|
Re: Operation Steinbock question
A couple of comments.
Steinbock losses were not "soft", however they compare with cherry-picked examples from Bomber Command, as they have to be compared with the available forces and the overall loss rate. Soft or not, they did not produce results proportional to the effort, even by the standards of other bombing campaigns, even if discussed only in terms of civilian damage. As for bombing seaports, wasn't the main effect of the bombing of Bristol the destruction of the shopping centre?
The British did not attempt to win the war by strategic bombing alone, although much effort was placed behind this as the one direct means of hitting Germany between 1940 and 1944. Unable to field an Army capable of facing the German one, or indeed of transporting one to any point of contact, in the early years they did manage to defeat Germany's main ally on two different fronts. The Army was continually expanded and improved, not an effort that would have been needed had a genuine attempt at winning by bombing alone been intended. The Navy carried out a trade blockade of Germany which was successful in preventing the supply of war materials such as key metals, rubber and fuels, amongst others. Later they had to fight the Japanese as well. All in all, Britain was rather busy even without the bombers.
|