Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
plan_D said:I have started this thread because I have noticed that some members, especially syscom, cannot grasp the idea between a tactical target and a strategic target. Nor can some members understand that it's better to send in smaller, faster bombers to destroy smaller tactical targets.
I don't like picking up on single people, but syscom has provided the best amount of quotes to show a lack of understanding. Or maybe you're just trying to be right, rather than actually trying to learn.
Here they are: .........
I will come back to this, as it's said as a point against the Ar 234. Yet later, syscom states that all Allied bombers required hundreds to attack these targets. Making his original assault on the Ar 234 null and void. When ask what these larger targets were.
"Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah."
I would like to be informed what targets these B-26s were attacking. Now, I see that you suppose the RAF did the same. You are claiming that the RAF attack tactical targets with hundreds of light and medium bombers. Okay.
It appears to me that the RAF didn't attack tactical targets with hundreds of bombers. Because they knew that would be a waste of resources. It would be better to send in smaller bombers, flying lower and faster to hit with precision.
So, syscoms claim that the RAF attacked with hundreds (100 - 300) of bombers against airfields, supply dumps and other tactical targets is false. Any discussion, or addition is welcome. Or any question on the 2nd TAF operations is also welcome.
I cant let that one go by sys.... There are many instances where a single Lancaster dropped a single Grand Slam and the target was destroyed....The concept of one aircraft with one single bomb destroying its target didnt happen untill late in the Vietnam war. Untill that time, it was many aircraft needing lots of bombs to have a chance at destroying its target.
syscom3 said:You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.
syscom3 said:Of all the people in this forum, youre the one guy I hope that chokes on his food and noone bothers to help you.
If the RAF didnt have any medium bombers, my mistake. And it just shows you that the US dominated the airwar.
I aplogize for thinking the RAF had enough aircraft to mount these raids. Good thing the AAF had the capacity to do it
Even the vaunted dambusters raids weren't as precise
syscom3 said:A few -234's streaking along at a high speed with a single 1000 pounder is going to do nothing.
A squadron of them flying at middle altitudes with several thousand pounds of bombs each could do some damage.
And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.
That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.
What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.