Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[MiloMorai]

And Luftwaffe wasnt defeated because lack of fuel but because they could replace their losses of pilots. Early 1945 there was still around 1000 fighters for bomber defence but the pilots were too poorly trained to use them effectivly against the bombers.
By 1945 Germany had exhausted their reserves of manpower, that cannot be compensated with industries. Tanks and planes are useless without skilled crews.

Why were they poorly trained?
Because of the lack of fuel.

"In July 1944, Luftflotte 3 discovered that with few exceptions, only Gruppen and Staffelen commanders had more than six months' operational fighter experience. A small number of other pilots had up to three months' experience, while the bulk of available pilots had only between eight and thirty days' combat service. All of these factors by 1944 had become mutually reinforcing. The declining skill of German fighter pilots pushed up the level of attrition taking place, which increased the demand that the training establishment turn out more pilots. The viciousness of the circle received its final impetus and the Luftwaffe its death blow when the May attacks on German petroleum sources robbed the training program of the fuel needed to produce new pilots."



I suggest you read this, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

[Arlo]

That is the best defence against strategic bombing, make yourself invulnerable to them by spreading out and hiding your resources and industries. Germany did it and were still able to increase production.

Being forced to use such a 'best defense' is actually a strategic accomplishment. Surely you are aware of this.

[pembquist]

The strategic bombing capaign was not a pure "failure". It did cause a lot of damage to German insudtry - no doubt about that. On the other hand it took a huge toll of human lives and resources from the allies as well. I mean that number of casualties and POWs was staggering (remember it was 10 men per bomber going down, plus the fighters) and the cost of so many 4-engined bombers that could have been spent on other weapons. So, the real questions are:

1. Was it worth it?
2. Was there a better way to achieve the same goals?

I do not have a clear answer. My gut feeling regarding #2 is that putting all those resources into a much larger tactical airforce and investing in precision bombers (i.e. low alt and dive bombers / fighter bombers) would have paid off a lot more and cost less lives. A handful of Mosquitoes at low alt could do the same damage to a factory deep in enemy territory that numerous squadrons of 4-engine bombers that scatter their bombs over miles could do - at a fraction of the cost and risk, during both day and night.

I don't agree with everything, but he gets the main point:
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm

Whadayou own a balsa plantation or something?

[bozon]

Being forced to use such a 'best defense' is actually a strategic accomplishment. Surely you are aware of this.

That says that the heavy bombers were not completely useless. On the other hand, since this was the major achievemt it means they were not much more than that.

Whadayou own a balsa plantation or something?

The day I heard about the Mosquito I immediately baught 1000 acres of Balsa forest.
The next day I realized that the last Mosquito was taken out of service about 20 years before I was born.
I've been crying myself to sleep everyday since. 

More to the point, the Mosquito specifically and also the rise of Fighter-Bombers in general during WWII showed the way to the future. I didn't mean to say that they needed to make all wooden wonder airforces - just adopt the concept on a wide scale. All modern attack planes attemp to be a modern mossies. No one tries to build a modern B17 equivallent.

[Zimme83]

160.000 men is a very high prize for forcing the enemy to relocate their industries...
It was at least a disapointment, the costs were too high and the result only came in the last year when Germany was already beaten.

[Squire]

Proof that Air Power is useless because IRAQ did not surrender after the air campaign:

The Air campaign of the Gulf War, also known as the 1991 Bombing of Iraq started with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 17 January 1991. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs,[2] widely destroying military and civilian infrastructure.[3] The air campaign was commanded by USAF Lieutenant General Chuck Horner, who briefly served as Commander-in-Chief – Forward of U.S. Central Command while General Schwarzkopf was still in the United States. The British air commanders were Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Wilson (to 17 November) and Air Vice-Marshal Bill Wratten (from 17 November).[4] The air campaign largely finished by 23 February 1991 when the coalition invasion of Kuwait took place.

...I guess they just should not bother anymore?

...The COALITION would have won without the air campaign...ergo it was not effective. I guess.

[Zimme83]

Yes they prob would have.
But its hard to compare WW2 and now, Its easier to be effective with LGB:s.
But the aerial superiority and the ability to strike the Iraqi ground forces at will was prob more important than the strikes on Bagdad etc.

What u forgetting is that the strategic bombing in WW2 was a result of a doctine were they believed  that heavy bombers could force a country to surrender by hitting cities and breaking the morale of the people. So when deciding if it was a failure or not we have to concider that.

No one have said heavy air strikes was useless, but was it worth sacrificing 160.000 men in the strategic bombing of Germany? I vote No.

Striking tagets on a tacital level in order to support ground operations was quite effective even in WW2.

But the type of strategic bombing that was done in WW2 is pretty much banned today, pin pointing individual targets its not the same thing as aerial bombing.

[DaveBB]

Proof that Air Power is useless because IRAQ did not surrender after the air campaign:

...I guess they just should not bother anymore?

...The COALITION would have won without the air campaign...ergo it was not effective. I guess.

Which Iraqi cities were hit by B-52s?  Most if not all of the bombing was done by tactical fighters and light bombers.

[Arlo]

That says that the heavy bombers were not completely useless. On the other hand, since this was the major achievemt it means they were not much more than that.

That's not a very good translation/reinvention of my post.

[Squire]

Most if not all of the bombing was done by tactical fighters and light bombers

Because that's what makes up 90 percent of modern air power.

[MiloMorai]

Massive numbers of strategic bombers are not needed today because of ICBMs and the BIG bomb.

[bozon]

Proof that Air Power is useless because IRAQ did not surrender after the air campaign:

...I guess they just should not bother anymore?

...The COALITION would have won without the air campaign...ergo it was not effective. I guess.

Almost all of the strikes were tactical, not strategic. The plan was a blitz war and strategic bombing is counter productive to the plan.

[Squire]

Not arguing that many were tactical in nature but:

Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed.

...in any event air war didn't win thew whole thing.

[artik]

More to the point, the Mosquito specifically and also the rise of Fighter-Bombers in general during WWII showed the way to the future. I didn't mean to say that they needed to make all wooden wonder airforces - just adopt the concept on a wide scale. All modern attack planes attemp to be a modern mossies.

The problem that is thinking out of the box wasn't strongest side of the air command (and still is), don't forget  that they sent a waves of unescorted bombers believing into Giulio Douhet theories until the losses were way too high. Also it was proven for a long time ago that fighter escort is essential.

If you hadn't read Way of a Fighter by Claire Lee Chennault, I strongly recommend - it isn't "politically correct" what makes it fascinating.

In any case I'm not sure that replacing entire B-17/B-24/Lancasters fleet by a Mosquitos would be right decision.

Yes, they are much more accurate but much more vulnerable to AAA. Also if you don't have air superiority and you put a decent CAP you still can loose some.

Note, fighter bombers generally can defend themselves in equal terms against other fighters. Mosquito isn't the case. Of course in Your experienced hands in AH Mosquito is deadly but yet unless you come at advantage from the beginning, you are in trouble.

It is ideal weapon for surprise missions but probably not for strategic campaign.

No one tries to build a modern B17 equivallent.

Yes they do:

Either to get over a target:

Or to shoot from a standoff range:

[Karnak]

Yes, they are much more accurate but much more vulnerable to AAA.

Less vulnerable to AA.  They spend about half the time in the AA's range and they are a smaller target.  While they can't take as much punishment as one of the big four engined bombers, those two factors more than make up for it.