[John Vasco]

OK Graham,
I will try to be 100% exact in my terminology. The primary 'attack' aircraft. The fighter-bomber in the role of going in low and attacking specific targets in support of ground forces. Remember in the Falklands war all the hype about the Vulcans attacking Port Stanley airfield? Did nothing at all from the height they were bombing at. It was the Harriers, as fighter-bombers, who caused the real damage and took out the Argentinian aircraft on the ground. And in all the recent wars, the ones in the middle East, it was fighter-bombers that were causing most of the havoc on the ground.

The point I make is that it is not the huge bombers flying many thousands of feet high that are the most effective; it is the low level fighter-bombers that cause the enemy most damage and provide the most support to their own ground forces. The Russians in WW2 bore that out. They were not interested in high level bombing, but stuck to the low level attacks that pissed off the German army so much because they were so disruptive and damaging. Christer Bergstrom brings this point out excellently in his Black Cross/Red Star books. Would German troops on the ground prefer to face a force of IL2s going in at low level against them and taking out their positions, or a high level bombing force dropping bombs in such a pattern that there was a good chance they wouldn't get hit? I think the question answers itself...

Figher-bombers, not standard bombers, is my point, Graham. Matters not whether they were piston or jet engined.