"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.