Author Topic: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)  (Read 2813 times)

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« on: December 30, 2013, 01:49:15 PM »
According to unnamed individual(s), Rook country chat today. Bombers were the workhorse of the 8th Air Force. Here's my theory.

Oh boy am I playing with fire on this one. Now, before fighter pilots get angry and start burning crosses in my yard, hear me out.

Bombers did have an impact on World War Two, A big one. Allied bombers were a primary factor in shutting down Germany's Oil Production, Fighter Production, Steel Production, etc. Until 1943 no allied fighter was able to strike deep into occupied territory and come home. Major targets such as Bremen, Hamburg, Dresden, Munich, Kassel, were all select targets for bombers because of their production and output to the German War Machine. From 1942 when bombers hit the ground in England, to the perfection of the long range mustang, which wasn't until mid/late war, bombers remained unescorted because no fighter could follow them in. Thus being said, it was up to the bombers to take care of Germany's production.

Time to switch the base. Some fighters could reach these targets as soon as Late '43 and later. Fewer fighters were able to carry ordinance to targets. Perhaps it could have been possible to hit these targets with late war fighters. But, if 42-late 43 we had not been hitting targets with bombers, Germany could have possibly carried on the war a year or two more, and not to mention they could also produce more weapons and produce new and better vehicles/guns/aircraft.

My point is here is that bombers are just as useful as fighters. Sure they can't fill a fighters role, and for the most part a fighter can't fill a bomber's role. That's why we still have them today.

To conclude this post, I am not biased on bombers even though my post may make it seem so. (okay maybe a little) I honestly believe that Bombers are most effective when working with fighters. No escort, get shot down. No bombers, no stopping the war machine.  :salute

« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 02:03:51 PM by XxDaSTaRxx »
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline 100Coogn

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3922
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2013, 02:07:51 PM »
The game wouldn't be any fun without bombers.  I used to fly with the Bloody 100ths back in the day, flying B-17's.  The best fun I've ever had in this game.

Coogan  :airplane:
Quote
From Wiley: If you're hitting them after they drop, that's not defense, that is revenge.
Game Id's:
AHIII: Coogan
RDR2: Coogan_Bear
MSFS-2020: Coogan Bear

Offline Copprhed

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2013, 02:11:56 PM »
How would I get a kill is bombers weren't in the game? I run out of noobs, really quickly..... :)
Flight Leader: "Bogeys at 2 o'clock!"
Wingman: "Roger, It's 1:30 now, what do I do 'til then?"

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2013, 02:15:59 PM »
How would I get a kill is bombers weren't in the game? I run out of noobs, really quickly..... :)

Oh don't worry. You won't run out. I'm occasionally seen flying a fighter.  ;)
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline lunatic1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2013, 02:48:17 PM »
i read somewhere 1 time, that late in the bombing of germany,that some bomber groups had special b-17's armed to the teeth with just .50cals, more than normal..no bombs just guns,2 or 3 per group..don't know if it's true... and how many times have you seen 12'oclock high-the movie???????? they also had a tv series of the same name..
C.O. of the 173rd Guardian Angels---Don't fire until you can see the whites of their eyes...Major devereux(The Battle Of Wake Island-1941.
R.I.P.49GRIN/GRIN-R.I.P. WWHISKEY R.I.P WIZZY R.I.P.

Offline palef

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2013, 02:54:51 PM »
They didn't shut down any production. German industrial production increased by percentage points in the 100s right up until March 1945. The main contribution from airpower to the defeat of Germany was tactical air support suppressing logistics, thereby preventing the stuff being produced from being delivered. Strategic bombing on the scale seen in Europe in WWII has long been dismissed as largely pointless, especially given the lack of results vs. the horrendous human sacrifice.

The Russian infantryman defeated Nazism on the battlefield.

If you want an opposing view of the effect strategic bombing had on German Industrialism during the war read Albert Speer's book. It makes for revealing reading.
Retired

Offline palef

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2013, 02:55:48 PM »
i read somewhere 1 time, that late in the bombing of germany,that some bomber groups had special b-17's armed to the teeth with just .50cals, more than normal..no bombs just guns,2 or 3 per group..don't know if it's true... and how many times have you seen 12'oclock high-the movie???????? they also had a tv series of the same name..

Deathstars were dropped fairly quickly as they couldn't keep up with a bomb-laden standard B17, let alone one that had delivered its payload.
Retired

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2013, 02:57:09 PM »
They didn't shut down any production. German industrial production increased by percentage points in the 100s right up until March 1945. The main contribution from airpower to the defeat of Germany was tactical air support suppressing logistics, thereby preventing the stuff being produced from being delivered. Strategic bombing on the scale seen in Europe in WWII has long been dismissed as largely pointless, especially given the lack of results vs. the horrendous human sacrifice.

The Russian infantryman defeated Nazism on the battlefield.

If you want an opposing view of the effect strategic bombing had on German Industrialism during the war read Albert Speer's book. It makes for revealing reading.
:headscratch: I'll have to do more studying. Thanks for the book. I'll look into it.  :salute
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9360
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2013, 03:41:37 PM »
They didn't shut down any production. German industrial production increased by percentage points in the 100s right up until March 1945. The main contribution from airpower to the defeat of Germany was tactical air support suppressing logistics, thereby preventing the stuff being produced from being delivered. Strategic bombing on the scale seen in Europe in WWII has long been dismissed as largely pointless, especially given the lack of results vs. the horrendous human sacrifice.

The Russian infantryman defeated Nazism on the battlefield.

If you want an opposing view of the effect strategic bombing had on German Industrialism during the war read Albert Speer's book. It makes for revealing reading.


Yes.  Read it.  Read also the US Strategic Bombing Survey report, compiled after the war when records were fresh and Germans were available to interrogate.  (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#pagei).  That study concluded that strategic bombing crippled the German transportation and oil industries and seriously disrupted a vast amount of warmaking capability.  Richard Overy, so far as I know, said it best:

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."

This topic comes up every few years.  We thrashed it out, last time I can recall, back here:  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,177015.0.html

- oldman

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2013, 03:57:50 PM »
I would like to thank oldman for taking his time in writing that post he did....

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.

"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."
Can't say that's not cutting production.  :D
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 04:02:49 PM by XxDaSTaRxx »
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline palef

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2013, 04:13:09 PM »
Remember, the victor gets to write history. German production capability exceeded Allied estimates by orders of magnitude and they were producing vastly more munitions and aircraft in late 1944 than the early years of the war combined. Production was not shut down, merely reduced to levels below potential capability. Speer delivered more equipment and supplies than the German military could use.

The inability to deliver equipment, munitions, and fuel to the frontline had a far greater effect on the German war effort than strategic bombing. Destroying transport junctions and fuel and ammunition stores was almost entirely within the remit of Tactical airforces and therefore medium bombers and fighter bombers. There is a tendency to lump the effects of tactical and strategic bombing together to avoid the awkward gap between effort and effect of Strategic bombing. Area bombing cities doesn't do much except make the populace work and hate harder. Post D-Day with European airfields available, Medium bombers and Fighter/Bombers achieved far more in terms of limiting production and distribution than the Strategic bombing efforts prior to D-Day. Post D-Day more and more of the heavy bombers concentrated on what had previously been considered tactical targets. This had the effect of preventing daylight hours movements of troops and logistics. If you have few pilots and no fuel for your aircraft, you can't do much about limiting enemy air incursions. Galland and Steinhoff both bemoan their inability to respond as they would have liked in the Defence of Germany simply due to lack of fuel at airbases.

The biggest effect the air war had on the fight in Europe was limiting the ability of Germany to respond effectively in any arena of war.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 04:15:20 PM by palef »
Retired

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2013, 04:15:14 PM »
Bombing in our game is maddenly effective or a joke.

When bombing is coordinated with an attack force, and more than a single box brought over the target. Bases drop in minutes for capture. The same bombers in the same attack profile on the other side of the map, if they drop too soon, or show up late. Are a tooth grinding joke helping get the base out of sequence on the "down time" timer.

But, then there is the lone box that happened to be near by, and wanders over just in time to save your base capture.

The most effective use of bombers in the game is with several boxes circling watching the "down time" timer visa (.dt). And just as resources come up, exactly the minimum number of bombs puts the resource back down with in 30 seconds. Or as M3 run in to resupply, 30 seconds later bombs insult the M3 drivers efforts for the last 10 minutes.

In the AH universe, bombers are either a terrible tool of pinpoint aggravation, or wandering jokes oblivious to the aid and comfort they give the enemy. Yet, because AH has unlimited lives, they have unlimited opportunities to learn from their mistakes.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2013, 04:54:51 PM »
Remember, the victor gets to write history. German production capability exceeded Allied estimates by orders of magnitude and they were producing vastly more munitions and aircraft in late 1944 than the early years of the war combined. Production was not shut down, merely reduced to levels below potential capability. Speer delivered more equipment and supplies than the German military could use.

The inability to deliver equipment, munitions, and fuel to the frontline had a far greater effect on the German war effort than strategic bombing. Destroying transport junctions and fuel and ammunition stores was almost entirely within the remit of Tactical airforces and therefore medium bombers and fighter bombers. There is a tendency to lump the effects of tactical and strategic bombing together to avoid the awkward gap between effort and effect of Strategic bombing. Area bombing cities doesn't do much except make the populace work and hate harder. Post D-Day with European airfields available, Medium bombers and Fighter/Bombers achieved far more in terms of limiting production and distribution than the Strategic bombing efforts prior to D-Day. Post D-Day more and more of the heavy bombers concentrated on what had previously been considered tactical targets. This had the effect of preventing daylight hours movements of troops and logistics. If you have few pilots and no fuel for your aircraft, you can't do much about limiting enemy air incursions. Galland and Steinhoff both bemoan their inability to respond as they would have liked in the Defence of Germany simply due to lack of fuel at airbases.

The biggest effect the air war had on the fight in Europe was limiting the ability of Germany to respond effectively in any arena of war.
:airplane: Do you have any idea how many American lives were saved because of the bombing of Japan with the B-29?
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline doright

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2013, 05:14:03 PM »
i read somewhere 1 time, that late in the bombing of germany,that some bomber groups had special b-17's armed to the teeth with just .50cals, more than normal..no bombs just guns,2 or 3 per group..don't know if it's true... and how many times have you seen 12'oclock high-the movie???????? they also had a tv series of the same name..

There was an incident of an Italian, guido rossi, using a captured P38 to form up on a straggling bomber then open fire on them. An ack star B17 / YP-40, renamed Gini after rossi's wife who was then in allied held territory, was used to down rossi and he was captured.
Armaments 3:9 "Fireth thee not in their forward quarters lest thee be beset by 200 imps and be naughty in their sight."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2013, 07:02:56 PM »
The problem is people see the "German and/or Japanese production rose through 1944 and 1945" and they just jump to "Well, then the bombing didn't work." without asking "What would the production have risen to if the bombing wasn't happening?"

The thing is that we don't have an absolute answer to the last question, but as Oldman pointed out planned output was significantly higher than what was actually achieved.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-