Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[PR3D4TOR]

Strategic bombing did not live up to what it was meant to in WWII, and the resources spent on creating a strategic air force would arguably have been better used to create a more tactical air force. However, you fight with the air force you have, not the one you need.

[Interceptor]

Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective...

[Karnak]

Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective...

What would Germany's production have been in January, 1945 without the bombing?  Without that information we can't say if the bombing worked or not.

[earl1937]

What would Germany's production have been in January, 1945 without the bombing?  Without that information we can't say if the bombing worked or not.

there were two reasons heavy bombers did not do what they were designed to do, i.e., force their will on a country, THE BOMB SIGHT AND WIND!

[PR3D4TOR]

And lack of an effective payload. Only after the advent of the atomic bomb did strategic bombing become a war-winning capability.

[Zimme83]

The original idea from the 30:s was that strategic bombing alone could force an enemy to surrender and this idea lived for most of WW2. In that perspective strategic bombing was a failure and rather strengthen the morale and fighting spirit among the people.

As for the affect on industries its harder to evaluate. The bombing campain did not pick up pace until 1944 and only after Allied could deploy enough long range fighters to overwhelm Luftwaffe. But by 1944 the outcome of the war was already clear, it was a matter of how long time it would take to force Germany to surrender.

A brief check shows that USAAF and RAF lost around 79.000 men each in the bombing campain out of around 400.000 total KIA (for each country). So in that perspective i would say that the gain did not outweight the cost. (Especially if civilian casualties are counted).

[MiloMorai]

Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective...

A few months late for it was the fall of 1944 when the peak was reached.

[Zimme83]

We donīt even have to go as far as to WW2, Vietam war saw a similar strategy with strategic bombing (on a much bigger scale) and it still failed to force the enemy to surrender, or cripple his capabilities, The enemy simply addopted and thus neutralized much off the effect.

[Ack-Ack]

We donīt even have to go as far as to WW2, Vietam war saw a similar strategy with strategic bombing (on a much bigger scale) and it still failed to force the enemy to surrender, or cripple his capabilities, The enemy simply addopted and thus neutralized much off the effect.

Strategic bombing during the Vietnamese War was hindered by political considerations, taking off the target list most strategic targets that would have most harmed the North Vietnamese. 

During the peace talks when North Vietnamese walked away from the table, Nixon ordered the unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam which resulted in "Operation Linebacker II".  After the 11 day campaign, there were "few strategic targets worthy of mention left" and North Vietnam contacted Kissinger and asked that peace talks resume in Paris.  The 11 day campaign pretty much destroyed North Vietnam's economy, transportation, petroleum and power industries, which is why they crawled back to the peace negotiations.

ack-ack

[Zimme83]

Still... Did the US won the Vetnam war because of the strategic bombing campain?

[Ack-Ack]

Still... Did the US won the Vetnam war because of the strategic bombing campain?

Regardless of the political outcome of the Vietnamese War, your claim that strategic bombing failed has shown to be incorrect as US strategic bombing forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table.

[Zimme83]

US droped more ords on Vietnam than all countries in WW2 combined. And still it wasnt enough to win the war. I would call that a failure.
And i disagree that Linebacker II had any significant impact on the war, aldough negotiations were resumed, they did not resulted in anything significant. The North did not followed the agreement and the bombings did not forced North to accept any terms they did not previously had agreed to.

[Ack-Ack]

US droped more ords on Vietnam than all countries in WW2 combined. And still it wasnt enough to win the war. I would call that a failure.
And i disagree that Linebacker II had any significant impact on the war, aldough negotiations were resumed, they did not resulted in anything significant. The North did not followed the agreement and the bombings did not forced North to accept any terms they did not previously had agreed to.

You can disagree all you want, it will not make you correct in your claims.

[Zimme83]

Same rules apply for u.

[PR3D4TOR]

We all know who won the Vietnam war, but who lost it? Answer: South Vietnam.