Placing the Fairey Battle.

[Franek Grabowski]

Graham
There were serious problems with Spitfire, Supermarine being just too small and too inexperienced for a mass production. That is why she was considered a stop-gap only, and even in 1940, due to serious delays at Castle Bromwich (oh, those commies) it was considered to cancel the production in favour of other types. The one must consider CBAF was then in hand of Morris, while Supermarine was Vickers Armstrong, hardly friends.
Of course there was a lot of conflicts on several decisions, which we find either correct or wrong, but we have a different perspective. I am wondering, how RAF would serve its purpose having no Spitfires or Mosquitoes, both types having extremelly strong opponents.
Concerning Typhoon and its qualities - well, it simply never entered intended role, and was almost cancelled due to breaking off tails. The fact it was used as a pulveriser had more to the lack of any other suitable aircraft rather than any particular qualities of the design. Considering the amount of money spend at HM citizens expense, certainly a complete failure would have caused some heads falling (including those responsible for the specification), so it is obvious some people were anxious to see it in any role.
The question remains, was there any aircraft better suit to the role of CAS and available for the RAF. Airacobra or Thunderbolt?
Concerning P-47, this was a subject of a very strong PR action, but while not as much a success, it entered intended role anyway.

[Franek Grabowski]

Graham
Typhoon was too late and only filled the unexpected gap, never becoming the main RAF fighter. Even this was achieved with plenty of problems - I would hardly call that a success. Still, there were some alternatives, eg. Spitfire XII for low level interceptions - actually they were faster that Typhoons. There is a very interesting comparison between Tempest and Griffon Spitfire and Merlin Mustang in the mentioned AFDU report. Even far superior Tempest was a niche aircraft that actually was not that necessary, and could have been well replaced by the other types in the inventory.
Going back to 1940, indeed there was no serious alternative for Spitfire and as a stop-gap - Hurricane. But was not production of Hurricanes in later period a waste of resources?
The another question is - do we need a monster engined fighter at all? Perhaps less power, however wise designed aircraft is a better sollution? This is what lightweight Mustang actually followed.
P-39 could have been not an ideal choice but it had several advantages. Indeed it was slower, but it was still pretty fast, one of the fastest low level aircraft at the time. Forward view must have been superior to the one of Typhoon for obvious reasons and it is often crucial in ground attack duties. It was much more streamlined, thus a harder target to hit with all the internal fittings hidden behind the structure. Certainly there was a potential in the type.
On the other hand, Thunderbolt was available for RAF just for Normandy landings but it was send overseas to replace Hurricanes, which then could have been replaced by increased Spitfire production and already mentioned Vengeances. This would leave Hawker with no own type in production, however, and Hawker was the main supplier of RAF through the 1930s.
There were possible alternatives, but going to the main topic, Battle was no alternative.

[Juha]

"BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence."


Tony
after all BC sank ½ of German battleships, Tirpitz
Knocked out for good ½ of German battlecruisers, Gneisenau.
sank 2/3 of German Pocket battleships, Admiral Scheer and Lützow.
Now the 2 pocket battleships were sunk during the last month of war but Lützow was still giving valuable gun support to hard pressed Heer when sunk. Halifaxes damaged Schanhorst badly at La Pallice on 24 July 41. Carpet bombing of La Havre sunk a number of torpedo and motor torpedoboats and forced others to move away from there during summer 44. There were also many failures and the bombings of Schanhorst, Gneisenau and Hipper at Brest were ineffective. But so were Luftwaffe's attacks on Scapa Flow, on Rosyth and on Loch Ewe or what was the RN's temporary base in NW Scotland.

BTW, how many sorties LW flew against damaged Illustrious at Valetta harbour, when it laid there during emergency repairs? IIRC they got only one hit. Was LW's anti-ship specialist Fliegerkorps incompetent? Was Ju 87 wrong plane against docked ships? To me the first question is ridiculous, what You think?

Juha

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

"BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence."


Tony
after all BC sank ½ of German battleships, Tirpitz
Knocked out for good ½ of German battlecruisers, Gneisenau.
sank 2/3 of German Pocket battleships, Admiral Scheer and Lützow.
Now the 2 pocket battleships were sunk during the last month of war but Lützow was still giving valuable gun support to hard pressed Heer when sunk. Halifaxes damaged Schanhorst badly at La Pallice on 24 July 41. Carpet bombing of La Havre sunk a number of torpedo and motor torpedoboats and forced others to move away from there during summer 44. There were also many failures and the bombings of Schanhorst, Gneisenau and Hipper at Brest were ineffective. But so were Luftwaffe's attacks on Scapa Flow, on Rosyth and on Loch Ewe or what was the RN's temporary base in NW Scotland.

BTW, how many sorties LW flew against damaged Illustrious at Valetta harbour, when it laid there during emergency repairs? IIRC they got only one hit. Was LW's anti-ship specialist Fliegerkorps incompetent? Was Ju 87 wrong plane against docked ships? To me the first question is ridiculous, what You think?

Juha

I tell you what I think, Juha.
I think the claims made by the RAF and BC from 1930 to 1945 were ridiculous.
In the 1930s the RAF argued that the RN did not need to build any more capital ships because the RAF could destroy all German warships much more cheaply.
The RAF said the only need for an army was to protect its airfields and the ports, and to occupy Germany after it had capitulated to the RAF. All threats everywhere would be met by bombers. They pointed to American tests in which bombers sank battleships.
The panic over being bombed that gripped the British public in the 1930s was far greater than anything today over 'Muslim extremists', and just as ridiculous. But it meant the RAF got nearly all of the funds.
In 1939 the RAF was a well-equipped and well-funded strategic bomber force.
When hostilities began BC was asked to deliver on its promises, and specifically to degrade the Kriegsmarine. But BC's attacks on the Admiral Scheer in the Schillig Roads on September 4, 1939, and on the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Brunsbuettelkoog on the same day, and its attack on the Koenigsberg, all failed completely. The sinking of the Koenigsberg showed where the money should have gone.
So what went wrong with BC?
I say BC's claims were always outrageous and their performance was incompetent. By the time BC learnt some competence it didn't matter because the Kriegsmarine had been destroyed by the RN, and the Wehrmacht had been beaten by the Soviet army.
Concerning the Luftwaffe, the Germans rearmed with the Luftwaffe as part of all-arms. The Germans never believed the Luftwaffe could win the war on its own. Hitler said as much. The Luftwaffe was a tactical arm and little thought was given to using it strategically.
German all-arms were successful until they met an army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms. They were beaten at their own game.
The Allies by comparison were not in the all-arms game. The game they were in could be described as glorifying the boys in blue.
But a time comes when reality replaces spin. BC never got a campaign medal.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

In 1939 the RAF was a well-equipped and well-funded strategic bomber force.
Tony

I really do urge you to read Max Hastings' "Bomber Command" on this question and his trenchant observations on just how ill-prepared Bomber command in fact was for what it had always assumed it would do in the event of war.

P.S. I still think Fighter Command did a pretty good job in the Battle of Britain - we're still here, aren't we? - so give the RAF some credit.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I really do urge you to read Max Hastings' "Bomber Command" on this question and his trenchant observations on just how ill-prepared Bomber command in fact was for what it had always assumed it would do in the event of war.

P.S. I still think Fighter Command did a pretty good job in the Battle of Britain - we're still here, aren't we? - so give the RAF some credit.

Read Hastings. Maybe I am just parrotting him. Then why the argument?

Fighter Command did an outstanding job in the Battle of Britain. Period. Otherwise we'll start on a whole different argument.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Read Hastings. Maybe I am just parrotting him. Then why the argument?

The message I got from Hastings was that Bomber Command was relatively well-funded (with much of that had gone on high-quality ground facilities) but ill-prepared and largely ill-equipped. It's aircraft weren't exactly an all-star line-up although I'd guess the Wellington and Hampden more or less on a par with contemporaries such as the Do 17 and He 111 (he said without checking the figures). But as Hasting points out, no realistic practice for their planned strategic role and no "plan B" (no serious practice in night flying and navigation, no radio navaids, target markers, thought given to blind bombing etc.).

[Juha]

"So you won't play with real examples"

Tony
I think it's you who cannot face reality. The according to you incompetent BC sank/disabled permanently over 50% of the heavy units of the German Navy and the LW, which had in your oppinion right planes, Ju 87 and Hs 129, sank whole 0% of the heavy units (battleships, battlecruisers and fleet carriers) of the RN. That put me wander what is your definition of competence. And also wander, are you trolling?

Juha

[Franek Grabowski]

Army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms - is it about Red Army?

[Kutscha]

When hostilities began BC was asked to deliver on its promises, and specifically to degrade the Kriegsmarine. But BC's attacks on the Admiral Scheer in the Schillig Roads on September 4, 1939, and on the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Brunsbuettelkoog on the same day, and its attack on the Koenigsberg, all failed completely.

Would dive bombers have faired any better than the level bombers? Think not!

I would still like to know if you consider the P-47 a 'failed' fighter.