In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

There are claims that we reduced food imports by half, but a
substantial part of that was animal feed, not human food. We
simply reduced the animal population and imported meat and animal
products instead. Meat imports increased by 20% between 1938 and
1944, while cheese imports increased by nearly 72%. Overall, the
tonnage of human food imports dropped by about a quarter, but
changes in what we imported meant that by the end of the war the
calorific value per ton of imported human food had increased by
25%.

And the U-boats sank 5,000 merchant ships (and 5,000 in WW1, come
to that). Shame that convoy protection from the air was not given
higher priority.

what aircraft had the range? None at that time.

And when you're about to be invaded, the priority is homeland defence.

At the start, perhaps, but surely some Lancs or other could have been
modified for the purpose. Even when the longer range planes became
available, Bomber Command got the nod at the expense of the
anti-submarine work.

The Lanc was modified for maritime use - it was called the Shackleton.

Shackleton was post-war.

absolutely correct but you asked why the Lancaster wasn't modifed - it was,
but as Wiki tells me, it had to become a Lincoln first.

Wiki also tells me that there were some Lancaster ASR3s.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18