Would Hugh Dowding have been a better tactician against the London Blitz (night bombing) as compared to William Sholto Douglas?
closed as primarily opinion-based by Pieter Geerkens, Santiago, Steve Bird, KillingTime, sempaiscuba♦ Feb 20 at 21:00
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
The question is actually answerable, but the answer is driven by technology and strategy, not tactics.
The failure of the Blitz seems to have been largely due to errors in German strategy. The Luftwaffe failed to identify the proper targets and concentrate on them, and lacked the bomb-carrying capacity to have a serious effect on the large assortment of targets they attacked. The Blitz ended mainly because the Luftwaffe was needed for the invasion of the USSR, and only secondarily because of losses to the defences.
Until the availability of Airborne Interception Mk. IV radar in late 1940, the British could not do a great deal about German night bombing. They could have given AI Mk. IV higher priority in 1938-40, but it was competing for development money and people with Air to Surface Vessel radar and it's hard to argue with that priority. ASV radar was needed to hunt U-boats, and U-boats were a well-understood threat to the UK.
The RAF commander of night defences didn't really have an opportunity to make a major difference to the Blitz with tactics, so it's not meaningful to ask if someone else could have done it better. So, no, Dowding would not have been a better tactician for the battle than Sholto Douglas.