Most Important Battle in History

[say1988]

But without threatening their airfields, the British were free to continue operations. Ans so long as the British had those bases, the Germans could not achieve total superiority over the channel, let alone any landing beaches, because the British always had reserves to deploy from the rear area (and a continuous stream of fresh pilots and aircraft coming from Canada, even if most British factories were lost).

As for Germany, it wasn't until '44 that the Allies had significant numbers of long range fighters (namely P-51s) to act as escorts over Germany. Allowing for the destruction of fighters held in reserve to engage bombers. Just being able to pose a threat to British positions would have had an impact and taken away any place for the RAF to fall back to, though as shown during WWII bombing alone will not bring victory.
1944 was also when the Allies began systematic campaigns (often with those new P-51s, as fast, nimble fighters excelled against these heavily defended targets) aimed directly at airfields, up until then the focus was on industry.

Remember that attacking airfields also means destroying aircraft on the ground, where they are much more vulnerable and little threat.

 

[innonimatu]

It must be nice to be able to incorporate pseudomathematics into your worldview selectively, ignoring the parts that don't mesh with your predetermined outlook.

It's all the rage right now, I hear... everyone's doing it, so why shouldn't we rewrite history with the same statistical methods? And we could then correct all the direct sources, they're unreliable as we all know.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But without threatening their airfields, the British were free to continue operations. Ans so long as the British had those bases, the Germans could not achieve total superiority over the channel, let alone any landing beaches, because the British always had reserves to deploy from the rear area (and a continuous stream of fresh pilots and aircraft coming from Canada, even if most British factories were lost).

Remember that attacking airfields also means destroying aircraft on the ground, where they are much more vulnerable and little threat.

But my point is that except in surprise operations where the airforce was not on alert (Barbarossa, Pearl Harbor, etc.) they we not very vulnerable to attack. If they were, fighter escorts would not be necessary to limit the number of German Fighters, as with the allied air fleet it should have been perfectly simple to just bomb the German Airfields. The problem was that it was a relatively simple task to move aircraft into camouflaged and/or protected positions, and this was the problem faced by the Luftwaffe, which certainly never had the bombing power that the Allies had: once an enemy was committed to it, he could keep his fighters in reserve for as long as he felt like doing so.

 

[say1988]

It depends on the kind of attack.
If it is a single wave, sure. But any sustained attacks (such as those during Midway, yeah a carrier battle, but the no real difference) can catch aircraft reaming and refueling.
Or yes, if you hit a base unexpected, you are safe from its fighters, but every other base around is going to be scrambling fighters.
And any major airbases will have command and control facilities.

I am not saying that bombing airfields is particularly effective, but probably the most effective thing they could do. Bombing cities doesn't work, bombing factories was ineffective (Britain, Germany, and Japan show this) and they could not cover the entire country (let alone Canada and the USA).

And I say again, it doesn't matter what the Germans did in the South and East if they can't touch the rest, the RAF could always defend Britain, from its bases that the Germans could not reliably attack. That is the significance of being unable to effectively hit those bases, not that hitting them would eliminate the RAF, but the Germans couldn't even put them out of action temporarily or contain the British away from the channel/coast.

 

[ParkCungHee]

(such as those during Midway, yeah a carrier battle, but the no real difference)

Except you can send the airfield to the bottom of the ocean there.

I am not saying that bombing airfields is particularly effective, but probably the most effective thing they could do. Bombing cities doesn't work, bombing factories was ineffective (Britain, Germany, and Japan show this) and they could not cover the entire country (let alone Canada and the USA).

Probably true. But being the most effective option does not mean it was particularly effective.

And I say again, it doesn't matter what the Germans did in the South and East if they can't touch the rest, the RAF could always defend Britain, from its bases that the Germans could not reliably attack. That is the significance of being unable to effectively hit those bases, not that hitting them would eliminate the RAF, but the Germans couldn't even put them out of action temporarily or contain the British away from the channel/coast.

Ah, so there really isn't much difference in our positions. I'm just saying the insignificance of those bases is that while it would have been mildly harder for the RAF, they could placed all their planes in Luftwaffe range and it wouldn't have made that great of a difference for things.
You still sometimes get this myth creeping up that if the Germans bombed the airfields they would have won.

 

[say1988]

Except you can send the airfield to the bottom of the ocean there.

I was referring solely to the fact that the Americans hit the aircraft on the deck/in the hanger while rearming and refueling. Not the end result.

 

[Lord Baal]

Anyway, those battles that saved Greece from Persia saved what would become the basis for all civilization.

(bolding mine)

China would like a word with you. Not to mention India, Egypt, Scandinavia....

 

[hewhoknowsall]

(bolding mine)

China would like a word with you. Not to mention India, Egypt, Scandinavia....

LOL sorry, I mean A basis for all civilization, obviously not the.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I was referring solely to the fact that the Americans hit the aircraft on the deck/in the hanger while rearming and refueling. Not the end result.

Ah, then it's verry different. Aircraft have to be crowded together on the deck of an aircraft, they are offered virtually no protection, and it is patently impossible to hide the aircraft if the ship is in sight, so they lack all the advantages aircraft naturally have against the bombing of airfields, I.E. Dispersion, camouflage and protection.