Warbird Information Exchange

I had the same problems with early sixties US cars as I did with my MGB. If you drown the distributor or have dirty and wet electrical contacts on the generator or voltage regulator, it's gonna fail.
The most of the bad rep for English cars comes after BMC had gone to Leyland and the desire to use domestic product accessories no matter how poorly made through the 70's. My '77 XJ-S sat front and center in a picture of the factory line during the strike that summer. It was truly a Rare Bear of a car, with a smattering of Pond Racer.

Interesting thread, I never thought of the British bombers as anything but different than the US bombers. I always liked the Halifax, Stirling and Lancaster as they were so much of that "different" compared to the B-17 and B-24. Fast, heavy and sexy with one pilot, the Lanc is awesome. As far as nationalism, I was born in Illinios!

One guys opinion. You guys with the facts, write on.

Chris...

I'll preface this by stating that everything I'm saying is complete conjecture. My impression of strategic bombing is that it is, well... I guess more strategic (go figure) than the specs of an aircraft compared to another. Of course the specs are going to be one variable that formulates the strategy but I think in many ways it is about how you use the tools that you have. I guess I somewhat liken this to the fact that on paper WWII German tanks are superior in almost every way to the American and British tanks however the fact that the US factories could roll out so many of them and they developed tactics that leveraged their strengths it allowed them to succeed.

Similarly the British were able to develope strategies around night bombing campaigns that allowed them to succeed in was the felt they could not during the day. Who knows what strategies would have had to be adjusted in order to compensate for the B-17s reduced bomb load etc. In the end it could have been successful or it could have further complicated (change management) an already trying campaign.