Thank you for your honesty as to your academic endeavors.
the air arm came out of nowhere (as their doddering timelines reckon history) and won the war for them.
That would be humorous were it not such a despicable insult to the 135,576 battle deaths in the ETO alone.
If you have any interest in the subject, you might start here:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm
You might also compare the munitions production numbers - especially fighters and uboats - between 1940 and 1945. (You are aware that 1945 did not represent a full 12 months of production by the Germans, aren't you?)
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
“...That would be humorous were it not such a despicable insult to the 135,576 battle deaths in the ETO alone.
If you have any interest in the subject, you might start here:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm
You might also compare the munitions production numbers - especially fighters and uboats - between 1940 and 1945. (You are aware that 1945 did not represent a full 12 months of production by the Germans, aren’t you?)
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/";
Thanks, but I’ve already been through the US Strategic Bombing Survey. More than twice. They were a good start, but better analyses have been done since: taking advantage of more complete information, some of it accessible only after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the (partial) release of Soviet records, and declassification of UK material.
“Munitions” production figures cannot tell us anything about how they get used in action.
Let us dispense with pretend indignation over this or that number of battle deaths. Confusion attends all wartime efforts; loss numbers cannot tell us much about the actual impact of one engagement, nor an entire campaign.
Unless, of course, PAR35 wants to argue that KIA in ground action mean more than KIA in naval or air combat. I’ve heard that before too; it stands the whole deadly business on its head.