Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Boak
Perhaps. It is quite another thing to write the Typhoon off as a failure overall. High-altitude air-superiority over Western Europe was not the only role or theatre for a fighter, and it was not a failure in the low-level fighter and fighter-bomber roles. As were other fighters excluded from high-altitude roles. There is an attitude that only the fighter-fighter combats count, and that mud-moving isn’t a proper role for an aviation hero. I disagree.
|
Graham.
Noted. But you will have to provide evidence of the Typhoon's accuracy in mud-stirring to be persuasive. Raising morale amongst the brown jobs is an argument in favour of CAS in general and not Typhoon CAS in particular.
If you have the inclination I would appreciate yours and others' ruminations on the P39.
Had the British army been permitted its own air arm, the P39 would surely have had a role. The Russkies seemed to like it, but they were not hung up on high altitude performance. A British army air force would have left the upper atmosphere to the RAF.