John wrote:
>I agree with your defense of the Atlantic
>strategy. Get the extra carrier
>and destoyers out quickly.
The way I have seen it, not making the Battle of the Atlantic absolutely top Royal Navy priority (second only to holding London) is yet one more way for the Allies to lose the war. Against a determined German U-boat campaign, even when the Atlantic has top priority, things can still be hairy; anything less than top priority spells almost guaranteed disaster.
John wrote:
>Brits need to TRY to max out fighters
>(or close to it) - They may need lend lease
>right away to do all of this building.
Maxing Brit fighters is laudable and I agree requires high US lend lease prior to Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, this now flies in contradiction to my perceived need to also build US carriers at the same time (due to unforted islands only basing one plane), and which can only come from lend lease funds. I currently favor the Brits keeping the Royal Navy away from the Luftwaffe during late 1940 and 1941 so that a large Brit fighter force is not such a priority. However, the jury is still out on this for me. Obviously there are contradictory requirements here between lend lease needs, Brit fighters, and American carriers (and lord knows what else) and for which I currently have no resolution.
dd