Greatest Strategic Air Missions

Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 8/22/2004 5:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hiroshima. Nothing ever even came close in effect importance or end result.
End of story.


Gee, Art.

That just whacked a huge number of civilians.

Wouldn't a strategic air mission have to be something like the Dam Busters or
something?

Or wrecking that canal (I forget the name) with Tall Boys?

Seriously, something that caused a strategic effect for economical return,
like
the Oil Campaign of 1944/45.

Walt

\

If that dam was never busted it wouldn't have made the slightest difference in
the war. In fact the results of the dam busting was disappointing. Why are we
discussing missions that may have been heroic but made zero difference in the
outcome of fhe war?


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

missions that may have been heroic but made zero difference in the
outcome of the war?

So what do you think of the "Black Buck" missions in the Falklands war
from that standpoint? Definitely a tour de force of planning and
airmanship, but what was their result on the fight?

Some say they had little effect in terms of their ostensible goals
such as runway denial, but caused Argentina to hold back forces to
defend their mainland. Or is that just a popular misconception?

I might add, speaking in general rather than about Black Buck, that
making zero difference on the outcome is not at all the same as making
zero difference in the path to that outcome. Causing a war to end
sooner or later, with more or less casualties, is definitely on the
table when discussing these things, I should think.

Cheers,
--Joe

"Ad absurdum per aspera" wrote in message
om...
missions that may have been heroic but made zero difference in the
outcome of the war?

So what do you think of the "Black Buck" missions in the Falklands war
from that standpoint? Definitely a tour de force of planning and
airmanship, but what was their result on the fight?


Minor IMHO except in so far as they forced the argentines
to retain aircraft for home defence

Some say they had little effect in terms of their ostensible goals
such as runway denial, but caused Argentina to hold back forces to
defend their mainland. Or is that just a popular misconception?


No its accurate enough but the forces retained were
not specialist naval attackers as I recall. In any even they
were a minor part of a small war and scarcely count
as either great or strategic.

Keith