Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII

[Rich46yo]

Dive Bombing had more effect on the outcome of wwII than Strategic bombing.In a few months Poland Belgium France Norway were subdued,by obsolescent Stukas.!The Japanese won a Great victory at Pearl harbor using Val dive Bombers with Great accuracy.The USA Won a more decisive victory months Later,using the Dauntless dive bomber,an aircraft at best only slightly better than either the stuka or the Val.

                       Thats a real stretch Hazzer. First off Poland, Belgian, and France were not "subdued by dive bombers". They were encircled, cut off, and outmaneuvered by a combined arms offensive of which dive bombers were only a component. Study these battles and you'll see that surprise and audacity played a much bigger part in German victory then a dive bomber that was already only a year or two away from being obsolescent. Strategy and maneuver of German mobile Panzer units are what overwhelmed the European Democracies. Add to that successful and audacious paratroop OPs.

                      Things is Japan didn't win a great victory at PH they only put off by a few years their eventual defeat. Most of the USN ships bombed that day were up and running again in a fairly short time. They failed to bomb the support facilities at PH, the Submarine docks, the CVs were all out to sea, and whatever airplanes they destroyed were a single grain of sand to eventual Yank Industrial output. In reality the Japs lost the war the same day they started it.

                     Im not downplaying the importance of the dive bomber and Tactical support aircraft by any means but they do not win a war alone. Not even close. Even the eventual breakout from Normandy of Yank armored units was preceded by attacks by heavy bombers. There is no way you can say dive bombers played a bigger part in winning the war then strategic bombing did. Heavy strategic bombers annihilated entire population centers of the enemy, centers of power, Industrial centers, transportation hubs. The kind of targets where Jugs with 2 1,000lb bombs just aren't going to do much.

                    Actually when you study the German vehicle losses to Allied Jabos, and being Germans they kept accurate count of everything, you will see that most people overestimate the damage done by Allied Jabos in the Euro Theatre. Yes they impacted troop/GV movements during daylight by their simple presence but the actual losses are a lot less then many of you probably think. Again I haven't researched this in some time and dont have the exact numbers handy but do study the actual German accounts of vehicles lost to Jabos post Normandy D-Day.

[Lumpy]

Rich46yo, you over-analyze and read too much into what is said. Hazzer never said or implicated that dive bombers could "win a war alone". No weapon can do that, not even nuclear. His point is perfectly clear and presented in the first sentence of his post:

"Dive Bombing had more effect on the outcome of wwII than Strategic bombing."

The rest of his post is just backing up that statement with examples and anecdotes. Nothing more.

[Angus]

Well, still you could say that the nuke sort of...flashed out WW2?!

[Rich46yo]

Rich46yo, you over-analyze and read too much into what is said. Hazzer never said or implicated that dive bombers could "win a war alone". No weapon can do that, not even nuclear. His point is perfectly clear and presented in the first sentence of his post:

"Dive Bombing had more effect on the outcome of wwII than Strategic bombing."

The rest of his post is just backing up that statement with examples and anecdotes. Nothing more.

                       And Im sure hes gratefull to you for telling me what he said. In the future let him talk for himself.

                      Dive bombing did not have more effect then strategic bombing. Thats what I said.

[Angus]

An overly tricky comparison...

[Hazzer]

 In June 1942 a handful of Douglas Dauntless dive bombers Changed the course of the war in the Pacific In favor of the United States.From that moment the Japanese had lost the war,it was just a matter of time.

 They achieved in a few hours what strategic bombing took two years to achieve.A major shift in the direction of the pacific war.B17's had tried earlier.they missed.

 In 1940,changing from tactical bombing of British Airfields,to strategic bombing of British cities Lost the Nazis the battle of Britain.Nothing pleased Park more than to see London Docks burning.

 Both Arthur Harris for the RAF,and eighth air force high command thought they could win the war through Strategic Bombing.They failed.

 Today,if we had 40's technology,it would be dauntless Bombers in Afghanistan,not B17's.

Strategic Bombing Helped win the war,but failed in the belief that it alone could force a nation to the peace table.

[Hazzer]

 By the way,I don't want to be seen as being disrespectful to the brave crews that flew the strategic Bomber force.

 Their heroism is beyond doubt,their survival rate was equal to a wwI infantry soldier.Reading about the terrible losses these crews suffered makes sobering reading


 Perhaps it's this Heroism and self sacrifice that still fires are imagination about these brave crews flying straight and level through flak and fighters,to Bomb their objective.

 In a way  it seems disrespectful to say their achievements were disproportionate to their loss,but their losses were well above what had been deemed exceptable before the campaign,and the results well below.

In the end,we remember the Stuka for it's failure,and the B17 for it's success's,but both were hacked out of the sky in large numbers,the difference was that one had a good chance of hitting it''s target with great effect,if it got through
 

 unfortunately for the pre war douhet theorist's,the bomber most certainly did not always get through.

[Rich46yo]

                       What won the war was boots on the ground taking land from "them" and then calling it "ours". Can you imagine WW-ll without the strategic bomber? Just because there is no real accurate gauge to determine the effectiveness of the strategic campaign doesnt mean the strategic campaign was a side show.

                       But you did say "dive bombers" earlier did you not? Not medium/heavies being switched in their targeting.

                       The effects of target priorities being changed in the BOB is overplayed. What really lost it for the Germans was flaws in fighter design and tactics. As far as the dive bomber being a factor in the BOB, "not even close". If there as ever an air force made specifically to deliver tactical support to ground units during combined arms operations it was the early war Luftwaffe. Changing doctrine without changing equipment to now become a tool for air supremacy and strategic interdiction is a recipe for disaster. And thats what happened to the Luftwaffe in the BOB. Much of the reason the targeting was changed in the first place was from faulty German Intel that the RAF was damaged far more then it actually was in reality.

                     But the bottom line is the Luftwaffe in 1940 was ill suited for the role assigned it in the BOB. They would have been far better off loosing their 109s in the "free hunts" and beating the Brits down thru attrition.

                       I will happily agree with you however in the assertion that the airplane, most of all the dive bomber, changed the face of naval warfare forever. In a few short years fragile airplanes with bombs hanging off them had reduced the role of the mighty Dreadnoughts to being bullet catchers for CVs and fire support ships for landing OPs. Of that there can be no argument.

In a few months Poland Belgium France Norway were subdued by obsolescent Stukas.!

That is what you said. And its a huge exaggeration.

[Lumpy]

Rich46yo, I will say whatever I damn please, especially in my own thread. Strategic bombing was just a sideshow compared to tactical aviation in WWII, in lives, resources and results. The dive bomber was a far, far more important weapon than strategic bombers on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific theatre.

However, anyone that can convince himself that the sinking of 5 battleships (one completely destroyed) 3 damaged, 2 destroyers sunk 1 damaged, 6 other ships damaged, 188 aircraft destroyed 155 damaged, and 2,345 military personnel killed for the cost of only 29 aircraft and 5 midget submarines is not a great victory can convince himself of anything.

[MiloMorai]

Yes we can see what tactical aviation cost on the EF, the Meat Grinder, in lives.

[Lumpy]

That's sort of the point of war ... killing the enemy.

[Widewing]

However, anyone that can convince himself that the sinking of 5 battleships (one completely destroyed) 3 damaged, 2 destroyers sunk 1 damaged, 6 other ships damaged, 188 aircraft destroyed 155 damaged, and 2,345 military personnel killed for the cost of only 29 aircraft and 5 midget submarines is not a great victory can convince himself of anything.

I will remind you that while this was a tactical victory. It was a strategic attack, with strategic goals. It did not accomplish its strategic objective; the elimination of the American aircraft carriers. Thus, within the context of Japan's goals, it was a failure. It was a failure that would haunt Japan up through their devastating loss in the Solomon's campaign.

What some are missing is that the great carrier battles of the Pacific war were not just tactical engagements. These were strategic battles with strategic results. The fact that they were accomplished by carrier borne aircraft is immaterial. In another example; clearly the victory by the RN at Toranto was by tactical aircraft, but the goal was purely strategic.

Don't let the line between tactical and strategic get blurred by the instruments employed.

There's no doubt that Strategic Bombing did not accomplish everything its authors had hoped, and sometimes erroneously claimed. However, it did accomplish enough to seriously degrade the ability of both Germany and Japan to conduct their war efforts. Was this the best use of Allied resources? That is certainly open to much debate and has been debated since before the war ended (there was much debate about this in the American Congress during the war).

So gents, don't get bogged down with comparing carrier battles to strategic bombing.

My regards,

Widewing

[Lumpy]

That's a pretty good way of putting it Widewing. While the attack on Pearl Harbor was a great tactical victory the strategic goals of Imperial Japan (knock the US out of the Pacific war) were not accomplished. In my opinion those goals were completely unobtainable, but that is a debate for a different thread.

[Angus]

Pearl was a ...brilliant attempt...and shocked the world as such. (Although the British had already done something similar)
However, failing to sink the U.S. aircraft carriers left following matters up for doubt.

Anyway, was going to respond to this from Hazzer:
"In 1940,changing from tactical bombing of British Airfields,to strategic bombing of British cities Lost the Nazis the battle of Britain.Nothing pleased Park more than to see London Docks burning.

 Both Arthur Harris for the RAF,and eighth air force high command thought they could win the war through Strategic Bombing.They failed."

It did indeed turn the BoB into a different fight, - where finally the RAF had the time to respond (LW had a longer leg to London than south coast fields) as well as stretching it to the limit of the LW escorts. (109's had very little time on the London leg).
I doubt that Park was pleased by seeing ANYTHING burning, - let's say that I do not like the way you put it.

While strategic bombing didn't win, it had an effect. But hard to calculate how much, and also bear in mind that the third reich was well cushioned by the occupied nations, who the allied had to be careful about bombing.....
The strategic bombing did not bring the war to an end. However the effect of it is hard to measure on a scale...
And then the area bombing...that is another issue...

[Rich46yo]

Rich46yo, I will say whatever I damn please, especially in my own thread. Strategic bombing was just a sideshow compared to tactical aviation in WWII, in lives, resources and results. The dive bomber was a far, far more important weapon than strategic bombers on the Eastern Front and in the Pacific theatre.

However, anyone that can convince himself that the sinking of 5 battleships (one completely destroyed) 3 damaged, 2 destroyers sunk 1 damaged, 6 other ships damaged, 188 aircraft destroyed 155 damaged, and 2,345 military personnel killed for the cost of only 29 aircraft and 5 midget submarines is not a great victory can convince himself of anything.

                     It aint your thread its Aces High thread so lose your attitude. Everyone has an opinion including the guy you seem fit to speak for. He made a statement so let him back it up.

                   Within a few months of the raid 3 of the BBs were back in service as were 3 of the cruisers and 2 of the DDs. Eventually every BB was back in service except for the Arizona and Oklahoma which were both WW-l, and preWW-l, dreadnoughts so slow they couldnt even accompany  and escort carriers.

                   The IJN not only missed the carriers they didn't touch the oil and fuel reserves, the submarines, the dry docks. It was both a tactical and strategic failure. But maybe Im over-analyzing all those submarines left floating, all those fuel containers still full, the dry docks still up, the CVs still operating, and the Industrial might that could produce 343 airplanes in the time it took me to type this post. Or the fact that American strategic bombing turned an entire modern industrial nation into rubble and burning cinder.