http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_WW2 Combat vehicle and aircraft production rose in '43 and '44 and had '45 not finished early for them they may well have increased even more. The quotes about air force superiority and daylight travel being made impossible refer, of course, to fighters and fighter-bombers roaming over Europe, taking pot shots at anything they didn't like the look of - not the bomber campaign. Nice example: And how much did that effort cost the Allies?
Oli, my quotes were from the German leadership, at the end of the war, as compiled in The Air Campaign Planning for Combat by Col John A. Warden III How much did it cost the Germans? they lost.
And if we'd put the money and effort into more tanks or fighters, or even medium bombers they would have lost sooner; or we could have just saved the money. The bomber campaign as a campaign was a win for the Germans in terms of effort put in for results achieved.
Oli, please enlighten us with your wisdom, citation of fact is needed, And pray tell how? if Germany had the oil it would have had the ability to move it forces, and the infrastructure to do so, the industry to supply and keep their forces supplied in the field. Yes the production levels rose right up to 1944 but after that it fell like a rock, the information is available if you take the time to find it. The medium bomber didn't have the delivery weight to cause the destruction level that a Heavy bomber was capable of, it didn't have the range to even hit Germany, and if we had stayed with the mediums we would have had the same problem that the Germans had, they couldn't interfere with the production capabilities of Great Britain, let alone reach the U.S., and the U.S. was producing as many aircraft a month as Germany was a year. Producing in a year the amounts of tanks, as the Germans produced through out the war, and more ships during the war than Germany ever had in their fleets. You don't have any idea of just how much the U.S. produced by its self, it out produced all of the rest of the allies on its own. Have you looked at the pictures of the German cities after the war? the campaign was a win for the allies, it was a decisive part of the whole campaign, and with out it the war would have lasted till today. Now your opinion is nice but how about backing them up with some research? and citation?
Was this related to the closed "Burma road" /construction of the "Lido Road" re-connect? Note Burma Road is back in the news and important again - see my thread: "Burma Road with trucks again."
no, it wasn't. it wasn't a win for the allies either. the bombings were effective, but only because we were able to put 1000s of planes in the air. a 1000 plane bombing raid was not uncommon in the latter stages of the war. we not only had to use 1000s of planes but also resorted to carpet bombing.
Strategic bombing for sure is not worth the "effort" however to deny it had any effect on German production or logistics is quite ignorant. Also even if 4 resources(or more even) were used to kill off 1 equivalent german resource, "Bomber Harris" was all for it. Yes, I agree that if they even took half the production of level bombers and put it into typhoons/mosquitos/Thunderbolts/lightnings etc.... would have paid far larger dividends and also made for less money spent to rebuild a destroyed Germany after the war. Strategic bombing really should have been limited to truely "strategic" targets, Oil, fuel dumps, refineries.
leopold99 I would like to see the citation for this, in Japan yes we did carpet bombing, but we also maintained precision bombing of industrial targets, but in Europe it was precision all the way. The British were doing carpet bombing, their aircraft were developed for it massive bomb loads, and they attacked after dark. http://www.warbirdforum.com/lastraid.htm Troubled or not, the bomb-loaders went on with the job. A few hours later, 131 of the long silver planes with even longer wings set out for Toyokawa; 37 others went to mine the Shimonoseki Straits. ("I have listened to intelligence officers briefing pilots on how to approach Japanese cities whose names they could scarcely pronounce," Murphy mused. "In the morning those cities were gone.") On Wednesday, August 8, 412 Superforts voyaged to Yawata, Fukuyama, and Tokyo. On Thursday, 95 bombed an oil refinery at Amagasaki, and Bock's Car dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Amazon.com: The Last Mission: The Secret History of World War II's ... More than a fascinating firsthand report of the last bombing mission over Japan, ... After a moratorium on bombing raids over Japan, the raids began again. ... http://www.amazon.com/Last-Mission-Secret-History-Battle/dp/0767907787
Of course it did. For one reason we were over-running their territory and production facilities and the thing was over after a few months of '45. But cost for cost mediums could drop more bombs. A mossie was quite capable of carrying a 4000 lb cookie. So what. We're talking about the cost-effectiveness of the bomber campaign. Not when viewed from what it cost us in raw materials, production capability. man power and losses compared to what it cost the Germans. You mean destruction of towns won the war? Is that why Britain surrendered during the Blitz? Oh wait, we didn't. We HAD to resort to carpet bombing because the accuracy was so crap. As for sources, you've got me. I had the book on my hard drive as a pdf. Read it two years ago and now I can't find it. But there were several long-running discussions that contributed to my feelings on this (including relative costs of manufacture etc) here: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ As soon as I find the book again I'll give the title etc. Damn! I hope i haven't deleted it.
nietzschefan Look at the target list for the Army Air Forces in Europe for WWII, that is exactly what they went after.
Oh yeah? from http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=66 "Precision bombing" was not what happened, except on odd occasions. And also from the same site: My italics - I'm one of those that believe it. And the "Accuracy of level bombing. Who knew?" thread at http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ gives many figures for "accuracy" hits on the intended target were flukes as often as not...
The phrase carpet bombing refers to the use of large numbers of unguided gravity bombs, often with a high proportion of incendiary bombs, to attempt the complete destruction of a target region, either to destroy personnel and materiel, or as a means of demoralizing the enemy (see terror bombing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing one word comes to mind: dresden.
Oli One Bomb, and the accuracy level? why do you think the U.S. went to the mass formation and drop on lead? B-24 BOMB LOAD 5,000 lbs on a normal range of 2,850 miles or 12,800 lbs(!) on shorter missions B-25 Range: 1,350 miles (2173 km) Bomb Load: 3,000lb (1361 kg) B-26 Range: 1,150 miles (1851 km) with 3,000 lb (1361 kg) of bombs Bomb Load: 4,000lb (1818 kg) Now remember combat range is less half of total range. The cost of producing a medium was not that much less than a heavy, and it would take 4 mediums to replace the carry load of one B-24, at any range, so how would that be more cost effective, and the fact is that the mediums couldn't even reach many of the targets that needed to be hit, they didn't have the ability to absorb the damage a heavy could and return with the crew, a heavy could loose one or two engines and make it back, a medium loose two engines and guess were you end up, POW city. Remember the cost of training a combat crew, and the loss of experienced crews. That is what really killed the Luftwaffe, and the Japanese air force, the loss of their experienced crews, and the lack of fuel to train replacements.
Quite possibly true. I do not know, but there was this WWII bomber man at work who never tired of telling about the "Norden bomb sight." He looked thru it and was in control of the plane. - Telling the pilot how to fly (he said) on the final bombing run. The cross hairs were spider web, etc. on and on he went. Was he full of it? If yes, it was just ignorance as to the results he and others were achieving - I am sure he believe we won the war with precision day-light bombing.
yes and no. the norden sight was a great improvement over naked scopes. it was even touted as being able to drop a bomb on a dime. in actuality it was not precise, bombs hardly ever hit their targets, the major reason we had to put large numbers of aircraft over a target
leopold99 And if you take the time to do the research, you will find that the British carpet bombed at night and the U.S. went after the marshaling yards and transportation hubs during the day.
why did the british decide on night raids? answer is because they believed in low level bombing. they suffered terribly because of it. this is the reason they switched to night raids. now, do the research and prove it wrong.
Oli And in the words of: General Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief in the West before German surrender: "Three factors defeated us in the West where I was in command. This made impossible the reshuffling of troops and robbed us of all mobility. 2 and 3 need the heavy bomber to accomplish, the mediums couldn't carry the bomb weight, and they didn't have the range, even the British recognized that the medium wasn't big enough, they went to the Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling.
Accurate enough to take out a particular bridge with ONE aircraft after continued mass bombing, or destroy a prison wall without damaging the building behind it so that POWs could escape...
