I would hardly have said that the RAF in the desert was 'dominant'. They were throwing numbers (to the extent that they had them) at a lot of nearly obsolete Italian a/c (when the Macchi 202s appeared, that changed) and a small force of superior Luft a/c. And that was when they were still using '109Es. When the Fs showed up ...

To OBNW. The change in the engine and radiator on the Kittyhawk forced elimination of the nose guns. Was considered easier to eliminate them, and the synchronizer gear in favor of a much heavier wing armament, rather than spend the time and effort to alter the forward structure enough to keep them. Both the USAAC and the RAF wanted them the day before yesterday.

Further on the matter of operating altitudes for bombers, and resulting altuitude requirements for escorts. Best operating height for a Ju88A was 18K, for Do17Z and He111 was about 13.5K. Normal operating height for a B17F was 24K. Usual height for German bombers in BoB was 5-10K lower than for B17s later.

To OBNW ref bomb racks on P40s. You statement got my attention. I find no listing of bomb racks on Tomahawks or early Kittyhawks in my sources, but there are plenty of phots showing them. I think it's the 'Government Furnished Equipment' scam in action. During the low budget period of the mid to late '30s US military services often bought stripped down a/c, tanks and other heavy items with the price figured as "less Government Furnished Equipment". They would then purchase the missing stuff (often from the same companey) under a seperate contract, as "repair parts" or some such and install it themselves. Allowed them to avoid scaring Congress with the real cost. AS the hard points for bomb racks were designed into the 'hawks starting with the P36 (which became the P40 with an engine change), installing the racks would be a simple field fix.

First of all I mean't that the Hurricanes and the Hawks were the dominant RAF fighters in the Middle-East, in the sense that there were more of them than anything else. I wasn't suggesting that the RAF was dominant in the battle with the Axis airforces. "the 'hawks were good, stable a/c, but the Hurri was designed as a medium altitude interceptor, not for ground attack, while the 'hawks were intended for what the RAF would have called 'Army Cooperation' from the drawing board." That's just conjecture. You have provided no evidence to say that the Hurricane was inhibited compared to the Hawk as a bomb platform, because it could also fly rings around the Hawk at altitude. Of course if you can find some evidence, perhaps a comment by a pilot who flew both, test data on CEP's from bomb delivery or records of numbers of ground targets destroyed per mission, then I might be persueded to agree. However, I'd remind you that the Hurricane was extremely successful as a gun(40mm in particular) and rocket platform in destroying tanks, which I'd imagine are pretty tough targets due to the accuracy required to hit them. That suggests to me that a. It was probably also pretty stable as a bomb platform. and B. It had armament options not available on the Hawk, that made it the more versitile type.

First of all I mean't that the Hurricanes and the Hawks were the dominant RAF fighters in the Middle-East, in the sense that there were more of them than anything else. I wasn't suggesting that the RAF was dominant in the battle with the Axis airforces. "the 'hawks were good, stable a/c, but the Hurri was designed as a medium altitude interceptor, not for ground attack, while the 'hawks were intended for what the RAF would have called 'Army Cooperation' from the drawing board." That's just conjecture. You have provided no evidence to say that the Hurricane was inhibited compared to the Hawk as a bomb platform, because it could also fly rings around the Hawk at altitude. Of course if you can find some evidence, perhaps a comment by a pilot who flew both, test data on CEP's for bomb delivery or records of numbers of ground targets destroyed per aircraft per mission, then I might be persueded to agree. However, I'd remind you that the Hurricane was extremely successful as a gun(40mm in particular) and rocket platform in destroying tanks, which I'd imagine are pretty tough targets due to the accuracy required to hit them. That suggests to me that, A. It was probably also pretty stable as a bomb platform. and B. It had armament options not available on the Hawk, that made it the more versatile type.

Larry, I can find no evidence that eraly p40s were bomb equiped, I can find written proof that they werent, the P40 the RAF supplied to the AVG in china were not fitted with nor could be fitted with bombs - from actual AVG history! the point I was making about the nose guns was that if they were so superior the they would have made the effort! yes the BOB was fought at 7-10k less than the B17 missions however this is still 5-7k above the best operating altitude for p40s, even the later P40 had to stay below 10k if it hoped to stand a chance of playing with 109E's the earlier ones would be even less able. the problem with the high - attack - run tactic is that when confronted with fighter escor it becomes high - attack - runaway, unless you have a big zoom climb advantage you end up only having the one pass. the attack it self doesnt break up the formation and the mission continues. it is the exact tactics used by the Luftwaffe against the B17/24 with fighter escorts and history shows that it was the wrong tactic. the get amonst them and break them up tactic of the BOB was shown to be a better strategic one (however it does make individual scoring harder - but as the idea is to stop the raid not increase pilots scores this is not an issue)

First, the whole idea of the tactic was to avoid combat with the escorts. Dive past them, his and dive clear, unless actively pursued (and the '109 pilots had orders to stay with the bombers) zoom for height, then climb back up and do it again. This can break up a bomber formation just as effectively as being chased around by the escorts. If the escorts chased you, continue the dive to low level and fight him there. The German tactics involved MASSED attacks by large numbers of fighters. This is why even a relatively small escort force could be effective. Engage the mass before it could attack. Unless you can overwhelm the escort, the 'mission continues' in any event. The question is: can you inflict enough losses to discourage tomorrow's mission. As I mentioned, these tactics were used very effectively by the AVG in China on a smaller scale, of course, but the altitudes and relative performance of the a/c were similar, proportionate numbers of interceptors lower and the GCI support much more primative. I was aware that the Tomahawk I didn't come with racks, but the structure was built for them, and installation (assuming the racks and fittings were available) should not have been a problem.

Ref Tomahawk vs Hurribomber. Can't provide specific referrences for you. My claim based on USAAC pre war doctrine to which the P40 was designed. As for armament, I do agree with shooter to the extent that nose guns were more effective than wing guns, the question is about the degree. The decision was that the .30s were of limited value, and 6x .50s in the wings were better than two in the nose, especially when the modifications to the engine mountings, radiator and cowling would make keeping them a much more complex redesign job. Leaving two in the nose and just replacing the wing .30s with .50s would probably have been at least marginally better for gunnery, but would have taken more time, and meant some added complexity, having another system to maintain (the syncronizer).

The Hurri with 40mms was a fairly ingenius idea as a specialized tank destroyer, even if the limited ammo supply, and terrible effect on performance were debits. God knows that British tank forces in the desert needed all the help they could get. I know that ref. claim that a Hurri bomber could carry 2x500 lb bombs, but I'd hate to think about the performance penalty. With performance already reduced with the air filter, etc., and never all that great at low altitude (best altitude for a Hurri II is listed as 18K) what could have been left??