Re: Strategic Reserve.

["B.Rumary" <brian.rumary@virgin.net>]

> 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 Western Front stagnated because they could not find a way of getting through the 
machine guns and wire. Use of railways had nothing to do with it.

The UK & US may not have had a land war on their home ground, but both took part in 
one, which is what the extra locos were built for.

Railways are not much use in a mobile front line or where there is uncontrolled 
partisan activity, but this does NOT mean they are no use for logistic supply 
duties.

> 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."
>
They may have been vulnerable, but it took a huge amount of air attack to keep them 
out of action. The UN had the same problem in Korea, when lines they thought were 
"totally destroyed" kept coming back for more. Tunnels are very difficult to knock 
out for very long - after all, they are natural bomb shelters! The entrances are 
very small targets and even if you score a direct hit, they can be cleared easily. 
What you need to do to knock them out for a long time is to collapse the middle of 
the bore. To do that you need to score a direct hit on the line of the bore, using a 
massive deep penetration bomb (like a "Tallboy") through not too much ground cover. 
It was done in WW2, but only once.

If you look at the fires that took place in the Channel Tunnel or that one in the 
Pennines a few years back, you can see just how much battering a tunnel can take and 
still survive!

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm