Lanc's were a joke. Take away their F3 view and we'll see how they do, they simply didnt have a complete set of defense to survive vs fighters anymore than that luftwaffe bombers during the battle for britain. Which is why Lancs couldn't survive at all during the day.
Nope, Lancasters couldn't survive during the day against fighters. Of course, B-17s and B-24s couldn't either. The only bombers that could were the Ar234 and Mosquito. Perhaps the B-29 could have had it been tested, but it didn't do well against MiG-15s.
Those 30,000 USA bombers had DEFENSIVE GUNS... which killed more luftwaffe planes than any fighters, during the day to hit targets!
You know those gunners claimed kills at about a ten to one ratio of what they actually got, yes? You know that the Lancasters, Halifaxes and Mosquitoes were more accurate than the B-17s and B-24s, yes?
My laughing was at the guys who post "crappy 177." When compared to lancs, 177's didn't do so bad, especially considering 30,000 USA bombers were drawing luftwaffe fighters.
Drawing Luftwaffe fighters was not the primary goal of the bombing campaign. It was useful, but the primary purpose was to destroy the designated targets. In addition, the Germans were not facing 30,000 American bombers. A significant number of bombers were sent to the Pacific and CBI theaters and another large number were produced as spares and some were retained in the USA for training purposes.
As to the He177 vs Lancaster, the He177 was incapable of doing the operations the Lancaster did. It would have been rejected by either the RAF or USAAF as unsuitable. It was, really, just an oversized medium bomber.
And this same guy says "what was survival rate of the mini-blitz?" Like he didnt know. I LAUGHED because instant pwning when Lancs lost 4,000 of 7,000 at night, more than half of their lancs.
Maybe instead of laughing you ought to have tried reading. I didn't ask what the loss rate of He177s was during the mini-blitz was (it was the lowest of the participating bombers), I asked how their accuracy was.
The truly laughable thing is that you think a couple months of light, brief intrusions are the equivalent of years of large scale, long missions deep into enemy territory and that you can directly compare the total losses incurred by those two very different operational realities.
Even with USA's daylight bombers of 30,000 heavys. Not so much at the crews dieng but the absolute bs of lancs being anything more than generic. They could barely defend themselves so lightly armed, which is why they had more allowance for bombs.
4,000 B-17s, which could in your view "defend themselves", were lost. No bomber could defend itself with guns.
And no mention of the atrocity of bombing civilians? RAF started the city bombing by messing with Luftwaffe's radio guidance systems, causing luftwaffe to bomb London during the Battle for Britain.
Ah, the wonderful excuses for the bombing of London. Did those nasty, conniving Brits also arrange for the Luftwaffe to bomb civilians in Warsaw, Coventry and dozens of other locations?
And within 12 hours of the Luftwaffe bombers landing, the RAF was upping to bomb Berlin? NOT A SET UP? whatever... the pilot of the luftwaffe bomber group was landing in Berlin to answer to Hitler and that night england bombs Berlin... TOTAL SET UP...
Yes, they did bomb Berlin immediately afterwards as a response. Not very hard to set that up though. Not like they had to fly 12,000 miles, daisy chaining mid-air refueling to get a single bomber over the target as in the Falklands war. Berlin was well within the range of the Wellingtons. But it wasn't a setup. The German bombers bombed London without any assistance from the British, but they didn't do so intentionally on that day.
"I'd rather have them bombing our cities than our airfields" <--- mid battle for britain statement by RAF high command, this is what saved england the loss. Germany was winning, Englands spitys and huri's airfields etc needed the break, they were off balance. Well known fact.
Yes, said well after the Germans switched to trying to erase London in retaliation for the few bombs the British had dropped on Berlin. You are trying to use a statement made well after the fact as incriminating evidence when it was a purely tactical comment. Germany bombed civilians before anybody, other than the Japanese, had in WWII. You're distorted view of history doesn't change that.
That all said, Hamburg and Dresden were horrible and unnecessary atrocity. One that the USAAF B-17s and B-24s participated in.
Lets see, ww1:
Austrian couple Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie get murdered by a Serb does not give Enland the right to steal Germany's colonies around the world, then try to enslave germany by with reparation charges, oh and shrinking Germany's size...
One part delusion and one part persecution complex? WWI was a clusterf**k in which there were no good guys. Secret treaties and old animosities. The excuse the UK used to get involved had nothing to do with any assassination. It was the treaty they had guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality which was violated by the Germans. The real reason the UK wanted to fight Germany was because Germany was challenging the Royal Navy's supremacy and with it the UK's maritime based empire. Germany wanted their place in the sun and the UK wanted to keep the competition down. Same old same old as the last five hundred years, just with industrial technology this time. The reparations were a horrible idea that the French and British should not have done.
No kidding ww2 was part 2 of ww1.
True.
.. Evil england. Evil england bombers... USA should have stayed out and forced England France Germany to negotiate.
It is a wonder to this day why USA joined allied side at all in ww1...
The UK's propaganda was much, much more effective than Germany's. Germany probably shouldn't have been trying to get Mexico to go to war with the United States either. When that came to light it really didn't help Germany's position with the United States.
ww2:
Lets see, Hitler wanted peace with England, Neville Chamberlain wanted peace,
Hitler didn't think the UK and France really meant it when they told him that invading Poland would result in war. Neither the UK nor France wanted war, but they drew their line and told Germany where that line was. It was Germany's knowing actions that led to war.
but England votes in Winston Churchill who wants war in may 1940.
Neville Chamberlain's government declared war, not Winston Churchill's.
And then, when Rudolf Hess sneaks a 110 away and bails over England to make peace, he gets locked up for the rest of his life, he gets tortured and drugged so bad that he was only a vegatable when visitors came. Naaaw, england didnt want war!
Peace with Nazi Germany? Are you nuts? Peace with Nazi Germany was not possible. It was either a temporary thing until they decided it was your turn to be conquered or you were a puppet state. That is, of course, ignoring the atrocities the Nazi's were busy perpetrating against populations in areas they controlled.
