Accuracy

[RCAFson]

Regarding bombsights, the RAF eventually developed sights with extreme accuracy and when it was offered they turned down the Norden bombsight:

BC - Major Bomb Sights

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... What makes you think that breaking British morale was the primary objective of the Coventry bombing raid?"

Absolutely nothing, davebender. I prefaced my example by "B of B" and that would therefore encompass ALL UK targets. I used 3 German examples, you will note.

But as to your question: only that Nazis propaganda radio kept emphasizing that British moral was close to breaking - so that was the message that the Nazis wanted the world to hear. Who am I to question that .

MM

 

[BombTaxi]

I think, as with the last thread on this topic, there is a tendency for us all to talk around the real objective of British, American and German bombing against cities. That objective was simply to destroy as many cities and kill as many civilians as possible, as advocated by Douhet in the interwar period. Bomber Command was not interested in the percentage reduction in productivity in factories making bayonets in the Ruhr - it was interested in turning the Ruhr into a wasteland where the population was dead or homeless and the factories had ceased to exist. Much the same can be said of the USAAF campaign against Japan, or the German raids against cities like Coventry. Measuring 'success' against such objectives is virtually impossible, and is not susceptible to statistical analysis, as davebender insists.

I also believe that there is little point discussing the effect of bombing on 'national will'. It is clear from most accounts that local collapses of morale did occur during heavy bombing and that constant raids did serve to disrupt then lives of civilians and increase fatigue and 'war-weariness'. However, all of this means nothing if the civilians were not willing to rise up against their political masters and compel them to end the war. There is no evidence that bombed populations in Germany, Japan or the UK ever intended to launch such a rising, so whether or not national will was broken becomes irrelevant as there was clearly no attempt to convert a loss of belief in the war into an attempt to stop it.

Ultimately, I think these three campaigns have to be accepted for what they are - ugly incidents of slaughter in an ugly war of slaughter. Trying to talk around the acts and justify them in terms of industrial throughput or national morale cannot disguise the fact that decisions were taken to engage in activity that had the elimination of civilian populations as a primary objective. It isn't pretty, and perhaps we would not care to acknowledge it, but that could be said about most of WW2.

Just my 0.02 8)

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Ultimately, I think these three campaigns have to be accepted for what they are - ugly incidents of slaughter in an ugly war of slaughter. Trying to talk around the acts and justify them in terms of industrial throughput or national morale cannot disguise the fact that decisions were taken to engage in activity that had the elimination of civilian populations as a primary objective. It isn't pretty, and perhaps we would not care to acknowledge it, but that could be said about most of WW2."

That is the meat of it. It is fair, however, to point out that - when occasion required/requires - bombing CAN be highly surgical - and as I have said earlier - no air force excelled more than the RAF did at pin point targeting by mosquitoes. Those raids were the precursors to today's laser drone strike in Af'stan -- and yes -- we know that weddings still get occasionally hit.

MM

 

[tail end charlie]

" Those raids were the precursors to today's laser drone strike in Af'stan -- and yes -- we know that weddings still get occasionally hit.
MM

Ive been to some of those weddings too nothing gets them going like a few 500 pounders

 

[Matt308]

I think, as with the last thread on this topic, there is a tendency for us all to talk around the real objective of British, American and German bombing against cities. That objective was simply to destroy as many cities and kill as many civilians as possible, as advocated by Douhet in the interwar period. Bomber Command was not interested in the percentage reduction in productivity in factories making bayonets in the Ruhr - it was interested in turning the Ruhr into a wasteland where the population was dead or homeless and the factories had ceased to exist. Much the same can be said of the USAAF campaign against Japan, or the German raids against cities like Coventry. Measuring 'success' against such objectives is virtually impossible, and is not susceptible to statistical analysis, as davebender insists.

I also believe that there is little point discussing the effect of bombing on 'national will'. It is clear from most accounts that local collapses of morale did occur during heavy bombing and that constant raids did serve to disrupt then lives of civilians and increase fatigue and 'war-weariness'. However, all of this means nothing if the civilians were not willing to rise up against their political masters and compel them to end the war. There is no evidence that bombed populations in Germany, Japan or the UK ever intended to launch such a rising, so whether or not national will was broken becomes irrelevant as there was clearly no attempt to convert a loss of belief in the war into an attempt to stop it.

Ultimately, I think these three campaigns have to be accepted for what they are - ugly incidents of slaughter in an ugly war of slaughter. Trying to talk around the acts and justify them in terms of industrial throughput or national morale cannot disguise the fact that decisions were taken to engage in activity that had the elimination of civilian populations as a primary objective. It isn't pretty, and perhaps we would not care to acknowledge it, but that could be said about most of WW2.

Just my 0.02 8)

Now that is brutally honest. And frankly if you had to do it again with the technological state of being, history would repeat itself. While such bombing may have not destroyed the "average" citizen's will it certainly did disrupt their every day lives, make them plan differently, and contribute to destruction of the overall socialistic war effort. Chaos is war's friend. Some societies feed off of it. Others collapse.

 

[tail end charlie]

Now that is brutally honest. And frankly if you had to do it again with the technological state of being, history would repeat itself.

I personally dont see anything wrong with that analysis. For a thousand years various despots had come and gone in Europe and elsewhere in the world. At least in Europe no one is under any illusion as to what a war costs.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Agreed, Matt308 and TEC.

MM

 

[mikewint]

BombTaxi - nicely said and my point exactly. the ultimate effect is a hardening of the population and a growing hatred than can span generations. Unless you are willing to kill everyone someone is going to remember how uncle henry died and avenge him.
Strategic bombing is a frustration bombing hurting the helpless and defenseless