|
Looking at the strategies utilized by the British and German air forces and then at the end results of the conflict, what can be said about strategical success?
With the British motto - 'Always on the offensive', primary consideration was given to getting out over enemy positions in order to scout, observe, harass and disrupt as continuously as possible. Out of necessity this involved using many a sub-par machine whose crews had to develop effective defensive tactics in order to bring their information home. Obviously many never made it back. Even the fighter squadrons assisted with continual troop harassment in addition to looking for German planes.
No doubt the Germans had similar intentions but by weight of numbers couldn't perform as extensively as the Brits. However, their organization of Jastas/Jadgeschwaders were well suited to pounding at enemy planes in large numbers in an attempt to drive them out of the skies. This defensive and reactionary strategy was executed brilliantly as seen by the great number of German aces.
No question that most of us get more excited about the air-to-air combat and the men who rose to the top in this field, but don't the results of two world wars show that the less glamorous offensive modes of aerial warfare is what defines winners and losers? On the other hand it is true that a man such as the pre-1941 Udet appears to be more of a winner than the parachute-less Sir Joseph Percivell McShmoe who burned to death over the trenches on his first flight after encountering some red planes. Any thoughts?
|