Matrix Games Forums

Leo, I don't think KGr 100 has any special pathfinder abilities, but I could be wrong.

Last day of vacation for a few weeks. [:(]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Grollub

ORIGINAL: USS America

I call your and raise you by [:D]

I'd call your raise, but I only have two cups left in my thermos. [:D]

Phew, got away with that bluff then [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Hello Mike and Per!

Working all day while sport is attracting me... [:(]

My sympathies [:(]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Hello Mike and Per!

Working all day while sport is attracting me... [:(]

Working all day while AE languishes...... [:@][:'(]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
As they used to say , "if you eat a frog first thing in the morning , your day probably won't get any worse". [:D]

They don't say that anymore because they found out that frog legs are tasty! [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

You disagree that it was a tactical air force not a strategic one? [&:]

I disagreed that the Luftwaffe was little more than an extention of the army. It ended up that way in the end, (on the Eastern Front), but due to circumstance....not doctrine. The Luftwaffe developed a fully congnizant operational doctrine that included a strategic component. Tactical support operations were stressed for those missions which would be assigned to ground support and it was developed to a level far superior to the Allies who had some catching up to do. When first starting a major campaign in strength, such as in Poland, the West, and Barbarossa, the Luftwaffe's first primary mission was acheivement of air superiority followed by interdicition.

I would agree...just not at all sure that was what T was trying to say. It would be interesting to peruse their 'strategic component' ideas. Most of their doctrines were developed in Spain where they used 'strategic' bombing maybe once, at Guernica? I don't know as I'm not overly familiar with that war.

Probably depends on what you define as 'strategic'. I would argue that interdiction and air superiority are usually more tactical than a strategic operations, but I'm sure I'll get shouted down on that one by the traditional definitions.

My personal view on the difference is that 'strategic' operates against the nation and the economy, whereas tactical operates against the military arm. I think that is how most people think of it.

Never said that the Luftwaffe was an "extension" of the German Army, only that it was intended to work closely with it, and thus never developed a meaningful strategic capability.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Never said that the Luftwaffe was an "extension" of the German Army, only that it was intended to work closely with it, and thus never developed a meaningful strategic capability.

ah but therein lies the misconception. The general impression was that the Luftwaffe was designed with army support as it's primary mission as a whole. It wasn't. It had a strongly developed ground support component, but the overall Luftwaffe was much more. It even researched the strategic component but yes, it wasn't greatly developed because the Germans didn't think that the major premise behind it (the destruction of civilian morale and willpower), had much merit. They were right on that score! So to critique German air defense and beaming abilties due to "mainly intended to work closely with the army" is wrong from what i've read up on recently.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

I would agree...just not at all sure that was what T was trying to say. It would be interesting to peruse their 'strategic component' ideas. Most of their doctrines were developed in Spain where they used 'strategic' bombing maybe once, at Guernica? I don't know as I'm not overly familiar with that war.

IIRC, according to author James S. Corum who's book on the Luftwaffe's development shatters alot of myths (allegedly due to his contention that most authors do not use 1st hand Ger language source material) regarding the Luftwaffe's doctrine and development, Guernica was not intended as a strategic target or a "terror raid" as it would later be called. Rather it was an interdiction mission on a vital supply and transport hub. That it was also a major urban area as well is what the Press would later label as the world's first terror attack. Could be argued either way i suppose. Like Dresden, there's an entire book written on the subject i've seen on the shelves recently.

Probably depends on what you define as 'strategic'. I would argue that interdiction and air superiority are usually more tactical than a strategic operations, but I'm sure I'll get shouted down on that one by the traditional definitions.

My personal view on the difference is that 'strategic' operates against the nation and the economy, whereas tactical operates against the military arm. I think that is how most people think of it.

For me....i define air superiority and interdiction as operational level missions, designed to enhance and faciliatate an overall campaign. Tactical operations involve ground support missions. The former were generally acheived using the medium bombers primarily (+ DB's), whilest the reverse was true for the ground support component. Strategic bombing targets a nation's heart...it's civilian and industry component.

That gives us a tactical/operational Luftwaffe, but not a strategic one. I don't buy the "they didn't think strategic bombing had merit" line, and would like to know the reasoning behind that thought.

I can buy a distinction between tactical and operational, and we agree on what strategic means.

I'm curious about the Luftwaffe on strategic bombing like T. It's hard to argue that they acted like they didn't think it had merit since they designed..what...one? two? strategic airframes (HE-177 is the one I'm thinking of). But was it really that considered of a plan or simply a matter of building what they needed and could.

Good discussion, gents.  I think I've noticed a point where you have missed each other.  Nik mentioned that Germany didn't see the merit of "(the destruction of civilian morale and willpower)."  T is, I believe, thinking of strategic bombing as having 2 targets, civilian and industrial.  As the war played out, the civilian populations on all sides proved much tougher than initially thought.  I'm sure even Germany would agree that strategic bombing of industry ended up having quite a bit of merit.  [;)]

ZOING!(TM)

BTW, if the Germans didn't think that area bombing had any merit, how do you explain Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, etc?

cold, rainy, foggy. Quite a miserable day outside.

If I may re: strategic bombing:

Didn't Germany try strategic bombing of military and civilian centers en masse? Something Londoners called 'The Blitz'? Sure, we can argue the rationale for how it got started (accidental first bombing of London, subsequent reprisals for bombing German cities in kind) and its merits (whether or not it 'worked'), but they did try strategic bombing during the war. If the Germans believed that it 'didn't have merit' before the Battle of Britain and The Blitz, then why on earth did they try to make it work?

Now, maybe they tried it and didn't like it or thought it was an ineffective bleeding of their bomber forces for little tangible gain. But that's a different argument than an antebellum policy of 'no strategic bombing'.

I think the Luftwaffe tried to implement distance strategic bombing with an air fleet that was decidedly inferior for the task at hand. Between the Dornier's small bomb load and pathetic defensive gunnery and the Me-109's inferior range, their instruments were just not up to the task. They found out only after they tried.

Would things have been more successful if their air frames had been more apt for long range strategic bombing (e.g., large numbers of massed 4e bombers)?

Maybe the rationale for their failure to successfully implement strategic bombing was a failure in foresight above all else. A failure to perceive the strategic need and plan for production numbers of a suitable 4e heavy bomber. In any case, the Germans did, at one point, believe in it-they just failed in execution through poor foresight.

ORIGINAL: stuman

cold, rainy, foggy. Quite a miserable day outside.

Otherwise known as a pleasant summer day in London. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

BTW, if the Germans didn't think that area bombing had any merit, how do you explain Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, etc?

DOH! That's what I get for typing slowly! [:@]