[Graham Boak]

Steve49: "There is no denying that dive-bombers in the face of limited air defence offered a better weapons platform for 'precision' attacks and the failure to provide dedicated ground attack aircraft hampered the Allied forces in the first half of the war."

I entirely agree that divebombing is more precise. It is also more vulnerable, as your qualification implies. There is a trade-off, and clearly opinions differed on the best way to use limited resources. It is worth pointing out that, but for the urgent requirement for Hurricanes, the Henley could have been made available for late 1940/41. The RAF were not totally neglecting such types, they just were squeezed out by Beaverbrook's urgent priorities in 1940. I do think it difficult to justify any number of Henleys at the expense of a greater number of Hurricanes, in mid 1940.

The French had no shortage of dedicated ground attack aircraft, which rather deflates your second claim. Clearly there were other factors in play. The important factors are less the aircraft in hand than the weapons available for them, the training and doctrine, and the operational command and control system. I entirely agree that these were lacking, but argue that the platform is of less importance.

tcolvin: Cherry-picking single examples is futile. We can all point to bombing attacks, by all nations, that failed to damage the targets at all. How many times did the Germans claim to have sunk the Ark Royal? If you want to go after shipping targets, particularly large warships, you need trained crews and weapons capable of doing damage. It seems that the prewar RAF faith in level bombing with their 2000lb SAP was misplaced.

Franek: No, the Typhoon did enter in its intended role as interceptor, against the Jabos. It was also used for intruder missions, long range by RAF fighter standards. It can hardly be blamed for the lack of mass formations of German bombers, to try it against its design role.

As alternatives to the Spitfire and Typhoon in 1940 - what? More Hurricanes? Now I will defend the Hurricane against its more ignorant detractors, but let's be serious! The Whirlwind? The Vickers Venom, or any of the other Mercury-engined fighters? If you want other alternatives in 1940, then you have to lay the groundwork for them in 1937. How many alternative fighters could the British industry have been producing at any one time? They already had the Hurricane, Spitfire, Whirlwind and Defiant, plus the Blenheim and the Beaufighter, the Skua, Roc, Gladiator and Fulmar. Quite enough, I feel, to cover a range of possible scenarios of needs and failures.

The P-39 has nothing that the Typhoon didn't, except some agility and, initially, a better view. It was slower, much less power and much less firepower. In any competition the Typhoon would have won hands down (as, effectively, it did).

The P-47 would have done better, I believe, because of the radial engine and its accidental armouring - the stainless steel ducting for the turbocharger. However, the P-47 was not available to the RAF until two years after the Typhoon, and would not have been available in enough numbers for D-Day. It was widely and successfully used by the 9th and other US AFs.

Similar comments apply to the very similar Hellcat, otherwise an excellent choice for 2 TAF (despite being the slowest fighter ever built with a 2000hp engine - Firebrand excepted!).

The only real alternatives were the Vengeance and the Bermuda. I think we've discussed those.

I see the key problem (with platforms) as the non-availability of more powerful engines, particularly radials. Had the Centaurus been more successful early on - or had production not been stopped to redesign it "a la Fw 190" - then the Tornado would have made a superior GA aircraft to the Typhoon. Not that it would ever satisfy the dive-bomber theorists, but good enough to become the classic fighter-bomber of its time, perhaps. Perhaps a Tornado/Typhoon with an R2800 - but they weren't available in large enough numbers soon enough, either.

You may argue that the Typhoon became the RAF's main fighter-bomber by default, but I see no real alternative, other than heaping yet more duties on the long-suffering Spitfire. Which did indeed carry out much GA work, but I believe any fair comparison would show the Typhoon superior to it.