BOMBERS OR FIGHTERS?
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—Mr. E. N. B. Bentley disagrees with my contention that we should conCentrate on the production of bombers on the ground that we have at present only two types of really modern fighters in service, but several types of bombers. He assumes that because we have several types of bombers that we have large numbers of bombers. True we have more bombers of all types than fighters, but we have very few more long range modern bombers than fighters. Of the three types he mentions in support of his argument, only one has an effective radius of action that can compare with the majority of German and Italian bombers.
In a further effort to support his argument he says that the Bristol ' Blenheim ' "has been produced in such large quantities that we can actually afford to spare some for export." These machines have been allowed to be exported not for the apparent reason - that we have enough of them ourselves but for the strategic reason that it is valuable to have the Air Arms of friendly countries conversant and equipped with machines in use in the R.A.F.
Mr. John North, in his letter on the same subject, says that the R.A.F. "refused to be bothered to supply more than a couple of targets for anti-aircraft practice by London Territorials" last summer. He forgets that some thousands of
hours were done by civil machines chartered by the Air Ministry for this purpose.
In pursuing his arguments in favour of the fighter he asks, "And why do bombers in Spain now operate with a fighter escort ? " The fighter is extremely valuable to the bomber as an escort. Unfortunately it is only possible to co-operate in this way when the bomber's target lies within the fighter's limited range from the home base. In Spain the distance involved make fighter escorts possible. In a European con- flagration these distances are too great for them.—Yours faithfully, NIGEL TANGYE. 17 Half Moon Street, London, W'. r.
Previous page
