Inspired by this, & by H. R. Allen's book Who Won the Battle of Brtain?.
Allen proposed the RAF, before the Fall of France & the beginning of the Battle of Britain, or during the Battle, should have intensively attacked German airfields in Normandie & the Pas de Calais. Allen argues the bases were crowded with aircraft, inadequately defended with flak, & highly vulnerable. He also suggests the bases were known locations. He argues radar was inadequate to detect low-flying intruder missions.
So, suppose Fighter & Bomber Command take his approach: not with heavies, but with Battles & Blenheims, which presumably are designed for this kind of mission. Suppose they begin hitting German bases at dawn & dusk, attacking with MG & light bombs. Could it have an impact on the outcome of the Battle of Britain? Could it further impact Barbarossa? Attacks on Malta? The defence of the Reich?
Or is Allen completely wrong?
Allen proposed the RAF, before the Fall of France & the beginning of the Battle of Britain, or during the Battle, should have intensively attacked German airfields in Normandie & the Pas de Calais. Allen argues the bases were crowded with aircraft, inadequately defended with flak, & highly vulnerable. He also suggests the bases were known locations. He argues radar was inadequate to detect low-flying intruder missions.
So, suppose Fighter & Bomber Command take his approach: not with heavies, but with Battles & Blenheims, which presumably are designed for this kind of mission. Suppose they begin hitting German bases at dawn & dusk, attacking with MG & light bombs. Could it have an impact on the outcome of the Battle of Britain? Could it further impact Barbarossa? Attacks on Malta? The defence of the Reich?
Or is Allen completely wrong?