View Single Post
  #10  
Old January 4th 04, 04:03 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

"B2431" wrote in message
...

snip

You can see where I am going with this. I wonder how many airmen would

have
lived if the Allies changed their methods. I wonder how much shorther

the
war
would have been if oil production and distribution alone were the sole

primary
targets early in the war. Secondary targets would be airfields and

flack.

I think you'd have to toss transportation into the mix right after the
petroleum industry.


Let's not forget training, either. Yes, there was a tremendous spurt
in production numbers in 1944, but what use was it when there were no
pilots to fly the airplanes, or crew the submarines or tanks?
What new pilots, or sub crews, or soldiers that could be trained, went
to their units with no operational training whatsoever. Survival at
that point was a matter of luck - they never got the chance to develop
skill.
The German Armed Forces going into 1945 were like an M&M. (Smartie,
for you Brits) A thin, hard shell of veterans surrounding a soft
innter layer.


True, but the bombing campaign did not target "training", per se. Its effect
on the petroleum situation adversely impacted training, and the attrition of
Luftwaffe pilots defending against the campaign applied additional stress to
the training pipeline. But it would have been very hard to set forth a
bombing campaign during WWII with an objective of degrading the Germans'
ability to train.

Brooks


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster