[tcolvin]

Jim Oxley gave the same answer as I would have made to Nick Beale.


In an earlier post I wrote that 2TAF by Shores and Thomas described 'what was', and that I wanted to move the discussion on to the normative question of 'what should have been'.
I suppose that is what SMF144 means by saying I have moved to “what if”.
Some say that 'what was' and 'what should have been' with regard to 2TAF were the same; I don't subscribe to that.


Juha questions the mean accuracy of dive-bombing with Spitfires in January 1943 compared with 7 Squadrons mean accuracy of 15 yards with the Vengeance.
I don't know, and have searched the OR Reports in Copp's “Montgomery's Scientists” and cannot find a figure.
Simpson in “Spitfire Dive-Bombers Versus the V2”, page 114, states that in a Spitfire Mk XVI “an experienced pilot could bomb accurately to within 25 to 30 yards”. I suggest this is the answer.


Juha states that Stuka and FW-190 could knock out bridges. To my knowledge the FW-190 failed to knock out Nijmegen Bridge and Remagen Bridge, and not through want of trying. The Stukas, I believe, never got through the fighter defence. 2TAF and Bomber Command failed to bring down the bridges at Wesel during Veritable in spite of intensive attempts and the absence of fighter defences.
It is my belief that fighter-bombers were not reliable bridge-busters.
But Skua dive-bombers brought down bridges in Norway in 1940 (as well as sinking the Koenigsberg) and Vengeances brought down bridges in Burma, so it is my belief that specialised dive-bombers were reliable bridge-busters.


Juha believes that 2TAF would have had more luck against AFVs with a gun. I agree entirely.


Tony