Why did Britain win the BoB?

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...



Why ?



Why what to which line I wrote?


The one which read

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.





You cant rapidly switch factories building Whitleys or Wellingtons
to building Spitfires and Hurricanes and new shadow factories
for those aircraft were already entering production, the RAF
had no shortage of airframes in any event.



You can to rapidly decrease production of one plane type and increase
production of another.

No sir you cant, retooling a factory and re-training its workforce
takes considerable time during which you produce nothing at all.

You may be thinking of a short time frame for the BoB which is just 3
months.

Given that this is the subject of the discussion thats not a reasonable
assumption

During W.W.II USA production jumped hugely in time measured
in months. Some planes were discontinued and others started up with
pretty high numbers off the bat. When a plane was discontinued the
numbers produced dropped to zero in a day, and the factory would be
open the next day getting started making whatever was next, and the
numbers of the new plane jumped up pretty quickly as I recall.

This is simply wrong. Consider as an example the TBM Avenger

The first prototype flew in 1940, the first production models
entered service in 1942 but it took the best part of a year
for GM to produce the first Avenger .

They were given a contract to build 1200 at their Eastern Aircraft plant in
Trenton, New Jersey in March 1942. The first aircraft rolled off the
production lines in March 1943. Even that was a tremendous
achievement and required Grumman to deliver TBF's assembled
with sheet metal screws rather than rivets so they could be repeatedly
assembled and dismantled by the workers in training

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


Yes,
the 3 month time frame of the BoB is very tight, and this is why I say
my commentary in response to Herbert Pocket's is really more for down
stream. But, without hesitation fighter command can take fuel from
bomber command, spare engines, sheet metal, knobs, and such, and raw
materials.

No they cant, there was no shortage of fuel, the bombers mostly used
different engines and the rest of the stuff is just silly. Once more
there was no shortage of aircraft, the RAF had seveal hundred
complete spares in stock and production was running at 300 a
month by September.

Building a whole new factory to make fighters can be done
in weeks, transferring workers can be done in weeks, diverting raw
materials can be done in 1 day, and the machines used to make fighters
and bombers and all the same, just different patterns of the same
thing. It is really no different that having more shirts and less
pants. You must admit that operationally fighters and bombers consume
pretty much the same stuff in terms of material, skilled workers, and
management. Yes?



You really are totally clueless about production engineering. An
aircraft is an incredibly complex product, even in WW2
it took around 2 years to go from prototype to production.



I could go down to the library get direct quotes from the 1947
USA
Almanac. The assessment 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.



The USAAF ceased to exist in 1947 and from that date on
the US Army has not operated significant numbers of fixed
wing aircraft



The United States Army Air Force = The United States Air Force = The
United States of America
Air Force The USAAF merely changed its name to USAF and became a full
independent branch of the US military establishment.


Thats hardly a merely.



The USAF and Strategic Air Command on the other hand ordered
and operated large numbers of strategic bombers including the
B-29, B-50, B-36, B-47, B-52, B-1 and B-2



The B-29 pre-dates 1947. The total number of bombers produced of
B-50, B-36, B-47, B-52, B-1, and B-2 don't add up to 1,000, I don't
believe. The number of fighter bombers built since 1947 is over
10,000 as I recall. The ratio is about the same as I recommend for
SimWWII. I cut back and not out.


Again your lack of a clue is showing

The USA produced 370 B-50's, 380 B-36's, 1300 B-47's
and 740 B-52's


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.

And awesome things they couldnt have done, fact is a single heavy bomber
can
carry more bombs than 6 fighter bombers of WW2 and do so over a
longer distance



While a B-29 can deliver 20,000lbs of bombs and a Coursair only 1
2,000lbs bomb, and yes,
the B-29 can fly 3,000+ miles and the F-4 only 1,000+ miles, the F4
can deliver the bomb more accurately.

Which is bloody useless if the target is over a 1000 miles away and
even if its in range you need 10 times the number of aircraft and
5 times the number of pilots. Add in the ground staff and the logistics
are impossible.


The F4 can also strafe enemy trucks, bomb enemy ships, and rocket or
bomb tanks. Heavy fighter cover can mean the enemy has viturally 100%
of trucks operating during daylight or any ground vehicle opeating
during the day in a battle destoyed. Fighter bombers are simply the
best. Figther bomb cant deliver supply to ground units which is wht a
transport can do and some bombers too.



Fighter bombers are an absolute requirement for ground support
but they wont demolish the oil plants which proved to be a
decisive move in WW2. Nor will they destroy the enemys transport
infrastructure

For example, what-if the the Allies funded, resourced, the dreams
of
the airborne generals. In some alternative history story or
war-game
we can explore 100,000 strong airborne armies backed by thousands
of
transport planes. Imagine D-day with a lot more and better
supported
airborne troops!

Airborne troops dont do well against armoured formations, see
Arnhem for an example.

The USAAF stated that 95% of strategic bombing missions were useless,
and that only 5% of the runs made a difference, and that those sorts
of runs can be better done by fighter bombers.

Cite please, I have read the strategic bombingg survey and I dont
recall that as being its conclusions

They then followed up
and built fighter bombers in greatest numbers: I think the USA
military has more transports than bombers, I just think that to be the
case. US Army tank units didn't do that well against German armor
either.

Irrelevant. address the issue please , how do you propose
to destroy the German oil industry with fighter bombers

Ordinary light infantry did get better and better against
armor, as I'm sure you know.

I know the precise opposite. Unsupported infantry gets
chopped up without anti-tank guns and air cover. Ask
the paras who got caught at Arnhem.

For highly motivated infantry dealing
with tanks that have had protecting infantry killed there are many
methods where-by ordinary infantry can disable an enemy tank.

And how do you propose to kill the enemy infantry ?

Wave a magic wand ?

In this
war-game the airborne have not only more men, but more money and
resources per man. The airborne will have more supply and heavier
supply. What were those best Allied anti-tank guns called? The 7
pounders, or was it 75 pounders? They were 75 mm, I think.

Geez you really know nothing do you.

The best British gun was the 17 pounder and the Americans
used their own 3" gun


I bet one
of those could be air delivered by glider, or parachute, or airplane.

You'd lose, the 17 pounder weighed 2100 kg, was 4.2 m long
needed a truck to tow it and each round including packing weighed
around 50 pounds. The largest air portable AT gun
was the 6 pounder but damm few of them got into action.

This idea would be an interesting thread by itself; a really, really
robust and huge airborne Allied army with huge air support for close
fire support and logistical support. You have to dream a little for
an interesting war-game variation. That would be 100,000 troops with
2x the real world's funding, and heavy support from the Air Force too.
In addition, Allied fighter bombers were a major anti-tank weapon.



Trouble is you are using them strategically and havent a hope of
training enough pilots to fly em all.


Snip



But 500 fighter bomber sorties will deliver only 10% of the bomb
load
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 W.W.II Aircraft indicates that the P-51 was in
Europe
from 1942.


In small numbers as the Mustang I with an Allison engine in RAF service,
I suggest you rely on something a little less lightweight than the
'little book of WW2 aircraft'

My specifics are less important than the overview point, which is that
fighter bombers can bomb very effectively. I could have used just
'Allied fighters' and not 'Mustang' or 'Hurricane' or 'Hurricane Super
Marine fighter'. The generalize point is the subject. My book states
that the Mustang was in service in 1942, and my book states that the
Mustang was great on ground attack, and it could carry a 2,000lbs
bomb.


The devil is in the details, the Mustang was NOT great in ground
attack, it was intensely vulnerable to ground fire and was not
used in that role in WW2.


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.


So you spend more money per ton of bombs dropped and risk 5 times
as many pilots. RAF losses per ton of bombs dropped were
lowest for the Lancaster bomber and highest for the light bombers.


The USAAF in 1947 states in an after action review of Allied bombing
of German that fighter bombers worked best.


Cite please, page number and chapter heading



Losses on the famous precision raids such as those by Mosquito's
on the prison at Amiens and the Shell centre in Copenhagen
varied between 20 and 40 percent. German flak was too good
to routinely operate large numbers of bombers at low level
attacking defended targets

Evaluation of the attrition factors indicates that fighter bombing was
the most effective bombing method in W.W.II.





It says no such thing, take a look at its conclusions

Quote
CONCLUSION
The foregoing pages tell of the results achieved by Allied air power, in
each of its several roles in the war in Europe. It remains to look at the
results as a whole and to seek such signposts as may be of guidance to the
future.
Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe. Hindsight
inevitably suggests
that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects.
Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea,
its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's
greatest naval threat -- the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide
overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority
made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which
sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full
effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they
were overrun by Allied forces. It brought home to the German people the full
impact of modern war with all its horror and suffering. Its imprint on the
German nation will be lasting.
/Quote


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 extremely
low
altitude bombing is possible which is very accurate.


You are in error once more, review the data for aircraft losses
in the ground attack role and you'll find Mustangs suffered heavily
due to their liquid cooling system.

I read it from a book.

Dont tell me , the boys book of wonder weapons right ?

The Mustang is considered a potent ground
attack weapon: it was not a failure as a weapon as you state by my
book. Please provide evidence that the Mustang was a failed ground
attack weapon in W.W.II.

It wasnt used as a ground attack weapon in WW2, it was in Korea
and took horrible casualties from a much less effective defense
than the German had.

In November 1950 the USAF 95 of the 131 F-51's in combat
almost all to ground fire when strafing. The comparative figures
for the F-80 jets were 44 out of 169

These details are irrelevant, perhaps, to a
war-game that might only have 'fighters'. I would imagine that a
future SimWWII would allow for details such as you mention to be
relevant. A Mustang also escorted bombers, but not on all days, and
the Mustang has very good range.


And vulnerable cooling system


The P-47 was far better suited to the ground attack role
but NEITHER was well suited to strategic roles such as
the oil campaign..

... Fighter bombers devastated fuel farms in W.W.II... Fuel farms
give in to the bombs of bombers and well to the bombs of fighter
bombers.

John Freck

Utter nonsense, the US Strategic Bombing Survey says the precise
opposite stating that large bombs (2000-4000 lb) were many times
more effective than small bombs and that visual aiming was all but
impossible due to the heavy flak and smoke screens.

Read it for yourself at
http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/ussbsgensum.html


Keith