Radio Message

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

No matter Steve, its not at all important. I do, for a hobby, WW" reserach and have had a book published.

You are still wrong about USAAF bombing. I suggest you read THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY. It is by far the most detailed and complete resourse for the WWII bombing campaign.

The campaigns against the oil, and the transportation systems were very effective. A short quote from the document:

Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.

The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses." The tone of the letters that followed was similar

Many have written negative things about the bombing effort in WWII. They either are unaware of the facts, or have chosen to ignore them.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by TorpX

You are still wrong about USAAF bombing. I suggest you read THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY. It is by far the most detailed and complete resourse for the WWII bombing campaign.

of course it is, its written by the Yanks.

[andqui]

So the Americans wouldn't have had an interest in knowing the effectiveness of their own bomber campaign?

Aside from the first post, your entire argument has consisted of repeating that you're right. You don't even need to find evidence- I know I'm certainly not going to dig around for links and quotes for a subsim argument about airplanes- but at least say why you believe that RAF bombing was more accurate and decisive than it's US counterpart. "It just was" doesn't count.

[Red Devil]

History is the opinion of the writer.

I will reply when I have time. I do other things than play sh4 you know.

[Daniel Prates]

People people... it is possible to be right AND polite at the same time.

You know that game we play in the beach, with two rackets and a rubber ball? The aim of that game is putting the ball in your couterpart's reach, thus, we could say it is a cooperative game where everybody wins. Now compare that to pingpong, for instance. Basically the same game: two rackets and a ball, but the aim is to defeat the opponent, putting the ball where he cannot reach it. Other than that, both games are pratically the same.

A conversation can be either kind of game. Depends on what you're aiming for. Is it to acheive enlightment for both participants, or to destroy the adversary?

[Red Devil]

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

[andqui]

I'm sure you do, as do I, but taking two minutes to outline your views doesn't = playing SH4.

For example:
RAF policy used whole cities as targets. RAF bombers flew at night. The goal of an RAF night bomber mission was to put your bombs on the right city and return to base. Most bombs dropped in these missions landed on the city, but there were still a significant % of misses. Until RAF bombers got a combination of Oboe blind bombing aids and look-down ground targeting radar, hitting a specific 1000 foot radius required a good deal of fortune. Every RAF bomber fly's and drops its bombs independently. RAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

USAAF policy used a 1000 foot radius as a target. USAAF bombers flew in daylight. The goal of the mission was to put as many bombs as possible within that 1000 foot radius and return to base. In good weather, maybe something like 20-30% of the bombs dropped landed within that circle. USAAF bombers flew in tight formation, and the lead plane was responsible for aiming, with the rest dropping on cue. USAAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

That took me three minutes. Some of the stats might be incorrect, I'm going from my memory/understanding. The above leads me to believe that USAAF bombing was more precise and accurate on average. This is independent of destructiveness or mission effectiveness. Is there anything that you can see as wrong?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

Yup. I've never seen anyone get the least bit excited about a sports competition. Very unrealistic.

[Daniel Prates]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

10000% agreed. And I doubt the comms channels were used for frivolous things, like, "250k troops trapped in stalingrad" or so.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway

And you're point about the radio messages is spot on. But you are the one who started the whole "Mine is better than yours" thing, so trying to weasel out of in now won't work. Put up some real evidence that backs up your claim, or retract it.

of course it is, its written by the Yanks.

And it never once, in all its thousands of pages, claims that American bombing was better or worse than anyone else's. What it does is give a fair and honest assessment of the US air campaigns. Dismissing it with a wisecrack indicates that you are not as well-read or knowlegeable as you claim.