The strategic bomber: was it a total failure? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

plan_D said:
Oh god, not another canuck! :rolleyes:
We're spreading. :twisted:
Lets see, that makes a Nova Scotian, two guys from Québec, a guy from Ontario, an Albertan, and now a guy from BC. All we need now is someone from the territories and we're covered. :lol:

Keep yer stick on the ice! YEAH!!! :headbang:
 
Gnomey said:
All in all although neither a complete success or failure the bombing campaign had enough of a drain on Germany to remove vital manpower to protect the Reich as well as draining their oil and transportation capacity (greatly increased by the Russians capture of Ploesti in late 1944). In my opinion the expense was worth it for the damage done to the Germans in terms of manpower although the industrial effect was minimal thanks to Albert Speer and the ability of the Germans to quickly repair damage.
:evil: The Russian never capture Ploiesti, Romania change the politic orientation, after the plot against marshal Ion Antonescu
 
Just the fact that Germany's oil industry was crippled made it worth the effort.

Also, in the last few months of the war, wiping out the rail transport sytem hastened their defeat.
 
The bombing offensive while severely over-estimated forced the germans to throw fighters up against them, expending aircraft which could be easily replaced, and pilots and oil, pilots being easy to replace unless you want someone who knows what your doing, and oil they couldnt replace at all. The allied bomber offensive allowed and gave reason for escort fighters, and the bombers gave reason for german fighters to defend the home territory, further reducing germanys ability to effectively wage a sustained war. And the simple fact that proves that is aircraft designs in 1944-45, easy to make by unskilled labor, and easily flow by unskilled pilots, or that was the intention anyhow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back