Re: Churchill OT.
- From: "Peter McLelland" <peter.mclelland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:54:16 -0000
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:drb1k8$hmi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Indeed. Still, one can wonder if the fact of more, and more modern
> resources being put into the CC ASW effort might have moved progress
> in those other areas a bit better.
>
> Plus, one can postulate a world where the RN manages not to lose
> Courageous and Glorious so early in the war, might just allow the
> RN to try out HMS Argus and/or Hermes as convoy protection carriers.
>
Of course this is true, but the sad reality was that the UK just did not
have enough resources at that time to do everything in the quantity
required. Mistakes were made. Bombing Germany was at that time a vital need,
not so much for the impact on the German economy, but for the impact on
national moral. To show even the possibility of being able to not just
defend but to attack in the German heartland was vital to get every ounce of
effort out of the nation.
Of course if they had known what we know now about the impact of strategic
bombing perhaps they would have done things differently, but then almost
everyone believed it was a war winner.
Peter
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Churchill OT.
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Churchill OT.
- From: kenney
- Re: Churchill OT.
- References:
- Re: Churchill OT.
- From: Weatherlawyer
- Re: Churchill OT.
- From: eugene
- Re: Churchill OT.
- From: Andre Lieven
- Re: Churchill OT.
- Prev by Date: Re: USS Kitty Hawk
- Next by Date: Re: Coffee
- Previous by thread: Re: Churchill OT.
- Next by thread: Re: Churchill OT.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading