Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Your argument depends on the time warp theory.
I have been stating that the RAF could not bomb Germany effectively in 1938.
" when Hampdens and Whitleys flew to Berlin in 1940"
Great, now use the time machine to get those Hampdens and Whitleys into service in Sept of 1938.
The policy may have been a bit wonky.The problem is that your entire thesis is based on a flawed assumption that Britain expected to bomb Germany from British bases. That was NOT defence policy in the late-30s. Britain had France as its major ally, and planned that operations against Germany would be conducted from French airfields.
You can't apply the retrospectroscope and expect the RAF to foresee the 1940 fall of France two years before it happened.
I believe I covered that in a much earlier post. I used the Ruhr instead of southern Germany but the point was the same. Germany had an advantage in that Berlin was so far from the Western border.Also, strategic bombing does not necessarily mean hitting the adversary's capital. It means delivering strategic effect. There were lots of such industrial targets in southern Germany that were easily within reach of the RAF when based in France.
inally, for all the advances that Germany made in terms of bombs and navigation, they couldn't hit London from bases inside Germany...so, again, in 1938, how is Britain supposed to foresee the chain of events that brought German bombers so close to Britain?
HiWe might have to come to an understanding of what constitutes the "army co-operation role".
Quite a number of the aircraft you named 7th paragraph were often called "General Purpose" aircraft. Some tended to bounce back and forth, one version was a day bomber, another version or mark was "general purpose" aircraft and yet another version or mark was an army co-operation aircraft. The Hawker Hardy for instance was pretty much a Audax with the radio removed and a tent, bedding, food and water carried in it's place. Range was 380 miles?
Army co-operation covered a multitude of roles from artillery spotting/battlefield reconnaissance to the ever popular message pick up using a hook (also used by many other air forces to a greater or lesser extent) and the bombing of tribesmen in the colonial policing role which is where the RAF started to compete with the army for funding. A few squadrons of aircraft were cheaper than battalions of ground troops and could cover a much wider area. But army co-operation in the Mid east was not what army co-operation in a continental war would be. Many other air forces did try to build multi role "army co-operation" aircraft. Success was elusive.
attack aircraft are somewhat different. The Breda 65 may be somewhat under rated. Granted it was an old design, like the Battle, but it was intended not for the rather nebulous role of "day bomber" but to bomb and strafe enemy troops in support of combat operations.
From wiki " 23 Ba.65s sent to Spain, 12 were lost in the course of the civil war. They flew 1,921 sorties, including 368 ground-strafing and 59 dive bombing attacks. " there was an internal bay and outside racks, there was also a 12.7mm and 7.7mm machine gun in each wing for strafing.
American Attack planes had standardized on four .30 cal guns for strafing back with the Curtiss A-8 Shrike before they even decided to go with air cooled engines for less vulnerability to ground fire. Bomb loads increased but the four .30 cal strafing guns remained though the competition that lead to the Martin 167 and the Douglas DB-7 (A-20). Range for the Breda 65 and the Single engine American attack planes was well short of the Battles range. Even the early A-20s couldn't match the Battle's range.
The Japanese Ki-51 was a bit later in timing and while it could be called a single engine day bomber it's intended role was rather different than the Ki-30 and Ki-32 which could also be called single engine day bombers.
The Russian SU-2 was also a bit later in timing although, like the Ki-51, it was planned before the war started. The Su-2 had four 7.62 guns in the wings for ground strafing and the internal bomb bay could hold a quantity of small bombs.
The Ba 65, Single engine American attack planes (Northrop A-17s at the end) Ki-51s and the Su-2 were NOT intended to pick up messages using hooks or land and pick up personnel for liaison duties or even to perform artillery spotting missions.
So what is "army co-operation"?
One does not necessarily follow the other. The German bombers will be totally unescorted and will be He 111s for the most part, 570 He 111s being on strength as of Sept 18th 1938.So if the RAF is to give up the idea of bombing German with the type it had on strength in 1938 then obviously it should also give up on a fighter defence of the UK.
LOOKING INTO BUYING AMERICAN EARLY B-17SOpening posts.
The "ah ha" moment is Sept 1938 When the British Prime Minister is confronted with the fact that, despite all of the pounds Stirling spent on the RAF up until then, He cannot threaten Hitler with any sort of bombing campaign.
Even one of 1936-38 standards and he won't be able to for several years.
What could have been done to get better value for the money already spent/ allocated?
LOOKING INTO BUYING AMERICAN EARLY B-17S
In 1938 it had yet to be disproven. It must have appeared competitive. And I really like shark tails.
I know where a B-17E is and it's for sale.LOOKING INTO BUYING AMERICAN EARLY B-17S
Dude, they're shark tails. Too cool not to get. Like they'd even be able to get any at all in '38.As expensive as the plane was, would the Britons really want to go all-in on an unproven airframe?
Low hours too. It was owned a a little old lady who only flew it on Sunday to buzz her church.I know where a B-17E is and it's for sale.
9 million USD, no low-balling, they know what they have.
It's in Seattle and 80% restored, needs to be finished.Is there a link regarding that B-17? A flight worthy B-17E would be a sight to see.
Dude, they're shark tails. Too cool not to get. Like they'd even be able to get any at all in '38.
Great link. Thanks. I watched the "imbedded" History Channel video on the B-17. I never realized how much the Digby looks like a Martin B-10. 5:30 mark, give or take a second.It's in Seattle and 80% restored, needs to be finished.
Here's a good link for info:
For Sale: A Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Project Plane: $9 Million USD
Martin's B-10 influenced an entire generation of twin aircraft design.Great link. Thanks. I watched the "imbedded" History Channel video on the B-17. I never realized how much the Digby looks like a Martin B-10. 5:30 mark, give or take a second.