![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... The postwar strategic bombing assesement survey. It basically shredded the hallowed tenents that founded the US strategic bombing campaign. Here is the main conclusion: Aviation: "In 1944 the German air force is reported to have accepted a total of 39,807 aircraft of all types -- compared with 8,295 in 1939, or 15,596 in 1942 before the plants suffered any attack." According to the report, almost none of the aircraft produced in 1944 were used in combat and some may have been imaginary. Armor production "reached its wartime peak in December 1944, when 1,854 tanks and armored vehicles were produced. This industry continued to have relatively high production through February 1945." Big Snip Please note, some aspects of the bombing were very effective. The Oil production bombing, more so than any other aspect, hugely curtailed the ability of the German military forces to fight or train to fight. Oil was not originally the top priority of the bomber forces. Primarily the problem with Strategic Bombing, as visualized by the leaders of the Army Air Forces, was that it was an untried concept. Hundreds of thousands of airmen, in both British forces and US forces died trying to accomplish something that turned out to be unattainable, at least in terms of 1940 to 45 technology. Of course, the bombing campaign affected the outcome of the war. It's just that the manner of the affect wasn't how the leaders designed it. They thought that if they could destroy the war making industries, Germany would loose it's ability to wage war. That part did not happen. But Germany spent so much time and effort attempting to stop the bombing campaign, that their ground forces suffered. More Big Snip Corky Scott I did some checking at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ and found data that conflicts with the armor production figures you put in at the top. Interestingly, the site I found almost triples the numbers in favor of your argument for 1944. The disparity may be that the site I found goes all the way from Panzer I through V and includes the Ferdinand. It also includes the figures for armor manufactured in Czechoslovakia and other plants outside Germany. Those latter numbers must be tallied into the overall picture, I think. Good argument, Corky. You made me look at a whole new perspective. The real nut is in the latter paragraphs you included. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
763 Cruising Speed. | [email protected] | General Aviation | 24 | February 9th 04 09:30 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Piloting | 133 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: AP Reveals Series Of Boeing 777 Fires!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 18 | October 16th 03 09:15 PM |