Author Topic: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII  (Read 19141 times)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2008, 01:09:13 PM »
I'm afraid that you're simply mistaken. The Bf 109E was not superior to the Spitfire I at any altitude:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html


The rest of your post is a rehash of what you have stated earlier, and I have presented my counter-arguments earlier too. I thought we agreed that it is not worth going in circles, so I will not comment on it further.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2008, 01:15:46 PM »

The final blow to the strategic air warfare doctrine was the Vietnam War where the USAF dropped more bombs in a week than during all of WWII. Yet they failed to defeat a third-world nation or even appreciably disrupt the North-Vietnamese war effort.

The B-17 was a failure as well. It was designed around the misguided concept of the self-defending bomber

The first bomber to be designed around a truly modern and realistic concept was the de Havilland Mosquito. A bomber that only used passive defence to survive: Speed and stealth.

Modern bombers like the B-1, B-2, and Tu 160 rely completely on speed and/or stealth for protection.

Sorry to join this late, but:

Add another book to your reading list--"Limits of Airpower" by a guy named Clodfelter.  Reviews the use, failures, and successes of airpower in Vietnam and is considered a definitive text.  Strategic bombing (Linebacker I and II) at the end of the Vietnam war was what brought North Vietnam to the negotiating tables, and ultimately forced them to sign the agreement.  Rolling Thunder, as you alluded to, was a failure, but it had a tactical focus, and was not a strategic bombing campaign, but rather, an interdiction campaign.

The idea of a "self-defending bomber" was a theory postulated by Douhet and was adopted by every air force that built a bomber.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have put guns on any of them.  Matter of fact, its one of the reasons why most countries only built medium bombers, and not the heavies like the U.S. and Britain.

The Mosquito did not benefit from stealth.  That's a test proven statement there--I think Karnak can tell us exactly what the resource documentation was.  Speed, yes; but it was as detectable as any other plane during WWII.

Last, since we haven't seen the B-1 or B-2 deployed in a high-threat environment, I think its premature to say that they rely purely on stealth/speed to defend themselves.  During Kosovo, F-117 missions were flying with escorts after the first one got shot down.  Also, aside from nuclear delivery profiles, U.S. Air Force doctrine is one of establishing, then maintaining, and operating in an Air Supremacy environment only.  If it wasn't, it would have no use for the B-52, which is scheduled to remain in service until 2040 or beyond.


"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2008, 01:41:13 PM »
Stoney, you should add your post after the quote tags. Makes it more readable. :)

I might add that book to my reading list. Vietnam isn't really my cup of tea, but...

The Soviets and Chinese also put heavy political pressure on North-Vietnam to reach a settled peace with the south. They were worried that the conflict might escalate and draw them into direct involvement and possibly WWIII. There were many contributing factors to the US loss in Vietnam, perhaps chiefly among them was political interference. However lets not turn this thread into a Vietnam War hijack.

Air forces were putting guns on bombers long before Giulio Douhet wrote "The Command of the Air" in 1921, so I'm afraid you argument is flawed.

With regard to the Mosquito I didn't mean stealth as in radar avoiding technology. I meant stealth as in avoiding enemy detection by flying at night, flying low, using cloud cover etc. Low level hit-and-run raids in France were the trademark of Mosquito FB.VI's, and flying high and fast at night (being virtually impossible to intercept) was the trademark of Mosquito B marks.

Yes just as you say strategic warfare (deep penetration of enemy airspace to attack production infrastructure and population centers) is just a minor part of modern military thinking. As I've said earlier. Edit: I think I missed your point there. When I said that the B-1 and B-2 only use passive defense (including speed and stealth) I simply meant that they do not use any form of active defense ... guns, air-to-air missiles etc. If the enemy detects them (stealth) and manages to intercept them (speed) they are defenceless.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 01:51:16 PM by Lumpy »
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2008, 02:17:31 PM »
I doubt that very much. Can you document that number?

I absolutely can document it, but the question begs; should I waste my valuable time? It seems that you have decided that you are the all-wise  and facts that could undermine that self-image are summarily dismissed.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2008, 02:22:19 PM »
I have no control over how you spend your time so I think you must answer that question yourself.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2008, 02:42:16 PM »
I think you missed the point.  Why should Widewing post data showing your incorrect when you'll just dismiss it because it doesn't support your flawed argument?  You've done it with every other reply in this thread, why would Widewing expect you to be any different with him?


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2008, 02:48:58 PM »
I don't think I've dismissed any facts posted by other people here. The problem with these hypothetical "what if" debates is that a lot of "facts" are extrapolated and open to interpretation. Widewing posted a very high number that I have problems believing without documentation (I'm not calling him a liar though).
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2008, 03:20:43 PM »
No, wrong, only a third of the Luftwaffes strength was ever deployed in the west. The resources and manpower spent on the strategic air war would not simply disappear if the campaign never happened.

Hmm, not sure where you get those stats.  The chief instrument for the establishment of air superiority was the fighter.  Here's a chart showing the overall german fighter aircraft strength.

By June of 1943 out of a total strength of roughly 1700 fighters only 600 were deployed against in the eastern front while about 600 were deployed in the West.  At this point, yes 30% was deployed in the West:



But it soon drastically changed because of the strategic bombing campaign.  From Jul 43 onward units were siphoned from the Eastern front to counter the growing menace in the west so that by Oct 43 there were already at 1000 fighters in the west constituting about 2/3 of the total LW fighters alone.  I don't have stats handy beyond then but Allied estimated that the LW fighter strength would be around 1700 fighters by the Mid 44 timeframe.

And this is just fighter strength alone.  We've already mentioned other resources diverted to fighting the bomber campaign from key arms, munitions, and men.

There's much more we could go on about but I don't have the time to research and write a lengthy discourse.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2008, 03:28:59 PM »
I'll keep it short and sweet...



<Edited to add the following link>: http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/case_studies_strategic_bombardment.pdf

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 03:37:30 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2008, 03:43:55 PM »
Hmm, not sure where you get those stats.  The chief instrument for the establishment of air superiority was the fighter.  Here's a chart showing the overall german fighter aircraft strength.

By June of 1943 out of a total strength of roughly 1700 fighters only 600 were deployed against in the eastern front while about 600 were deployed in the West.  At this point, yes 30% was deployed in the West:

(Image removed from quote.)

But it soon drastically changed because of the strategic bombing campaign.  From Jul 43 onward units were siphoned from the Eastern front to counter the growing menace in the west so that by Oct 43 there were already at 1000 fighters in the west constituting about 2/3 of the total LW fighters alone.  I don't have stats handy beyond then but Allied estimated that the LW fighter strength would be around 1700 fighters by the Mid 44 timeframe.

And this is just fighter strength alone.  We've already mentioned other resources diverted to fighting the bomber campaign from key arms, munitions, and men.

There's much more we could go on about but I don't have the time to research and write a lengthy discourse.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Another table showing available German fighters:




My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2008, 03:50:52 PM »
Just installed Jing, so now I can share some of the documentation I base my arguments on:

In no particular order...














“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2008, 03:52:22 PM »
I'll keep it short and sweet...

(Image removed from quote.)

<Edited to add the following link>: http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/case_studies_strategic_bombardment.pdf

My regards,

Widewing

Thank you for posting that ... though I'm not sure I believe it still. It goes against everything I've read.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2008, 04:07:18 PM »
Hmm, not sure where you get those stats.  The chief instrument for the establishment of air superiority was the fighter.  Here's a chart showing the overall german fighter aircraft strength.

By June of 1943 out of a total strength of roughly 1700 fighters only 600 were deployed against in the eastern front while about 600 were deployed in the West.  At this point, yes 30% was deployed in the West:

(Image removed from quote.)

But it soon drastically changed because of the strategic bombing campaign.  From Jul 43 onward units were siphoned from the Eastern front to counter the growing menace in the west so that by Oct 43 there were already at 1000 fighters in the west constituting about 2/3 of the total LW fighters alone.  I don't have stats handy beyond then but Allied estimated that the LW fighter strength would be around 1700 fighters by the Mid 44 timeframe.

And this is just fighter strength alone.  We've already mentioned other resources diverted to fighting the bomber campaign from key arms, munitions, and men.

There's much more we could go on about but I don't have the time to research and write a lengthy discourse.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs




On 1 January 1943 the total strength of the Jagdgruppen in the west was 635 109s and 190s, stationed at airfields that stretched from Banak in Northern Norway to Brest-Guipavas on the Atlantic coast in Brittany.

In late-December 1943 all units operating in the defence of Germany were put under a new command called Luftflotte Reich, led by Generaloberst Hans-Jrgen Stumpff. On 20 February 1944 the total strength of Luftflotte Reich was 863 day-fighters including Zerstrers. This is less than half of the 1,675 109s and 190s in service at that time.

In 1944 two thirds of the LW was in Luftflotte 4, 5, and 6 all on the Russian front. In June 1944 2,085 combat aircraft were on the East Front while only 850 aircraft were deployed in defence of the Reich, and of these only 135 were stationed in France and Belgium. I can even break it down to individual JG's and Staffeln (but I'd rather not since I'd have to type it all from a book ;).

Sortie rates in 1944:
West (including Reichsverteidigung): 182,004 sorties flown.
East: 342,483 sorties flown.

In the few war months of 1941 the Soviet air force lost 17,900 airplanes. In 1942 the Soviets lost 12,100 airplanes. In 1943 the Soviets lost 22,500 airplanes. In 1944 they lost 24,800 airplanes. And even in 1945 they lost 11,000 airplanes.

In scale the Allied air offensive in the west was merely a sideshow to the war in the east. In fact every other military conflict in recorded history pales in comparison.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2008, 04:08:20 PM »
Btw I recommend Jing, this thing is fabulous!

http://www.jingproject.com/
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2008, 04:12:25 PM »
Without reading all the posts lemme guess.


Gscholz/viking/lumpy/shade de jure = Germans 1337!!!111!!!!1

   ;)
See Rule #4