The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum - Archive

Re: Confederate numbers
In Response To: Re: Confederate numbers ()

Norman, drawing on Jamie's response, you might appreciate the parallel between our Civil War and your own Battle of Britain during the summer months of 1940.

The main difference I refer to (overlooking for the moment the obvious differences between the two conflicts) was the North did not make a mistake similar to what the German Luftwaffe did when it switched its bombing from the English airfields to London in August of 1940.

That switch allowed the Brits to rebuild their airfields and strengthen and reposition their pilot manpower at a time when The RAF was on the verge of suffering a complete collapse which I believe would have led to a cross channel invasion.

Had the Luftwaffe not made that tactical error, I believe the drawdown on English pilot manpower (and aircraft) would have resulted in a castrophe similar to that which happened to the CSA as a result of its diminishing RAF manpower levels.

Unfortunately, for the CSA, the Union Command did not make such an error, but continued unrelentingly to wage hard war which along with a seemingly inexaustible supply of immigrant enlistmens/conscription, extracted its ultimate toll on CSA manpower levels.

(After reading this, I think I may have made a long reach to find a CSA/UK manpower parallel for the benefit of our British friend, Norman, but will post it anyway)

Messages In This Thread

Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
David Upton's post
Re: David Upton's post
Re: David Upton's post
Re: David Upton's post
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
I have those all the time :) *NM*
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Re: Confederate numbers
Two Articles
Good read
Re: Good read
Re: Good read
Re: Good read