> Behalf Of Dan Minette
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Lack of vision from everyone else. It still astounds me that the US
> >Army didn't spot this as a way to blow people up from much
> further >away.
>
> As best I can tell, when Germany used the rockets, it was a waste of
money.
> The V1 and V2 killed very few compared to the bombing campaings of
any of
> the countries: either Allied or Axis. I've read that anti-aircraft
rockets
> might have been a good investment though. We're lucky they spent
their
> money on that, and didn't have the money for an A-bomb.
>
> IIRC, missles weren't an effective weapon until the late '50s.
>
> Dan M.
True, but that's at least partly a function of how they were used.
Hitler wanted to inflict terror, so he had them bombard Britain and
other cities, hitting civilian populations. I believe that there were
great concerns among the Allied militaries, however, that he would do
the smart thing and bombard the Normany beaches and, IIRC, Rotterdam
with them, as they were critical links in the Allied supply chain that
could have been greatly disrupted by V2 attack. Saddam Hussein,
interestingly enough, made a similar mistake with his usage of SCUDS.
Had he decided to bomb the Saudi ports instead of just peppering
Riyadh and Israel randomly, he might actually have done a significant
amount of damage.
********************Gautam "Ulysses" Mukunda**********************
* Harvard College Class of '01 *He either fears his fate too much*
* www.fas.harvard.edu/~mukunda * Or his deserts are small, *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Who dares not put it to the touch*
* "Freedom is not Free" * To win or lose it all. *
******************************************************************
