Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkeEins
Indeed, I think we're aware that the Luftwaffe was a 'tactical' force led by incompetent leaders into a total 'strategic' war. I think most commentators agree that the Soviet shifting of their production centres out of range of the Luftwaffe medium bomber force contributed in a fundamental fashion to Soviet victory..or did it not? ...or that the German air defence organisation had everything - a Flak arm and civil defence organisation of millions- except a 'roof'.. By the way have you looked at the (mediocre) Luftwaffe attempts to carry out strategic bombing on Moscow... ?
|
Even a medicore economist would be able say to Hitler that he is not able to win the parallel war against the Soviet Union and the USA (+GB). It is not a question. The mental problems of the leaders of the Third Reich is one thing, while the performance of the Luftwaffe's bomber arm is another. Without proper aircraft they were not able to make a strategic air war. But it is not their failure. Even if they would have a proper heavy bomber, the result of the war would be the same. The industrial capacity of the Soviet Union was heavily underestimated both by the Third Reich and by the Western Allies. The Luftwaffe would not be able to ruin it with several hundred heavy bombers.
The series of raids against Moscow were not any kind of real strategic bombing campaign, so wrong example. It was again Hitler's brainchild, political decision not against industrial targets and such pointless attacks were just waste of resources (like the baby blitz).