The thing is tha serbia did lack of parts but hey did shoot down also and this is not noted but you can find on google that the serbs did shoot down a b-2 steath bomber a b-2 bomber to american’s is more important to them then 30 f-16s shot down beacuse now one has shot down one of these “stealf birds” beacuse of what is inside the plane and technogly beacuse the US knows if we shoot it down and we did that the next person too look inside will be Russia and the US dont wont the Russians to look inside beacuse thell know there sectreats and ect so the Russia’n might build a new more high tech stealth aircraft and if u havent heard that serbia has 11 ‘Tamara’ anti stealth radars wrth 100million a piece and also one of the radars were supposed to be sold to Suddam Hussian to shoot down the american b-2 bombers but they didnt beacuse they could’nt our something i would of for 75million or maybe the russians didnt let them or something im not sure why they didnt sell one of the anti stealf radars.

Great Statement! Really kicks a$$!
You found it on Google. That proves everything. I recently found on Google that Serbia is actually ruling WHOLE EUROPE and Milosevic is the secret president of the EU commission. That is the only reason he was shipped to Benelux.
The ‘Tamara’ Anti Stealth Radar is a great invention. Like the Bayer Anti Death Pill or the ads I always get by email about increasing size of a highly regarded male body part. Typing it in Google gives me 3.4 Million hits. Isn’t that a prove?

As for the moral effects on Hitler’s Germany – can it really be argued that the population was 100% with him? Certainly when members of his forces tried to assasinate him in 1944 it could be argued that other people in society had realised that the regime was in terminal decline and I am sure the inability of the Luftwaffe to defend key cities would have made it patently clear to the population that the end was in sight.

One has to see the special situation of Germany. In 1939 the Hitler regime was very concerned about public support. In 1943 the situation changed so much that any opposition was fought by the Gestapo. Clearly, everybody who was low on morale in Germany was not really able to stop his support for the war effort.

The effect of morale bombing does work in a free or at least partly free society. When you demonstrate their inability to the people they might stop supporting their government.
All responsible military leaders clearly saw the end coming latest 1943. Problem: responsible military leaders were constantly removed and replaced by loyal flag-wavers.

Anyways, the political pressure by Stalin sure was a reason. The alternative would have been to open a land front, which was not possible before 1944. the fightings in Africa and Italy sucked up considerable German resources, too, but especially in Italy the problem was that the campaign stalled, and Germans could slow down allied progress to a joke with one tenth of the resources.

Schorsch – Hitting city centres ties up military personnel to man fighters ,AAA and searchlights. It also puts a big strain on rescue services for days which in itself detracts from their job of trying to protect industry from damage. The secondary effect is that the people who live in the city centres have jobs whether that is directly involved in the war effort or just supporting it through the production of food
and clothes.
The moral effect also demoralises the enemy and it’s population. Can soldiers fight that effectively if they know that each night their loved ones are being targetted? Sad though many consider it – if you face an enemy where society is as a
much a part or the military as it was under Hitler’s regime you need to dismantle it
and bombing is fast and effective.

Yes, they can. Hitler’s regime was not endangered by the bombing. the opposite effect occured: people started to ask for revenge. How did the bombing of London impact British war effort? Did British soldiers man the boats and sail back to Britain to help defend the cities against V-weapons? No, they did not. Did the British seek for peace when their cities were under constant (also not very effective) attack by German Luftwaffe? I guess the agreement with the government was never higher than at that time.
The morale bombing just does not work. This is the greatest misconception. It did not wiork in Britain or Germany and failed to work anywhere else. It will just work if the leadership considers its options straight.
In a WWI situation where “total war” and “total defeat” was not an option the bombing perhaps would have made sense.
BTW: Most people involved in rescue work and some in the AAA-business (Flakhelfer) were considered not able to do frontline service. Factory workers could even do rescue and AAA-work “on-demand” and still continue production.

JDK,
I fully understand your point and I want to stress that the bombing campaign was the logical thing to do in 1940 when a real engagement was not possible. Boost home moral is always an important issue.
If it comes to resources I may ask how much of the German war production was dedicated to air defence, especially if it comes to night bombing? The price of defence was considerably lower than it would be for any other kind of attack. As someone mentioned before, the british hardware invested in fighting German subs would have made the life of the Kriegsmarine even more difficult than it already was.

My point: There is no point in replanning the war. I just want to clarify the real effect of the measures to update the understanding of these events (I guess that is what this thread is about). I see that some here see a major contribution of the night bombing campaign. That is where I disagree. The capacities tied in Germany were rather small (compared to those tied on other fronts). Especially when effective night fighter capacity was available, the share of British loss against tied German personnel/resource became very bad. The day bombing campaign had similar shortcomings, but due to the fact that they tied day fighter capacities it was of increased use. Neither Germany in 1940 nor Britain in the time after was able to really sustain a strategic bombing campaign with significant effect.

But there was no real option of opening another front before 1944 in Europe. Reallocation of resources is not as easy. So the decisions of the leadership are understandable and made sense at that time.

Secondly, Baldwin’s speech tends to get reduced to the unfortunate soundbite “The bomber will always get through” and is then seen as an articulation of policy.

Even without any further reading the quote was proven ture very often. But for a strategic campaign one has to assess the number of necessary raids, the assumed losses, the replacements by industry and the number of new pilots and personal arriving. The losses of sometimes close to 20% were unsustainable for a strategic campaign.

I like to add my view on the strategic bomber offensive. I recently discussed this topic on a German forum on my own initiative and got mixed results. After getting rid of the people who in the first place thought it was intended to kill as many civilians as possible I got a mixed view.

In my view

– the Britains tried precision bombing at day but they did not have they means. Their bombers would have been easy prey.

– the Americans heavily relied on their strategic bombing and still see it as a major contribution to the war effort. They allocated huge resources to production of bombers even before any results were available (they of course had to rely on pre-war strategy assumptions).

I actually think that Britain’s effort was wasted military resources with the negative side-effect of killing people and destroying cities (which is normally considered as ok because in some peoples perception the story goes: all Germans = Nazis for time t1=30.01.1933 to t2=08.05.1945). The night bombing did not hit any targets of significants, only by chance. The losses were high and actually would have become unsustainable in later 1944 if German air force would not have been pressed so hard on all fronts.
The American effort achieved more succes but much higher loss in life and resource. The effect on German industry was little until mid/late 1944. The resources were enormous (10 of 45 billion $ spent on aircraft production for strategic bombers). The side-effect of devastating the Luftwaffe was very expensive and could have been achieved easier with theatre air battles.

I would like to discuss this topic further even I cannot compete with your philosophic considerations.
Some numbers as firestarters: After the war it was found out that 66% of the German industrial capacity was intact. German production regained 1939 level before 1949. In 1950, Western Germany passed the UK in terms of income per citizen (although UK got out more from the Marshall Pact).

1) My bad ! The 737 NG being presented by Boeing as its response to the A320, I assumed that it had to be FBW but you are right, it is not !! Considering this, the fact the 737 NG holds its ground vis-à-vis the 320 is remarquable.

2) By and large, I agree with the fact that the 767 makes more sense than a 737 as a tanker. If you (re) read my previous post, I was simply disputing the fact that the 767 was a more moder, design than the 737 NG. This is not the case (even without the fbw) !

I quoted you only because of the 737NG thing. The rest is agreeable.
Airlines don’t buy aircrafts just because of sophistication. Therefore the FBW is only of limited value for A320.

KC-17: this aircrafty would be awefully expensive. Advantage is high load and short runway, could additionally be used to supply bases with fuel (which can be achieved by normal C-17s, too. More interesting would be a upgrade kit for a C-17 to convert it into a KC-17 if badly needed.
Doesn’t the A400M use this feature?

Oh, the KC-17 can easily fly at helicopter speed. It might be not very efficient (full flaps, high AoA), but it should work. The approach speed is in the range of 110 to 120 kts, that of a C-130J is not much lower.

I Know that the BA were pushing for the 747Advanced , but this again this was before Mr Walsh showed up

Think this way: BA is happy with their B747-400 at the moment. They are due for replacement after 2010. So why make any statements now? BA is surely evaluating A380 and B747-8. There is no point in saying anything in advance. BA profits from the B747-8 anyways, because with the offer of Boeing in hand they can force Airbus to make better pricing.

When several airlines fly out of Heathrow with A380 to BA destinations, BA will surely have a problem, because the A380 is supposed to operate more efficient (and is by itself advertising as the B747 was years ago).

They will then either change business strategy and concentrate on high-yield people, or they will buy A380 themself. It is just not wise to say it now.

Imagine BA would have said mid this year that the will replace B747 with A380 and B777 (how I think it will go). The B747-8 launch would have been less likely or it would have been a pure freighter version (the final decision on the B747-8 is still due, their is no customer for the pax version yet). But now they can start long-term negotiations with Airbus and Boeing and make a good price for the A380.

If BA orders the A380 and the B747-8 doesn’t get the market, the A380 will become more pricy for airlines ordering it. 747-400 replacement will mostly take place between 2010 and 2020.

The difference wasn’t more modern SAMs… that was something the Yugoslavs really lacked. They used their resources much better and the proof is not in the number of shootdowns. It is after 78 days of complete air dominance with no outside interference the entire strength of NATO hadn’t reduced the Yugoslav air defence network enough to actually be able to say it was safe. In fact they barely hurt it at all. If the Serbs had enough modern high altitude missiles NATO would have had to either put in ground forces or just left. In fact considering claims that NATO can deal with a GCI network the war in Kosovo shows that will intelligent use they can’t.

But the NATO achieved their strategic target with little loss and no loss of life. The serbs had to accept that NATO can bomb anytime anywhere without getting stopped. Although the Serbs kept their army largely intact it remained useless. A boxer who doesn’t score a single hit but on the other hand doesn’t bleed to hard because he has acceptable defense will not be considered a winner.
GarryB: Sorry if you feel insulted. My attitude was sometimes a little bit rude, though I keep my points.