Author Topic: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII  (Read 19135 times)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2008, 10:12:42 AM »
Dtango, I have read that book, and I disagree with Overy's conclusions. I have outlined why I disagree with him in my previous posts.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2008, 10:18:24 AM »
If the USAF had used the vast amount of resources spent on building its strategic air force to instead build a tactical air force the invasion of France could have been made a lot earlier. With the huge production capacity of the United States thousands of fighter-bombers and strike aircraft (like the Mosquito) could have been operational in 1943. Achieving local air dominance over Normandy and destroying the Luftwaffe in France would not have been a problem. Disrupting and destroying German ground forces would also have been much easier with such a force. The USAAF backed the wrong horse with regard to air warfare doctrines, and suffered for it in WWII. They had to fight with what they had instead of what they should have had.


Edit: Make that both the USAAF and the RAF. Just consider the might of their combined tactical air forces had the resources and manpower spent on all those Lancs and B-17/24 been used on Mosquitoes, Typhoons, P-47's etc. It would have been unstoppable by the Luftwaffe ... in 1943. IMHO of course (hypotheticals again).

I disagree.  The tactical air forces were only successful because air superiority had been established by the strategic air forces.  The strategic air forces imposed their will on the Luftwaffe and forced them into a war of attrition that they could not win.  The only way to do this was putting aircraft constantly over the LW the further back they moved their air forces which meant long range fighters and bombers to do this.  Without clearing the skies the tactical air forces would not have enjoyed the effectiveness they had.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2008, 10:21:20 AM »
Trying to determine the actual effects of the air war on germany are actually pretty difficult, and not really related to the specific of the BoB...

What most people dont realize is that Germany wasnt ever really on a wartime production footing until 1942, it actually produced less war material then England did in 1940/1941. German industrial infrastructure was decentralized and underutilized before the war. Further almost all german production was single shift thru out the war and few women were in the workforce. Many factories had excess tooling and some entire production lines were not in use even in 1943. The German war industry was actually less efficient then any other so it absorbed alot of "losses" without an adverse effect on productivity. However there still were tremendous impacts on the conduct of the war. As an example in March of 1944 the german aircraft production facility at Manzel was destroyed, which prevented production of the Do-335 from starting in May of 1944.

One other way of looking at the impact of the bombing is by looking at its distributed effect. The primary goal of the airwar was its impact on german aircraft production...with the goal of impacting the effectiveness of the luftwaffe. At the time of the invasion the luftwaffe only had ~80 combat worthy frontline fighters to oppose the D-day invasion. whats more intriqueing however is that this number did not rise during the critical post invasion period. Even though German aircraft production was rising (reaching a peak of 3,375 in sept 1944) almost none of these planes ever reached the front lines.

The bombing impact on oil supplies was even more pronounced and effectively crippled the german military by late 1944. The germans did not have the petrol to sustain the offense in the late 44 bulge attack and in the east 1200 german tanks were overrun and destroyed when they ran out of fuel at the Baranoff bridgehead on the Vistula. I'm always amazed at folks touting 3rd party analysis as gospel. While many books provide an even handed and outstanding overview...many dont. given the wealth of raw material available why not look to te source material these books are based on...here's onehttp://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar//AAF/USSBS/ETO-Summary.html#page1" for consideration.

The B-17 was perfectly "combat worthy" 1939. The real issue was precision bombing itself which was significantly harder then it is represented in AH. As I tried to explain german doctrine changed to a complete emphisis on dive bombing. The luftwaffe actually initiated high altitude formation bombing on Aug 15, 1940 during the BoB but didnt have the training, optics or functional payload to have any real effect. The reality is that in 1940 the concept of a fast bomber wasnt entirely wrong. The B-17 was faster then the hurricane at alt and had a combat ceiling well above it. The spitfire would have been hard pressed to catch and successfully intercept the B-17 as well. More importantly the german fighters had superiority at higher altitudes and would have been much more successful.

If the germans had enabled the luftwaffe to evolve in accordance with its initial mandate the entire nature of the air war over England would have been different and much more difficult for the British.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2008, 10:23:44 AM »
I disagree.  The tactical air forces were only successful because air superiority had been established by the strategic air forces.  The strategic air forces imposed their will on the Luftwaffe and forced them into a war of attrition that they could not win.  The only way to do this was putting aircraft constantly over the LW the further back they moved their air forces which meant long range fighters and bombers to do this.  Without clearing the skies the tactical air forces would not have enjoyed the effectiveness they had.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

You are welcome to disagree, we are talking about hypothetical situations after all. The tactical air force would have cleared the skies over France in 1943, just like the German tactical air force cleared the skies over France and Russia earlier in the war. And just as the VVS achieved air superiority over the Eastern front later in the war.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2008, 10:28:10 AM »
Dtango, I have read that book, and I disagree with Overy's conclusions. I have outlined why I disagree with him in my previous posts.

I'll look for your outline.  I haven't been following the topic which seems to span several threads :).  Looking at the various arguments on the topic for years I obviously agree with Overy's and others conclusions about the strategic value of the bombing campaign.  I would certainly agree that strategic bombing didn't live up to what was proclaimed by those who designed it.  However to totally dismiss it's value is short-sighted in my humble opinion because it did indeed have a great impact in ways broader and different than those who designed it had imagined.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 10:32:42 AM by dtango »
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2008, 10:31:59 AM »
You are welcome to disagree, we are talking about hypothetical situations after all. The tactical air force would have cleared the skies over France in 1943, just like the German tactical air force cleared the skies over France and Russia earlier in the war. And just as the VVS achieved air superiority over the Eastern front later in the war.

I believe one of the major reasons that the VVS achieved air superiority over the eastern front was exactly because of the diversion of German air power from the east to defend against the strategic bombing campaign in the west.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2008, 10:46:58 AM »
Humble, I agree with much of what you are saying, I just see it from a different angle (i.e. without the USAAF beer goggles I was talking about ;)):


What most people dont realize is that Germany wasnt ever really on a wartime production footing until 1942, it actually produced less war material then England did in 1940/1941. German industrial infrastructure was decentralized and underutilized before the war. Further almost all german production was single shift thru out the war and few women were in the workforce. Many factories had excess tooling and some entire production lines were not in use even in 1943. The German war industry was actually less efficient then any other so it absorbed alot of "losses" without an adverse effect on productivity.

I.e. due to the nature of German (and British) war production strategic bombing proved a failure in WWII (like Ive said earlier).

One other way of looking at the impact of the bombing is by looking at its distributed effect. The primary goal of the airwar was its impact on german aircraft production...with the goal of impacting the effectiveness of the luftwaffe. At the time of the invasion the luftwaffe only had ~80 combat worthy frontline fighters to oppose the D-day invasion. whats more intriqueing however is that this number did not rise during the critical post invasion period. Even though German aircraft production was rising (reaching a peak of 3,375 in sept 1944) almost none of these planes ever reached the front lines.

I.e. the only real success of the strategic bombing campaign was to lure the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition (like Ive said earlier). The allies had resources to squander, the Germans did not.


The bombing impact on oil supplies was even more pronounced and effectively crippled the german military by late 1944. The germans did not have the petrol to sustain the offense in the late 44 bulge attack and in the east 1200 german tanks were overrun and destroyed when they ran out of fuel at the Baranoff bridgehead on the Vistula.

I.e. the Germans did not suffer fuel shortages until late in 1944, despite the 1943 raid on Ploesti and the strategic bombing campaign (like Ive said earlier). By late 1944 the Germans would not have been able to stretch the war into 1946 no matter how much fuel had been available to them.


The B-17 was perfectly "combat worthy" 1939. The real issue was precision bombing itself which was significantly harder then it is represented in AH.

A high altitude bomber that is unable to hit anything is not a combat worthy weapon. In the summer of 1941 the RAF operated a small force of B-17Cs. After only three months they were withdrawn from frontline service having taken 40% losses to enemy action and operational accidents. None of their missions were successful in hitting their targets. The B-17 was not ready by far (like Ive said earlier).
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2008, 10:49:46 AM »
Lumpy,

Your "facts" are so far off its not really possbile to sort your "beliefs" from reality in any cohesive manner. German synthetic fuel production was significantly impaired by June 1944..

The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses."

As for aircraft production, while no clear root cause is identifyable the documented reality is that almost none of the 3000+ planes per month being built actually reached combat units...

German fighter production continued to increase during the summer of 1944, and acceptances reached a peak of 3,375 in September. Although it has studied the problem with considerable care, the Survey has no clear answer as to what happened to these planes; the differences of opinion between German air generals, it might be added, are at least as great as between those who have searched for the explanation. Certainly only a minority of the planes appeared in combat. Possibly the remainder were lost in transit from factory to combat bases, destroyed on the fields, or grounded because of a shortage of gasoline or pilots. Conceivably some are part of an inflation of German production figures. The answer is not clear.



The effects on production effected the war effort in may ways...

Germany, like other industrial countries, relied on synthesis for its supply of nitrogen and the synthetic oil plants were by far the largest producers. Sixty percent of the nitrogen production and 40 percent of the methanol production came from two synthetic plants. Monthly output of synthetic nitrogen in early 1944, before the synthetic plants were attacked, was about 75,000 tons. It had been reduced by the end of the year to about 20,000 tons.

Nitrogen, besides being indispensable for explosives, is heavily used in German agriculture. Allocation for the 1943-44 crop year was 54 percent of the total supply; allocation for 1944-45 was first planned at 25 percent and later eliminated altogether. Nitrogen for munitions was maintained by reducing the allocation to agriculture, but by the end of 1944 this cushion had been substantially exhausted. The supply of explosives then declined with the reduction in supply of nitrogen. It became necessary to fill shells with a mixture of explosives and non-explosive rock salt extender


These are a few of the conclusions reached by the US strategic bombing survey (which I consider to be a very even handed overview)

The German experience suggests that even a first class military power -- rugged and resilient as Germany was -- cannot live long under full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting -- any effective fighting -- within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded.

As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their economy. Nevertheless, the recuperative and defensive powers of Germany were immense; the speed and ingenuity with which they rebuilt and maintained essential war industries in operation clearly surpassed Allied expectations. Germany resorted to almost every means an ingenious people could devise to avoid the attacks upon her economy and to minimize their effects. Camouflage, smoke screens, shadow plants, dispersal, underground factories, were all employed. In some measure all were helpful, but without control of the air, none was really effective. Dispersal brought a measure of immediate relief, but eventually served only to add to the many problems caused by the attacks on the transportation system. Underground installations prevented direct damage, but they, too, were often victims of disrupted transportation and other services. In any case, Germany never succeeded in placing any substantial portion of her war production underground--the effort was largely limited to certain types of aircraft, their components, and the V weapons. The practicability of going underground as the escape from full and free exploitation of the air is highly questionable; it was so considered by the Germans themselves. Such passive defenses may be worth while and important, but it may be doubted if there is any escape from air domination by an enemy.

The importance of careful selection of targets for air attack is emphasized by the German experience. The Germans were far more concerned over attacks on one or more of their basic industries and services -- their oil, chemical, or steel industries or their power or transportation networks -- than they were over attacks on their armament industry or the city areas. The most serious attacks were those which destroyed the industry or service which most indispensably served other industries. The Germans found it clearly more important to devise measures for the protection of basic industries and services than for the protection of factories turning out finished products.


The link above will provide anyone access to what is a good overview of the effects of the strategic airwar. It's pretty clear and even handed and demonstrates the ability the germans had to absorb and adapt, it also makes it clear that well before germany proper was invaded the bombing campaign had a tremendous impact on the germans overall ability to maintain minimal production in key area's and its ability to support distribution and supply of what it did produce...

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2008, 10:52:38 AM »
I believe one of the major reasons that the VVS achieved air superiority over the eastern front was exactly because of the diversion of German air power from the east to defend against the strategic bombing campaign in the west.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

This is what I find curious: Why do some people believe that if the strategic bombing campaign didn't happen then all the resources and planes used on it would simply "disappear" from the war? If the resources and manpower spent on the strategic bombing campaign had been used bolstering the Soviet air force with more planes and also spent on a tactical air force in Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been completely swamped and quickly destroyed.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2008, 10:59:38 AM »
Its not worth going in circles here. The germans had planes that were faster, had better high alt performance and were armed with cannons in 1940. British experience with the B-17 is not relevent to the issue at hand. The british hurricane I and spitfire I would not have been able to inflict significant losses. No question that the actual effectiveness of high alt bombing was marginal and that the effects would have been somewhat marginal...however repeated attacks on airfields, manufacturing and population centers would have forced the british to engage at higher alts with less effect and greater attrition. The BoB at its heart was a battle of attrition as much as anything. While real damage to Englands infrastucture would have been marginal the effect on its airforce would have been lethal.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2008, 11:26:03 AM »
This is what I find curious: Why do some people believe that if the strategic bombing campaign didn't happen then all the resources and planes used on it would simply "disappear" from the war? If the resources and manpower spent on the strategic bombing campaign had been used bolstering the Soviet air force with more planes and also spent on a tactical air force in Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been completely swamped and quickly destroyed.

Without the strategic air campaign in the west or the war in the MTO Germany could have concentrated it's air forces in the east.  Just a simple look at the numbers, the USSR produced 125,000 planes in WW2.  Germany produced 100,000 between 41-45.  Russia could concentrate most of these aircraft on one front while germany had to divy it out with most of the forces going to defense of the west against the bombing campaign.  Without the bomber campaign the bulk of the LW aircraft and it's pilots would have been pitted against the VVS which would have at least challenged the VVS ability to achieve local air superiority.

So the resources of the bomber campaign did in effect cause Germany to be swamped.  2ndly I don't see how it would have been practically achievable for US and the UK to somehow shift their resources from the western air campaign to bolster that of the USSR directly.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2008, 11:35:22 AM »
The Russians didn't want British and American crewed a/c on Russian soil.

Quote
The million men could have been put to better use on the front lines than in defending the Reich, repairing the damage and fighting the fires started by the bombings.

Quote
Like I said in my first post, the firebombing of German cities was measurably effective in disrupting German war production. You are just confirming that, so why mention it at all?

Went over your head gSholtz. It is not about German war production but about the manpower and weapons that could have been better used elsewhere.

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2008, 11:48:32 AM »
The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses."

Yet as you yourself have noted the Germans did not run out of fuel until late in 1944, when the Russians were encroaching on German soil and no fortune of war could hope to save Germany.


As for aircraft production, while no clear root cause is identifyable the documented reality is that almost none of the 3000+ planes per month being built actually reached combat units...

German fighter production continued to increase during the summer of 1944, and acceptances reached a peak of 3,375 in September. Although it has studied the problem with considerable care, the Survey has no clear answer as to what happened to these planes; the differences of opinion between German air generals, it might be added, are at least as great as between those who have searched for the explanation. Certainly only a minority of the planes appeared in combat. Possibly the remainder were lost in transit from factory to combat bases, destroyed on the fields, or grounded because of a shortage of gasoline or pilots. Conceivably some are part of an inflation of German production figures. The answer is not clear.


 

I.e. the planes were produced but were destroyed in transit to the frontline units. IMHO most likely by interdicting tactical air power; shot down on ferry runs or strafed on trains/assembly yards.


Its not worth going in circles here. The germans had planes that were faster, had better high alt performance and were armed with cannons in 1940. British experience with the B-17 is not relevent to the issue at hand. The british hurricane I and spitfire I would not have been able to inflict significant losses. No question that the actual effectiveness of high alt bombing was marginal and that the effects would have been somewhat marginal...however repeated attacks on airfields, manufacturing and population centers would have forced the british to engage at higher alts with less effect and greater attrition. The BoB at its heart was a battle of attrition as much as anything. While real damage to Englands infrastucture would have been marginal the effect on its airforce would have been lethal.

So what you are saying is that even with B-17s the effect of strategic bombing would be minimal and the B-17s would only serve as bait to lure the RAF into a war of attrition. Sounds right to me. :)

I agree that its not worth going in circles here and this thread should die shortly, but I must address some of your points:

The Germans did not have faster planes than the RAF. The Spitfire was faster than both the 109 and 110 in 1940. Late in the BoB the Spitfires were being armed with 20 mm Hispano cannons. No.19 Squadron was first to operate cannon armed spitfires during the BoB.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2008, 11:57:34 AM »
Without the strategic air campaign in the west or the war in the MTO Germany could have concentrated it's air forces in the east.  Just a simple look at the numbers, the USSR produced 125,000 planes in WW2.  Germany produced 100,000 between 41-45.  Russia could concentrate most of these aircraft on one front while germany had to divy it out with most of the forces going to defense of the west against the bombing campaign.  Without the bomber campaign the bulk of the LW aircraft and it's pilots would have been pitted against the VVS which would have at least challenged the VVS ability to achieve local air superiority.

So the resources of the bomber campaign did in effect cause Germany to be swamped.  2ndly I don't see how it would have been practically achievable for US and the UK to somehow shift their resources from the western air campaign to bolster that of the USSR directly.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

No, wrong, only a third of the Luftwaffes strength was ever deployed in the west. The resources and manpower spent on the strategic air war would not simply disappear if the campaign never happened. Thousands of aircraft were delivered to the Soviets (along with a lot of other war material, even railway locomotives). Transporting a few thousand aircraft more would not pose a very difficult task. The bombers could just fly there at night for instance. Same with P-51s and other long ranged aircraft.


The Russians didn't want British and American crewed a/c on Russian soil. 

No, but they DID want more aircraft.


Went over your head gSholtz. It is not about German war production but about the manpower and weapons that could have been better used elsewhere.

Im afraid it went over your head. My argument is that the allied efforts could have been better used elsewhere and as a tactical air force instead of a marginally effective strategic force.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2008, 12:59:31 PM »
You dont ever really address or answer anything do you? You blindly make statements with no support or documentation or grasp of reality in complete disregard of documented facts.

1) the 109 was superior to the hurricane and spitfire at higher altitudes...statement of fact end of story. The 110 was superior to the hurricane at higher alts and more competative at higher alts with the spitfire.

2) The B-17 was faster then the hurricane and had a higher service ceiling...period. The spitifre had .303s during the critical period but even if it was uparmored it still had minimal capability to intercept at alt and deal with the german fighters.

Had the germans actually had a more evolved doctrine and tactics along the original vision lines the BoB would have unfolded completely differently.

As for germany, its economic capability to wage war was greatly compromised well before an enemy soldier set foot on the fatherland. Production of steel, oil, petrolium byproducts, explosives and other essentials were collapsing. Transportation and power grids were degraded and even food production greatly diminished...entirely without either ground or tac air involvment. In effect the bombing campaign created the hollow egg that robbed the german armed forces of supplies, replacement weapons and properly trained troops and degraded its overall ability to wage war before the actual invasion of France and even more severely degraded its ability to fight a two front war afterward.


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson