Were long range heavy bombers effective?

[PR3D4TOR]

The RAF were aiming at whole cities.

[PR3D4TOR]

And so did the Allies.  If Germany used chem weapons after, say, the spring of 1944, Germany would have been smothered under a cloud of gas instead of under a cloud of bombs.  I suspect that both sides realized this.

- oldman

Not really. The Allies had stockpiles of WWI type chemical weapons like mustard gas, but not the nerve gas Germany had developed during the war. The Germans produced and stockpiled 30,000 tons of Tabun before the factory was captured by the Red Army. They also developed an even more potent nerve agent called Sarin and stockpiled 5,000-7,000 tons by war's end. Enough to kill the occupants of 30 cities the size of Paris. There were many generals who pleaded with Hitler to deploy the weapons, but with only a few exceptions on the Russian front, chemical weapons were not used by Germany despite Germany's enormous advantage. Another interesting if disturbing "what if".

[FLOOB]

Check it yall!

[Jabberwock]

Then again, Bomber Harris didn't really care where the bombs landed as long as its was within a city. By that point in the war Bomber Command forgot what it was originally ment to do.

I'm not a Harris fan - I think he drew the wrong conclusions from 1940-1941 experiences and took Bomber Command into an unnecessary war of attrition - but I think that this comment does him a disservice.

Harris took the best available information to him (Butt report, Singelton report, dehousing paper ect) and made a command decision that area bombing was more effective than point target bombing and would continue to be the way that Bomber Command prosecuted the war. He felt Casablanca directive gave him open reign to target any German urban or industrial area, and none of the political or military leadership of the time really disabused him of that notion (although there were some minor scuffles leading up to Neptune/Overlord and about the Transportation Plan).

Harris, to his credit, did recognise the need for better accuracy and although he was obstinate about diverting any resources from the "main effort", did allow the formation of the Pathfinder Force/No 8 Group, No 100 Group, 617 Squadron ect through the war. RAF accuracy did improve through the war, but it could have been improved more quickly and easily if the head of BC was more open to alternatives and different targeting strategies.

[Scherf]

Agree with the above - I believe the Area Bombing philosophy was in place before Harris was put in charge of Bomber Command (not surprisingly, being put in charge by the people who came up with Area Bombing).

I also believe it is inaccurate to say he didn't care so long as the bombs were somewhere in the city. The need for concentration was recognised early on, and indeed was part of the reason for 105 Squadron going on to Oboe ops in mid-43, to back up 109, who had made such a difference in attacks on the Ruhr earlier that year. There was a specific aiming point, and bomb photos were taken by all aircraft in an attempt to measure accuracy.

On a more controversial and possibly un-related note, I believe there is a strong case that the Japanese authorities were more afraid of Ivan and a replication of the carve-up of Germany than they were of more bombings.

[Zimme83]

RAF tactic are understandable. Long range bombing were the only way to hurt Germany in the early years but lack of escort and precision gave them only one choise, to bomb cities at night because that was the only thing doable.

As for Japan its disputed if the bombings, and even the A-bombs, were the main reason for their surrrender.

[save]

What I'm trying to get through, chemical agents are just another strategic terror weapon (1k of heavy bombers area bombing, or a nuclear strike  is another).

US proved to have chemical agents (mustard gas) in Italy 1943 when ju88s blew up the port at Bari, hitting US ship Harvey causing many US troops and civilian casualties.

Methinks your probability logic is flawed (a polite understatement).

[Arlo]

What I'm trying to get through, chemical agents are just another strategic terror weapon (1k of heavy bombers area bombing, or a nuclear strike  is another).

US proved to have chemical agents (mustard gas) in Italy 1943 when ju88s blew up the port at Bari, hitting US ship Harvey causing many US troops and civilian casualties.

Funny, it seemed you were tying to get through that Germany would not have surrendered had the U.S. dropped a couple of nukes on them. Germany not surrendering and retaliating with chemical weapons without being able to put them on U.S. soil doesn't sound like a realistic theoretical answer.

[save]

I see very little difference between a 1000 plane raid hitting Berlin, or a 10kt nuke hitting the same place, did they surrender - NO.
Did they care if this was delivered  by Brittish or US flying objects - NO

What the A-bomb could do is trigger a retaliation action, something "normal" bomber raid had proven not to do.

Why go for US soil where other western Europe cities packed with civilians that could easy get a terminal treatment.


You narrow this to a US threat, Germans did not care about that ,whole western Europe was in threat of chemical agents.

Funny, it seemed you were tying to get through that Germany would not have surrendered had the U.S. dropped a couple of nukes on them. Germany not surrendering and retaliating with chemical weapons without being able to put them on U.S. soil doesn't sound like a realistic theoretical answer.

[Arlo]

Actually, there is a big strategic and logistical difference in a 1000 plane raid and a single bomber capable of the same amount of destruction. I'm pretty sure the Germans weren't as devoted to Hitler as the Japanese were to their emperor at the end of the war. Germany would have surrendered.

[Karnak]

Keep in mind that Japan had tried to surrender well before we were bombing them.  They weren't insane on some asinine idea of Aryan superman crap.  The reason they were rejected is because they insisted on one condition, that the emperor not be taken down.  Frustratingly we'd already reached the same conclusion, but were bound by the requirement that Japan had to surrender unconditionally, something that was done to match the British insistence that the Germans had to surrender unconditionally.

[PR3D4TOR]

In a police state devotion to the government is not a requirement, only obedience. It was not the Japanese public who forced their government to surrender. It was the government itself that chose to do so. In Germany the government issued orders to destroy the country's infrastructure completely, to leave nothing left for the invaders. They would not have surrendered if the allied air forces had done the job for them (even more so than they were already doing), and the people had no say in the matter. There were only children and old people left anyway. In Hitler's eyes the German people had proven themselves weak, and according to Nazi beliefs they deserved nothing better than to be destroyed by the stronger races.

[PR3D4TOR]

Ian Kershaw's book The End: Hitler's Germany 1944-45 should be obligatory reading for any WWII buff.

[Arlo]

Germany wouldn't surrender after being nuked because of Hitler, Aryan supremacy and a standing order to destroy the country's infrastructure? Um. Well. Interesting hypothesis and all ....

[PR3D4TOR]

They didn't surrender after the Dresden fire storm. They wouldn't have surrendered no matter what was done to them. Given the chance the people surrendered to the advancing forces, most of the German soldiers surrendered after a little fighting. However, the German government never surrendered. And as long as the German government refused to surrender the war would go on. They chose to be destroyed. As a technicality Germany was occupied and WWII officially lasted until 1990 when a reunited Germany signed the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany.