Tactical Strikes of World War II

[syscom3]

This might come as a suprise to you, but we had been at war for over a year at this stage and had a pretty good idea as to what was important or not.

The UK had the best infrastructure in the world at the time for repair work be it repairing aircraft, airfields, radar stations, communications etc.

A nice little well documented, well known example, that proves that everything that you say is wrong. The best you can do is imply that the UK wasn't trying, in the one battle that everyone acknowledges was critical to our survival.

Once again you have a total lack of evidence although I admit this doesn't surprise me, or I suspect anyone else.

Your ignorance in this is pretty astonishing.

In 1942, the US maintained Henderson field with practically zero logistical help and maintained operations from a single small hut. Now does that mean the Marines who maintained the field were superior to the Brits? Or does it mean most airfields are not that difficult to keep in operation.

Your ignorance in this is pretty astonishing.

Actually the converse is true

 

[syscom3]

I'm still waiting, albeit passively, for his sources that provide him with the information so he can "agree" with my aircraft numbers for US Ninth Air Force raids in 1943.

What makes you think I disagree with your numbers for the 9th AF?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Runways in the Pacific tended to be crushed coral and or plain old dirt. And yes, some of them even had PSP plates. Even the Japanese repaired their airfields quickly (at least in the early part of the war before their logistical system collapsed).

Many runways in the ETO in the ETO also were dirt fields.

Dirt runways are easy to fix.
PSP covered runways are easy to fix too.
Concrete is tougher to fix, but that wasnt a show stopper.

It would still take more than an hour to fix those runways in WW2. Even if it only took an hour, that is one whole hour that German aircraft are not in the air from that field. One whole hour that they are not attacking ground troops or tank formations. One hour that they are not up attacking bomber formations.

Yeah syscom that is not helping the war effort!

Thank god you dont run our military because we would be ****ed

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Or does it mean most airfields are not that difficult to keep in operation.

Well that shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about even more. I can tell you as someone that works on an airfield and flies from one everyday, that they are not simple to operate as you make it seem to be.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There is more to an airfield than a concrete strip for planes to land and take off from and a building to run operations from.

 

[syscom3]

It would still take more than an hour to fix those runways in WW2. Even if it only took an hour, that is one whole hour that German aircraft are not in the air from that field. One whole hour that they are not attacking ground troops or tank formations. One hour that they are not up attacking bomber formations.

Yeah syscom that is not helping the war effort!

Thank god you dont run our military because we would be ****ed

The German fighters could take off from dirt fields.

 

[syscom3]

Well that shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about even more. I can tell you as someone that works on an airfield and flies from one everyday, that they are not simple to operate as you make it seem to be.

WW2 airfields tended to be simple affairs, as compared to modern ones.

And WW2 aircraft tended to be simpler to maintain therefore they didnt eneds as many specialized "trades" keeping the airplanes in the air.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The German fighters could take off from dirt fields.

No **** shirlock! My comment about the concrete strip, was a generic statement because you obviously have no clue.

I never said they could not, what I said was that aircraft not taking off from an airfield because operations are disrupted even if for only an hour is helping the war effort.

You in turn are skirting even more around the facts, trying to distract people from knowing that you are cluless.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

WW2 airfields tended to be simple affairs, as compared to modern ones.

No **** meatball! You forget I work at a former WW2 german airfield that had a grass strip as a runway!

Even though they were simpler in WW2 does not mean that it was a grass strip, maybe a hanger and a ops building that could be destroyed to disrupt operations.

You have your POL section, your FARP section, etc...

You take out any one of the combinations and you are disrupting operations.

 

[syscom3]

Operations and other admin chores can easily be performed in the back of a truck, a basement, a tent in the forest, practically anywhere.

Fuel can easily be brought to the aircraft in tankers, or even in oil barrels on the back of a truck.

And dirt is easily filled back into holes. In fact, the japanese discovered that they could take unused oil barrels, prefill them with dirt or rock and then roll them into the bomb crater and it would work like ballest.

My point is the only way to knock an airfield out of commision for a period of time is to put a LOT of bombs on it whether by heavy bombers or medium bombers and just work the odd's that a few bombs will land on eqmt that was stashed away far from the obvious targets. Precision bombing the airfields and hoping youre going to knock it out was a pipedream.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So you are still saying that small time tactical bombing did not help the war effort?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that the airmen that died on these small time tactical bombing raids died in vein because it was nothing more than a stunt? This is what you are still saying correct?

 

[syscom3]

So you are still saying that small time tactical bombing did not help the war effort?

Tactical bombing by the light bombers did not help. It was a waste of resources.

Fighter bombers were a far more efficient method of delivering ordinance onto target.

 

[syscom3]

And that the airmen that died on these small time tactical bombing raids died in vein because it was nothing more than a stunt? This is what you are still saying correct?

Unfortunatly for them, yes. The conceptions about the use of light bombers was dated. In the 30's when the doctrine was formulated, noone could have guessed that fighters would be used that had 2000HP engines.

But in war, you never know what really works. And when you do, someone had to pay a price for it.

general Sherman wasnt kidding when he said "war is hell".

 

[plan_D]

Have you got a memory, syscom?

"Ahhh, but you will note the following:
1) 113 medium and fighter bombers is not a small raid.
2) B25's carry a usefull payload and are not lugging a single small bomb.
3) The Typhoons are not soley a light bomber, as once they drop their load, they become fighters. Plus they can strafe things on the way back if they want.

So what is your point."

You asked for a medium bomber raid that an effect on the war effort. I just gave you one. And a raid with 113 bombers involved is a small raid compared to the heavy bomber raids that you love so much. That's my point.

"What makes you think I disagree with your numbers for the 9th AF?"

I never said you would disagree. You said your sources agree with my numbers. What are your sources!? Where are the sorties that you have information on? You haven't provided them. You haven't even provided the Ninth Air Force sorties for 1944 which you said you would.

Why do you even bother when you haven't even got any evidence to produce? No sorties? No sources?

"My point is the only way to knock an airfield out of commision for a period of time is to put a LOT of bombs on it whether by heavy bombers or medium bombers and just work the odd's that a few bombs will land on eqmt that was stashed away far from the obvious targets. Precision bombing the airfields and hoping youre going to knock it out was a pipedream."

Is that why a dozen Ju-88 carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb each, knocked the operation of Biggin Hill down to a squadron rather than a wing. No one ever thought that they could knock out an airfield for good, but they hamper the operations.

And fighter-bombers carry less of a payload than light bombers. You made the original argument against the payloads, not the aircraft involved.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Tactical bombing by the light bombers did not help. It was a waste of resources.

Fighter bombers were a far more efficient method of delivering ordinance onto target.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Unfortunatly for them, yes. The conceptions about the use of light bombers was dated. In the 30's when the doctrine was formulated, noone could have guessed that fighters would be used that had 2000HP engines.

But in war, you never know what really works. And when you do, someone had to pay a price for it.

general Sherman wasnt kidding when he said "war is hell".

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Is that why a dozen Ju-88 carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb each, knocked the operation of Biggin Hill down to a squadron rather than a wing. No one ever thought that they could knock out an airfield for good, but they hamper the operations.

And fighter-bombers carry less of a payload than light bombers. You made the original argument against the payloads, not the aircraft involved.

pD it is not worth it man. Syscom is clueless. How much more of this are you going to put yourself through.

 

[plan_D]

I ain't bothered by him. He's just showing himself up more and more. And it's giving me a cheap laugh.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is true, I have laughed quite a bit with this.