| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - WW2 RAF Bombing Campaign
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


WW2 RAF Bombing Campaign

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: WW2 RAF Bombing Campaign
    Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 11:46
The British started their bombing campagin against Germany cities (unless I am mistaken) the night after a lost German bomber bombed London. The British continued this bombing campagin through 1941-1945, improving their bombers and payloads. 
 
In this campagin several facts soon emerged.
 
1: In day light raids early in the war, bombers took huge casualties when encountering German fighters, so night bombing became the norm. Bomber losses contiued to be large, but not nearly as large as the daylight raid losses.
2: Due to the difficulties of bombing at nite, large cities became the targets, because at least you might been hitting somethings, and not just country side. (In the early days crews were told they were bombing a factory, railway etc, in the city).
3: This campagin killed many thousands of civilians on the ground, and killed a very large number of talented young men from all corners of the British Empire who flew in Bomber Command.
4: However, bombing was one of the few ways that the British could strike back at Germany when only Britian and it's empire were the only ones left fighting the Germans. (1941)
 
Was their any alternative for Britian to turn too, rather than it's night bombing campagin.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 23:45
Especially with the advent of the Mosquito, the RAF did develop techniques for one-off specialised bombing raids (as on the Mohne and Eder dams) even if they sometimes went wrong as in Copenhagen. The Atlantic and Mediterranean were under control, at least after considerable effort, and Germany blockaded but - until Hiroshima you couldn't conquer a a country from the sea and air alone; you could merely stop it from conquering you, which was successfully ensured by the end of 1940, or your territory, take care of by the end of '41.

On the ground, without the US, it might have been possible to give up on a Channel front, and exploit Italian weakness into Sicily and the mainland, but what, reasonably could that have achieved anything much more than was achieved on the ground. Even though non-US forces in Normandy would easily have exceeded the two US Corps to be replaced in Italy, Germany too would have been able to switch more resources to Italy, and the Italians might hae gone on fighting longer.

Without an Italian campaign a Balkan invasion was possible (Churchill liked the idea) but much the same argument applies.

So here's nothing really left except strategic bombing, helping the Soviets, keeping up the blockade, and the development of the new weapons that required, and keeping the scientists busy in Canada with their ultimate weapon - and being grateful that Heisenberg trusted mistaken calculations.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 02:31
Despite the fury of the bombing campaign, it is interesting to note that some thought the overall effect not very decisive. J K Galbriath, and economist hired by the US administration to oversee economic aspects of the war, later stated that strategic bombing achieved much less than expected. German war production actually increased during the campaign, with factories dispersed and hidden.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 03:51
That increase was more due to Germany persuing a total war philosphy after the US joined than an actual problem with the bombing campaign.
 
Indeed one might see this campaign as a success when comparing the production numbers during the long lull of 1944 (between Jan and July) with those of before and after. Germany's production numbers almost trippled when the bombing stopped which makes one wonders if there was no bombing to begin with how much would the Germans produce especially in Tanks and motor viehcles badly missed in the Eastern campaign.
 
Why Galbraith and the team assigned didn't see this? Well probably because they didn't see the over all picture. That is what would it be like if the allies hadn't bombed Germany.
 
Now for percision bombing, the British invented that. I said in an earlier thread that the German ground troops used to say "If British planes came we duck, if American planes all of us ducked, if our planes came no one ducked". Some of the most audacious tactical raids were done by the British tactical air forces (there were two) like the raid that killed Von Bock (the only one of Hitlers Marshals to be KIA) or the one that devastated the HQ of Panzer group west on the eve of their decivie and probably successful attack in Normandy on June 10th.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 22:30
Strategic bombing has had a bad press, and indeed wasn't as decisive as it was cracked up to be, not least by the Luftwaffe in the early years. But it was not only important in reducing production, it also meant that it had to be defended against, helping turn the war into one of attrition that Germany was bound to lose. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 16:54
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 Now for percision bombing, the British invented that.
 
Al-Jassas 


On checking this, i can't find anything that would back this statement up. It has been noted by British Major General J.F.C. Fuller thought that accuracy of aim, as being just one of several recognizable attributes of weaponry. To that end, the technology wouldn't come until the inter war period.

From what i could find, three powers worked on precision bombing in the run up to and during the second world war. The British, The Germans and Americans. For example, one of the tactics tried by the Germans was with radio beam navigation.  The British were introducing the SABS (Stabilized Automatic Bomb sight) in 1943 at the same time American bombers were beginning to make an appearance in Europe trying to prove the worth of the Norden bomb sight.


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 17:07
Originally posted by Birddog Birddog wrote:


 
Was their any alternative for Britian to turn too, rather than it's night bombing campagin.


No, i don't think so. Prior to US involvement, there wasn't much the British could do other than their bombing campaigns and small scale commando raids on the continent, which would be more cost effective for the British with them ruling the waters and the Germans wasting men and resources in securing the entirety of the continent's coast. Basing this conclusion from the Dieppe raid as it was too expensive to hit at the Germans with a sizable force anywhere on the European continent without needlessly squandering lives, funds and morale.  The existence of and raids by British commando were all they could do and that was enough too cause the Germans in keeping multiple experienced veteran combat divisions on the occupied coast too counter British raids, when their presence could have been much more valuable elsewhere.


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 03:47
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 Now for percision bombing, the British invented that.
 
Al-Jassas 


On checking this, i can't find anything that would back this statement up. It has been noted by British Major General J.F.C. Fuller thought that accuracy of aim, as being just one of several recognizable attributes of weaponry. To that end, the technology wouldn't come until the inter war period.

From what i could find, three powers worked on precision bombing in the run up to and during the second world war. The British, The Germans and Americans. For example, one of the tactics tried by the Germans was with radio beam navigation.  The British were introducing the SABS (Stabilized Automatic Bomb sight) in 1943 at the same time American bombers were beginning to make an appearance in Europe trying to prove the worth of the Norden bomb sight.


 
Well words betrayed me. What I meant that task oriented bombing mission that require a high degree of percision as loosely defined were pioneered by the British.
 
Bombing was massive event where you bundle up dozens if not hundreds of planes and attack a huge area in hope of hitting a small target. This usually cost alot and results came after several missions that in all do only partial damage.
 
With the Mosquito especially the ability to attack individual targets with minimal planes and with relative percision in terms of much less fire power than before was increased. Raids such as the ones I mentioned above involved usually a handful of planes rather than the masses of hundreds of Lancasters and B-17s in previous missions.
 
Percision bombing as in guided projectiles only appeared after the war (if one ignores the V-1 and V-2) as you said although I would think that bombs with proximity fuses to be the earliest employement of some sort of guided bombs.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 05:04
Yes, precision bombing isn't the right name. The most precise bombing involved 'aiming' individual bombs, as in dive bombing. Everybody (pretty well) had dive bombers in ww2, the most famous probably being the Ju 87 because of its iconic shape, but the practice went back before 1939, an I remember the US Navy being the major promoter of it, together with the use of carriers in general.

I was a bit surprised though to see wikipedia gives the British the credit for being first.


What I and al Jassas mean was, as he points out, more the precisely defined targetted mission, where aircraft were sent to hit targets as small as local Gestapo offices. For that you really needed the Mosquito.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Oswald View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne, Aust
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oswald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2012 at 15:30
Albert Speer defined the Bombing of Germany as their Greatest Lost Battle. The RAF developed night bombing into an effective weapon as they introduced better aircraft, navigation, target identification and  bombs. The thousands of AA guns, personnel, ammunition etc that had to be reserved to fight the bombers created another front for the Nazis to fight - when those resources were sorely needed elsewhere. As we have seen so many times, civilians suffer and die in wars whether accidental on intentional. Some of them would be in reserved occupations and contributing to their country's war effort and a locomotive is just as useless whether the track, the driver or the locomotive is bombed and similarly, a telephone exchange or factory. In 1941 Britain didn't have the resources to fight the Germans on the continent and the RAF bombing campaign was one more way to divide the Nazi's attention - to the probable benefit of fronts in Greece, North Africa, the Atlantic and Russia.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 08:03
The RAFBC alternative was to bomb military targets, and not to be bombing German women and kids in the middle of the night. You don't need pinpoint bombing when your target is a blazing city during the hours of darkness. The bombing of civilians bears very little fruit. The Blitz and bombing of German non combatants was immoral as it did very little for the war effort. We all did it, the British however turned it into a disgusting art form.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 12:18
I do think you are being rather unfair here, Buckskins.
 
Virtually all sides engaged in civilian bombing during WWII. While morale may not have been affected in most cases, industrial production certainly was. And an army can only fight with the industrial products it has. WWII was more of a total war scenario, in which the full weight of the civilian population was mobilised for the war effort. And often it made more sense to achieve victory through the destruction of industrial infrastructure or non-military targets.
 
The Americans certainly thought so before dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. Which were themselves sequels to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed even more people than the atom bombs.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 13:35
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

The RAFBC alternative was to bomb military targets, and not to be bombing German women and kids in the middle of the night. You don't need pinpoint bombing when your target is a blazing city during the hours of darkness. The bombing of civilians bears very little fruit. The Blitz and bombing of German non combatants was immoral as it did very little for the war effort. We all did it, the British however turned it into a disgusting art form.
 
Mr B- Will you never tire of your anti-British rant? What is the real story here? Did you loose out in the game of love to a Brit? Or did you receive an ill deserved back hand in a pub somewhere, perhaps after making disparaging remarks about the queen?
 
The bombing campaigns of WW2 grew by increments. Threats of destruction, followed by counterforce measures, followed by selective bombing, followed by all out mayhem. All engaged in it, most promenently the Americans (the fire bombing and nuclear bombing of Japan, major participation in the thousand bomber raids against German cities later in the war). Violence begets violence, and after the cycle has been going for a while, it is hard to restrain.
 
Unlike the sprawl of cities in Texas today Mr B, the cities of the 1940's in Europe were very compact places. Factories stood beside homes, homes beside other strategic assets. Pin point bombing may have been an objective, but it was not a reality at the time.
 
If you were to look at it another way, what do you think Jews, Pols, Russians, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped, and others being brutalized and  exterminated in death camps would have said about the bombing of German cities at the time? Stop- some innocents may be killed?
 
You are looking at history through a distorted lense.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2012 at 08:05
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I do think you are being rather unfair here, Buckskins.
 
Virtually all sides engaged in civilian bombing during WWII. While morale may not have been affected in most cases, industrial production certainly was. And an army can only fight with the industrial products it has. WWII was more of a total war scenario, in which the full weight of the civilian population was mobilised for the war effort. And often it made more sense to achieve victory through the destruction of industrial infrastructure or non-military targets.
 
The Americans certainly thought so before dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. Which were themselves sequels to the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed even more people than the atom bombs.

If you want to degrade war production you bomb the factories, as the USAF did during the hours of daylight. German women and kids played a very small role in war production. It was not the same situation as the US, Soviet Union, and the UK, and probably Canada and Australia. I already said we all did it. (Bomb civilians) War production in Japan by the time LeMay had command, was a cottage industry by design. The destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved countless lives, American, Japanese, and allies that would have participated in the invasion of Japan. 
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2012 at 08:08


Constantine I have a question. Do you find this sort of thing acceptable?

"Mr B- Will you never tire of your anti-British rant? What is the real story here? Did you loose out in the game of love to a Brit? Or did you receive an ill deserved back hand in a pub somewhere, perhaps after making disparaging remarks about the queen?"
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
4ZZZ View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 81
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 4ZZZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2012 at 09:17
This is all a bit like that Fawlty Towers sketch I guess. You started it said the German guest and Basil replied No I didn't you invaded Poland. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2012 at 13:14
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:



Constantine I have a question. Do you find this sort of thing acceptable?

"Mr B- Will you never tire of your anti-British rant? What is the real story here? Did you loose out in the game of love to a Brit? Or did you receive an ill deserved back hand in a pub somewhere, perhaps after making disparaging remarks about the queen?"
 
A more up front reply would have been something like this: Captain Vancouver, do you find this sort of thing acceptable? I don't like it, and I am telling you so. Up front doesn't seem to be your favoured methodology, however.
 
Since your time on this forum Mr B, you have been essentially a one trick pony. Or maybe we should say a two trick pony: stars and stripes- good, union jack- stick your fingers down your throat. The former is understandable, as flag waving is as popular a hobby in the US as trainspoting or stamp collecting in Britain. The latter is a little harder to understand, as on a history forum, on could choose all kinds of identifiable groups to drop-kick- the supply is abundant. Teutonic Germans with their military schemes, brutal Japanese doings in East Asia, alcoholic Russian buffoons with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, but........you have an issue here. Why?   
 
Despite my facetious wording, the basic question is sincere. You have been asked before by another forum member. You have been called on your accuracy by Graham and others. Yet....you ruminate.........are you going to come clean? Or continue to snipe from the safety of the trees?


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 21 Jun 2012 at 13:47
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 00:07
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I do think you are being rather unfair here, Buckskins.
!

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 03:17
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

...... The destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved countless lives, American, Japanese, and allies that would have participated in the invasion of Japan.
So what you are saying here is, that it's fine to have a goal - and it's allright to kill zillions of civilians to achieve it, as long as you are american?
RAF had a goal too - they also killed some civilians to achieve their goal - but they were british, so now it isn't allright?
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 06:26
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I do think you are being rather unfair here, Buckskins.
!


?
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 06:46
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

...... The destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved countless lives, American, Japanese, and allies that would have participated in the invasion of Japan.
So what you are saying here is, that it's fine to have a goal - and it's allright to kill zillions of civilians to achieve it, as long as you are american?


Buckskins
Quote
I said that? no, that's YOUR way of expressing your bias comment, and get an unfair dig in about Americans whilst you are at it. 


Northman
Quote
RAF had a goal too - they also killed some civilians to achieve their goal - but they were british, so now it isn't allright?


Buckskins
Quote
The British goal was the murder of women and kids by way of retribution. The RAFBC was hammered by the Luftwaffe when they tried to bomb Germany during the hours of daylight. They Figured they had no alternative but to bomb at night. German women and kids were all but non combatants. It was a disgusting business by the British as they were no match for the Luftwaffe head on, but they killed civilians by the tens of thousands. It accomplish nothing.

    When certain elements of the German population captured any British air crew, their wrists and ankles were wired and they were thrown into the fires they had started. I have yet to find one instance of that happening to USAAF air crew. It was not until the USAAF had all but neutralized Germany's air weapon, pilots, and oil supplies that the British started showing up in the daytime. IMO they were a waste of American logistics.


Edited by Buckskins - 25 Jun 2012 at 06:53
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 07:15
@Buckskins...
 
You got it all upside down...  
I compared two nations both killing civilians - accordingly to you, its only allowed if it is the Americans doing it... they kill in a much nicer way.  Confused
 
If you think the japaneese civilians looked prettier after the bombing  than the germans did, you are mistaken again... 
War is ugly nomatter who is performing the killings....
 
What makes you think I have anything against americans in general ?
My comment was not the least biased as I was only interpreting what you said...  
- but now that you did mention biased, all your comments about brits and americans are biased ...
 
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 07:31
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

@Buckskins...
 
You got it all upside down...  
I compared two nations both killing civilians - accordingly to you, its only allowed if it is the Americans doing it... they kill in a much nicer way.  Confused
 
If you think the japaneese civilians looked prettier after the bombing  than the germans did, you are mistaken again... 
War is ugly nomatter who is performing the killings....
 
What makes you think I have anything against americans in general ?
My comment was not the least biased as I was only interpreting what you said...  
- but now that you did mention biased, all your comments about brits and americans are biased ...
 

Your first paragraph is plain silly.
As is your second paragraph.

Re: Your third paragraph, I am biased regards my country? Ain't you?  You were not being so much anti American as you were helping Graham out (Not that he needs any) 

When it comes to the Brit spin meisters I tell the truth, and that hurts them. If I were deliberately telling untruths, that would be a whole different thing. 
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
mollying View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mollying Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 07:33
"Bomber Command was putting its maximum effort into the repeated attacks on Berlin that winter. The boys who flew in the Lancasters were told that this battle of Berlin was one of the decisive battles of the war and that they were winning it. I did not know how many of them believed what they were told. I know only that what they were told was untrue. By January 1944 the battle was lost. I had seen the bomb patterns, which showed bombs scattered over an enormous area. The bomber losses were rising sharply. There was no chance that our continuing the offensive in this style could have any decisive effect on the war. It was true that Berlin contained a great variety of important war industries and administrative centres. But Bomber Command was not attempting to find and attack these objectives individually. We merely showered incendiary bombs over the city in as concentrated a fashion as possible, with a small fraction of high-explosives to discourage the fire-fighters. Against this sort of attack the defense could afford to be selective. Important factories were protected by fire-fighting teams who could deal quickly with incendiaries falling in vital areas. Civilian housing and shops could be left to burn. So it often happened that Bomber Command “destroyed” a city, and photographic reconnaissance a few weeks later showed factories producing as usual amid the rubble of burnt homes."

—  Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson, 1979


Edited by mollying - 25 Jun 2012 at 07:38
Back to Top
mollying View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mollying Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 07:37
(Just an example of how ineffective the British strategic bombing campaign was shown to be, I think something like 1/15th of bombers in the first year of the war got within 5 miles of their target? Incidentally a memorial to Bomber Command has just been erected, after the government quickly dropped all connections to the bombing offensive at the end of the war - the only wartime service not commemorated & awarded. Strategic bombing could not be claimed to positively contribute to the Allied war effort until the very end of the war, when the other theatres of war were already overwhelmingly in the Allies' favour, and it was not decisive even then.)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 07:55
All right - if nothing else, I'm silly and anti-american.
That is one way of dodging an answer....
 
I give up getting my answer...
 
 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 10:17

"...The Superforts returned in force at the end of the month, flying at altitudes that insured immunity from attacks by Japanese defenders. Although their high altitude provided a shield for the bombers, it also decreased the accuracy and impact of their bomb runs. To correct this deficiency, Major-General Curtis Lemay (newly appointed commander of the American Bomber Command) ordered a dramatic change in tactics. The bomber runs would be made at night, at low altitude and deliver a mixture of high explosive and incendiary bombs. The objective was to turn the closely-packed, wooden homes and buildings prevalent in the Japanese cities into raging infernos and ultimately into the most destructive of all weapons - the firestorm...."

 
US firebombing, and later nuclear bombing of Japan was the end product of the increasing intensity of violence in the war, the urge to put an end to it, and also of evolving technology. It is absurd to glorify US involvement here, and claim barbarity on the part of Britain.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 14:33
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:



Constantine I have a question. Do you find this sort of thing acceptable?

"Mr B- Will you never tire of your anti-British rant? What is the real story here? Did you loose out in the game of love to a Brit? Or did you receive an ill deserved back hand in a pub somewhere, perhaps after making disparaging remarks about the queen?"
 
Bucksins, I have read through the Captain's questions and I think that his intentions are ingenuous. He clearly wishes to know why you do so often single out the British as subjects for condemnation, which is a behaviour which has been noticed and puzzled quite a few members at WH.
 
He presents his question with a bit of well meaning and non-malicious banter. So I wouldn't take the above as being a personal attack.
 
Honestly, I have wondered whether your antipathy towards the Brits does have some personal motive behind it.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2012 at 14:39
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

"...The Superforts returned in force at the end of the month, flying at altitudes that insured immunity from attacks by Japanese defenders. Although their high altitude provided a shield for the bombers, it also decreased the accuracy and impact of their bomb runs. To correct this deficiency, Major-General Curtis Lemay (newly appointed commander of the American Bomber Command) ordered a dramatic change in tactics. The bomber runs would be made at night, at low altitude and deliver a mixture of high explosive and incendiary bombs. The objective was to turn the closely-packed, wooden homes and buildings prevalent in the Japanese cities into raging infernos and ultimately into the most destructive of all weapons - the firestorm...."

 
US firebombing, and later nuclear bombing of Japan was the end product of the increasing intensity of violence in the war, the urge to put an end to it, and also of evolving technology. It is absurd to glorify US involvement here, and claim barbarity on the part of Britain.
We are most certainly of one mind here. The practical necessity of destroying enemy infrastructure while keeping bombing runs free of one's own casualties encouraged a method of targeting that allowed for indiscriminate bombing and likely devestation of civilians. This was a world before laser target missiles.
 
There is a part of me which does suspect that the attacks on the Allied homelands probably did harden the attitude of military commanders towards enemy losses. Brits were going to be a lot less sympathic towards the Germans after enduring the horrors of the Blitz. Americans regarded Pearl Harbor as the epitome of treachery, and a poll conducted in the later stages of the war found 11% of Americans supported the total extermination of the Japanese as a race.
 
But I regard these attitudes as being less examples of exceptional hatefulness as a cultural component of the two countries, and more a case of 'you reap what you sow'.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2012 at 03:08
C'mon Graham, I miss your banter my friend. There appears to be so few that can yield the sword of righteousness with effect on this upstart Yank. I do sincerely hope you are not feeling under the weather sir, if you are, please get well soon and take care of yourself.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.