[RodM]

Hi Tony,

I am referring to contrary evidence that has been presented on three different threads.

"For the rest, you believe 2TAF supplied effective CAS, RPs were good enough, and 2TAF was better than nothing."

While I suspect that many would concede that CAS could have been better, it was just a component of the whole combined force. I will repeat that in the West, the German ground forces had comparatively very little air support, while facing constant air attack from the front lines to the industrial heartland. I will challenge anyone to find proof that overall, this aspect of Allied air power did not have a major effect on the ability of the Germans to wage war (quoting of a minor isolated incident or incidents, outside of the wider context, does not constitute proof).

Also, as has been pointed out, the decisions against the dive bomber and for the fighter bomber over Europe were not made with hindsight, they were made at a time when it was expected that such aircraft would have to survive in the face of enemy fighters and Flak.

Am I to understand that your view is that 2TAF was NOT better than nothing? That would be a mighty statement, and I, for one, have seen nothing of substance in these threads that would convince me that this is true.

The reasons for the lack of progress by the British and Commonwealth armies does not rest solely on 2TAF, the Typhoon, or the existence of Bomber Command.

The argument about the suitability of actual alternate types to the Typhoon is, at best, extremely hypothetical. It has been shown (at least no contrary evidence has been presented) that the IL-2 suffered very high combat losses (and hence it remains to be seen how you could justify such a type being employed in the west if it were to have sustained the same level of attrition), and there is no proof that the likes of the Vengence would not also have suffered high losses or been substantially more effective in the face of intense ground fire. Comparing the success of the Vengence in another completely different theatre of war is, in effect, about as relevant under the circumstances as comparing to successes achieved on a testing ground or fighter performance in a clean configuration.

The reason to use RPs, probably goes beyond what has so far been presented in these threads - overall projected requirements versus projected supply of bombs (the RAF did suffer shortages post-D-Day - saying that this could have been solved by not having Bomber Command in 1944/45 is not a rational position, if causality is taken into account); logistical considerations of supplying munitions to front line units. Also what not has been considered because the RP has so conveniencely been totally written off, is what actions could have been taken to improve the accuracy of delivery of the weapon on the platform upon which it was mounted.

As to the reference to that other historian, I only mean that in the way I perceive certain views/arguments/statements have been presented. If you collate facts 1, 2, 3, x, y, z and form a hypothesis, but then find that facts 1. 3. and z are either false or doubtful, and that you haven't considered 4, 5, 6, then the hyphothesis needs to be revised. This is what I meant by silence after the refutation of several of the conclusions expressed/supporting facts given. Then again, there is the hyphothesis that is formed with an agenda, where selective evidence that only supports the hyphothesis is gathered after the fact (something that has become more and more common in sponser-driven research). The other point with that other historian is an inability to review or conceed certain views in the face of refuting evidence.

I back what you have said only as far as there were various deficiencies with CAS that could, even should, have been better (but then army performance wasn't entirely up to stratch either, was it?), and that a dive bomber may have been a good option beside the various other CAS aircraft. Beyond that, I haven't seen anything convincing as to most of the broader accusations/rationalisations/generalisations (2TAF useless / Typhoon useless / RP totally useless / Bomber Command unless / Bomber Command only attacked cities / various RAF commanders mostly to blame for lack of army progress / certain alternate aircraft would have been more successful in CAS role in western Europe), and, IMHO, some of these unsupported accusations have lowered the quality of a series of really interesting threads.

Cheers

Rod