Luftwaffe continues and expands intruder operations

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
AdA said:
It might have been easier for the Brits to replace aircraft than crewmen.
It was.

That has some important knock-ons itself. It means the Army gets more high-education noncoms (since fewer better-qualified men get killed in bombers), which makes the Army more effective. (How much more, & how you'd measure it, I have no clue.:eek:) It adds to strain on SLOCs, which have to supply more material for building airplanes...or other types get sacrificed, which has bigger knock-ons still.:eek:
 

Deleted member 1487

It was.

That has some important knock-ons itself. It means the Army gets more high-education noncoms (since fewer better-qualified men get killed in bombers), which makes the Army more effective. (How much more, & how you'd measure it, I have no clue.:eek:) It adds to strain on SLOCs, which have to supply more material for building airplanes...or other types get sacrificed, which has bigger knock-ons still.:eek:

Its not as simple as that. Where and how the bombers are shot down matters a great deal. If they are hit while landing, then there is very little chance to survive, as there is no bailing out. Same if they are shot down over water. Britain did not have an effective rescue operation for downed pilots in water. Frankly I don't think that bombers shot down the way that the intruders did IOTL would mean that more crews would survive. There would just be more killed then than captured.
 
It's not just the bombers shot down that is the benefit, its the chaos caused over the British base areas as well. If a bomber goes down on an airfield it might close that for a while, just when it is needed for the rest of the wing/group to land. Bombers may crash as they get diverted when damaged and low on fuel, or collide as the try to avoid attack, it would be chaos.
 
wiking said:
Its not as simple as that. Where and how the bombers are shot down matters a great deal. If they are hit while landing, then there is very little chance to survive, as there is no bailing out. Same if they are shot down over water. Britain did not have an effective rescue operation for downed pilots in water. Frankly I don't think that bombers shot down the way that the intruders did IOTL would mean that more crews would survive. There would just be more killed then than captured.
I won't argue that.

Turn my original proposition on its head, then: if crew training or a/c production can't keep up...does it force changes in approach?
Riain said:
It's not just the bombers shot down that is the benefit, its the chaos caused over the British base areas as well. If a bomber goes down on an airfield it might close that for a while, just when it is needed for the rest of the wing/group to land. Bombers may crash as they get diverted when damaged and low on fuel, or collide as the try to avoid attack, it would be chaos.
This also has obvious knock-ons, as said. Does it force changes in basing & the nature of operations?

Smaller numbers of bombers on mining & canal-bombing ops, frex?

(Yes, I know, this is an old saw for me.;))
 
I won't argue that.

This also has obvious knock-ons, as said. Does it force changes in basing & the nature of operations?

Smaller numbers of bombers on mining & canal-bombing ops, frex?

(Yes, I know, this is an old saw for me.;))


You might end up with bombers spread out more across a larger number of airbases, so that even if the LW hits one base it won't screw up everything too badly.
 

Deleted member 1487

You might end up with bombers spread out more across a larger number of airbases, so that even if the LW hits one base it won't screw up everything too badly.

There are only so many airbases and this will reduce the targets that they can reach in Germany if they need longer to form up
 
Top