View Single Post
  #96  
Old 11-28-2013, 11:25 PM
Dissonance is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Running Back & Forth
Posts: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This is a meaningless statement without refernece to

1. An idea of what Germany COULD have produced without bombing, and
2. What the military cost to Germany was of resisting strategic bombing.
You're misreading me, the statement was in response to Rocket 100's comment that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket 100
There was problems in Germany tank production and definitely not the least was allied bombing raids against Maybach engine plant and other tank factories.
Whatever the problems the strategic bombing campaign caused the Germans, reducing tank production certainly wasn't one of them; the idea that the strategic bombing campaign caused a net reduction in German armaments output is belied by the fact that production of armaments in all categories continued to increase each month throughout the entire war until the final closing months. Could they have netted more had there been no strategic bombing campaign? Sure. Did the strategic bombing campaign cause a net reduction in German production? Certainly not.

Quote:
It is fact that a substantial portion of that production was dedicated to trying to stop Allied bombing; according to Keegan, a quarter of German shell production was being used trying to shoot down bombers, and by later in the war pretty much the entire Luftwaffe was involved in the same endeavour, as opposed to supporting German troops. As the German army joke went, "If you see black planes they're British, if you see white planes they're American, if you see no planes it's the Luftwaffe."
Indeed, that is why I said
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
One of the primary effects of the strategic bombing was the destruction of the Luftwaffe as any kind of effective force through attrition combating the bombers, and more particularly their fighter escorts.
Quote:
It is perhaps interesting to ask why, if bombing was so useless, the Germans invested so much in trying to stop it. And what could they have done with that investment elsewhere?
I've not said it was useless, only that it was not vital to defeating Germany as Rocket 100 seems to think. The strategic bombing campaign was not necessary for the defeat of Germany, they were going to lose the war with or without it, particularly with the situation Rocket 100 posits of German wunderwaffe such as the Me-262 and Wasserfall causing heavy losses to Allied bombers in the last year and a half or so of the war. The strategic bombing campaign was carried out in spite of heavy losses in early operations, and would almost certainly continue to be carried out even if losses became heavy again late in the war. Even had the Western Allies decided to abandon the strategic bombing campaign, Germany’s defeat was assured by 1944. Average pilot quality in the Luftwaffe had already been devastated by attrition, Germany had no prospects of improving thier fuel situation, and the Western Allies and to a slightly lesser degree the Soviets enjoyed an overwhelming superiority in tactical airpower.