Airpower dominat force in warfare 39-41

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Watanbe,

>Thanks for that I suggested 39-41 because that exampled the doctrine and tactics already established.

Ah, I see!

>Germany seemed to have built medium tactical bombers rather than large strategic bombers wouldnt that suggest it wasnt geared towards industrial bombing and bombing of cities?

That twin-engined bombers are categorized as "medium, tactical" and four-engined ones as "heavy, strategic" is sort of a retrospect distinction. The Luftwaffe planned to (and did) use its twin-engined bombers strategically and to some degree operationally, but not tactically.

The single-engined Stuka was adopted in 1938 for the (operational) role of battlefield interdiction and close support, though the emphasis of the Luftwaffe was on interdiction.

Luftwaffe general Deichmann summed it up for the USAF after WW2: "Until 1938 the Luftwaffe had no front-line units dedicated to providing direct support for the army." ("Direct support" includes battlefield interdiction in his description.)

In 1935, the Luftwaffe Air Field Manual No. 16 had defined "Within the scope of the general conduct of the war, combat action by the air forces will generally provide indirect support for the combat operations of the other military services."

In 1940, it was added: "Strong Luftwaffe forces can be committed during important ground battles" (for bombing attack on areas near the battle front). However, it is stressed that targets within artillery range of the front are only to be attacked when artillery is completely unable to get results.

>Is it fair to suggest this strategy could have arisen from airship bombings of London in WW1?

I believe these airship raids - and the subsequent heavier raids by large bombers - had decisive impact on airwar strategists of all nations, not only Germany. The impressive effect of these comparatively light raids probably lead to a general overestimation of the power of strategic bombers until WW2 experience gradually taught people otherwise.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Good comments Henning. I would suggest that the USAAF doctrine was inadequate - not because of overestimation of the power of strategic bombers, but more that such bombers could achieve their objectives unescorted. It took first the British modified Mustang then long range P-47s to truly reach the vision and wrest control of air over germany from Luftwaffe.

B-17s and B-24s failed to achieve that vision over Germany but B-29s did over Japan from March 9, 1945 through end of war -simply because Japan did not have night fighting capability - and this of course is 5 years after BoB

[Watanbe]

Yes, I agree that the U-Boats had a greater effect over Britain than the Luftwaffe but you have to look at what is fighting against the Luftwaffe and what is fighting against the U-Boats. The British were able to effectively counter the Luftwaffe. The Britain until later did not have the same capabilities in destroying the U-Boats and when they did the effects were devastating for the U-Boats, while airpower emerge in my opinion to become the dominant force of WW2.

Good responses people

and the Basket, while the Germans had greater airpower, the Soviets had massive numbers and their dedication to ground attack did have significant impact to victory. I did include a paragraph on the fear of bombing, I brought up the impact of living in constant fear and apparent danger could

Thanks guys

[Watanbe]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes but the side that controled the air is the side that won. The Allies had air superiority over Germany.

If you dont control the skies your ground forces can not move freely. It all goes hand in hand.

That is my point with the soviets, germany's airpower was not so great that it prevented this. And Adler I included the supply bit and implemented this quote from Churchill

"Victory is the beautiful brightly coloured flower. Transport is the stem, without which it could have never have blossomed.”

[The Basket]

A good example is the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse by Japanese airpower in Dec 1941. This was the first time a battleship at sea and at full battle stations was sunk by aircraft.

The dominant naval power was not the battleship or aircrft carrier but the submarine. Both for the Kriegsmarine and the USN.

Also the idea of kills and aces can be a red herring.

If say a Hurricane or Spitfire was shot down in the BoB...is that important? If the pilot was uninjured he could be flying next day and we were producing more aircraft than we were losing. We could also recover wrecks which could either be repaired or used for spares. The Germans couldn't and any crew bailing out were POWs for the rest of the war. The Germans were slow in replacing aircraft too.

So as long as we had pilots...we could continue fighting regardless of airframe losses.

[renrich]

The dominant naval component of the KM was the sub but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the dominant USN component was the sub. Without the carrier task force the US could very well have lost the Pcific War.

[The Basket]

I meant in ships sunk. I forget what the ratio was but the subs sank the Jap merchant fleet. That is why the subs were dominant.

[Watanbe]

hey guys sorry to revive an old thread here but seeing the other guys thread about his essay reminded me of the one I wrote! I thought id thank you guys you were helpful and I thought id let you know that I did quite well getting an 18/20 for it! I did very well with my studies and got into Law and Commerce YAY!!!

If anyones interested in having a read im more than happy to find it and paste it up, its about 2000 words though!

[HoHun]

Hi Watanbe,

>I thought id thank you guys you were helpful and I thought id let you know that I did quite well getting an 18/20 for it! I did very well with my studies and got into Law and Commerce YAY!!!

Hey, congratulations! :-) Good move to allow students to pick their own topics freely, I wish I had had such opportunities during my school time, too. Great you made the best out of your oppotunity and scored so well! :-)

>If anyones interested in having a read im more than happy to find it and paste it up, its about 2000 words though!

I'd love to read it! 2000 words sounds good - it's a complex topic after all :-) I fear there might be a limit in the forum software, though :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You should be able to post it. I believe the limit is 5000 words and after that you just have to split it up into two posts.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Watanbe

hey guys sorry to revive an old thread here but seeing the other guys thread about his essay reminded me of the one I wrote! I thought id thank you guys you were helpful and I thought id let you know that I did quite well getting an 18/20 for it! I did very well with my studies and got into Law and Commerce YAY!!!

Excellent! well done and congratulations on your achievement mate!

[Watanbe]

ill do my best to try and locate it on computer, at worst ill type it up again!

[Heinz]

Ya with wildcat well done on getting in!

Im currently doing a writing and editing course at TAFE. I got a bit shafted on my marks.