Radio Message

[Red Devil]

Now becoming a regular feature, the Allies today bombed Berlin. This time it was the RAF and they actually did some damage!

Who writes this drivel? A Mel Gibson look alike Patriotic anglophobe? :shucks:

Just to put the record straight the USAAF were hugely successful at killing thousands of rabbits, foxes, badgers, birds and thousands of acres of woodland, because that's were the vast majority of their bombs fell. Whilst the RAF bombed at night and using low flying pathfinders, they illuminated their targets as the higher flying Lancasters came in. The USAAF refused to fly at night claiming it was too dangerous and instead lost many more aircraft and crew in the daylight unnecessarily.

[Daniel Prates]

Hurray for 'bomber' Harris.

[andqui]

It's a joke in historical context meant to increase immersion by suggesting the report is being given by a good-natured radioman. Might be unrealistic/simplistic, but I certainly don't see anything anglophobic.

And this is the wrong forum, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the RAF was more accurate and precise in their attacks. Bomber Command's policy was officially known as "area bombing," aimed at cities, as opposed to individual plants, with very few exceptions. In contrast, the 8th AF policy defined the target area as a radius of 1000 feet around the target. Granted, only a small percentage of bombs landed within this target area, but RAF accuracy was limited to cities until late in the war when "Oboe" blind bombing equipment and the like became available. And the statistics might be misleading, since Bomber Command operated for a year longer than the 8th AF, but the two forces lost very similar numbers of men, and Bomber Command actually lost more aircraft.

[Sailor Steve]

Now becoming a regular feature, the Allies today bombed Berlin. This time it was the RAF and they actually did some damage!

Who writes this drivel? A Mel Gibson look alike Patriotic anglophobe? :shucks:

Just to put the record straight the USAAF were hugely successful at killing thousands of rabbits, foxes, badgers, birds and thousands of acres of woodland, because that's were the vast majority of their bombs fell. Whilst the RAF bombed at night and using low flying pathfinders, they illuminated their targets as the higher flying Lancasters came in. The USAAF refused to fly at night claiming it was too dangerous and instead lost many more aircraft and crew in the daylight unnecessarily.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and yet you do it anyway. Please show evidence (as in real information) about the US bombs mostly falling in the woods.

First, your "dangerous" statement is backward. The RAF refused to fly during the day because it was too dangerous.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jzzl8wUn52cC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Second, the RAF considered the "target" to be a whole city, so it's no wonder they claimed a high hit rate.

"The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death."
- Sir Arthur Travers Harris, Despatch On War Operations, 23rd February 1942 to 8th May 1945

The USAAF, on the other hand, labelled the target as being within 1000 feet of the aim point, which easily explains why the US could only claim a 20% accuracy rate. Unless the target factory was in the woods there was no bombing of all the little furry creatures you gloat about, but this did mean a lot of collateral damage to population centers, which is bad. But the British were bombing whole cities, so there is little difference in the outcome.
http://www.umsl.edu/~umslhistory/PsiPsi/Fall_07/5Seyer%20on%20Bombing.pdf

So, rather than "putting the record straight" you are doing nothing but spreading highly biased propaganda. Again, if you're going to make claims like that, please show the documentation.

[Kaptain Schlag]

The way I see it, war isn't very pretty and the fact any bombing was necessary is unfortunate. (No Im not a pacifist) I don't think we should be gloating on which country's bomber wing was more effective, even if statistics can be shown to prove one side or the other. The fact is I'm sure no one in this forum is proud or happy for all the collateral damage assessed during the war.

[Daniel Prates]

"The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death."
- Sir Arthur Travers Harris, Despatch On War Operations, 23rd February 1942 to 8th May 1945


Hurray for 'bomber' Harris again! :yeah:

The theory that area bombings could work towards undermining the countries's morale to keep the war going only proved valid after in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and still, in a country that was, by then, almost entirely defeated - and even so, only when the US acheived the means of a super-weapon that must have caused as much as a fuss as the 'death-star' in Alderan. Other then that, even the massive raids with B-29s (the american equivalent to the English massive populational raid doctrine) wasn't doing the trick.

After the war, Churchill would admit publicly that the emphasis in this kind of war was a waste of resources.

Now, the american approach - precision bombing - was far more reasonable, although numbers prove that it did not do much of a difference. Most factories could resume production in little time.

The only worth-mentioning effort from the british towards high-tech precision bombing was the 'bouncing bombs', not only the dam-buster raids but the Tirpitz raid. Now that's an epic use of modern air warfare! Still, the dam buster raid proved as unnefective as any other kind of raid, as the destruction caused by the floods and lack of electricity was only a fraction of what they were going for, and mostly everything was repaired in short time.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't think we should be gloating on which country's bomber wing was more effective, even if statistics can be shown to prove one side or the other.
I agree, and I think the reality was that all sides' bombing was about equally effective (or ineffective, if you like).

The fact is I'm sure no one in this forum is proud or happy for all the collateral damage assessed during the war.
I am a pacifist (though not of the absolutely nonviolent type). It took being in a war to make me hate war, though sometimes it is a necessary evil.

[Red Devil]

forget it, I was hoping for an interesting discussion, this is not. AND I do know what I am talking about, you do not know me so know little.

As for the original topic radio messages - they are allegedly supposed to be historically accurate not some persons idea of humour

[Sailor Steve]

forget it, I was hoping for an interesting discussion, this is not. AND I do know what I am talking about, you do not know me so know little.
So show me the documentation that proves you right and I'll gladly apologize.

As for the original topic radio messages - they are allegedly supposed to be historically accurate not some persons idea of humour
Yes, the humor is sometimes...odd.

[Red Devil]

No matter Steve, its not at all important. I do, for a hobby, WW" reserach and have had a book published.

[Sailor Steve]

Good. Does that warrant a scathing and insulting attack on US contributions to the war?

And you're right, I don't know you at all. So show me the documentation that proves you right and I'll gladly apologize.

[TorpX]

No matter Steve, its not at all important. I do, for a hobby, WW" reserach and have had a book published.

You are still wrong about USAAF bombing. I suggest you read THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY. It is by far the most detailed and complete resourse for the WWII bombing campaign.

The campaigns against the oil, and the transportation systems were very effective. A short quote from the document:



Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.

The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses." The tone of the letters that followed was similar

Many have written negative things about the bombing effort in WWII. They either are unaware of the facts, or have chosen to ignore them.

[peewee]

yawn.........

[Sailor Steve]

yawn.........
Maybe you need to get some sleep. :sunny:

[Red Devil]

You are still wrong about USAAF bombing. I suggest you read THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY. It is by far the most detailed and complete resourse for the WWII bombing campaign.
of course it is, its written by the Yanks.

[andqui]

So the Americans wouldn't have had an interest in knowing the effectiveness of their own bomber campaign?

Aside from the first post, your entire argument has consisted of repeating that you're right. You don't even need to find evidence- I know I'm certainly not going to dig around for links and quotes for a subsim argument about airplanes- but at least say why you believe that RAF bombing was more accurate and decisive than it's US counterpart. "It just was" doesn't count.

[Red Devil]

History is the opinion of the writer.

I will reply when I have time. I do other things than play sh4 you know.

[Daniel Prates]

People people... it is possible to be right AND polite at the same time.

You know that game we play in the beach, with two rackets and a rubber ball? The aim of that game is putting the ball in your couterpart's reach, thus, we could say it is a cooperative game where everybody wins. Now compare that to pingpong, for instance. Basically the same game: two rackets and a ball, but the aim is to defeat the opponent, putting the ball where he cannot reach it. Other than that, both games are pratically the same.

A conversation can be either kind of game. Depends on what you're aiming for. Is it to acheive enlightment for both participants, or to destroy the adversary? :hmmm:

[Red Devil]

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway ;)

[andqui]

I'm sure you do, as do I, but taking two minutes to outline your views doesn't = playing SH4.

For example:
RAF policy used whole cities as targets. RAF bombers flew at night. The goal of an RAF night bomber mission was to put your bombs on the right city and return to base. Most bombs dropped in these missions landed on the city, but there were still a significant % of misses. Until RAF bombers got a combination of Oboe blind bombing aids and look-down ground targeting radar, hitting a specific 1000 foot radius required a good deal of fortune. Every RAF bomber fly's and drops its bombs independently. RAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

USAAF policy used a 1000 foot radius as a target. USAAF bombers flew in daylight. The goal of the mission was to put as many bombs as possible within that 1000 foot radius and return to base. In good weather, maybe something like 20-30% of the bombs dropped landed within that circle. USAAF bombers flew in tight formation, and the lead plane was responsible for aiming, with the rest dropping on cue. USAAF bombers at times suffered very heavy losses.

That took me three minutes. Some of the stats might be incorrect, I'm going from my memory/understanding. The above leads me to believe that USAAF bombing was more precise and accurate on average. This is independent of destructiveness or mission effectiveness. Is there anything that you can see as wrong?

[razark]

Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway
Yup. I've never seen anyone get the least bit excited about a sports competition. Very unrealistic.

[Daniel Prates]

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway ;)

10000% agreed. And I doubt the comms channels were used for frivolous things, like, "250k troops trapped in stalingrad" or so.

[Sailor Steve]

OK Dan, my point is that the radio messages are not only fake but a waste of time. Who cares if X beat Y at college football anyway ;)
And you're point about the radio messages is spot on. But you are the one who started the whole "Mine is better than yours" thing, so trying to weasel out of in now won't work. Put up some real evidence that backs up your claim, or retract it.

of course it is, its written by the Yanks.
And it never once, in all its thousands of pages, claims that American bombing was better or worse than anyone else's. What it does is give a fair and honest assessment of the US air campaigns. Dismissing it with a wisecrack indicates that you are not as well-read or knowlegeable as you claim.

[timmyg00]

the word "troll" comes to mind.

TG

[Red Devil]

probably, you should know.

[razark]

Heh...

Sailor Steve, I thought you were the one that pointed out when stuff has been posted before.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1443111#post1443111

[Red Devil]

thanks for that, I admit a spasm of deja vu when I was typing it. Apologies

[Sailor Steve]

Heh...

Sailor Steve, I thought you were the one that pointed out when stuff has been posted before.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1443111#post1443111
A year ago doesn't count. I may remember seeing a certain picture in a certain thread, but a lot of the time I spend too much time looking for it and not finding it. I didn't remember that thread at all.

[Jimbuna]

Bad post reports usually mean someone or people are concerned at the content or the direction a thread is heading...resorting to personal name calling and attacks is not something we normally class as acceptable etiquette here on SubSim.

Far better to debate in a manner that is within the rules/guidelines of our community of our community.

[Red Devil]

Probably my fault, thought I was talking about spurious radio messages. end it ................