This is the section of what bombers could do against the invasion fleet - barges. Is it not? How can this then not be relevant....?......the Vorposten-boote was a part of their air defense.Ostkatze wrote:Poor accuracy of high level bombing, losses to AAA in low level attacks, lack of larger bombs and non-exploding bombs of this period are, I believe, at this stage of our debate "known phenomena".
More to the point, your closing quote included "...had to be withdrawn...". The sense would appear to be of ongoing ( ie non Seelowe ) operations. It is hardly a revolutionary statement to make that units suffering losses need a rest to work up replacements, the larger the losses the more the threat of breaking the experienced cadre's ability to assimilate rookies without losing the elan of a front line unit. This would be a truism of "ongoing operations".
Your bringing this up in a discussion of a possible Seelowe, leandros, I find typical. Are you trying to suggest that such squadrons would have been removed to Scotland or Canada after a couple of bad days? As if they were the AASF after Sedan? This has been toyed and hinted at here before. Would you care to expand on the "breaking point" of the RAF during Seelowe? prosit. Neil.
What it is indicating is that the Seelöwe fleet had a proper AA capacity which would yield results on low-flying bombers........
