Greatest Strategic Air Missions?

Leadfoot wrote:
What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

Although many missions have been added the First World War is
completely missing. Here are my two suggestions:

- First RFC raid on Friedrichhafen Zeppelin hangars, late 1914
- Would you go on a bombing raid with Avro 504?

- First German Riesenbomber raids on London
- Raid which seriously depleted RFC Western
Front fighter strengths. Besides, those Gothas look
damn impressive.

terveisin,
jukka raustia

--
"Päinvastoin, olisi nähtävä, että Suomen turvallisuus _kaikissa tilanteissa_
nojautuu olennaisesti siihen, että tarpeen vaatiessa Suomi voi tukeutua
Neuvostoliiton apuun koskemattomuutensa säilyttämiseksi."
-s. 57, Kaksiteräinen miekka - 70-luvun puolustuspolitiikkaa"
Jaakko Blomberg, Pentti Joenniemi, Helsinki 1971.

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:KYBVc.118201$sh.114795@fed1read06...
What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

You would surely have to include the 11th September attacks on New York
and
Washington. For an outlay of well under $1M, and some volunteers suicide
attackers with box cutters, whoever executed it massively damaged the US
economy, and so spooked the US that they started not one but two
unwinnable
wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) in response. Surely that has to place it up
there with Hiroshima?

John

Also destroying Dresden, historical art city is impressive. Even today there
is marks of bombings.

"hobo" wrote in message
...
In article KYBVc.118201$sh.114795@fed1read06,
"Leadfoot" wrote:

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

Why isn't the Israeli attack on the Egyptian AF to start the Six Day war
listed? After their AF was destroyed on the ground the Egyptians ordered
their troops on the border to retreat, which was most likely a mistake,
and they were slaughtered by the Israelis as they withdrew. Eliminating
Egypt so quickly allowed the Israelis to fight a 3 front war one front
at a time.

It's for sure one of greatest, expecially if to keep in mind that air
superiority was main factor in their victory.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:28:09 -0600, George Ruch
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I'd think that maybe 11 days might be closer to a battle, but if you
want it to be called campaign, then let's just go with December
18/19th night. One hundred fifty BUFF sorties scheduled and most of
them flown into an area the size of Rhode Island. Accompanied by a
bunch of F-111's against the airfields and followed up with the full
force of all the USAF/USN airplanes in theater the next day, hitting
virtually every worthwhile (and many sub-worthwhile) targets in RP VI
within 24 hours.

Looked pretty impressive from my seat.

No doubt, Ed.

I'd call the whole Linebacker II campaign a strategic success. As I
remember, the North Vietnamese had walked away from the Paris negotiations,
and had to be 'persuaded' to come back. Seems like taking the gloves off
worked.

I don't know how long we could have sustained that level of losses,
specially the BUFFs, but I'm reasonably sure the NV thought we'd go as long
as we had to. If only we'd done it earlier...

The loss level dropped abruptly after day six and although several
more BUFFs were lost in the remaining five days, the near total
destruction of the NVN air defense system means that the campaign
could have been sustained until the level of the 1964 LeMay
prescription--"back to the stone age." On day six, I was part of a
Hunter/Killer flight supporting a day strike to Hanoi. We orbited
Bullseye (Hanoi geographic center) for more than 25 minutes at six
thousand feet over a solid undercast--a prescription for almost
certain disaster a week earlier.

The question about how it might have turned out had we done it earlier
is certainly one for extended debate, but that was then and this is
now. The huge difference was that during the period in question, there
was a significant doubt about what would inadvertently trigger
intervention by the Soviets or the PRC and start the slippery slide to
nuclear exchange.

Bottom line for consideration, however, is that the restraint
exercised by the Nixon administration in terminating the campaign
after eleven days when an agreement was reached seems to put into
question the assertions of atrocities, war crimes, carpet-bombing, etc
instituted from the highest levels of command.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Does the Isreali strike on Iraq's nuclear plant qualify?

Rick Clark

George Ruch wrote in message . ..

...

I'd call the whole Linebacker II campaign a strategic success. As I
remember, the North Vietnamese had walked away from the Paris negotiations,
and had to be 'persuaded' to come back. Seems like taking the gloves off
worked.


What was the issue in Paris that the NV refused to accept before
Linebacker II, and to which they agreed afterward?

--

FF

"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:KYBVc.118201$sh.114795@fed1read06...
What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

Interview with Heisenberg and others in the German nuclear program,
as well as conversations among the German scientists surrepeticiously
recorded while in British detention indicate that the German nuclear
program was geared toward nuclear power and not an atomic bomb.

If the Germans had dedicated more resources to nuclear weapons then
I'd argue that the Norwegian heavy water raid might have reversed
the outcome of the war.

But after reading through this thread I'd have to agree that the
greatest strategic air mission FAILURE was the attack on
Pearl Harbor, despite being an overwhelming tactical victory.
Strategicaly, it assured the ultimate defeat of Japan.

Hiroshima, because it along with Nagasaki ended the War without
an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be the greatest
strategic air victory.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What was the issue in Paris that the NV refused to accept before
Linebacker II, and to which they agreed afterward?

None. The only changes to the document signed in January 1973 and the one
agreed upon in October 1972 was some wording.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2
was rather more significant.


Had POL been a top priority beginning in 1942 I think the POL campaign would be
an obvious choice, but the fact that POL was not a high priority until 1944
kind of blurs its importance. According to Speer, had we systematically
attacked Germany's electricity (production and distribution) beginning in 1942,
the war in Europe would have ended 6-8 months sooner.

There's some evidence that POL was seen as a weak point in the early
days of WW 2. IIRC, there was a British attempt to get bombers over
Ploesti and the Dessarabians oil facilities in what was then the
Soviet Union. (Let's not overlook the fact that the Soviets didnt
throuw in with the Allies until June 1941, and had been perfectly
happy helping Hitler carve up Europe before that)

The raids got as far as forward-basing bombers in, I believe, Greece,
but the plan was cancelled at the last minute.

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

"Glenfiddich" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:36:52 +0300, "Vello" wrote:
"hobo" wrote in message
...
In article KYBVc.118201$sh.114795@fed1read06,
"Leadfoot" wrote:

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

Why isn't the Israeli attack on the Egyptian AF to start the Six Day
war
listed? After their AF was destroyed on the ground the Egyptians
ordered
their troops on the border to retreat, which was most likely a mistake,
and they were slaughtered by the Israelis as they withdrew. Eliminating
Egypt so quickly allowed the Israelis to fight a 3 front war one front
at a time.

It's for sure one of greatest, expecially if to keep in mind that air
superiority was main factor in their victory.

Israel had that after they caught many of the Egyptian planes
on the ground, but you seem to be saying Israel had air superiority
BEFORE they attacked.
Can you confirm that to be the case?

I did not read it that way at all. It appears he was saying that the air
strikes were indeed key *if* you keep in mind that their *subsequent*
unchallenged (or darned close to it) air superiority was key to their
overall success.

Brooks