***
I disagree again, in regards to how big an effect they had. Modern sources,
such as the history of the RAF in ww2 "The Right of the line" (sorry forget
the author) and such things as the USAFs post war strategic review of the air
war over germany show that even with production focused on aa guns, fighters
etc, Germany was still producing more tanks and artillery at the end of the
war than it was at the start.
***
Well, it's arguable that the German infrastructure was in danger of crumbling
to point of implosion.
However, another argument can be made that US bombing came very close to
crippling German production, according to Speer. Of course, you'd then have to
decide if another strike would have been possible shortly after
Schweinfurt/Regensburg. *shudder*
In the final analysis, your comment about the 'more production by the end'
begs a comparison to 'what they'd have produced without raiding' and to what
the Allies were producing.
The_Beast
> Oerjan wrote:
> The main value of raiders, at least since WW1, hasn't been what they
I disagree. Raiders were much more effective pre ww1, before radio and later
radar came into use. The Emden was hunted down in the end thanks to improved
communication networks. If you have the technical means to locate/report
raiders then they lose their main strength, the ability to run and hide.
In ww2 the battle of the atlantic was the "real fighting" thus the raiding
concept backfired as both sides, Germany in prosecuting it, and Britain
defending against it, committed tottaly to it.
Now the surface raiders of the USN in the war of 1812, and Drake vs the
Spanish were far more effective as they could appear and disapear at will,
killing or out running anything they came across, thus influencing the larger
forces as you suggest. Hoever by the mid to late 20th century, technology,
aircraft, satelites, sosus nets, etc have made raiders obsolete...(unless one
includes the B2 and F117 but then again these are used as part of the main
offensive rather than as diversionary forces in the sense that raiders are),
though future Stealth warships could of course redress the balance. Hasn't
your navy got one or two of those Oerjan?
(I'm
presuming you are Swedish :-)
> *At sea*, sure. However, the role the strategic bombers played *over
I disagree again, in regards to how big an effect they had. Modern sources,
such as the history of the RAF in ww2 "The Right of the line" (sorry forget
the author) and such things as the USAFs post war strategic review of the air
war over germany show that even with production focused on aa guns, fighters
etc, Germany was still producing more tanks and artillery at the end of the
war than it was at the start. Bombers, even enmass were simply not precise
enough delivery systems to cause the damage to infrastructure that they were
supposed to (and the percentage of bombers, night or day, which failed to find
their targets along with the imprescision of the weapons goes along way to
show why thousand bomber raids were required just to stop a ball bearing
factory from operating for 24 hours). Strategic bombing achieved little but
killing civilians. The real cause for Germany losing the war in regard to
industry and resources was Hitlers insistence on
mis-using resources on V weapons and ever larger tanks.
I;m not disputing the fact that raiders were used in the 20th century, just
that they were no where near as effective as they had been in previous
centuries.
Regards,
Dreaded Cloaking Lurker Mode Off...
Several years ago I heard a theory that the USAF could have had a much more
dramatic effect in WWII if they had concentrated soley on electricity power
planets, instead of factories. In short, the theory said it was a waste to
bomb factories, because of the large number of targets. There were
comparatively few electricty plants, therefore each power plant taken out
could render several factories inoperative.
The big question is, if the USAF had, could the Germans have comeup with an
alternative means of providing electric power to the factories? Anyone out
there now a lot more about electric power generation than me?
ias
> I disagree again, in regards to how big an effect they had. Modern