Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[MiloMorai]

lol no. There was hardly any cities or large towns remaining in Germany (or Japan). The most thoroughly bombed city in Germany was not Dresden, Berlin or even Hamburg. It was Julich. On 16 November 1944, 97% of Julich was destroyed by Allied bombing. Bremen, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Nurnberg, Lubeck, Potsdam, Dortmund, Pforzheim, Wurzburg, Magdeburg, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Ulm, Kaiserslautern, Darmstadt, the list goes on and on...

Nice of you to list places that were bombed many many times. Julich was a large town.

Despite the fighter escort the 8th lost just as many bombers going to Brunswick in January 1944 as they did on the unescorted Schweinfurt missions in 1943.

Mission 182
663 bombers were sent to Brunswick and other targets and 60 were lost > 9% loss

Brunswick itself had 372 attack with 18 lost to enemy causes > 4.8% loss

Mission 84
230 bombers were sent to Schweinfurt and 36 were lost
146 bombers went to Regensburg and 24 were lost
 60/376 > 16% loss

[Lusche]

Julich was a large town.

Jülich was a small town. In 1939, it had 12,000 inhabitants.

Much of the bombings of Jülich were more of a 'tactical' nature (I use this term very loosely in this context), when it already was a supply hub for the nearby front, full of troops and the Allies were afraid of it becoming just another 'fortress'. Much of the destruction was also a result of the heavy fighting in and around the town.

Jülich was destroyed for different reasons and with different intentions then, say, Hamburg, Köln, Coventry or Tokyo.

[WaffenVW]

Nice of you to list places that were bombed many many times. Julich was a large town.

  Hamburg was bombed many, many times. It wasn't just one big raid. It took more than a week.

Mission 182
663 bombers were sent to Brunswick and other targets and 60 were lost > 9% loss

Brunswick itself had 372 attack with 18 lost to enemy causes > 4.8% loss

Mission 84
230 bombers were sent to Schweinfurt and 36 were lost
146 bombers went to Regensburg and 24 were lost
 60/376 > 16% loss

Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.

[WaffenVW]

Jülich was destroyed for different reasons and with different intentions then, say, Hamburg, Köln, Coventry or Tokyo.

Which matters exactly how much to the civilians who lived there?

[PR3D4TOR]

Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.

 

[FLOOB]

Any Idea what the four engine plane was lobbing shells into the b17s from beyond the range of their 50 cals?

[PR3D4TOR]

20 mm would be my guess. I don't know of any German bomber armed with larger cannons.

[MiloMorai]

Hamburg was bombed many, many times. It wasn't just one big raid. It took more than a week.


Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.

But the raid Speer was talking about was only one night.

Did you fail math? Almost the same number of a/c attacked Brunswick that attacked S-R. Losses went from 16% to 4.8%.

[Lusche]

Which matters exactly how much to the civilians who lived there?

Which was not the point of the thread or of my post.

[PR3D4TOR]

WaffenVW is right. Operation Gomorrah, aka the battle of Hamburg lasted 8 days. The destruction of Hamburg was not done in one night.


If the Luftwaffe managed to shoot down 60 bombers out of 372, why do you think they would shoot down more than 60 if the number of bombers doubled? Do you fail at logic? Obviously the Luftwaffe had to spread their resources to deal with multiple incursions and thus there were fewer interceptors available to counter the Brunswick raid, but in total the Luftwaffe shot down the same number of bombers.

60 out of 376 on August 17, 1943

60 out of 291 on October 14, 1943

60 out of 663 on January 11, 1944

51 out of 730 on March 6, 1944 (by this time the Luftwaffe was hurting bad and nearing collapse in the west).

[WaffenVW]

On the night of July 24th, 1943 the RAF bombed Hamburg. Later the same day the USAAF made a raid. On the 25th Harris sent his bombers to Essen instead. On the 26th they returned to Hamburg and the USAAF by day. On the 27th they returned yet again, and the USAAF too. On the 29th the RAF again raided Hamburg with more than 700 bombers. The last raid was made on the night of 2nd/3rd of August, marking the end of Operation Gomorrah.

[FLOOB]

20 mm would be my guess. I don't know of any German bomber armed with larger cannons.

I assumed he meant mortars as mg151 doesn't have longer range than .50 bmg. Also he says "lobbing shells into the formation" which I took to mean not firing at point targets.

[PR3D4TOR]

You can lob 20 mm shells into a formation of heavy bombers. Only in AH does the 20 mm and .50 cal have equal range due to the time out.

[FLOOB]

No.

[PR3D4TOR]

What a convincing argument.

Yes.