Quote:
Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK
I agree in part. Yes, the best educated young men were killed, and all were volunteers. And yes, WW2 bankrupted Britain. Maybe BC's campaign was not as effective as expected. But how is effectiveness measured in this context?
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
|
Good questions and a difficult one to answer, Avro. Early RAF BC operations had some excuses Technology was simply not up to the task to perform anything but area raids initially. Daylight bombing was out of the question with the LW day fighters there, no bombing/navigational aids, bombers too small for effective load, low cap. bombs, no other way present to actually wage war on Germany etc., all very well known.
But these excuses were no longer there when Oboe, H2X, Pathefinders etc. become operational. They were not perfect but they permitted hitting specific targets, certainly ones large enough like industrial complexes with a reasonable degree of success. This coincided with the appointment of Harris, who dismissed the opportunity and kept going for the cities. The attacks on oil targets for example were extremely successfull even during the night, which Harris only grudgingly agreed to, and only temporarily.
Harris kept using (and wasting IMO) this expensive and high tech force area attacks, even after the failure of this tactic was obvious to anyone (i.e. the Air Battle of Berlin, culminating the Nurnberg raid).
This is BTW pretty much what Max Hastings (and some others, most famously Albert Speer was dismissive of area/terror bombing) wrote on the subject, and I agree with him completely. In short, the (from a pragmatic military POV) the criminality Harris was that Bomber Command was kept misused even by the time there were better alternatives, given its increase in size and accuracy. The human perspective is far too obvious for any healthy soul IMHO.
BTW back to the OP, I agree its difficult to fly the invader above your own country. I would have difficulty doing that on the Balaton map, too.