soc.history.war.world-war-ii

in article 13sipf88pttb939@corp.supernews.com, David Thornley at
thornley@visi.com wrote on 3/1/08 6:19 AM:

> Or my variation: 1940 Luftwaffe, historical, probably in the condition just
> before the Battle of Britain, and a 1945-sized 1940 USN, with planes somewhat
> advanced beyond those of 1940 for two reasons. First, one reason US military
> and naval aviation was lagging was a shortage of funds, and if the USN is
> going to spend all that money over several years on ships, it will also spend
> on aircraft.

Well, sure, if you want to do that. But that isn't Andrew's original
starting point and to have several scenarios being discussed at once under
the same heading is confusing, which is why I took us back to the beginning.

> Second, the Wildcat vs. 109E matchup is rather similar to the typical state of
> the best carrier fighters being somewhat but not hopelessly inferior to the
> best land-based fighters.

Again, that is a valid discussion and could prove interesting, but I'm
afraid I don't see its relevance to the original point. Perhaps a comparison
of land based and ship based fighters of 1940 should be begun under a
different heading.

Just trying for a little clarity and order here.

Michael