> > 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,
Bingo.
> 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.
Absolutely... even though the rockets themselves didn't do vast amounts of
damage, a couple of disrupted convoys would have left the Allied forces far
up a very smelly stream with no standard propulsion device...
> Saddam Hussein,
> interestingly enough, made a similar mistake with his usage of SCUDS.
Tactically terrible. At the time, I remember several of us saying it was so
stupid. (BTW, I was in the bath when Desert Storm started, where were you?
;o) )
> 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.
Ports, airports, warehousing, rail sidings... anything with any strategic
significance! Apartment blocks in Tel Aviv??? Ah well. Glad he was on the
other side, especially as I'm only 600 miles from Bagdhad... ;o)
Charlie
