Author Topic: Why Were The Allies So Successful  (Read 14275 times)

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2006, 02:16:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. . .
I don't want to read too much into your post, so this isn't necessarily directed at you or anyone else in particular . . .

I have heard it said, sometimes even by so-called "experts", that strategic bombing had no impact on the war.  They use as evidence the fact that German war production increased right up until 1945.

Well, I ask this.  If you have a factory that produces 100 tanks in 1940, and it produces 120 in 1944, does that mean allied bombing had no effect on that factory?  After all, production went up 20%.  

Now, lets say that factory was producing fewer than 10 tanks per month in 1940, but was producing 20 tanks per month in 1944 -- but was SHUT DOWN for 6 months due to bombing.  Now would you say bombing had an effect?

Said another way, we don't know how much MORE prodution would have increased had bombing not occurred.  Bombing certainly had an impact on the distribution, or rather dispersal, of production facilities.  How much more efficient would those facilities have been had they had very large complexes like the USA and USSR relied upon rather than the more dispersed network they ended up with?  How much more efficient would their production have been had the transportation networks not been bombed?  How much better would their defenses and fortifications (read:West Wall) have been had constructon crews been busy building them instead of repairing and replacing factories and transportation?  How many more tanks could have been built with all the steel that went into replacing rail lines and for structural support for bombed buildings?

Granted, these are rhetorical questions and no one can answer them with any degree of certainty.  But I don't think it is logical to say that because production increased, strategic bombing didn't have a large impact.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9514
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2006, 02:17:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. They were out of fuel, not machines or warm bodies to stuff in them. It didn't even have a large impact on civillian morale, due to a totalarian regime. Civil unrest did not unseat the Fuhrer either (but some angry generals almost did).

From Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won," W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., London and New York 1995, at pp. 131-133 (footnotes and sources omitted):

"The stifling of industrial potential caused by bombing is inherently difficult to quantify, but it was well beyond the 10 per cent suggested by the post-war bombing survey, particularly in the cluster of war industries specifically under attack.  At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944.  They found that Germany had produced 35 per cent fewer tanks than planned, 31 per cent fewer aircraft and 42 per cent fewer lorries as a result of bombing.  The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion, and eased the path of Allied armies.

"The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat.  By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 per cent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment.  As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks.  The bombing also ate into German's scarce manpower; by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defence, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction.  From the spring of that year frantic efforts were made to burrow underground, away from the bombing.  Fantastic schemes were promoted which absorbed almost half of all industrial construction and close to half a million workers.  Of course, if the German efforts to combat the bombing had succeeded the effort would not have been wasted.  As it was the defences and repair teams did enough to keep production going until the autumn of 1944, but not enough to prevent the rapid erosion of German economic power thereafter, and not enough to prevent the massive redirection of economic effort from 1943.  Bombing forced Germany to divide the economy between too many competing claims, none of which could, in the end, be satisfied.  In the air over Germany, or on the fronts in Russia and France, German forces lacked the weapons to finish the job.  The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944.  It is difficult not to regard this margin as decisive.

****

"The impact of the bombing was profound.  People became tired, highly strung and disinclined to take isks.  Industrial efficiency was undermined by bombing workers and their housing.  In Japan absenteeism from work rose to 50 per cent in the summer of 1945; in the Ford plant in Cologne, in the Ruhr, absenteeism rose to 25 per cent of the workforce for the whole of 1944.  At the more distant BMW works in Munich the rate rose to one-fifth of the workforce by the summer of 1944.  A loss of work-hours on this scale played havoc with production schedules...

****

"There has always seemed something fundamentally implausible about the contention of bombing's critics that dropping almost 2.5 million tons of bombs on tautly-stretched industrial systems and war-weary urban populations would not seriously weaken them.  Germany and Japan had no special immunity.  Japan's military economy was devoured in the flames; her population desperately longed for escape from bombing.  German forces lost half of the weapons needed at the front, millions of workers absented themselves from work, and the economy gradually creaked almost to a halt.  Bombing turned the whole of Germany, in Speer's words, into a 'gigantic front'.  It was a front the Allies were determined to win; it absorbed huge resources on both sides.  It was a battlefield in which only the infantry were missing.  The final victory of the bombers in 1944 was, Speer, concluded, 'the greatest lost battle on the German side...'  For all the arguments over the morality or operational effectiveness of the bombing campaigns, the air offensive was one of the decisive elements in Allied victory."

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2006, 02:31:47 PM »
Read these & see if you get the same conclusion.

Strategy: Second Revised Edition, by B.H. Liddell Hart

and

History of the Second World War, by B.H. Liddell Hart.

Even if you don't agree with everything he says, he's really sharp.

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2006, 02:35:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
Granted, these are rhetorical questions and no one can answer them with any degree of certainty.
I think Oldman just pwned my statement . . . :)
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2006, 07:58:23 PM »
Oldman  :  :aok

BTW, the Brits didn't know how far they went in the first heavy bombing on Hamburg. It caused a firestorm and some 40.000 casualties at least.
Speer said that if a couple more of such raids had taken place within some few months Germany would have had no option than to resign.

Now that is a big statement for 1943?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
not necessarily
« Reply #95 on: May 10, 2006, 11:56:56 AM »
A bombing campaign might be called a success if the other guy's output rose substantially less than it otherwise did.

In the case of Germany, the boom in output was primarily due to the very late decision to completely mobilize the economy - roughly at the end of Stalingrad. If the boom had ocurred earlier, it would be easier to separate these two effects.

Strategic bombing really didn't make its mark for a year or more after that and it did seriously damages the German gasoline industry and the transportation network. They built a lot of planes, but they were too short of avgas to train the new pilots...

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by indy007
Didn't even come closing to working on Germany. If it worked, German production numbers would have gone down. They continued to climb until the end of the war. They were out of fuel, not machines or warm bodies to stuff in them. It didn't even have a large impact on civillian morale, due to a totalarian regime. Civil unrest did not unseat the Fuhrer either (but some angry generals almost did).

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2006, 12:22:42 PM »
Quote
While its proponents have always made great claims about the effectiveness of strategic bombing, the results have rarely lived up to those claims. As a means of destroying the industrial base of the enemy, strategic bombing during World War II failed. Bombing Germany became devastating only in the final year of the war, at a time when the military outcome of the war was already reasonably predictable. While the bombing campaign certainly had an impact on Luftwaffe deployments and interfered with production to some extent, this cannot be argued to be of decisive importance to the war.

Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."

On the surface, Speer's analysis tells us that the Allied strategic bombing campaign had a decisive impact on the German war effort in 1944. Based on figures found in Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," the Germans produced in 1944: 17,800 tanks, 39,807 aircraft. So that, on the basis of Speer's statement, they aimed to produce 24,030 tanks and 52,147 aircraft. For comparison, Allied production of tanks and aircraft in 1944 resulted in 51,500 tanks (USSR: 29,000; UK: 5,000; USA: 17,500) and 163,079 aircraft (USSR: 40,300; UK 26,461; USA: 96,318). Therefore, even with the additional production that would have resulted from no bombing at all, the Allies still produce twice as many tanks and more than three times the number of aircraft as the Third Reich.

Such figures do not support Overy's conclusion that bombing Germany had "fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies." In terms of the kind of war of attrition fought in 1944 the additional German production would not have made a decisive difference. Allied production for 1944 is clearly overwhelming. Looking at the military situation on the ground in 1944 is even more telling of how the war is going.

Overy goes on to say: "The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat." At least, an ever-increasing number of Luftwaffe units were devoted to the air defense of the Reich as the war progressed. And, new aircraft production shifted towards fighters and away from bombers. The question remains as to whether this impact of the Allied bombing campaign was decisive to the outcome of the war or had just a marginal effect on it.

Furthermore, the converse of Overy's remark was also true. The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign. That honor must go to the land campaigns fought by the allies. So, could the resources devoted to the bomber force been more effectively employed elsewhere?

Perhaps the greatest oversight in an analysis that focuses on the latter part of the war is that the crucial period to consider is from 1941 to 1943. It is in this period that German power is substantial and the possibility of a German military victory exists. How effective was the Allied bomber campaign during this period? According to a table found in the Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945). Considering that Germany dropped about 37,000 tons on the UK in 1940, another 22,000 tons in 1941, with a few thousand tons every year thereafter with marginal results, there is little reason to believe that the scale of Allied bombing between 1940 and 1943 was substantial enough to alter the military balance in 1941 or 1942 either. Yet those are critical years to consider because that was when Soviet survival hung in the balance and British possessions in the Middle East were threatened by conquest.

Indeed, a look at the effectiveness of strategic bombing during the Second World War suggests that it is only effective against an enemy that has already been defeated militarily. In the case of the air war against the Third Reich, bombing only caused serious economic disruptions in the final year of the war, roughly from June 1944 to May 1945. By this time a German military defeat was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Based on such results, it is impossible to demonstrate that the bombing campaign would have achieved an economic breakdown of Germany since by the time such destruction was being caused; the fronts were already collapsing in both east and west. The Soviet Union, for all intents, had won the land war by the middle of 1944 and the successful Normandy invasion delivered the coup de grace. To make a case for the bombing campaign being decisive the reverse would have to be expected. That is, the fronts would have had to collapse after the industrial damage was done. As it was, strategic bombing merely contributed to the wholesale destruction caused by the general weakness of German resistance in the final year of World War II.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2006, 12:24:50 PM by Bruno »

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2006, 01:34:43 PM »
Interesting view, Bruno.

 So, according to that logic, if the Allied bombings were truly 'decisive' then only after such bombings had sufficiently occured wuld the Germans be pushed back from all fronts, indicating catastrophic destruction of the war machine.

 However, only after the tide of the war has been completely turned against the Germans by the Soviets, did the collective toll of bombings start to manifest. Therefore the strategic bombing had effectively destroyed all hopes of the Germans making a rebound, or prolonging its resistance to much longer years - but it was not a decisive factor in pushing the Germans into the corner in the first place. Effectively, they were already defeated by the Russians, heading towards the inevitable, and strategic bombing was responsible for speeding up the process of defeat, not necessarily working as a factor for producing the defeat itself.

 ...

 Personally, this view seems more consistent with how I view the WW2 as a war primarily between the Russians and the Germans, with the Western Allies taking part in a much smaller role than what the traditional Western view on WW2 claims it to be.

 May I ask the source for the quote?

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
in a few words
« Reply #98 on: May 10, 2006, 02:23:11 PM »
I think the point has already been made. The air war had a significant effect on the outcome of the war, but it did not by itself decide the war.

The sheer difference in economic capacity, and the decision by the allies to mobilize it sooner, was more important.

-blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Bruno

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2006, 02:52:19 PM »
mmmm, there's a bit of a difference in what you are all arguing.

Grand Strategic Bombing = blowing up ball bearing factories, airframe assembly buildings, forges, population centers, etc.

Strategic Bombing = bridges, fuel dumps, railyards, communication hubs, logistics centers, etc.

Tactical Bombing = individual enemy units

To me, Grand Strategic Bombing smacks horribly of attrition warfare. I believe it's a stupid way to fight. It had impact. It'd be hard not to unloading millions of tons of ordnance into a country. However, that impact is nowhere near as critical as what is taught in US history books & potrayed in movies. Remember, this was a strategy espoused by visionaries that thought after we obtained nuclear weapons, no other armed service would even be needed... from the same country as the guys who told our soldiers the Sherman was more than a match for German armor... hell, I wouldn't be suprised if they were all related to the guys who said the F-4 didn't need a cannon. Our armed forces make mistakes. I happen to feel strongly that grand stategic bombing was one of them.

Strategic bombing was obviously far more of a success. They had thousands and thousands of completed tanks & aircraft, but nothing to fuel them with. If you have 2,000 Tigers & Panthers guarding your lines, but only enough gas for 5... you've got just another Maginot Line.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9514
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #100 on: May 10, 2006, 02:52:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
While its proponents have always made great claims about the effectiveness of strategic bombing, the results have rarely lived up to those claims. As a means of destroying the industrial base of the enemy, strategic bombing during World War II failed. Bombing Germany became devastating only in the final year of the war, at a time when the military outcome of the war was already reasonably predictable. While the bombing campaign certainly had an impact on Luftwaffe deployments and interfered with production to some extent, this cannot be argued to be of decisive importance to the war.

This is a great example of what Overy was talking about, I think.  Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective."  There's no doubt that the Germans had lost the war by 1943, and really it's pretty plain that they had lost it by the end of 1941.  But I don't see how anyone can say that strategic bombing didn't significantly shorten the war.  Arguing, as this author does, that the Allies produced more tanks than the Germans could have produced in the absence of the bombing leads only to the conclusion that the Allies ultimately would have won by ground forces alone.  Fine, I think we can all agree to that.  But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.  

- oldman

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
in other words...
« Reply #101 on: May 10, 2006, 03:20:24 PM »
How much longer would the war have gone on?

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Oldman731
This is a great example of what Overy was talking about, I think.  Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective."  There's no doubt that the Germans had lost the war by 1943, and really it's pretty plain that they had lost it by the end of 1941.  But I don't see how anyone can say that strategic bombing didn't significantly shorten the war.  Arguing, as this author does, that the Allies produced more tanks than the Germans could have produced in the absence of the bombing leads only to the conclusion that the Allies ultimately would have won by ground forces alone.  Fine, I think we can all agree to that.  But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.  

- oldman

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #102 on: May 10, 2006, 03:29:47 PM »
Quote
Simplified, the author is saying "the war was already lost by the time the bombing campaign became effective, and so the bombing campaign was not effective."


That's not all he says:

Quote
The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign.


So with out the bombing campaign the Germans would have produced more war materials. However, not in any quantity that would have turned the tide.

How many more tanks and fighters could the western allies have produced without the resources tied up in bomber production? How about just the B-29 alone..?

They could have shifted production from strategic bombers to tactical bombers and attack aircraft. By utilizing these assets to shut down the transportation (preventing the extra war materials from ever reaching the front; German transportation was already beyond capacity as it was) and overwhelming German resources at the front. This is what the Soviets did... This what western allies did once they were turned loose from escort duty. Allied interdiction raids by fighter-bombers and tactical bombers played a huge roll in  isolating Normandy etc...

Quote
But if the Germans had had all the extra tanks, trucks, guns, aircraft, ammunition, personnel and petroleum that the bombing eliminated, the Russians certainly wouldn't have advanced as far or as fast as they did, nor would we.


The Russians still would have taken Berlin. They may have been forced to pause longer between attacks to build up for the next offensive but the outcome would have been the same.

The Soviets had already turned the tied long before lend lease provided any meaningful quantities of war materials and before the effect of the bombing campaign was felt on German War production.

The bombing campaign like a lot of other things gets rationalized after the fact. 'Well, it had to do something or why would we do it...' Of course it contributed to the end of the war but it wasn't as decisive as it was advertised to be, and it wasn't the only solution available to the war planners. The cost in materials and resources to the allies, not to mention the the loss of civilians lives and the lives of air crews, it seems a bit much to pay for merely contributing.

I am glad we don't plan wars like that any more...

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #103 on: May 10, 2006, 03:47:02 PM »
Well, you have to look at it like this.  

Did the contribution to ending the war cost more money/lives/material than would have been spent in defeating Germany than concentrating on the Japanese would have.  

Or to put it better, would the Soviets have lost more men/money/stuff in defeating the Germans solo then we did in helping them defeat the Germans?  I think even saving Soviet lives (and actually... even German lives by ending the war sooner) is worthwhile, and we got the added bonus of keeping them from occupying Western Europe along with Eastern Europe.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9514
Why Were The Allies So Successful
« Reply #104 on: May 10, 2006, 04:06:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
So with out the bombing campaign the Germans would have produced more war materials. However, not in any quantity that would have turned the tide.

How many more tanks and fighters could the western allies have produced without the resources tied up in bomber production? How about just the B-29 alone..?


...er....not enough to change the course of the war?

Production decisions, probably for all modern wars, are made long before hostilities begin.  The Russians could be fairly certain that they would be able to advance their armies overland against all anticipated enemies.  They could get along with just tac air.  Neither we nor the British could, because of all that water between Us and Them.  In the end I guess you try to diversify your efforts enough that you can deal with the most likely scenarios, one of which was that the Russians wouldn't be in the war (either because they were still allied with the Nazis or because they were defeated or made a separate peace).  We needed the option, we planned for it, and it helped.

Quote
They could have shifted production from strategic bombers to tactical bombers and attack aircraft. By utilizing these assets to shut down the transportation (preventing the extra war materials from ever reaching the front; German transportation was already beyond capacity as it was) and overwhelming German resources at the front. This is what the Soviets did... This what western allies did once they were turned loose from escort duty. Allied interdiction raids by fighter-bombers and tactical bombers played a huge roll in  isolating Normandy etc...
[/b]
All true, but also all hindsight.  As it was it took the English nearly four years to get their strategic bombing to pay dividends, and it took us two, building on their experience.  And these production decisions couldn't have been made overnight.

Quote
The Russians still would have taken Berlin. They may have been forced to pause longer between attacks to build up for the next offensive but the outcome would have been the same.

The Soviets had already turned the tied long before lend lease provided any meaningful quantities of war materials and before the effect of the bombing campaign was felt on German War production.
[/b]
Agreed.  But this all this says is that strategic bombing didn't win the war by itself, and no one disagrees with that statement.

Quote
The bombing campaign like a lot of other things gets rationalized after the fact. 'Well, it had to do something or why would we do it...' Of course it contributed to the end of the war but it wasn't as decisive as it was advertised to be, and it wasn't the only solution available to the war planners. The cost in materials and resources to the allies, not to mention the the loss of civilians lives and the lives of air crews, it seems a bit much to pay for merely contributing.

I am glad we don't plan wars like that any more...

Speaking of hindsight!  Right after the fact there was no doubt in the Germans' minds that the strategic bombing campaign had been decisive.  I don't think I've seen a single post-war interview with any of their generals that didn't make that point.  The USAF Strategic Bombing Survey made the same point.  It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, when bombing over Viet Nam wasn't winning the war, that people started dissing the WWII campaign.  That revisionism never made sense to me.  If, in March of 1944, we could suddenly have decided to melt down all the B17s and mold them into P47s, and turn their crews into fighter pilots, then maybe that would have worked better than continuing the bombing campaign.  But we obviously couldn't.  More, by then, as a direct result of the bombing campaign, we had established air superiority.  I don't think there was any other way to do that.  Simply waiting until the invasion, and then filling the skies with a cloud of planes, would have been answered by a corresponding German cloud of planes.  We had to take the air war to a place where the Luftwaffe had no choice but to respond, so that we could kill their pilots with our escort fighters, in order to get air superiority.

AND I don't think ANYONE argues that our strategic bombing campaign was not decisive against Japan.  That campaign grew directly out of all our efforts and experience in Europe.

- oldman
« Last Edit: May 10, 2006, 04:08:54 PM by Oldman731 »