Author Topic: Were long range heavy bombers effective?  (Read 15905 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #105 on: June 02, 2015, 10:25:38 AM »
"It was quite a surprise to us when the first Hamburg raid took place because you used some new device which was preventing the anti-aircraft guns to find your bombers, so you had a great success and you repeated these attacks on Hamburg several times and each time the new success was greater and the depression was larger, and I have said, in those days, in a meeting of the Air Ministry, that if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse."

Albert Speer - The Secret War

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #106 on: June 02, 2015, 10:35:55 AM »
And history proved him wrong.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #107 on: June 02, 2015, 12:00:16 PM »
And history proved him wrong.

How is that? There was only 2 devastating raids > Hamburg 1943 and Dresden 1945.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #108 on: June 02, 2015, 12:04:12 PM »
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 ....
I was not commenting on Germany's willingness to surrender after being nuked.  I was pointing out that, as history unfolded, they fought to the bitter end as they did for reasons of insanity.  Reasons the Japanese largely didn't share, as evidenced by trying to enter negotiations to surrender well before Japan was being bombed.  My meaning was to say that while the nukes may have tipped it over to unconditional, the Japanese were already open to a way of ending it.

The Japanese emperor and Prime Minister were not delusionally thinking they could somehow turn the war around and win.  They knew they had lost it some time in 1944.  The Nazi government, at least at the top, deluded themselves into fantasies of turning it around and actually winning it when it was blindingly obvious by 1944 that it was lost and all that remained to be seen was the exact manner in which it would end.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #109 on: June 02, 2015, 12:45:27 PM »
How is that? There was only 2 devastating raids > Hamburg 1943 and Dresden 1945.

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...


Cologne




Nurnberg




Darmstadt




Wurzburg

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #110 on: June 02, 2015, 02:21:35 PM »
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.
It is true that at some early point in the war it was either carpet bombing of cities, or let the bombers sit idle. The choice was indeed an obvious one.

However, as the war developed, bombing accuracy and lethality of individual bombs increased - later in the war, lancs were bombing bridges, large bunkers and the Bismark with the Barns Wallis earthquake bombs. They were capable of destroying point targets with a small number of bombers during the day. There were also the mosquitoes that were able to place bombs inside the doors of buildings and into the mouth of tunnels. To destroy a factory they did not need 100+ heavy bombers to cover 2 square kilometers with bombs - they needed 8-12 mosquitoes that can actually hit the target both in day and at night.

Aside from special missions, Harris was too deep into the bomb-to-submission concept that he could not, or was not willing to reform bomber command and send it to bomb point targets as a global strategy. The 8th AF was also locked into the heavy bombers area bombing. They too could not see that a force of fast light bombers could achieve the same goals with a much higher efficiency. Once they set this huge machine of mass heavy bomber production, crew training, escort tactics, logistics etc. it was very very difficult to suddenly stop, say "this is stupid" and change everything from the ground up. They just kept on going with the momentuum. I cannot blame them.

Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #111 on: June 02, 2015, 02:35:49 PM »
I know of only 2 German cities with more than 50.000 inhabitant's that where not bombed full or partly.
For those who lived in the bombed cities, it was devastation, and US and British airmen had to be protected by military against the civilians if they had to bail.

My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline FLOOB

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #112 on: June 02, 2015, 02:54:07 PM »
and US and British airmen had to be protected by military against the civilians if they had to bail.
Yep. Several instances of crews from my uncle's unit being murdered. There's a couple survivor accounts in this vid.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans” - John Steinbeck

Offline FLOOB

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #113 on: June 02, 2015, 03:16:54 PM »
There is one major accomplishment of the european bombing campaign that nobody has mentioned yet.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans” - John Steinbeck

Offline FLOOB

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #114 on: June 02, 2015, 03:39:22 PM »
This is kind of neat. A video interview with b17 crews and Lemay after the 8th USAF first mission into germany.


And here is the mission report.
http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/012.pdf

Interestingly, I can't find any of the names from this video in the combat report.

“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans” - John Steinbeck

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #115 on: June 02, 2015, 03:46:20 PM »
There is one major accomplishment of the european bombing campaign that nobody has mentioned yet.

The main accomplishment would be the destruction of the Luftwaffe by attrition.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #116 on: June 02, 2015, 03:55:35 PM »
The Germans had to divert a huge amount of resources on equipment/manpower/production to the air war. These were vast resources they would have loved to had deployed elsewhere. Sure it united them, most of all since there was no alternative. But at some visceral level one has to believe that most Germans thought they were screwed once the Allies were able to level their cities at will.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline FLOOB

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #117 on: June 02, 2015, 03:59:44 PM »
The main accomplishment would be the destruction of the Luftwaffe by attrition.
I wouldn't say it was the main but yes it was a major accomplishment.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans” - John Steinbeck

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #118 on: June 02, 2015, 04:09:03 PM »
Yep. Several instances of crews from my uncle's unit being murdered. There's a couple survivor accounts in this vid.



Yes, burning alive was a popular way to lynch surviving RAF crews. I guess it seemed like some sort of poetic justice to them.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #119 on: June 03, 2015, 04:44:40 AM »
I wouldn't say it was the main but yes it was a major accomplishment.

After Jimmy Doolittle took over the reins of the 8th AAF in January 1944 it became the main objective, to destroy the Luftwaffe before Operation Overlord. And hardly anything the 8th did in 1943 can be said to have had much effect on the outcome of the war. Targets were no longer selected strictly based on strategic value, but on how likely they were to provoke the Luftwaffe into defending. And the escort fighters were released to go hunting the Luftwaffe wherever they were encountered and leave the bombers to fend for themselves. It worked, but even the bomber crews realized they were just bait, and it did nothing to lessen their losses in the early months of 1944. 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. And in March 1944 they lost 51 bombers going to Berlin.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 04:46:13 AM by PR3D4TOR »
No gods or kings. Only Predator.