Keith Willshaw wrote:


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. Hopefully, I'm not reading to much into your
sugggestion, I have long put forward similar notion that most of
the
strategic bombing was a waste, or it could have been done with
much
less and even better. During the Summer of 1940 the Allies could
have
had more fighters and more fuel, and have had the bombers on lower
level missions cutting up Germans energy and transport.

Hardly, the first 4 engined bomber, the Short Stirling didnt
enter service until 1941 and the fighters had absolute priority
on production in 1940. Cancelling all 4 engined bomber production
would have made no difference at all to the BOB

The RAF had bomber production going during the BoB. Yes, the RAF did
think fighters were more important than bombers. I would for the sake
of the game eliminate new bomber construction, or only go with the
hottest 2-engined bombers that are in fact or could nearly be top
fighter-bombers if configured that way.


All strategic bombing could have, and should have, been done by
long
ranged fighter-bombers, and fast 2-engined bombers, and 100% of the
effort shoud have been against German military targets, energy, and
transport. IN 1947 the USAAF stated that 95% of startegic bombing
reasouces were wasted, only 5% of the strategic bombing effort was
worthwhile. But Christ, that 5% was a knock-out! Viturally, all
the
crippling damage done by strategic air attack was done by
long-ranged
fighter bombers and 2-engined bombers attacking at low altitude,
and
almost no serious damage was done by the wasteful other line.

This is flat wrong, most of the oil campaign was carried out by
B-17's, Halifax and Lancaster bombers. The light bombers
of the USAAF were predominantly used to attack transport
infrastructure and tactical targets

I could go down to the libary get direct quotes from the 1947 USA
Almanac. The assessement in 1947 lead to the USAAF, USN, USMC, and
USA Army spending very heavily in other directions than strategic
bombers, not that the strategic bomber is absent even today. Perhaps
the 4-engined bombers were most effective when deployed at low
altitude. What sort of altitude were the attacks on Germany's oil
production carried out at? Of course, 4-engined bomber can run low.
It is just that it is better to use 1 and 2-engined planes. There are
awesome things the Allied could have done if 4-engined bombers are cut
back around 75% or more.
For example, what-if the the Allies funded, resourced, the dreams of
the airbornne generals. In some alternative history story or wargame
we can explore 100,000 strong airborne armies backed by thousands of
trasnport planes. Imagine D-day with a lot more and better supported
airborne troops!


One hundred Mustangs each with a single 1,000lbs bomb, flying in
low
in order to lay down 50+ direct hits on railline is very
troublesome
to the GErmans, and did I mention the destoyed and badly damaged
locomotives, loads, and other equipment, and the need for Germany
then
to disperse AAA? The Allies can put down 500 fighter-bomb sorties
like that a day in the Rhur by 1943 and sleep in to boot.


But 500 fighter bomer sorties will deliver only 10% of the bombload
of a 1000 bomber Lancaster raid and in any event neither the USSAF
nor the RAF had 500 P-51's in 1943.


My little book of WWII Aircraft indicates that the P-51 was in Europe
from 1942.
Any way, the 500 fighters cost something like 1/8 the cost of the
1,000 bombers, and the real bomb load of a Mustang (Ok, my stats are
for a D) is 2,000lbs. The Mustang also has 6 50cals for ground
attack, say for peppering a locomotive. 500*2000=1,000,000 and
1,000*4,000=4,000,000. Plus the fighters will be much much harder to
shoot down, and their bombing will be more accurate as exteremly low
altitude bombing is possible which is very accurate.


John Freck














Keith