Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Big B


Further, as for the contribution of the Red Army in bringing down Germany - HUGE, I agree.

But Germany was also completely exhausted after the mass bloodshed followed by occupation after WWI, and still never considered itself beaten.

I submit that THAT change of heart happened only because her cities were leveled, ...

Strategic bombing in it's pre-war pure concept failed completely. The modified strategic-operational bombing campaign that replaced it succeeded completely. (A grinding, punishing attrition war which chewed up Germany's remaining experienced fighter cadres giving the Allies total air dominance.

do not regard this as "complete success". Soldiers are in the end political agents. Doing things legally and morally pays off in political terms always, and in operational terms often. And I see no reason to pay more in ALLIED lives than we need to - why "go downtown" when you can go fight Uboats, drop mines, or mess up enemy combat supply? I believe there is such a thing as winning efficiently. I was trained to minimize casualties - all casualties - enemy/neutral/civilian AND allied soldiers/airmen. Failing to do that is hardly "complete success" IMHO.

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Only if "succeeded completely" somehow includes:



2) it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

It was precisely those past events which led to the modern thinking that you express in your post. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

If war were always neat and orderly....then we wouldn't work so hard to avoid it.

ORIGINAL: demonterico

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964

That above quotation highlights one of the fundamental errors we Americans make when evaluating an enemy. We often only see a subject from our own point of view. Le May is assuming that the effect of bombing the Vietnamese people would be nearly identical to the effect such bombing would have on the American people. He is not stopping to think that many of the people in a third world country are still living just one step away from the stone age.

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Axis powers never got close to the kind of production figures per man hour that the US did..., because they couldn't afford the kind of massive and effecient production plants the US could and did build.

Not exactly.

The Axis powers never did approach levels of taxation in the USA or in the UK. They also had much smaller economic systems. So they lacked sheer captial to build something like a Boeing Renton (the largest building on the planet) or Willow Run (the second largest). Then too, they suffered from a lack of political will to organize for a long war early on. They believed their enemies were softer than they were, and didn't make the right sorts of technical decisions. The Allies made similar errors: RN cancelled battleships, still believing in them, on the basis "they could not complete in time for this war" - but in the event there was enough time!
The Axis powers lacked economic focus. Germany did not fully mobilize for war production until 1945! [Steinweg finally stopped making pianos in February!] There are far too many planes (or whatever else you wish to name) built in small batches - and far too many research projects - meaning few are completed and almost nothing is produced in decisive numbers. There was not sufficient effort made in early analysis of production methods - here Japan did better than Germany - and for its size it shows up with relatively better aircraft production - but it pales by US standards and lags the UK. [See The Air War - the one about production - there is another about operations] These are more about choices than about necessity. Planning for the possibility of a long war - or of not fighting because a long war cannot be won - would have been wiser. Fewer research projects, fewer production types, more efficeincy research, higher taxes, mobilization of the whole economy - all were possible paths not taken - not impossible paths either.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

Sounds like something he'd say...[8|]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for their agenda before the war?! [&:]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.