All wars to date have good and bad operations so many factors play there part from the man in the field to the man behind his desk.

Type 941 brought up some good points, though I disagree with a few things. First agree (as I said on the D-day 43 thread) Italy was a mistake, though not Sicily perhaps. Bombing cities for the sake of bombing cities, ok but I disagree there was no effect. First, the LW did have to divert planes form other fronts and resources to fight this. Second, while the RAF went for area bombing, the US (at first to be sure) tried precision bombing. Sad thing is the RAF proved themselves capable of hitting precision targets, even at night and the US ended up (especially against Japan) area bombing. Yes German production went up, thanks to Speer. Still, it is a fact new weapons like the type XXI were delayed, rail transport was wrecked, synthetic oil (late again I agree) was interrupted, and the quality of construction as well I believe in main by the strategic bombing. Anyway, the western Allies were not the only ones to target civilian populations.

hehe, i was gonna mention the precision thing. I've got a book here about it that has about 10 pages of references after each chapter and talks extensively about this bombing 'accuracy'. As I said, remember the 16km 'dot' and the 8km area around it - hitting something within it was considered 'accurate'!... So imagine you bombing a factory producing tanks. You end up bombing a cow field 20km away. That would be considered a 'success'. ;) So that's that.

but US was in fact going for precision bombing, but they had some key weaknesses too: they believe in huge superiority of their equipment for example (specificaly, 2 best examples are their bombing aim and tank aim that allowed to shoot on move - neither actually worked). So here's the story. US bombed factories that produced friction bearings, used in like 80% of all german equipment. And best part was it was produced in one town in Germany. IN theory, had US bombed that place to the end, it would have halted the whole bloody army! But it didn't happen.. Why? The germans later said 'had they been able to continue bombing those bearing factories...' and the key word is 'had they been able'. Because they weren't so successful. They lost THOUSANDS of airplanes! Germans air defence was damn good. So it did few raids on the city making friction bearings, and that was the end of it. It's a fact - bombers of WW2 were grossly inaccurate, even the later versions. It's also a fact that so much more people died in WW2 from conventional bombing rather than Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs.

Here's a few notes on how inefficient the bombing was made by allies (that germans were equally ineffective when it comes to GB is a common wisdom and that needs no alterations ;))

I will first reiterate the point. 2 events conincided. In 2nd half of 1944 was the time when German economic indicators went into decline. That's when the bombing intecified and its credited heavily for it. But that's not really true, in fact it's completely different fact was responsible for decline. In September 1944 Germany lost its key source for Iron ore in France and Oil in Romania. This would obviously have an impact on production of anything related to oil and iron ore! And remember, while it was demoralizing, a demoralized german worker is not necessarily a less productive german worker! In US war report they estimated that in cities without bombing about half of population (57%) wanted to surrender. In those that were bombed, it was about 64%. Hardly a huge differnence. That's a US source.

Also don' forget - more than 4/5 of bombs dropped on germany in WW2 were dropped past January 1944 (yes, allies too late realized they needed much more bombs to make impact!). Also it was a failure because about 2/3s of bombs were dropped on civilians, and only 1/3 on military targets.

Another reason the whole bombing till 1944 was a disaster in terms of achieved goals was because only in December 1943 the P51 became available for the brits as an escort fighter for the Lancasters. And it took them so bloody long because they figured out too late that the unreliable engine that came with Mustang needed to be replace by if I remember correctly, a very good Merlin.

So bombing took place for 3 years and was complete waste. Only in 1944 it seemed to make an impact but by that time Germany was losing the war anyway, and the bombings became so intensive and concentrated that of course it finally started to show results. But it was not in any way a key to winning the war. On contrary, people on the ground, slugging it out in bloody fights were the ones deciding it.

BTW, the Normandy landing plans begun in 1942 (COSSAC plan) and were subsequintly changed many times (from the very flawed to something that could have potential of working).


OOOOPS. SORRY for the Long and Boring post guys. :)

Ok 941, I concede some of your points, let me correct you the P-51 was used as an escort by the US for the B-17s not the Brit's Lancs which always went in unescorted. I'd like to know your sources btw, at least you seem to have some I am working from memory here better go search something.

I also thought of something, I am sure use of forced (slave) labour was a factor in decreasing quality. I agree the scale was too big perhaps, but I still think the Luftwaffe was forced to pull back from other fronts because of the bombing and I still am certain new weapons were delayed because of the bombing, like the XXI. Agree about Romania and France, but I mentioned synthetic oil in my post...now the question I have is how important, potentially and in reality synthetic oil was. :hmm: Attacks on rail transport is almost tactical also.

Oh, here's the stats for US precision bombiing of the bearings factory (in Schweinfurt!)

The US 8th Airforce launched 291 bombers at the factory. 228 managed to arrive to the target. 62 were shot down. 168 were seriously damaged. 17 beoyond repair. Less than 3rd of original strike force was capable of 2nd sortie. If the same ratio continued (and it was very stable for any bombing compaing) you don't really see the 8th surviving after 2-3 raids, period. And that would have led to lack of bombers to deploy elsehwere. Hence - the failure of bomber. :)

WW2 Wasteful operations
 

Imagine a small elite bomber force of British and American bombers (like the Pathfinders)...
Imagine no grandiose air force dreams of winning the war without an invasion...
Imagine no strategic (carpet) bombing but precision attacks (as far as the word goes) and a genuine support of the invasion and West European ground campaign...
Imagine a shift in 1942 from bomber production towards maritime patrols (same airframes)... We all know how efficient they are, don't we?
Imagine an even bigger shift in 1943 towards building transports, C-47 Dakota's, C-54's etc...
Imagine fuel and ammo being flown from Britain straight towards the forward racing armoured colums of Patton and Montgomery...
Imagine Operation MARKET (the airborne component of MARKET GARDEN) being able to land the British 1st, the US 82nd and the US 101 and the Polish Airborne Brigade in one lift on one day and support them accordingly...
Imagine peace in December 1944.

I try to make the point that the Allies were building bombers till the very last months of the war, but were hampered by a lack of maritime patrols in 1942 and 1943 and were short of transport/cargo planes during 1944 and 1945.
Just because there was a strong believe in air force circles that bombers could do the job single handed!

Actually, it was even more for just as little. The Battle of Samar was just the main Japanese strike force attacking the American landing fleet. The whole battle is called the Battle of the Leyte Gulf and was the largest naval battle in history (assuming Herodotes exaggerated the Battle of Salamis, which he probably did.) In the whole battle, including the bombing and sub attacks the Japanese encountered on the way to the battle, and the decimation of both the diversionary force and the secondary strike force, the Japanese lost 1 CV, 3 CVLs, 3 BBs (including Yamatos sister ship Musashi), 9 cruisers, 9 DDs, one tanker and a submarine.

The US Navy, on the other hand, lost 1 CVL, 2 CVEs, 2 DDs, 1 DDE, a torpedo boat and three subs.

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

Every country in WW2 had its own failures. But in general, it's inability to use Armour properly (US was perfect example - they built a fast and reliable tank that could not do squat against germans, until the brits put a decent gun into it! - all because they believed tanks were there to make breaches in enemy lines, and not fight other tanks - as result they were often anihilated by superior german 75s and 88s). UK believe in the bomber and never thought bomber needed protection. ONe key area where germans were smarter and successful was when they realized that armor without air support was useless. Amerians and British realized that like in... 44.

Example of perfect waste is the Omaha. British designed a whole bunch of special equipment vehicles that when landing, cleared the shores from mines, and carred personnel, plus carried a gun to quite the germans flaks. Americans and eisenhower thought they knew better and ended up with 'saving private ryan opening scene'. So yes, many blunders there.

IT all came down to countries using a new radical idea of use of tank and bomber and everyone believe in it so badly, that they were taught the hard way. The theories were by Fuller and Doughet (If I got the names right). First would say that tanks would devliver huge punches to the enemy lines overrunning them and striking the soft rear, command posts, etc. It didn't mention that this varies due to terrrain (especially in Normandy, Britaany, etc) and that tanks were not perpetual machines. They needed fuel. WRONG. The second one implied that bomber would always get through. Always. It was so powerful, it would destroy everything. AS we saw it was inaccurate and extremely susseptive to AA fire (when escorts were employed like P51s, it got better). And ALL countries in WW2 adhered to these strattegies, and anyone diverting to traditional stuff was basically scorned (Monty for instance).

Another thing why operations failed was that defeating enemy in mechanised warfare didn't mean complete destruction. The routers always retreated FASTER than attackers. WHy? BEcause they could leave behind slow equipment. Something attackers could not do. France 44 and North Africa are perfect examples, but perhaps best is Russia. Huge army, Hitler advanced so far, but never fully defeated. they just ran away faster. That's a classic piece of WW2 but often ignored. Yet is very significant.

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

Trade space for time theory.

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

Tanks need nothing but men.

"Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become heroes."- Daskal, The Beast

What use is a tank that has no fuel or ammo 100 miles from the front line?

personaly id just leave it.

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

poetic. not true. :P Who needs a pilbox in italy when the fighting is in Bavaria!

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

No one suggest another way to defeat the Luftwaffe? After all especially for daylight bombing they had to respond. Again the Brits did not have nightfighters. You guys are ignoring the effect of first off of the long range figher escorts, and second Type941 you still have not acknowledged the DELAY in new weapons production.

Abraham: I disagree with your definition. Strategic bombing =/ carpet bombing. It's the type of target chosen and the goal ... not the precision again. Don't tell me Allied or Soviet artillery (a good friend of mine from Belgrade told me his Mom lived through ans Allied air rad as well as Soviet artillery and Katysha bombardment in 44 in support of the Partisan's liberation of the city) not to mention Caen or Berlin itself at the end were examples of precision bombardment because they were tactical?

That said, I agree with reorienting the Allied air effort and the fact the real IMHO gains were less than the resources put into the strategic forces.

Great debate even if you guys are wrong. :-j

WW2 Wasteful operations
 

@ joea:
The Allied Bombing Offensive was led by people who desperately wanted to proof - at whatever human cost - that bombers could win the war single handed.
Since war is a waste of human and material resources anyway, a leader has the duty to use his forces as economically as possible.
To support my earlier post: Coastal Command had to beg for long range patrols (like B-24 Liberators), the VIIIth USAAF used (and lost) them (and their pilots) by droves. Lancasters could have been perfect long-range maritime patrols, but were used - in great numbers - exclusively by Bomber Command.
Every attemp to give priority to urgent targets was met by fierce opposition from Spaatz and - especially - Harris, who maintained that the Allied Bomber Offensive, however disgusting it was - was the quickest way to end the war. Even Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander had to beg to get the support of the strategic bombers for the preparation of the invasion; again the argument being used is that it "distracted from the speedy end of the war".

My point: Grand scale strategic bombing became so intoxicating that it hindered the general war effort.

Re: WW2 Wasteful operations
 

Spot on.
---

joea - the delay in weapons... well, Germany towards 44 virtually had no control over the skys in western europe. only place luftwaffe was actually strong was in eastern front. So delay in weapons there was, but the focus on bomber and not on fighers was a mistake too. Not to mention lack of docrine which forced air force to be used with ground forces.

It's like you are missing a bit the main point: the docrine allies used was just inferior to germany, and so it took them many failures to get something done right. Usualy by just overwhelming the germans.

PS. I doubel checked the figures on effectivenes. It was 120 allied soldiers that were equivalent to german 100, and figure for soviet soldier was 200 to 100.