On 24/02/15 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60%
of our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used.

Agreed, but no-one actually needs to eat that stuff. For less money,
and with the five minutes it takes to put the ingredients in the
machine, I can have bread which is much better-tasting and is fresh.


Not from stock uncut british wheat you cant.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

Nope, the safest way to do that is using candu reactors.

Or thorium reactors if you want to eliminate any risk of the owners ever
being able to make nuclear weapons.

Not "eliminate" you can still make nukes it's just harder from the natural
thorium fuel cycle, i,e U233 is produced.

And what is produced is no use for a bomb.

AIUI you can also produce plutonium by blanketing any neutron producing
breeder reactor core with Uranium.

Makes more sense to have a uranium
based reactor if that’s what you want.

But in general I take your point and agree we should be investing more in
Nuclear, possibly thorium.

And that's the safest way to cut CO2 emissions.

On 24/02/2015 16:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
....
its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have a
toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.


--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a
ghastly construction - the Chorleyood process? - that
allows really poor low gluten wheat to actually be used.
Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have a
toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.

Like hell it does.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 24/02/2015 11:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

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%.

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60% of
our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

We have had bread for thousands of years.
Long before grain was imported from anywhere.
It's just what you're accustomed to eating.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

Nope, the safest way to do that is using candu reactors.

Or thorium reactors if you want to eliminate any risk of the owners ever
being able to make nuclear weapons.

Not "eliminate" you can still make nukes it's just harder from the
natural thorium fuel cycle, i,e U233 is produced.

And what is produced is no use for a bomb.

AIUI you can also produce plutonium by blanketing any neutron producing
breeder reactor core with Uranium.

Makes more sense to have a uranium
based reactor if that’s what you want.

But in general I take your point and agree we should be investing more in
Nuclear, possibly thorium.

And that's the safest way to cut CO2 emissions.

But no nuclear power in Oz.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn’t work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction is the safest way to
achieve CO2 reduction.

Nope, the safest way to do that is using candu reactors.

Or thorium reactors if you want to eliminate any risk of the owners
ever being able to make nuclear weapons.

Not "eliminate" you can still make nukes it's just harder from the
natural thorium fuel cycle, i,e U233 is produced.

And what is produced is no use for a bomb.

AIUI you can also produce plutonium by blanketing any neutron producing
breeder reactor core with Uranium.

Makes more sense to have a uranium
based reactor if that’s what you want.

But in general I take your point and agree we should be investing more
in Nuclear, possibly thorium.

And that's the safest way to cut CO2 emissions.

But no nuclear power in Oz.

Because we have vast amounts of brown coal that
is no use for anything but power generation and lots
and lots of steaming coal where there is no brown
coal so using that is much cheaper than nukes.

On 25/02/15 10:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60%
of our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we
only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used.

Agreed, but no-one actually needs to eat that stuff. For less money,
and with the five minutes it takes to put the ingredients in the
machine, I can have bread which is much better-tasting and is fresh.

Not from stock uncut british wheat you cant.

So where does Tesco/anyone else "strong white flour" come from? Living
where we do we can pop to France and get some there, though whether
it's a lot better or not is anyone's guess.

Canada mostly.

Hard Durum wheat is the one to get. Its grown either in the Americas or
further south in Europe.

Interesting take from wiki. Compare this statement

"Wheat varieties are called "soft" or "weak" if gluten content is low,
and are called "hard" or "strong" if they have high gluten content. Hard
flour, or bread flour, is high in gluten, with 12% to 14% gluten
content, its dough has elastic toughness that holds its shape well once
baked. Soft flour is comparatively low in gluten and thus results in a
loaf with a finer, crumbly texture.[1] Soft flour is usually divided
into cake flour, which is the lowest in gluten, and pastry flour, which
has slightly more gluten than cake flour."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_flour

With this one

"Durum in Latin means "hard", and the species is the hardest of all
wheats. Its high protein content, as well as its strength, make durum
good for special uses, the most well-known being pasta, which in Italy
is exclusively made from durum wheat.[5] Durum wheat is used extensively
in breadmaking. However, it is unusual in that, despite very high
protein content, it is low in desirable gluten needed to form a
glutinous web necessary for bread to rise. As a result, although 100
percent durum wheat breads do exist, such as pagnotte di Enna or
"rimacinato" bread from Sicily, as well as others, in most instances
bread doughs contain only a portion of durum wheat and are supplemented
substantially with commercial white flours, often those higher in gluten
necessary to offset the poor gluten contribution of durum flour. When
durum flour is used as the sole flour in bread, substantial additions of
isolated wheat gluten are necessary for rising to occur. Without it, 100
percent durum wheat breads are often heavy, with very close grain, and
will split easily when risen for baking."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durum

So total contraduction as to what hard means and whether durum wheat is
high or low in gluten




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 25/02/2015 10:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/02/15 15:46, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

If you look at todays papers you will see that we only prodcue 60%
of our
own food at present

Which is considerably more than we did before the war. In 1938, we
only
grew 20% of the wheat we consumed (up from 14% in 1932) and half the
meat we ate was imported.

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used.

Agreed, but no-one actually needs to eat that stuff. For less money,
and with the five minutes it takes to put the ingredients in the
machine, I can have bread which is much better-tasting and is fresh.

Not from stock uncut british wheat you cant.

So where does Tesco/anyone else "strong white flour" come from? Living
where we do we can pop to France and get some there, though whether
it's a lot better or not is anyone's guess.


The Chorleywood process was developed to make use of the low grade wheat
that was all that we could grow in Britain at the time. Wheat varieties
have been improved since and high gluten wheat is now grown in Britain.
However, we still import a lot.

--
Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 23/02/2015 19:44, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

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.


Drivel. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_...tional_history

Huge wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote
Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Harry wouldn't work that out even if half the
population of that soggy little island got killed by it.

But don't we all agree that population reduction
is the safest way to achieve CO2 reduction.

That seems to be the Greens policy since they
apparently want to stop the import of food.

Britain actually managed to feed itself quite adequately
during WW2 when food imports were drastically curtailed....

Wrong.

Nope, no one starved in Britain and in fact the British ate
rather better than they had done before the war, essentially
because they were forced to eat more veg than they had done.

There wasn’t even an increase in the level of say rickets.

On 25/02/2015 16:31, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
....
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.


Drivel. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_...tional_history


Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/02/2015 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have
a toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.

Like hell it does.

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2015 16:31, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
...
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.


Drivel. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_...tional_history


Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark.
Air patrols were run from there by the Yanks.
The Yanks had an airbase there 'til quite recently ISTR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi...cupation_force

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2015 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have
a toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.

Like hell it does.

Good quality bread retains too much moisture.

Mine toasts fine.

Cheap white bread can be toasted to be really crisp.

Nothing like real toast.

In message , Nightjar
writes

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

The problem being, though, that it may be crisp, but does not actually
taste of anything. My favourite bread for toasting is my wife's freshly
made bread, the following morning. There is still a real bread taste,
even when spread with Marmite :-)
--
Graeme

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2015 16:31, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
...
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.


Drivel. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_...tional_history


Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark.
Air patrols were run from there by the Yanks.
The Yanks had an airbase there 'til quite recently ISTR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi...cupation_force

The American air force base was the reason for so many black Icelanders.

A base that far north was of no use for most anti-submarine patrols
and no help with the Russian Convoys or the main Atlantic crossings/

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 25/02/2015 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have
a toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.

Like hell it does.

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

Toast isn't supposed to be crisp, at least not all through, crisp
surface and still 'bready' in the middle.

--
Chris Green
·

On 26/02/2015 09:27, News wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

The problem being, though, that it may be crisp, but does not actually
taste of anything...

The flavour comes from the bacon inside the toasted sandwich.


--
Colin Bignell

On 26/02/2015 10:20, wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 25/02/2015 02:22, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote

its all a bit suspect anyway. The bread we now eat is a ghastly
construction - the Chorleyood process? - that allows really poor low
gluten wheat to actually be used. Even so a substantial amoiunt of UK
wheat goes for animal feed.

I can't say it bothers me much. I rarely eat bread, except when I have
a toasted bacon sandwich and cheap white bread makes the best toast.

Like hell it does.

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

Toast isn't supposed to be crisp, at least not all through, crisp
surface and still 'bready' in the middle.

That might be what you prefer. Really crunchy is what I prefer.

--
Colin Bignell

News wrote
Nightjar wrote

Good quality bread retains too much moisture.
Cheap white bread can be toasted to be really crisp.

The problem being, though, that it may be
crisp, but does not actually taste of anything.

Yeah, not into toasted steaming turds myself.

My favourite bread for toasting is my wife's
freshly made bread, the following morning.

Me too, tho its my bread. I do eat the dome of the freshly
baked vertical loaf as a massive open salami, relish and lettuce
sandwich as the main meal on the day its freshly baked and
have the rest for breakfast as toast on the following days.

There is still a real bread taste,

Yeah, leaves that white tasteless crap for dead.

even when spread with Marmite :-)

I prefer my own lemon and lime marmalade.

On 26/02/2015 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark....

Your favourite source disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap


--
Colin Bignell

On 25/02/2015 06:37, harryagain wrote:
....
We have had bread for thousands of years.
Long before grain was imported from anywhere...

We were importing wheat 8,000 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-31647440


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/02/2015 09:27, News wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

Good quality bread retains too much moisture. Cheap white bread can be
toasted to be really crisp.

The problem being, though, that it may be crisp, but does not actually
taste of anything...

The flavour comes from the bacon inside the toasted sandwich.

MUCH better to have some decent flavor from the multigrain bread as well.

And prosciutto leaves bacon for dead too.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2015 16:31, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/15 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
...
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.


Drivel. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_...tional_history


Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark.
Air patrols were run from there by the Yanks.
The Yanks had an airbase there 'til quite recently ISTR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi...cupation_force

The American air force base was the reason for so many black Icelanders.

A base that far north was of no use for most anti-submarine patrols
and no help with the Russian Convoys or the main Atlantic crossings/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._12...cond_World_War

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/02/2015 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark....

Your favourite source disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap

Since you now accept wikipedia as gospel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._12...cond_World_War

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 26/02/2015 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark....

Your favourite source disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap

You'll note that the first para under "History" bears out what I said
previously about Bomber Command getting priority over Coastal.

Well the public wanted to see German cities burn after Coventry etc.

On 27/02/2015 04:17, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/02/2015 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark....

Your favourite source disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap

Since you now accept wikipedia as gospel.

I don't accept any single source as gospel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._12...cond_World_War

Which tells us that the VLR Liberators became available in 1943.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/02/2015 23:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 26/02/2015 09:11, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
Have you not heard of the mid-Atlantic gap Harry? That was not closed
until May 1943, with the arrival of Very Long Range Liberators.

It was closed when we/the Yanks invaded Iceland after the Nazis invaded
Denmark....

Your favourite source disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap

You'll note that the first para under "History" bears out what I said
previously about Bomber Command getting priority over Coastal.


Although I'm not sure how much difference it would have made if Coastal
Command had received more bombers. Most bombers had around half the
range of the Sunderland; in 1940 only the Stirling and the Wellington
(which started to be built in special marine versions for Coastal
Command use from 1942) had ranges of over 2,000 miles, compared to the
almost 3,000 miles of the Sunderland. I suspect that an earlier use of
escort carriers would have been more valuable.

--
Colin Bignell

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:56:26 +0000, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my
surname here.me.uk wrote:


You'll note that the first para under "History" bears out what I said
previously about Bomber Command getting priority over Coastal.


Although I'm not sure how much difference it would have made if Coastal
Command had received more bombers. Most bombers had around half the
range of the Sunderland; in 1940 only the Stirling and the Wellington
(which started to be built in special marine versions for Coastal
Command use from 1942) had ranges of over 2,000 miles, compared to the
almost 3,000 miles of the Sunderland.

An old boy I drive to a club for the Blind used be a Coastal Command
Pilot in WW2. In conversations he has mentioned theFlying
Fortresses transferred from Bomber Command in 41 as the early versions
needed a few wrinkles sorting and weren't successfully operated as
Bombers. The US took note of the RAF experience and made changes
which put them in good stead when they entered the war with their own
forces.
He never got to fly one, his craft were Lockheed Hudsons.

G.Harman

G.Harman

/That might be what you prefer. Really crunchy is what I prefer. /q

Fried bread us what you need.

Jim K