Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002 From: San Antonio, TX Status: offline
|
If I may re: strategic bombing: Didn't Germany try strategic bombing of military and civilian centers en masse? Something Londoners called 'The Blitz'? Sure, we can argue the rationale for how it got started (accidental first bombing of London, subsequent reprisals for bombing German cities in kind) and its merits (whether or not it 'worked'), but they did try strategic bombing during the war. If the Germans believed that it 'didn't have merit' before the Battle of Britain and The Blitz, then why on earth did they try to make it work? Now, maybe they tried it and didn't like it or thought it was an ineffective bleeding of their bomber forces for little tangible gain. But that's a different argument than an antebellum policy of 'no strategic bombing'. I think the Luftwaffe tried to implement distance strategic bombing with an air fleet that was decidedly inferior for the task at hand. Between the Dornier's small bomb load and pathetic defensive gunnery and the Me-109's inferior range, their instruments were just not up to the task. They found out only after they tried. Would things have been more successful if their air frames had been more apt for long range strategic bombing (e.g., large numbers of massed 4e bombers)? Maybe the rationale for their failure to successfully implement strategic bombing was a failure in foresight above all else. A failure to perceive the strategic need and plan for production numbers of a suitable 4e heavy bomber. In any case, the Germans did, at one point, believe in it-they just failed in execution through poor foresight.
_____________________________
|