Drazen Kramaric
July 13th 03, 08:50 PM
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 03:38:57 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
> wrote:
>Conversely, the Axis never developed strategic bombers
They did not posses the resources to create them without curtailing
the other parts of their air forces, the parts more necessary to
achieve their immediate goals.
>or efficient long-range escorts
See above.
>; hence, they could not interfere with western or eastern Allied production
>at the factory level.
They didn't have to. Axis goal was to capture those production
centres, not to spend years destroying them.
>That meant, for example, that for all the "successes" of their experten in the East,
No need to quote marks, just take a look at the number of Soviet
aircraft destroyed and effectiveness of Red Air Force during
Barbarossa.
>the Germans failed nevertheless to make the most of airpower's potential because they could not
>reach out and harm the Soviets' manufacturing facilities; nor could they
>interdict Allied/Soviet lines of communication, including Lend-Lease. The
>experten contributed exactly nothing toward achieving German strategic aims
>in either arena.
Perhaps, it was the strategic aims that were wrong, rather than aces,
what do you think?
>Fighter vs fighter combat is of itself unimportant unless it contributes to
>the achievement of strategic aims; the Allies appeared to have understood
>this, but the Germans failed to reach that conclusion. They were, in fact,
>without a clue.
If you can come out with the recipe for Germans to create 10,000
aircraft strong air force by June 1941 with interceptors, long range
escorts, strategic bombers, fighter-bombers, dive bombers, torpedo
bombers, transports, etc and the fuel to take that alternative
Luftwaffe in the air, you're welcome to post it.
If you take a look at the map of Europe in May 1941, you'll see that
Luftwaffe did not "fail" in what it was designed to achieve. It wasn't
the Luftwaffe that "betrayed" its political master(s), it was the
political leadership that betrayed Luftwaffe with continual increase
of the number and strength of the Luftwaffe's opponents.
>Their aerial "successes" in achieving "victories" were illusory, misleading
>and essentially useless because they were irrelevant to the success of their
>nation's various campaigns once their enemies became truly engaged.
By this line of reasoning, if Tony Blair goes mad and declare war on
the rest of Europe combined, he should blame RAF for eventual failure
to defeat the rest of the European air forces combined, right?
Drax
> wrote:
>Conversely, the Axis never developed strategic bombers
They did not posses the resources to create them without curtailing
the other parts of their air forces, the parts more necessary to
achieve their immediate goals.
>or efficient long-range escorts
See above.
>; hence, they could not interfere with western or eastern Allied production
>at the factory level.
They didn't have to. Axis goal was to capture those production
centres, not to spend years destroying them.
>That meant, for example, that for all the "successes" of their experten in the East,
No need to quote marks, just take a look at the number of Soviet
aircraft destroyed and effectiveness of Red Air Force during
Barbarossa.
>the Germans failed nevertheless to make the most of airpower's potential because they could not
>reach out and harm the Soviets' manufacturing facilities; nor could they
>interdict Allied/Soviet lines of communication, including Lend-Lease. The
>experten contributed exactly nothing toward achieving German strategic aims
>in either arena.
Perhaps, it was the strategic aims that were wrong, rather than aces,
what do you think?
>Fighter vs fighter combat is of itself unimportant unless it contributes to
>the achievement of strategic aims; the Allies appeared to have understood
>this, but the Germans failed to reach that conclusion. They were, in fact,
>without a clue.
If you can come out with the recipe for Germans to create 10,000
aircraft strong air force by June 1941 with interceptors, long range
escorts, strategic bombers, fighter-bombers, dive bombers, torpedo
bombers, transports, etc and the fuel to take that alternative
Luftwaffe in the air, you're welcome to post it.
If you take a look at the map of Europe in May 1941, you'll see that
Luftwaffe did not "fail" in what it was designed to achieve. It wasn't
the Luftwaffe that "betrayed" its political master(s), it was the
political leadership that betrayed Luftwaffe with continual increase
of the number and strength of the Luftwaffe's opponents.
>Their aerial "successes" in achieving "victories" were illusory, misleading
>and essentially useless because they were irrelevant to the success of their
>nation's various campaigns once their enemies became truly engaged.
By this line of reasoning, if Tony Blair goes mad and declare war on
the rest of Europe combined, he should blame RAF for eventual failure
to defeat the rest of the European air forces combined, right?
Drax