Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
The patronising statement that this discussion has "been going nowhere for some time" reveals a mindset dominated by RAF apologia.
Why "refusal" in inverted commas? Why was this "refusal" "most likely because the RAF had learned the lessons from that (1940) campaign"? You seem unclear.
It is fanciful to believe the RAF was commanded by people who took account of experience except to confirm their prejudices.
|
Equally, it is regrettable (but perhaps revelatory in ways you didn't intend) that you should imagine my reference to "going nowhere" could somehow be intended as patronising. Review this thread from the start. Do you see evidence of an emerging consensus or meeting of minds over the issues under discussion? If not, then maybe it
is going nowhere.
I am of course deeply concerned to learn that my "mindset" is dominated by the RAF of the 1930s and 1940s, as you conceive it to have been, reaching out to those - like myself - yet unborn. Despite this malign influence, I believe you will search my collected writings in vain for any endorsement of strategic bombing as a war-winner.
"Refusal" was in inverted commas (aka "quotation marks") because I was quoting your words. I did not know (and nor did I claim to) whether at some point after the BoB someone in an RAF future requirements paper specifically said "we should acquire our own dive-bomber" and some high-up specifically refused. Whether they did or not, I sought only to point out that there were by then rational grounds for doubting the survivability of such an aircraft in the face of a modern air defence system: viz, the RAF had shot down a lot of Ju 87s in the BoB and believed they had shot down even more; the
Luftwaffe pulled the Stukas out of the fighting. Ordering RAF dive-bombers
in that particular context might possibly have been seen as ill-advised.