[RodM]

Jim Oxley; Oh dear Rod, that's very easy as it's all on public record!

Hi Jim,

thanks for that, yes it is proof of the first part of the original statement that you highlighted - it does clearly show that the AM wanted to suppress to positive aspects of the dive bombers performance, but I would've thought (and stand to be corrected) that scrapping of the Vengeances was either (i) a condition of the lend-lease agreements, or (ii) a simple matter of economics when dealing with the disbandment of Far Eastern air units, rather than specifically to 'hide' the success of a particular aircraft. As to the other parts of the original statement, I doubt that anyone can find proof positive. There is no truth like half-truth...

I freely admit to being out of my comfort zone, in terms of knowledge, but it appears to me that the AM made a decision to base CAS upon existing types ('fighter-bomber') in the European theatre, because of reasons that are not completely unreasonable - economics and survivability (I don't doubt the accuracy of such aircraft, I just doubt their ability to survive more than a couple of missions. The RAFs experience in this latter regard between 1939-43 is well known). I might add that as far as I can tell, the Americans took the same line in Europe and used ex-fighter types.

While with hindsight, we have the luxury to argue the pros and cons of the decisions made. Our modern-day conclusions are not tested on the fields of battle. The decision to deploy any dive bomber in Europe would have had to be have been made at a time well before the Allies actually gained air superiority, yet the criticisms of the AM's decision are based upon the assumption that a dive bomber would clearly have been a success in European skies. Had the RAF gone with a dive bomber in 1941-43, and the aircraft got shot out of the skies (and I see no reason why it would not have), then this would be just another argument about how the RAF failed to follow an American lead and use fighter-bombers.

Frankly, I think that the AM's decision not to deploy a dive bomber in Europe is insignificant compared to, say, a lack of foresight with respect to the development of a long-range fighter and continuing to bomb the residential centres of German cities in 1945.

Cheers

Rod