A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Boeing Niner Zero Niner AwwwYEAH!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 04, 10:28 PM
Casey Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.