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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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=jzz...page&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/Psi...%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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"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!

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]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Schlag

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Red Devil

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]

Originally Posted by peewee

yawn.........

Maybe you need to get some sleep.

[Red Devil]

Originally Posted by TorpX

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.