Bombers have no effect on the war? (The real one)

[zack1234]

Gibberish

The V2 and V1 threat and the 262's were weapons of desparation

The bombing of Germany would have increased until they had surrendered.

If the Germans instigated war had carried on for another 2 years would allied bomber production decreased?

The Gloucester meteor would have been properly deployed

And have I stated before the Allies "Would" have dropped the "A" bomb on the "narzzies"

The 'A' bomb was the expression of 'Allied' superiority which out shined anything the 'Axis' achieved

[Vraciu]

^^^^ Gloster.

[Ack-Ack]

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the strategic doctrine was fashioned and the planes to implement that doctrine were developed, this simply was not true.  Waves of P-35s, P-36s, P-39s and P-40s would not have accomplished what the B-17s and B-24s did.  If nothing else, they couldn't carry bombs and had comparatively pathetic range.  The ability of fighters to carry heavy ordnance loads, and to deliver them with any accuracy at a reasonable distance from their bases, didn't occur until the middle of the war (if not later) and, so far as I can tell, was not anticipated before then (hence the continued development of dive bombers such as the SB2C).

That's true.  The idea of the development of the P-38 Droop Snoot was born from the idea of two senior 8th AF officers when they tried to think of ways to cut down on the bomber losses.  They concluded that we had fighters at the time (P-47 and P-38) that could carry pretty much the same bomb load of the early B-17s.  From this they concluded that a fighter-bomber would have a better chance to make it to the target, drop its bombs and be able to fight its way back and stand a much better chance than a heavy bomber.  8th AF High Command gave the okay to pursue the idea further and the P-38 was selected and the Droop Snoot was born.

ack-ack

[wpeters]

One thing that people have been ignoring was the Goring was a complete idiot when it came to tactics.  Also Hitler was not the brightest tacticsion either.    Another fault of the German industrial area was perfection in there military equipment. If they would have been able to build rough battle equipment like the t-34 it would have been better.   If hitler would have not focused so much on jet power bombers the 262 could have seen squadron strength a year earlier.   

[muzik]

The USAAF did build an overwhelming force of fighters and fighter bombers along with the heavies.

You miss the point. It could have been 3x as overwhelming and without the losses they sacrificed in bomber crews.

That's why there was barely a Luftwaffe at the end of the war and why the German Army could only launch an offensive like they in in December of 44 depending on bad weather to keep Allied Tactical Air Forces grounded.

Why are you arguing this? You're trying to argue the usefullness of Bomber Command while telling me that the Germans only moved when Tactical air units were grounded by weather. I agree. The German forces were more affected by tactical air power than bombers.

Yes Germany was still producing a large numbers of fighters late in the war but they didnt have the experianced pilots of the past thanks to Allied fighters,

Again, because fighters cleared the sky. Are you having trouble remembering which argument your trying to make?

and they didnt have fuel to persecute the war offensively anymore thanks to the bombing of their oil and rail networks.

The Germans had fuel. Bombers did not change that.  and they tried desparately to get it to their forces, but roving fighter bombers prevented any road travel. Downed Rail stations are an inconvenience, but they dont stop trains from moving.

Ask Japan about about the ability of strategic bombing to win a war.

Are you seriously suggesting strategic bombing defeated Japan?

The ability to do precision strikes by any aircraft wasn't achieved until Vietnam and even then it was in its infancy.

And that was because thick headed Army brass wouldnt let go of the heavy bomber. Kinda like what's going on here. And no, Vietnam wasn't the infancy stage of precision strikes, WW2 was. They didnt call it precision because compared to the weapons and aiming avionics of Vietnam, it wasn't considered precise. But Japanese dive bombers at Pearl Harbor were certainly precision strikes just as much as allied fighters shooting train cars with machine guns.

In order to get to the last leg of fuel dispersal, the fuel had to go through all the preceding legs.  Those legs were by rail.  When Eisenhower ordered the RAF and 8th AF to switch from "strategic" targets to transportation targets, those targets were marshalling yards in France, Germany and elsewhere.  The strategic bombing survey has a chart that shows the enormous amount of ordnance which was dropped by the heavies on those targets, crippling the rail transportation system.  

Destroying a marshaling yard does not stop a train. The cars were without a doubt stopped just outside the yard and unloaded at some incidental inconvenience. And they very likely turned around on a temporary fix of the system. It's not difficult. The fighters killed locomotives, they conducted "PRECISION" strikes on vital bridges. That was what crippled the rail system.

The fuel wasn't making it to the tank trucks

Fuel was making it to trucks and to the front lines. The Germans never stopped fighting with tanks or planes. No doubt in short supply, but it was short because of fighters.

Had we been able to hit the transportation systems in the Balkans, closer to the oil production facilities, the effect would have been even more pronounced.

1x0=0  Bombers were a waste of money.

Waves of P-35s, P-36s, P-39s and P-40s would not have accomplished what the B-17s and B-24s did.

You're right. It would have been silly to waste good mens lives trying to accomplish half of the useless attacks the bombers made.

If nothing else, they couldn't carry bombs and had comparatively pathetic range.  The ability of fighters to carry heavy ordnance loads, and to deliver them with any accuracy at a reasonable distance from their bases, didn't occur until the middle of the war

Again, due to stubborn brass that refused to admit they could be wrong and dictated development and procurement to match their beliefs.

Oddly enough, the notion that strategic bombing in WWII was unsuccessful didn't come up until the Viet Nam war.  You can read all of the sources, by all of the participants, written during the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s and you won't find any of them that say "hey, strategic bombing was a failure!"  It was only when Rolling Thunder was producing questionable results, and the anti-war movement was gaining strength, that you first started to see people proclaiming that strategic bombing had never worked - as justification for why it should have been discontinued in the 1960s.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the manner and lengths the military and government will go to protect its reputation.

Do you think if some officer in the US military would have done his own assessment of the results of strategic bombing that you would have seen it before Vietnam?

Do you know what happens when you buck the system in the military? I'll tell you in two words... Billy Mitchell. His story is the epitome of how stubborn and in-adaptable high command was.

Even today, you will not get the US military to admit the failings of strategic bombing. It will not happen for another hundred years.

[Brooke]

Are you seriously suggesting strategic bombing defeated Japan?

Strategic bombing played a vital part in Japan's surrender.  Without it, the end might have been enormously different.

[Vraciu]

We used the buffs because it was the only means available to take the fight to the enemy.  Round the clock bombing put a strain on the German war machine and helped divert resources until a land invasion by Britain and the US could commence. 

We tried the fighter bomber thing going against Ploesti with P-38s and it didn't really work. Losses were still high.   Just as they were on the error-plagued initial raid with B-24s. 

The German Air Force was potent.  It wasn't until fighter sweeps were undertaken at the expense of close escort that the tide turned.   But until that day, we had only one tool to prosecute the war and that was the heavy bomber.   JDAM would have been a big help.   Precision bombing wasn't that precise.  But it contributed. 

[muzik]

Strategic bombing played a vital part in Japan's surrender.  Without it, the end might have been enormously different.

Soldiers and sailors defeated Japan   O<-----PERIOD

They got the bombers within reach of Japan and decimated Japanese forces long before then.

The ONLY thing strategic bombing did to "encourage" the Japanese to surrender, was drop the A bomb. They would not have surrendered because of strategic bombers and no amount of fantasy can give "strategic bombing" credit for winning a war because they dropped the A bomb.

[Ack-Ack]

The Germans had fuel. Bombers did not change that.  and they tried desparately to get it to their forces, but roving fighter bombers prevented any road travel. Downed Rail stations are an inconvenience, but they dont stop trains from moving.

Destroyed rail road marshalling depots do stop trains from moving.  Bombing key rail road bridges and transfer stations do stop trains from moving and the supplies and soldiers they carry.

Are you seriously suggesting strategic bombing defeated Japan?

USAAF generals in the PTO argued against the invasion of Japan because by the summer of 1945, virtually all of Japan's strategic targets were destroyed and were virtually out of strategic targets to bomb. LeMay was opposed to the invasion for this reason and believed that Japan would surrender by November due to the US bombing of Japan and Japanese strategic targets throughout the Pacific.  US Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 concluded that Japan would have surrendered by November 1st due to the US strategic bombing without having to resort to an invasion.

Fuel was making it to trucks and to the front lines. The Germans never stopped fighting with tanks or planes. No doubt in short supply, but it was short because of fighters.

When Allied heavy bombers were finally able to reach targets deep into eastern Germany and hit the synthetic fuel production plants, Speer sent this message to Hitler after the Politz plant (70% destroyed) was bombed by US B-17s and B-24s.

'The enemy has struck us at one of our weakest points. If they persist at it this time, we will soon no longer have any fuel production worth mentioning'." (May 19th, 1944)

After the Normandy landings, Speer sent another message to Hitler about the attacks on the synthetic fuel plants.

"... the allies staged a new series of attacks which put many fuel plants out of action. On June 22, nine-tenths of the production of airplane fuel was knocked out." (June 24th, 1944)

A month later, Speer appealed to Hitler to increase fighter defenses over the synthetic fuel plants.

"I implored Hitler ... to reserve a significantly larger part of the fighter plane production ... to protecting the home hydrogenation plants ...." (July 28th, 1944)

The Battle of the Ruhr was a 5 month strategic bombing campaign of the Ruhr Valley, Germany's industrial heart.  In Adam Tooze study of the German war economy, he found British and US bomber raids had severely disrupted German production.  Steel production had fallen by 200k tons, the armaments industry was left with a steel shortfall of 400k tons.  After doubling production in 1942, steel production only increased by 20% in 1943.  This caused Speer to cut planned increases in production and the bombings also caused a critical shortage in sub-components.  The increase of Luftwaffe aircraft production also came to a halt.  Monthly production failed to increase between 7/43 and 3/44.  According to Tooze, British and US bombers stopped "Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks".  Krupps Works was so severly damaged that Krupps never restarted locomotive production after the raids in March and April of 1943.



ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Soldiers and sailors defeated Japan   O<-----PERIOD

They got the bombers within reach of Japan and decimated Japanese forces long before then.

The ONLY thing strategic bombing did to "encourage" the Japanese to surrender, was drop the A bomb. They would not have surrendered because of strategic bombers and no amount of fantasy can give "strategic bombing" credit for winning a war because they dropped the A bomb.

You should read up on the strategic bombing in the Pacific/CBI theaters of operations.  If you do, then you'd see that your post is incorrect.  One could make the argument that strategic bombing in the Pacific/CBI was far more successful than the strategic bombing operations of the 8th AF in the ETO. 

ack-ack

[Vraciu]

Japanese efforts were also clobbered by submarine warfare.  Hard to get fuel from the Dutch East Indies or wherever when your tankers get sunk with impunity.

[Ack-Ack]

Japanese efforts were also clobbered by submarine warfare.  Hard to get fuel from the Dutch East Indies or wherever when your tankers get sunk with impunity.

Yep, it was another nail in the coffin for Japan.

ack-ack

[Shifty]

Japanese efforts were also clobbered by submarine warfare.  Hard to get fuel from the Dutch East Indies or wherever when your tankers get sunk with impunity.

Very true.

[GScholz]

When the firebombs started raining down on the Japanese civilians Japan had lost the war a long time ago. Conventional strategic bombing alone would not have broken the Japanese fighting spirit; it didn't in Britain in 1940, nor in Germany in 1945. Only nuclear warfare could achieve that since you can't hide from "canned sunshine". Strategic bombing in WWII was a failure, and a huge waste of resources. By today's standards it was also a crime against humanity.

[Vraciu]

Yep, it was another nail in the coffin for Japan.

ack-ack

Very true.