen because you are laughing too much. It is really sad in your case. I am having too much fun. Consider further the second Spitfire production plant at Castle Bromwich in the West Midlands. On April 12,1938 a contract was placed for 1,000 Spitfires to be built at this new factory, aircraft first came off the production line in September 1940. And now provide further data on how fast additional production was added. Since you are so sure it was easy to ramp it up perhaps you can provide production figures. Now, it is whether, it was ‘easy' or ‘hard' to have production sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate economists! Ok, we can break horns here, if we're not careful. I just love the rhetoric, hard to lock horns with those who have crashed and burnt. How do you like this? ‘It is hard, very hard and difficult, for brave smart Brits to have fighter production sky-rocket past the projections of government and corporate projections.' Oh my ribs, no production figures just a slogan, wow, the good old marketing approach, use a slogan shouting success to cover failure. What is easy, is for me to suggest 60+ years latter that Britain should have put even more effort into making that sky-rocket happen sooner, or harder, or more intensely. They should have put even more pressure on bomber command for resources. This is really funny, the absolute hindsight historian now in full retreat to motherhood statements, that the RAF could have ramped up production earlier, how about 1930? I don't happen to have Hurricane and Spitfire monthly production counts from July, August, September, and October 1940: but I suppose you do. Ah I see no information but absolute certainty about what the facts are. As this debate goes on I might show that USA production exceed economists projections. I don't feel like doing the homework. If I had an aid, I might assign her to do some research, but this is chat. I doubt anyone is holding their breath for facts from John Freck. It seems the fact one country can exceed production targets in an area means all countries can do so quickly and easily. Remember apparently the British can change production in a matter of days. Now how do you account for the increasing counts? From you examples, I could infer that back in 1938 Britain had pre planned the build-up and it just so happen the BoB rolled right in just then as things were picking up steam. This sort of proves how random chance can make you right occasionally. The explanation is completely correct the increases in RAF fighter production in 1940 was due to decisions taken in 1938 and 1939. British Fighter output June to October 1940 by type, planned and actual Month // Beau fighter P/A // Defiant P/A // Hurricane P/A // Spitfire P/A // Whirlwind P/A June // 8/2 // 30/30 // 300/309 // 135/103 // 8/2 July // 14/5 // 50/56 // 220/272 // 140/160 // 4/3 August // 21/25 // 65/38 // 270/251 // 155/163 // 6/1 September // 24/15 // 65/41 // 280/252 // 175/156 // 8/3 October // 40/21 // 50/48 // 300/250 // 231/149 // 10/1 Total British aircraft production in 1940 January 802, February 719, March 860, April 1,081, May 1,279, June 1,591, July 1,665, August 1,601, September 1,341, October 1,419, November 1,461, December 1,230. Production doubled. Well, I have it that aviation production expansion was faster than projected by far, maybe this is a USA artifact and not a Brit thing after all. Note by the way "he has it" but will not share it. Are you positive that RAF front line strength was unaffected by on-or-near base manufacturing? Positive, there was no on or near base manufacturing. And that this on-ronear-base manufacturing was rapidly expanded? There was zero, nil, none, near or on base manufacturing. Since you are interested, here is a related problem: How to boost the French's readiness. If you were to prepare the French's air force from January 1940, what would you spend on? How would you spending work? How would it be similar to Britain's better preparedness? How about you actually detail with supported facts and references your claims about the British first. Since it is clear you have no idea of what actually happened and what could be done. It is a waste of time to repeat the same absurdities about the French. So, you have it that production numbers were right in line with economic projections from 1938-? To when? When did, if ever, did British aircraft production exceed projections, and I don't mean monthly, fringing projections! Are we talking about a particular type, a particular category or the overall total? Why not look up the references on how the RAF armed for war? The histories I mentioned earlier have pages of tables on projected and actual aircraft production, including the times production was ahead of projections and when it was behind. Then there are the many studies on how the RAF mobilised before WWII. There are two reasons for the summer peak, more good weather for acceptance flights and people putting in large amounts of overtime to produce as much as possible, with the inevitable result of declining production as the workers tired. It took until March 1941 to beat the peak monthly figure in 1940. Bomber production was going up according to my atlas, and rapidly. Your atlas? Medium bomber production for 1940 January 96, peaked at 242 in July, back to 166 by December, light bombers in January 86, peaked at 177 in August back to 134 in December. In 1939 the Gloster Hurricane production line came into service, 32 in 1939, 1,211 in 1940. The second Wellington line produced 3 aircraft in 1939 and 487 in 1940. In 1940 the Halifax, Manchester and Stirling production lines came into service, as did the second Spitfire line, the Whirlwind line, the Beaufighter line and the third Wellington line. I should add production went down in the third quarter due to plant dispersal. I have heard in many interviews that the RAF was very tight on fuel. Just the other day on the Dorothy Reeem show that what was husbanding fighters to fight "Sea Lion" was not having fuel to head over ot the fight. Which sort of fiction does this show push? The RAF did not have a fuel problem in 1940. Why were resource husbanded long after any serious military analyst thought Sea Lion was any threat at all. Ah I see, the British keep fuel reserves because of the unpredicability of war equals a fuel shortage that can effect operations. Try the UK oil history. Even when all the top commanders and top insider intelligence staff officers who know that was real feared an invasion, Germany did very little other than BoB to prepare of Sea Lion. Germany during Britain's greatest anxiety was not doing logical preparation for an invasion: But still Britain husbanded resources vigorously, really strenuously. Britain was in a conservation mode to the hilt and this was not just propaganda. Please provide a reference that shows RAF operations were hampered by a lack of fuel in 1940. By the way according to the British history on oil avgas consumption in England was always below expectations except for a period in 1944. The RAF, RN, and Army were all very worried about fuel conservation. In addition, I have read that Britain was very interested in projecting confidence and prowess. Given the problems in shipping fuel to England the British did take conservation measures, that is all. NO. Britain was not simply conserving. It done with great sense of emergency, top national priority, for the survival of the nation, all sectors had inspectors and enforcers. Hey how about that, not only was there rationing but there were rationing inspectors. Please show where the RAF was hampered by a lack of fuel. The government mean business, there was tremendous mass media attention. You write the fiction according to the people who lived it and fought the BoB. Ah I see, I report what the people did and that is fiction. Britain will tremendous dramatic energy--conserved energy like victory of defeat hung in the balance, and the top and inside, and the bottom and outside all thought it was the truth. Inside and out, back to front, cliche to cliche and fact free as well. Your emotional casting is Monday morning quarterbacking for a winning team; and this QB cares to cast the tight game as "effortless." You are understating a situation you didn't live though, and the people who did live thru it don't like the way you cast the situation. Ah I see I am watching someone who went through it or else claims to know large numbers of people who did. Snip In that case why not go away? It is somewhat fun to debate. You see, I know that in your hardest heart you really do think, project, that Britain simply went with some conservation measures. Ah I see, the idea the British rationed fuel automatically equals a shortage so bad it affected RAF operations. And you think, and write with complete ablam. Complete ablam, zowie, kaboosh, pow, zap. Well, the USA military history reader demands differently than you, and will win since the American emotional reaction is accurate. Your emotional reaction is s form of denial. I see all those visits to psychiatrists have given you the jargon. By the way emotional responses are when no facts are given just repeated I am right, note John, all you have done is keep saying you are right without presenting facts. I see the grand plan now, I can repair a row boat therefore I can build battleships, if I ration fuel then I must have had to cancel opearations for lack of fuel, not cut out non essential fuel use, I can sail along the coast in barges therefore I can supply an army across an ocean by barge. 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. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
John Freck wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ... Responding to everything will take too long. I will respond to some. Translation, unable to respond to facts so delete them and go post the same claims elsewhere. Thank you for spending the time to write such long responses. cut and past makes it easy. 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. Correct, "strictly" is too strong, but almost all is correct. Average day shift working week in July 1940 63.6 hours, the night shifts worked even longer weeks. You didn't mention expanded purchasing from the USA of materials, fuel, machines, parts, and weapons as significant either. Parts of the 1938 decisions related to purchasing of materials from overseas. By the way UK machine tool exports doubled in 1938 and 1939 compared with 1937 thanks to large orders from the USSR. There was trade going on, the UK was importing machine tools from many countries, during WWII the US supplied around half the UK imports. 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. Since you intend to keep deleting the basic facts there is only so much people can do to point out you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. There is no easy way to switch production of something as complex as an aircraft. It takes years to build up production lines. There is no way converting a bomber factory to a fighter factory would happen in the time it took to fight the Battle of Britain. It takes thousands of hours to set up for a production run. Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging and tooling I / 339,400 / 800,000 II / 9,267 / unknown III / 91,120 / 75,000 V / 90,000 / 105,000 VI 14,340 / 50,000 IX 43,830 / 30,000 XII / 27,210 / 16,000 VII / 86,150 / 150,000 VIII / 24,970 / 250,000 XIV / 26,120 / 17,000 21 / 168,500 / unknown PR XI / 12,415 / unknown Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000 Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000 Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000 Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000 Figures as of September 1943 for Supermarine works in Southampton. Even what looks like trivial design changes imposed delays and loss of production. British Fighter output June to October 1940 by type, planned and actual Month // Beaufighter P/A // Defiant P/A // Hurricane P/A // Spitfire P/A // Whirlwind P/A June // 8/2 // 30/30 // 300/309 // 135/103 // 8/2 July // 14/5 // 50/56 // 220/272 // 140/160 // 4/3 August // 21/25 // 65/38 // 270/251 // 155/163 // 6/1 September // 24/15 // 65/41 // 280/252 // 175/156 // 8/3 October // 40/21 // 50/48 // 300/250 // 231/149 // 10/1 Total British aircraft production in 1940 January 802, February 719, March 860, April 1,081, May 1,279, June 1,591, July 1,665, August 1,601, September 1,341, October 1,419, November 1,461, December 1,230. There are two reasons for the summer peak, more good weather for acceptance flights and people putting in large amounts of overtime to produce as much as possible, with the inevitable result of declining production as the workers tired. It took until March 1941 to beat the peak monthly figure in 1940, partly thanks to the dispesal of plants. Also total fighter production was April 256, May 325, June 446, July 496, August 476, September 469. The "new" production lines, Beaufighter and Whirlwind, help the production figures, June 4, July 8, August 26, September 18. Then add the new Spitfire factory coming on line, producing 125 Spitfires between 6 June and 30 September. So in all June to September the British produced 1,885 fighters, 181 or 10% from the new production lines. Then add the Glosters Hurricane line coming into full production, since it started in late 1939. It is after all, a historical fact of the earth; I'm just making it even more so for some imagined SimWWII. I believe the machines you want are the Star Trek replicators. 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. The UK was importing US machine tools, the problem which does not seem to register is the time it took to create a production line. 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. I see, the claimed "fact" that airbases could and did manufacture large numbers of aircraft and that aircraft carriers could to the same thing, is "esoteric". That is the numbers are supposed to be so small as to be insignificant. Alternatively the details have been suppressed by "dark forces" and only the truth bringer knows about them. Snip 200+ lines making fun of aircraft parts manufacture at small factories near or on W.W.II air bases Translation, all the unanswerable facts deleted. 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. 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 Hornby And for the UK fuel situation, Oil; a study of war-time policy and administration, by Payton-Smith. They all make it clear the aircraft were built in factories that took years to bring to full production and that the RAF was not short of fuel. 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. Yes folks just remember because an aircraft plant in Australia makes ailerons for Boeing that plant can churn out 747s, 767s, B-52s, etc. to order with only a short delay. Maybe the clue will eventually be noticed and the difference between manufacture and assembly will be understood plus the idea of sub contracting. As far as Germany using sea going (not ocean going) barges to support Africa? I have evidence your books are good for ass wipe. Ah I see, you should have said you obtain your information from reading the toilet paper, the dolphins do have some quite wise sayings. 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. All you have to do now is tell us where these reports of the severe fuel shortages are, since the UK history on oil, that is a whole book devoted to the subject of liquid fuels, makes no mention of severe fuel shortage in England during the war. And certainly no mention of fuel problems cramping RAF operations. 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. Ah I see when unable to provide evidence simply announce everyone else is a liar. 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! This is quite funny, in 1942 the US in Europe was the second banana, it beacome number 1 in 1944. As for vassal states it is clear the need for an off topic rant has become urgent to detract from the lack of facts. Last time I checked the US is so powerful it can obtain its own way much more easily than anyone else, but not everything everytime. 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. Ah I see the idea some supplies were sent by barge along the coast (Hear of the RN inshore squadron by the way?) means none were sent by truck. As opposed to the quartermasters using both methods of transport as appropriate. Snip How can you write such drivel? Yes folks the only way to respond is to delete the text and then put in the editorial about how bad it was. Some of the deleted text. "So how many F-18s does the average USN carrier produce a year? What is the production rate of the standard USAF airbase?" "Ah I see the ability to make basic repairs is turned into the ability to make whole machines. So every backyard mechanic can turn out vehicles in numbers, silly then to create mass production lines, go back to the craft system." "I doubt anyone is holding their breath for facts from John Freck. It seems the fact one country can exceed production targets in an area means all countries can do so quickly and easily. Remember apparently the British can change production in a matter of days." "Why not look up the references on how the RAF armed for war? The histories I mentioned earlier have pages of tables on projected and actual aircraft production, including the times production was ahead of projections and when it was behind. Then there are the many studies on how the RAF mobilised before WWII." 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. Yes we are heading for the end game. You see, if you didn't understand the last sentence, then it is unlikely you will understand the next sentences. Translation, no facts so time to jump to a new topic. 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. Yes folks apparently having twice the number of US paratroops means the C-47 can fit and drop a 17 pounder gun. So if we go to 4 times the paratroops it can trop say a 155mm gun, at 10 times the number of paratroops presumably the C-47 can then carry a Pershing and so on. On the other hand maybe the paratroops drop with their own mini mill and make the guns themselves after deployment, or maybe make C-130s to fly in the guns. We will just ignore the fact that airforces and armies are not interchangable, the air forces use much less manpower but more industry per man. We will also just ignore the problems paratroopers had in combat, they needed support from the regular ground forces if the enemy had heavy weapons present, except the HG Parachute Panzer division of course, always wondered how they could ever paradrop a Panther. This is a difference the Allied game player goes with, so it is different from the historical W.W.II. So a game with fictional abilites is the truth and the histories are the fiction. If you still don't understand the first sentence, then goodnight. Ah they have arrived with your sedative I gather. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
#1 Piston Fighter was British | Kevin Brooks | Military Aviation | 170 | August 26th 03 06:34 PM |