Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[Ack-Ack]

Same rules apply for u.

No, the facts back up what I've said, unfortunately for you, the facts don't support yours. 

[Arlo]

Goin' South fast here.

[Zimme83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linebacker_II

"The US claimed that the operation had succeeded in forcing DRV's Politburo to return to negotiating, with the Paris Peace Accords was signed shortly after the operation. However, the agreement clearly benefited the PAVN in the end.[100] Also, sources indicated that when RVN's President Nguyen Van Thieu objected to the terms, Nixon threatened that he might follow the footsteps of Ngo Dinh Diem (implying that Thieu might also find himself deposed by a military coup).[101] Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail."

Doesnt sound that succesful to me...

[Volron]

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.

It is speculation on my part:  Unaffected by bombing, the material quality and amount of resources available to Germany would have been higher.  The war would have lasted maybe 2 more years.

[Volron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linebacker_II
Doesnt sound that succesful to me...

Supplies were coming from a bit farther north than Vietnam.

[Zimme83]

It is speculation on my part:  Unaffected by bombing, the material quality and amount of resources available to Germany would have been higher.  The war would have lasted maybe 2 more years.

A almost impossible question to answer, Of course life for German forces would have been easier without any bombing, The defence against the bombers took large resorces from other front, on the other hand same thing is true for the Allied side. But two years feels a little too long, the meat grinder in east took a heav toll and the tide in the east turned well before the bombing campain started to pick up pace.

[Oldman731]

Supplies were coming from a bit farther north than Vietnam.

Which is the critical point.  There were no strategic targets to bomb in the north.  Hanoi imported (virtually) all of its munitions and supplies.  There really wasn't any strategic bombing campaign, it was an interdiction campaign, hampered, as others have noted, by political considerations, world's best AA defense, and lousy weapons (Mk 84s against bridges, give me a break).

- oldman

[Zimme83]

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.

[DaveBB]

Each heavy bomber was essentially an infantry squad of men, with 10-11 machine guns, and enough material to make several tanks.  All that manpower and material for extremely inaccurate bombing from 25,000 feet.

German production only slowed when ground forces captured areas supplying alloying elements for metals, and oilfields.  German war production was ramped up in response to allied bombing.

The only German vehicle that was ever knocked out of production due to strategic bombing was the Maus Tank.

[MiloMorai]

Aluminium tanks.

Zimmer doesn't matter how many war machines were produced if they can't get to where they are needed due to lack of fuel and a destroyed transportation system.

[Zimme83]

Almost 1 of 5 American and Brittish soldier KIA in WW2 died in while involved in the Strategic Bombing campain against Germany.

Some numbers:

Aluminium tanks.

Zimmer doesn't matter how many war machines were produced if they can't get to where they are needed due to lack of fuel and a destroyed transportation system.

Dont mix strategic bombing with tacital. German fuel shortages was an effect of not having enough production capacity ie no oil field, atleast not after they lost control of them in Romania. For front line units it was hard to get fuel and supllies because of the air superiority but that is not what we are discussing. Hampering the enemy with tacital bombing is very effective. The German tanks reached the front line but their fighting were greatly affected by Allied air superiority over the battle area.

Edit: The bombing campain did a lot of damage to Germany, But since it wasnt untill spring 1944 the campain really picked up pace it was already too late, Germany was already on the retreat and would have lost anyway. The damage done from late -44 to the end had no effect on the outcome.
My point is that concidering the amount of personell and resourced used in the strategic bombing campain the result is a disapointment.

[Zimme83]

But I can agree in that the bombings could have been more succesful in forcing Germany to surrender if the Allied had gained air superiority earlier. If it had happen for ex in spring -43 instead it might have been different.

On Japan on the other hand the bombings could be called more succesful in forcing Japan to surrender, espesially if the A-bombs are included. In Europe the campain was hampered by lack of escort fighters and enough heavy bombers untill very late in the war.

I would say that using the bombers for military targets like airfield etc would probably be more effective than hitting cities and industries.

[MiloMorai]

German avgas did not come from oil fields.

[Zimme83]

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.

[Interceptor]

Im only reading the results by the book: The main objective was to prevent Germany from producing anything, and thats the opposite that happened.
Someone who was involved in the Allied HQ could explain us if their bombing campaign was a success or not..We didnt even live during this period (for majority), so i dont think we can judge...(my opinion)...

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.