Reply to thread

Message

Except that the US had resources to spare, both to devote to countermeasures and to repairing damage. Defending New York against late-war air attack would have made no more difference to the war effort than the defense of the US west coast against Japanese air attack had done already.

Germany, on the other hand, did not have any resources to spare. The construction of the 100 or so bombers that you'd need in order to get 20 of them over the target and provisioning fuel for them would have done far more damage to the German war effort than extra radar, AAA guns, and interceptors would have done to the US effort--which was precisely why Germany did not build long-range strategic bombers in the first place.

Germany gambled on winning a short war using the forces it had ready in 1939 and then imposing a favorable piece that would leave it with territorial acquisitions that would more than offset any losses it incurred. The approach favored short-term needs and tactical aviation. When the gamble failed to pay off, landing Germany in a long war with larger, more resource-rich opponents, it had to focus all of its energy on replacing losses and reacting to battlefield set backs.

<blockquote data-quote="iverson" data-source="post: 514240" data-attributes="member: 3497">Except that the US had resources to spare, both to devote to countermeasures and to repairing damage. Defending New York against late-war air attack would have made no more difference to the war effort than the defense of the US west coast against Japanese air attack had done already. Germany, on the other hand, did not have any resources to spare. The construction of the 100 or so bombers that you'd need in order to get 20 of them over the target and provisioning fuel for them would have done far more damage to the German war effort than extra radar, AAA guns, and interceptors would have done to the US effort--which was precisely why Germany did not build long-range strategic bombers in the first place. Germany gambled on winning a short war using the forces it had ready in 1939 and then imposing a favorable piece that would leave it with territorial acquisitions that would more than offset any losses it incurred. The approach favored short-term needs and tactical aviation. When the gamble failed to pay off,&nbsp; landing Germany in a long war with larger, more resource-rich opponents, it had to focus all of its energy on replacing losses and reacting to battlefield set backs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iverson, post: 514240, member: 3497"] Except that the US had resources to spare, both to devote to countermeasures and to repairing damage. Defending New York against late-war air attack would have made no more difference to the war effort than the defense of the US west coast against Japanese air attack had done already. Germany, on the other hand, did not have any resources to spare. The construction of the 100 or so bombers that you'd need in order to get 20 of them over the target and provisioning fuel for them would have done far more damage to the German war effort than extra radar, AAA guns, and interceptors would have done to the US effort--which was precisely why Germany did not build long-range strategic bombers in the first place. Germany gambled on winning a short war using the forces it had ready in 1939 and then imposing a favorable piece that would leave it with territorial acquisitions that would more than offset any losses it incurred. The approach favored short-term needs and tactical aviation. When the gamble failed to pay off, landing Germany in a long war with larger, more resource-rich opponents, it had to focus all of its energy on replacing losses and reacting to battlefield set backs. [/QUOTE]

Verification