The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic

Take the thousands of tactical missions flown against targets behind the
Normandy beaches to deny the Germans access cutting of re-enforcements.
Bridges, railines, marshalling yards. crossroads, ordnance depots, choke
points, ammo dumps, fuel dnmps, gasometer farms all destroyed contributing to
the success of the D Day landings without which victory would have been
impossible. The Martin Marauder B-26's played a vital role in this effort with
their extremely accurate low level bombing and highly trained crews working in
very tight precision formations..





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote

Take the thousands of tactical missions flown against targets behind the
Normandy beaches to deny the Germans access cutting of re-enforcements.
Bridges, railines, marshalling yards. crossroads, ordnance depots, choke
points, ammo dumps, fuel dnmps, gasometer farms all destroyed contributing to
the success of the D Day landings without which victory would have been
impossible. The Martin Marauder B-26's played a vital role in this effort with
their extremely accurate low level bombing and highly trained crews working in
very tight precision formations..

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not make the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day, the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.

Yeah, but they did NOT have plenty of fighters stationed forward to use that
fuel to deal with the invasion force. They had retained the bulk of their
fighter force to protect against the strategic onslaught against Germany,
and IIRC by the summer of 1944 they were already suffering the strategic
campaign's attrition effects in terms of training of replacement pilots to
take the place of those they had lost, a large part of which were lost
defending against the 8th AF and RAF BC.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

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

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and rail
lines and took out the bridges.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
rail
lines and took out the bridges.


The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 1:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
rail
lines and took out the bridges.


The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith



But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they couldn't ge
very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines. Also
free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
sight. You should have been there.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 1:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off
resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads
and
rail
lines and took out the bridges.


The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith



But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
couldn't ge
very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines.
Also
free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
sight. You should have been there.

You continue to make up history, I see. Yes, they *did* get "pretty
far"--reread your Normandy history (oh, that's right, you are allergic to
reading anything about that campaign...); you missed Keith's pointing out
the fighting around Caen? Or are you going to tell us those panzers running
around that area were figments of the troops' imagination?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
rail
lines and took out the bridges.


The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith

Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one person,
group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than their own
relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright silly
about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the MTO
hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer troops
might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.

George Z.

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 9/2/2004 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bob Coe wrote:

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.


Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR


But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
rail
lines and took out the bridges.


The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith

Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one person,
group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than their
own
relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright
silly
about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the
MTO
hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
troops
might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.

George Z.


Then may I modestly say that we did the best we could with what we had and
luckily it all worked out fine. Thanks for your efforts in the MTO.





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer