Luftwaffe's lack of strategic bomber force.
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:28 pm
Many of the books I have read have suggested that the lack of a powerfull strategic element within the Luftwaffe was a massive oversight on the part of the german miltary planners when the rebuilding of their nations armed forces was laid out. I have never been particularly swayed by this line of thought for several reasons. I believe that in a time when the prevailing school of thought on air power was that the bomber would always get through it took a great deal of foresight and guts to stake everything on a highly mobile army. The luftwaffe was not designed to fight hundreds of miles behind enemy lines attacking a countries ability to maintain a war effort but instead on a tactical level, hitting points of concented enemy defense, lines of communication and denying the enemy the use of its own airfields. In the kind of war that the Germans planned the ability to degrade the effectiveness of combat troops to resist both through direct attack and by denying reserves and logistics freedom movement was paramount. IMHO they had learned the lessons of the great war more thouroughly when it came to joined up fighting that any other major European (world?) power.
The German's knew that their best chance of successfully executing any future military operations relied on a swift victory as they did not have the resources neccessary to sustain long, drawn out campaigns. This was borne out by the war in Poland and the assualt westwards through the low countries and France. The Battle of Britain was undoubtably a turning point for the Germans even if it was not as catastrophic a reversal as the destruction of an entire army at Stalingrad but you could argue that the reasons for the survival of the RAF had more to do with the change in emphasis in target selection rather than the type of aircraft employed. The main tactical rather than strategic failing was the lack of escort fighter but at that time the only design that even tried to address that issue was the Bf 110. I reckon that had Hitler not felt the need to wipe Bolshivism off the face of the planet then Britain would have been in serious trouble in 41.
The lack of a strategic force only became an issue when the Soviets managed to hold off the Germans and move their production facilities well beyond the range of the Luftwaffe.
In my opinion the only real benefit the allies ever gained from daylight strategic raids with heavy bombers was the attrition of experienced Luftwaffe pilots. The medium bombers were better at closing down the transport infrastructure and fighter bombers far better at interdiction.
The German's knew that their best chance of successfully executing any future military operations relied on a swift victory as they did not have the resources neccessary to sustain long, drawn out campaigns. This was borne out by the war in Poland and the assualt westwards through the low countries and France. The Battle of Britain was undoubtably a turning point for the Germans even if it was not as catastrophic a reversal as the destruction of an entire army at Stalingrad but you could argue that the reasons for the survival of the RAF had more to do with the change in emphasis in target selection rather than the type of aircraft employed. The main tactical rather than strategic failing was the lack of escort fighter but at that time the only design that even tried to address that issue was the Bf 110. I reckon that had Hitler not felt the need to wipe Bolshivism off the face of the planet then Britain would have been in serious trouble in 41.
The lack of a strategic force only became an issue when the Soviets managed to hold off the Germans and move their production facilities well beyond the range of the Luftwaffe.
In my opinion the only real benefit the allies ever gained from daylight strategic raids with heavy bombers was the attrition of experienced Luftwaffe pilots. The medium bombers were better at closing down the transport infrastructure and fighter bombers far better at interdiction.