RE:(was B_5 AFT Arc)Bombers/raiders

Oerjan wrote:

>The main value of raiders, at least since WW1, hasn't been what they
>actually manage to destroy - it is the much larger forces the enemy has
to
>divert from the real fighting to protect against them which makes them
>worthwhile.

I disagree. Raiders were much more effective pre ww1, before radio and
later
radar came into use. The Emden was hunted down in the end thanks to
improved
communication networks. If you have the technical means to locate/report
raiders then they lose their main strength, the ability to run and hide.

In ww2 the battle of the atlantic was the "real fighting" thus the
raiding
concept backfired as both sides, Germany in prosecuting it, and Britain
defending against it, committed tottaly to it.

Now the surface raiders of the USN in the war of 1812, and Drake vs the
Spanish were far more effective as they could appear and disapear at
will,
killing or out running anything they came across, thus influencing the
larger forces as you suggest. Hoever by the mid to late 20th century,
technology, aircraft, satelites, sosus nets, etc have made raiders
obsolete...(unless one includes the B2 and F117 but then again these are
used as part of the main offensive rather than as diversionary forces in
the
sense that raiders are), though future Stealth warships could of course
redress the balance. Hasn't your navy got one or two of those Oerjan?
(I'm
presuming you are Swedish :-)

>*At sea*, sure. However, the role the strategic bombers played *over
land*
>during WW2 was indeed similar indeed to the one played by commerce
raiders
>at sea: although they didn't reduce the enemy's production and
transport of
>war materials all that much (in spite of the horrifying civilian
casualties
>they caused), they *did* force him to spend resources (aircraft, AA
guns
>etc.) to try and stop them... resources which were therefore not
available
>at the front lines.

I disagree again, in regards to how big an effect they had. Modern
sources,
such as the history of the RAF in ww2 "The Right of the line" (sorry
forget
the author) and such things as the USAFs post war strategic review of
the
air war over germany show that even with production focused on aa guns,
fighters etc, Germany was still producing more tanks and artillery at
the
end of the war than it was at the start. Bombers, even enmass were
simply
not precise enough delivery systems to cause the damage to
infrastructure
that they were supposed to (and the percentage of bombers, night or day,
which failed to find their targets along with the imprescision of the
weapons goes along way to show why thousand bomber raids were required
just
to stop a ball bearing factory from operating for 24 hours). Strategic
bombing achieved little but killing civilians. The real cause for
Germany
losing the war in regard to industry and resources was Hitlers
insistence on
mis-using resources on V weapons and ever larger tanks.

I;m not disputing the fact that raiders were used in the 20th century,
just
that they were no where near as effective as they had been in previous
centuries.

Regards,
Matt Tope