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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:01:35 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot" wrote: Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II. I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2 was rather more significant. Keith Context, ol' buddy. Context! You've snipped the location of that single line away--it was following the listing of the Doumer Bridge LGB attack as a great strategic event, and my comments were strictly related to the SEA unpleasantness of we colonials. When we're talking strategic campaigns, WW II has got some huge ones. Vietnam, on the other hand, simply ground on until every one got tired and went home. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:53:21 -0700, "Leadfoot"
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? Cuz I didn't think of it in the twenty minutes I took from taking the idea in my head to flowing the electrons onto the internet. It's definitely a good candidate I didn't think of along with 9-11 or Taranto. 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. And, if we're going into pre-emptions, how about Pearl Harbor? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Andrew Chaplin
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: Doolittle raid Tactical mission, but politically strategic. Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm? Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of "strategic". In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction with other operations. The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major [strategic] effect?" This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the effect was unforeseen. Perhaps we can also consider what might be called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:14:50 GMT, Andrew Chaplin wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: Doolittle raid Tactical mission, but politically strategic. Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm? BTSOM. We're quickly descending into the realm of semantics here. The distinction that is usually applied to tactical-v-strategic is one of goals rather than outcomes. The goal of the Doolittle raid was certainly not to bring Japanese industrial might to its knees nor to destroy critical military assets but rather to demonstrate to both the American people and the enemy that the war could be brought to the enemy's homeland. The targets were minimal and the impact even less except for the demonstration of resolve. Agreed that was the planners' intent. The Japanese reaction is what we didn't predict. It caused considerable loss of face especially to the Army, but also to the Navy in not guarding the homeland. There is considerable postwar data that the fundamentally unwise decision, in terms of strategic overreach, to attack Midway was a direct consequence of the Doolittle raid. Capturing Midway would have extended the outer security perimeter and thus have prevented further raids, or so the staff thought. Again, the "turning points" are different from different perspectives. From the US position, the Japanese defeat at Midway turned the tide. For any appreciable faction within the Japanese Naval staff, it was the capture of Saipan that triggered the formation of a peace faction. Japan put more value on Saipan as a key part of the inner perimeter than the US had realized. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article CsMVc.122499$sh.74185@fed1read06, "Leadfoot"
wrote: And without giving away your spoiler, Yamamoto's replacement didn't last long before being lost in a storm. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , Andrew Chaplin wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: Doolittle raid Tactical mission, but politically strategic. Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm? Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of "strategic". In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction with other operations. I think you were sort of on the right course, but you left the tracks with that last clause. "Without major interaction with other operations"? I'd posit that if your goal does NOT "interact" with "other operations", as in being complimentary of, then it is not only not a strategic operation, it is probably one that was a wasted effort in the first place. A better solution IMO would be to look at things from the overarching strategic framework perspective. At the top you have strategy--the setting of goals, and resourcing elemnts such that they can acheive those goals, that lead to obtaining national goals, or the endstate desired. In a broad sense, for example, our strategic goals for the combined bomber offensive against Germany was to significantly reduce the effectiveness of German industrial production, degrade their capability of transporting military resources to their desired destinations, and defeat the morale of the German populace and reduce their support for continuing the war. Next comes the operational level, where successive campaigns are planned and resourced to acheive these goals over a period of time; IMO, the "transportation plan" and the "oil plan" were not really *strategies*--they were instead operational level efforts aimed at helping acheive strategic objectives. Then you would have the individual raids, which are essentially the tactical level execution of the operational plans (i.e., they equate to "battles" in the ground combat arena). Note that we refer to what occured in Europe during WWII as the "European Theater of Operations", not the "European Theater of Strategy". The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major [strategic] effect?" Yes, they do, and in this case they apparently did--the effect being more the domestic morale boost that you pointed to above before you veered a bit offcourse. That they *also* acheived some degree of strategic effect (causing the Japanese to rethink and redeploy their available air assets) may have been an unforseen benefit, but it had some strategic ramifications nonetheless. And those strategic ramifications would have been measured in how much they "interacted" (or more accurately impacted) other operations. IMO, the Doolittle Raid was one of those rare exceptions to what I outlined above; it was a single raid (or "battle") planned to acheive a strategic goal (morale boost), that also had the added benefit of at least marginally impacting what was then still a japanese "center of gravity", which was their (at the time) still effective air operations throughout their theaters of operations. This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the effect was unforeseen. But it occured anyhow. The thread posits missions that had a strategic impact, not necesarily those that acheived said impact that was preplanned as an objective. Perhaps we can also consider what might be called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing. I'd put that decision more into the "negative operational decision" category; he changed the operational objective from defeating the RAF (an operational objective if there ever was one) to the more daunting task of defeating British morale with raids often targeted at nothing of direct military value. And he had a rather paltry capability of acheiving that goal (morale defeat) with the force he had available; say what you will about the RAF targeting of large urban areas, but at least they had the muscle to make an honest effort of it. Brooks |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:01:35 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot" wrote: Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II. I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2 was rather more significant. Keith Context, ol' buddy. Context! You've snipped the location of that single line away--it was following the listing of the Doumer Bridge LGB attack as a great strategic event, and my comments were strictly related to the SEA unpleasantness of we colonials. Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the listing of missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted" type missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was looking for. "Mission" could be numerous sorties on different days such as "dambusters" but wouldn't include something like "Point Blank". I could have been clearer but since this is Usenet it probably wouldn't make a diffence anyway as people tend to post whatever they want. When we're talking strategic campaigns, WW II has got some huge ones. Vietnam, on the other hand, simply ground on until every one got tired and went home. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: "Leadfoot" Date: 8/21/2004 5:51 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the listing of missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted" type missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was looking How about missions that changed the world? Battle of Britain comes to mind. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Russian recon planes fly ten missions over Baltics | B2431 | Military Aviation | 4 | March 2nd 04 04:44 AM |
New Story on my Website | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 42 | February 18th 04 05:01 AM |
OT (sorta): Bush Will Announce New Space Missions | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 0 | January 9th 04 10:34 AM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |
Strategic Command Missions Rely on Space | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 09:59 PM |