Jackonico
Unfortunately I don't have access to the records that I feel I need to tackle your points, but I would make the following points in response to yours.
1 I am unable to comment on this.
2 You have the benefit of me.
3 The Lancaster could carry in excess of twice the bomb load that a Halifax could. That means you half the crews exposed to the risk. I fully accept that the loss rate in a Lancaster was higher than a Halifax. Put simplistically a 29% loss rate can be equated to a 14.5% loss rate if a Lancaster replaces two Halifaxes.
Statistically therefore it was better to use a Lancaster than a Halifax. This is further born out by the fact that the Halifax flew lower and was thus subject to greater risk from Flak than the higher flying Lancaster.
4 A personal view?, or one that you can back up with evidence? I would certainly be interested in seeing this. PM me if you wish.
5 Selective use of fact. I could use others to demonstrate concentrated bombing.
6 The U-Boats went for the convoys in mid-atlantic. They would always attempt to operate out of range of aircraft.
ATH's view was that they were best destroyed at their bases. I folow that theory even if others do not. It is hard to see what benefit could be gained from aircraft stooging around the Oceans looking for U-Boats.
You talk about 'blockades' and the economic benefit of a Costal Command aircraft compared to a Bomber Command aircraft. Can you say what your source is for this please?
I think that if you asked anyone who lived through WW2 whether their preference was for an aircraft searching the seas or bombing Germany I don't think there would be much debate as to what they would have preferred.
Official statistics on U-Boat Losses in Atlantic and North West European waters are as follows:-
Sunk by air attack = 1
Destroyed by bombing in Port = 21
Sunk by air-laid mines = 17
Trying to find a U-Boat on the surface in the Atlantic was like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, hopefully as the above statistics demonstrate.
A total of 645 U-Boats were sunk in the Atlantic and North West European waters during WW2. Bomber Command accounted for 31.2%
7 Oil. How can you possibly say what you have. In October oil plants in Duisburg, Homborg, and Bottrop were attacked as was the Leverkusen chemical works.
In November oil plants in Wanne Eickel, Dortmund, Castrop Rauxel, Gelsenkirchen/Nordstern, Kamen, Homberg-Meerbeck, Sterkrade, Bottrop, Wessling, Harburg and Schloven-Buer were attacked.
By the end of November attacks against synthetic oil plants in the Ruhr were temporarily suspended as all of them had been rendered inactive!.
In December attacks were made against oil plants and Benzol plants outside of the Ruhr area. On the night of 6/7 December at attack was made against Merseburg/Leuna (one of the two largest synthetic oil plants in Germany). This was subsequently out of action until Mid-January 1945 and then it only returned to 25% of its previous production level. Equal in size to Leuna was Politz, which was heavily damaged on the night of 21/22 December.
8 Again I don't have access to documents that I would need, however I would point out that you quote the well used and totally incorrect adage that heavy losses caused ATH to suspend the Berlin campaign. This must almost certainly have come from the official history.
The reason for the cessation was two-fold, first by the end of March the nights were becoming shorter and thus too short for operations against such long distance targets. Secondly the requirements for the preparation for the invasion of France (Operation Overlord), took precedence over the strategic bombing offensive which had been dictated by the Casablanca and Pointblank directives.
I believe that I have already proved factually that the Berlin campaign was succesful. You choose to disagree, that is your right. I leave others to make up their own minds.
9 I disagree. Your comment was the 'red herring'. Time over target at Berlin was at a premium. You cannot have literally hundreds of aircraft stooging around waiting for a one by one bomb run.
10 Presumably I shouldn't quote Speer then? I also quoted official Swiss sources. I quoted Hitler. I could quote Goebbels.
Who do you quote?
Your final comment on Dresden needs no comment from me.
We clearly will never be in agreement on this subject and it is wrong of me to continue to hog this thread. I wish you well in your endeavours.
Maybe you would do me the courtesy of sending me a PM with details of your work so that I can read it some time. I don't think you accept the fact that I do read both sides of the story. You have to take my word that I do. There are some areas where I think that ATH was wrong. My personal view for what it is worth is that the balance is in his favour.
I was lucky_B
How can I be strident if all I have done is to support all my arguements with published and publicly available facts?. I am happy to debate quoted facts with others, however the only continued use of factual information seems to be coming from me.
People make all sorts of statements and quote all sorts of 'facts and figures' in their arguments. I just try to back mine up.
I have never said that ATH was not a difficult and perhaps dogmatic man. That he had flaws is self evident but then don't we all.
It is surely poor form however to attempt to put down the man's achievements by the spurious use of 'facts' and commentary on his personal life. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
In any war situation, normal standards are sometimes put to one side as of necessity. That is an unfortunate fact.
No leader is without some form of defect. That is life. In a total war situation one requires single minded leaders who can prosecute the best use of scarce resources to achieve victory.
I wish everyone a pleasant Bank Holiday