[malladyne]

It is fatuous to dismiss the claim that the Typhoon's rockets were significantly less effective than the broadside of a cruiser ( a comparison frequently made ). This is because although the full salvo of rockets may not have entirely equalled the cruiser's broadside in terms of numbers of projectiles or weight of same, there is so little difference between the two as to be of no account whatsoever. Moreover, the cost of a WW2 Typhoon was significantly less that £10 k. whereas a cruiser would have cost very much more than that. I won't even begin to factor in issues like the running costs of both, since the rocket equipped aircraft be it Typhoon or Thunderbolt, Lightning or Mustang could roam at will over a battlefield and it is that very mobility that makes rocket equipped planes the superlative tank killers/pillbox smashers/bridge busters that they were.
Afetr all, what was it that killed the german tank ace Michael Wittman, a superlative killer of Allied tanks ?...........yeah, youv'e got it.......a Hawker Typhoon.
Also, somewhere else in this thread a claim is made that the Allied fighters were insufficiently gunned for the Normandy campaign !!!! Is not a snootfull of m.g.'s and cannon in the nose of a lightning not enough guns for you ? let alone the 4 20.MM quick firing cannon of the Tempest and Typhoon and Spitfire variants !!!
Malladyne