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

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Production was not shut down, merely reduced to levels below potential capability.

Production didn't have to be entirely shut down. If it did, ENTIERELY, Germany, give or take, would have a few weeks before being entirely powderized by the Allied powers.

The 8th AF knew they could not shut down production, but instead harm it. If the axis powers had kept a steady production rate, there would be no saying how far the war would have carried on. Let's talk fighters again. The ME-262. If the 262 had been perfected, it would have kept air supremacy all over Europe. It was effective at taking down bombers, and... was... a mediocre fighter. The whole reason the 262 didn't work out, it was deployed in too few numbers, fresh pilots were target practice for allied pilots, and it was NOT reliable. The 262's engines had MAJOR problems. The standard life expectancy of the 262 engines were 48 hours. For this fighter to be effective, they have to have the fuel to keep it flying,  and metals to keep building the things, which Germany did not have due to allied bombing raids, cutting production. The 262 was also deployed too late in the war to change the outcome. Had the thing been deployed in 43, yes, it could have very well turned the tides, even after the allies gained the upperhand in early 43. That was not secure until late 43/early 45. It all comes down to production rates. Everything.

[68ZooM]

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..

I think 999's is related to them gunners

[BaldEagl]

German aircarft production was incredibly resilient to the Allied bombing campaigns as it was spread across the country in "boutique" plants manufacturing only specific components which were then shipped for final assembly.  The loss of any one plant had minimal impact.  I know this was true for FW production but am not as sure about Me production.

The lack of trained pilots contributed more to the decline of the Luftwaffe than lack of equipment.

[guncrasher]

perhaps it didnt slow down production.  one thing is for sure.  it did slow down the over all scheme of things.

most people are too narrowed in focus and they want a "body count" like in vietnam.  if we killed "20 gooks and used xxx numbers of bullets we did good".

but what nobody worries about is the "downstream effect on things".   the reason russians won the offensive wasnt because of the number of germans they killed. but most likely because the supply was slow to get there.  remember in war most deaths arent to bullets or guns but to the "other things" like cold, "will", and supplies.  you can have 1 billion soldiers around stalingrad but it wont matter if you have no winter coats, they will fricking freeze to death.

I believe patton was slowed down on it's way to germany, not because the german put a great effort, but because he was almost out of gas.

semp

[NikonGuy]

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..

They did and they were called YB40's but they proved too heavy and therefore could not keep up with the normal B17's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB-40_Flying_Fortress

[Brooke]

A nation's war effort is more than how many fighter planes it produces in a year.  Even if it were, for those fighter planes to be useful, they need to work reliably (have acceptable production quality) and they need gasoline, oil, ammunition, pilots, spare parts, mechanics, transportation, food, facilities, housing for support staff, and coordination.  If a nation lacks some of those aspects, it doesn't matter how many fighters are counted as produced.

What bombing did to Germany was to greatly harm most of those aspects.  To conclude from a few statistics (production numbers for aircraft, guns, and tanks, for example) that bombing wasn't effective is to leave uncounted a large number of other vital factors.

[bozon]

The real question is not whether the bombing campaign had any effect - of course it did, even complete random bombing will have some effect. The better question to ask is whether the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

The bombing campaign cost a huge effort to the allies. Both in money, production and man power. The heavy bombers casualty rates in the 8AF and RAF bomber command were horrendous. I think I read somewhere that more 8AF men were lost than Marines. Was it worth it? What if instead of building thousands of bombers, the allied would have built a massive tactical airforce and saturated the front lines with close air support and interdiction? That is a different way of strategic thinking - instead of trying to halt the industry, you prevent the arms from reaching combat. This is what the Germans almost managed to do to the British with their Atlantic U-boat wolfpacks. Also RAF Coastal command caused a huge damage to the German war effort by sinking and disrupting shipments of arms and supplies to the front. This damage was way out of proportion to the meager resources given to coastal command to work with.

Germany did not lose the war because it could not make enough tanks and planes. Sure they produced perhaps a little less than they would like, but what they were really in short supply of was men. More planes with noobs driving them would not have helped the LW much. Tanks driven by 15 years olds would not have helped them much either. Unlike the Russians, they could not afford to lose millions of their young-adult male population and just send the next wave into the fray until the enemy runs out of bullets. Perhaps the RAF bomber command night raids on cities contributed by prevented the Germans from making babies?

[zack1234]

Bomber Command destroyed the German means to follow a war of their choice

The German bomber force was not very good as well

If it was they would have won 

if it was not for Hitler they would have surrendered earlier as well

[Oldman731]

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.

This is a myth, just one of many created by Martin Caiden.  There are quite a few online sources discussing this particular fairy tale.  Among other things, there was no Italian ace named Rossi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_Italy#R), there were no YB-40s in Italy (the twelve made were all assigned to the 92nd BG at Alconbury; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB-40_Flying_Fortress#Operational_history), and the only known kill of an Allied plane by a captured and Italian-operated P-38 was by Angelo Tondi on August 11, 1943, shooting down B-17F "Bonnie Sue."

- oldman

[Brooke]

Germany did not lose the war because it could not make enough tanks and planes. Sure they produced perhaps a little less than they would like, but what they were really in short supply of was men.

And fuel.  They didn't have enough fuel even for the lower number of planes they were flying.

[bozon]

And fuel.  They didn't have enough fuel even for the lower number of planes they were flying.

there are conflicting views regarding the fuel situation in Germany. If indeed there was a shortage was this because of 8AF bombing? or was it because Germany failed to secure oil wells around the world and safe transport of it to Germany?

[Squire]

Just because Germanys war production increased does not mean that the bombing had no effect. One does not nullify the other. We will never know how many more tanks, ships, trucks, guns, fuel ect would have been produced had Germany not been bombed. Not to mention the enourmous industrial and manpower effort that Germany put into Reich Defence everything from radars to aaa gun crews and all the rest of it not least of which the day and night fighters. It was an enourmous cost.

[doright]

This is a myth, just one of many created by Martin Caiden. 

Well dang, and it was such a good story and with the added twist of his wife's name... Oh kind of like most of the crap circulating on the interwebs today.

Except published in 1971. I wonder if he made it up or just perpetuated and embellished a story someone told him without any verification.

[Brooke]

there are conflicting views regarding the fuel situation in Germany. If indeed there was a shortage was this because of 8AF bombing? or was it because Germany failed to secure oil wells around the world and safe transport of it to Germany?

They had a lot of oil-production capacity except that it kept getting bombed.

From the Wiki entry on the Oil Campaign (with good references) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Campaign_of_World_War_II :

" Several prominent Germans described it as critical to the defeat. Adolf Galland, of the Luftwaffe, wrote in his book "the most important of the combined factors which brought about the collapse of Germany,"[32] and the Luftwaffe's wartime leader, Hermann Göring, described it as "the utmost in deadliness." [19]:287 Albert Speer, writing in 1970, said that "It meant the end of German armaments production."[4]:412–4 It has been stated to have been "effective immediately, and decisive within less than a year."[33] Luftwaffe Field Marshal Erhard Milch, referring to the consequences of the Oil Campaign, claimed that "The British left us with deep and bleeding wounds, but the Americans stabbed us in the heart."[8]

[DREDIOCK]

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.

I would agree that suppressing tactics had more to do with winning the war then strategic bombing. But Strategic bombing also had a lot to do with German having to divert fighters to the defense of the bombers when they were desperately needed on the fronts

Though it could be argued that that precise human sacrifice is what drove Germany into submission after the war. Utterly devastated and becoming dependent on the allies for even basic needs

Starvation can be a great motivator


Japan was a little different because of the cultural code they lived by