3 ms·
The problem with this theory is that... German industrial production increased throughout the war, only really collapsing when the advancing land forces overran
by jcranmer 4y ago
The problem with this theory is that... German industrial production increased throughout the war, only really collapsing when the advancing land forces overran German territory containing those factories. That is to say, at best, strategic aerial bombing was slowing the rate of increase of German capacity. The Allied attempts to make pinpoint disruptions to German warmaking through aerial bombing were mostly abject failures, at best crippling German production for a month or two before the Germans got it restarted.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoAFAIR the most significant part of crippling Germany MIC was denying the resources for production. I wouldn't agree with the parent theory, but I definetly remember how the quality deteriorated in the last two years of war. Same applies for USSR, there was a significant decrease in quality (especially in things like the tank armour) till the supply lines were re-established after evacuating the manufactories to Ural.
- greedo 4y agoOne side effect of the Allied bombing campaign was wiping out the Luftwaffe as a force. Luftwaffe pilots flew until they died, that's why they had aces with high kill counts, and pilots like Rudel decimating Russian tanks. In contrast, the US rotated pilots home and they helped train the next batch of fliers. The hard question is, what would have been the effect of using the bombing campaign for tactical missions? Would that have sped up Operation Cobra? Would it have helped in the Sicily campaign? I also think that Germany might have been a unique case; strategic bombing against Japan seems to have done a better job affecting their economy; alongside the submarine campaign against their shipping.