Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider said: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.
Your ignorance in this is pretty astonishing.
plan_D said: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.
syscom3 said: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.
syscom3 said:Or does it mean most airfields are not that difficult to keep in operation.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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 said: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.
syscom3 said:The German fighters could take off from dirt fields.
syscom3 said:WW2 airfields tended to be simple affairs, as compared to modern ones.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:So you are still saying that small time tactical bombing did not help the war effort?
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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 said: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 said: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 said: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.