Re: Strategic Reserve.

["John Garrison" <corrjng@rbnet.com>]

Roy Wilke <royboy@bit.dotnet.dotau> wrote in message
37CC0689.B32BA1E8@bit.dotnet.dotau">news:37CC0689.B32BA1E8@bit.dotnet.dotau...
>
>
> "Roger L. Traviss" wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> > Mmmmm.  In both North America and in the U.K., the railways were a vital
part of the
> > Allied victory.  Railways are very difficult to disable or destroy for
long periods of
> > time.  Even after the worst bombing raid, a junction or marshalling yard
could be back
> > in service in a couple of days.  Bulldoze the holes flat and relay track
over the top.
> > May not be up to "standard" but it will do.
>
> But in the 1914-18 War, reliance on railways contributed greatly to the
stagnation on the
> Western Front. Also, neither the UK nor the US were subject to a land war
during the
> 1939-45 War.
>
> >
> > The Allies even built hundreds locomotives especially for transportation
to Europe
> > after D-Day, to ensure that they had enough serviceable locomotives to
run the railways
> > with.  That's how vital the railway system was.
>
> Yet the Wehrmacht were vulnerable to air attack when trying to move troops
by rail in
> Europe during the Allied advance - also strategic points like bridges and
tunnels are
> vulnerable to air attack and sabotage - which puts them out of action for
more than "a
> couple of days."
>
> >
>

Had it not been for railways the south would have lost much sooner than we
did in the War Between the States.