Why did 10./JG 2 bomb a school in Catford?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Once again, that word you love so well: BOLLOCKS!

A fighter-bomber is a fighter-bomber, is a fighter-bomber. Period. Holding their own against enemy fighters doesn't come into it.
So by your reasoning/logic, the Bf 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210 couldn't hold their own against Spitifres of the same period, so weren't fighter-bombers.

Some definitions;
Kampfflugzeug = fighter aircraft
Jäger = interceptor (fighter)
Zerstörer = heavy, long range (fighter)
Jagdbomber = Jägerbomber = interceptor (fighter) bomber
Kampfzerstörer = heavy, long range, with internal bombload (fighter)
Schnellbomber = fast, long range, with internal bombload (bomber)

Three questions.

1) Are the above definitions correct, and inclusive?

2) The RLM request for tender in 1934 for a Kampfzerstörer (with internal bombload) was answered by the Fw 57, the Hs 124 and the Bf 110 without a bomb-bay. The Bf 110 received the contract when the tender was changed to accommodate it.
But when the Bf 110 was fitted with bombs, why did it not then revert to being a Kampfzerstörer rather than a Jabo?

3) Is not the distinction referred to in 2) the very same as was made officially between the Me 262 Schwalbe (interceptor) and Me 262 Sturmvogel (Schnellbomber). And should it not equally apply to the Fw 190 A (interceptor) and Fw 190 F and G (Schnellbomber)?

These are not semantic quibbles. The RAF persisted in justifying the use of the Typhoon 1B in 1945 because, they said, it could hold its own against German fighters when bounced, and escape the fate of the Ju 87. Luckily for 2TAF, there were too few FW 190 Doras and Me 262 Schwalbes to prove them wrong. The RAF's deceit and misrepresentation were politically motivated, and successful.

Tony