| It's not Lanc's fixation that's the problem! It was the RAF's fixation with the 'bomber', while ignoring the training & navigation aids to hit the target. Probably as a result of the legacy of Trenchard, it confused 'Independence' i.e. a separate service with independent action - army co-operation was seen as 'artillery spotting' rather than battlefield support.
Early RAF rearmament was constrained by the 'pacifist lobby' - it was thought that there would be international restrictions on the weight of a Bomber. Hence the Hampden's curious design, the possible restrictions were ignored for the Wellington.
The Battle was initially well thought of - in comparison with the biplane it replaced, trouble was it was produced for too long. No the Fairey shadow factories could have been converted to Hurricane production, leaving Hawker space to make the Henley for the RAF, and a version to supplant the Skua with the FAA.
It's a pity none of the canard designs (Armstrong Whitworth & Boulton Paul) for the Ground Attack specification (in service Jan '44) armed with a mixture of 20mm & 40mm canon didn't get an order!
Other thoughts - why was 'Bomber' Harris so pig-headed regarding pathfinders - was proved wrong? If Portal had dismissed him over his insistence in attacking 'German morale' rather than the targets as per the Pointblank directive - what then & who ? | 
Linear Mode
