Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.
Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.
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.
The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much
72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too.
No, I wasn't aware that US 12th Air Force sent some it's groups to France. Care to enlighten me on which ones these were?
What happened to your original numbers? You claimed that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 B-26s. Yet, I've had to provide evidence that has produced greater numbers of B-26s than you have. It seems obvious to me, and everyone else, that 100 - 300 B-26s was not the general number of bombers against a tactical target. Even your own evidence proves it.
I'm waiting for your information on the US 9th Air Force that you have. As you said your sources state the same as mine in that the US 9th Air Force generally used 72 bombers against airfields. Evidence? Or, your sources even?
You have started the discussion by telling me I was wrong to assume the RAF and USAAF didn't use more than 100 bombers against a tactical target. And you argued, and argued, and even tried to insult me. But you haven't even got the evidence to back up your case.
No. This all started when you said Ar 234s carrying a total of 9,900 lbs together wasn't useful. You never said anything about big targets to start with. Then you said that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack big targets. Then you said it took the USAAF sending 100 - 300 B-26s to attack big targets. And then ... well, you've been on a downward spiral ever since. There's been no evidence from your side that has backed up your argument.
Just admit it, syscom, you're wrong. I can produce US 9th Air Force raids and 2nd Tactical Air Force raids that show less than one hundred bombers on a tactical raid. I have found a single US raid over one hundred, which was against marshalling yards. Which had to be attacked again 16 days later by another 72 bombers. I have provided more evidence to your cause than you have ! One single raid above one hundred bombers, a mighty 108.
syscom3 said:Someone quote me back me where I said tactical airstrikes did not help to win the battles.
And I dont mean tactical targets like what the FAC's would call in for the fighter bombers to destroy. I'm talking tactical targets the multi engined bombers went after.
I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it.
Glider said:I believe the phrase you used was a stunt.
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.
How many raids on your evidence were 200a/c
I would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.
Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.
Some more examples from your postings
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.
plan_D said:No reply, syscom? Aren't you going to answer the questions?