Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve49
'tcolvin', to quote me out off context is fine, but did you bother to read the post. If you had you would have noticed that I was agreeing that for a 1940's 'precision' attack dive-bombers would probably have offered the most accurate platform. All I was questioning was the use of the sweeping statement that Bomber Command 'failed' to sink the cruiser as a means of supporting your dive-bomber crusade. Using the failure of two squadrons that were not even specifically attacking the KONINGSBERG as evidence hardly supports the claim in itself.
Regards,
Steve
|
BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence.
But if this doesn't do it for reasons which you give but I cannot understand, please explain what evidence would convince you that a country's bombing force was incompetent. Let's ignore the divebomber versus level bomber debate, which you agree was decided in favour of the divebomber.
Would you accept the following as evidence that a country's bombers were incompetent in contrast with another country.
Two aircraft of country X surprised warship Z and dropped bombs on it, causing extensive damage and killing 31 sailors and wounding 74. The ship had to abandon its mission and return to the shipyard for repairs. The two attacking aircraft returned unharmed to base.
Ten aircraft of country Y surprised warship Z and dropped bombs causing negligible damage. The ship remained on station. Five of the attacking aircraft were shot down.
Would you say this was evidence that country Y's bombers were incompetent, or would you say that their failure was not surprising?
Contrastingly, would you say that Country X's bombers were outstanding, or would you say that their success was unsurprising?
By the way, this is no whatif.
Tony