Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

tomo pauk · Mar 13, 2012

Hi, Gixx,
I've already suggested 600 bombers doing the raid(s), therefore allowing for non-serviceable ones, in the same post you quote
As for damage, we can take a look at what amount of damage the BC was dealing to the Germans prior the de-housing campaign. Despite all the risk to the bomber crews and the investment in bombing force, the night bombers were not able to hit anything of importance prior that. The window of opportunity for day attacks can span between May 1941 (Germans cut on day fighters in West) to maybe Nov 1941 (bad weather sets in). The pens were in function from Feb 1942 historically?
With any fighter unit withdrawn back to ETO, Germans are worse off in the East or MTO. Great for Allied cause.
The night bombing also required substantial training, so the training for daylight attacks does not seem such an issue. It's a question of doctrine and will at high levels, far more than the question of training the bomber crews. But even the night bombing of the construction sites puts Germans into disadvantage - their defenses (Flak, NFs) lack radars in 1941.

Gixxerman · Mar 13, 2012

Thanks for that tyrodtom.

tomo pauk said:
Hi, Gixx,
I've already suggested 600 bombers doing the raid(s), therefore allowing for non-serviceable ones, in the same post you quote

Indeed you did, ooops, my mistake.

It's an interesting 'what if....' idea but I stil think the 'pull' of the old bomber ideology was much too strong.

tomo pauk · Mar 13, 2012

Well, this is a 'what if' thread

pbfoot · Mar 13, 2012

Please recall that a few of the raids that the USAAF cut their teeth were bombing such targets as Lorient , I firmly believe that Bomber Command became fixated particularly on area bombing with no thoughts of other opportunities the higher ups were area bombing junkies .Its a repeat of WW1 lions led by donkeys to quote some German general .

fastmongrel · Mar 13, 2012

pbfoot said:
.Its a repeat of WW1 lions led by donkeys to quote some German general .

That quote was attributed to Gen Ludendorff by the british historian Alan Clarke. He later admitted he had made it up and in fact the phrase was first used during the Franco/Prussian War by the Times "the French were lions led by jackasses" It was also used about the Russian contingent during the Boxer Rebellion.

Readie · Mar 14, 2012

pbfoot said:
I firmly believe that Bomber Command became fixated particularly on area bombing with no thoughts of other opportunities the higher ups were area bombing junkies .Its a repeat of WW1 lions led by donkeys to quote some German general .

Not sure about that Neil....BC completed other raids apart from 'area bombing'
The 'area bombing' idea was(is) a legimate way of waging war.
That is not to say that I do not recognise and deplore the huge human cost on both sides but, nevertheless 'total war' is just that. Flatten as much as you can and keep going till the job's done.
In the context of the time we are discussing it was hardely suprising that BC carried on with Churchill and the British Commonwealth people's blessing.
In fact I would say that I'm suprised that more area bombing was not done just to make a point to Hitler that his Third Reich was not as invunerable as he and Goering liked to boast.
As ever the ordinary people got in the way..but, that has always been the case throughout history.
We have no immediate prospect of liberating our European allies by force other than grinding down the German war machine and German people as a prelude to an invasion.

Now,what would you do?

John

fastmongrel · Mar 14, 2012

Well said Readie we from our comfortable 21st C perspective have no knowledge of what people went through. The desire to hit back is legitimate and understandable.

Also the knockers never come up with any other sensible way of increasing accuracy and effectiveness. To imply that commanders of the time were stupid and sent there men to die for no good resaon is a grave insult to people who at the time with the best available equipment and knowledge did there best. To suggest as somebody did on this forum that BC should have divebombed heavily defended targets with heavy bombers just shows how moronic some people are. It would have been simpler, kinder and more effective to shoot the crews in the back of the head before they took off rather than let them die as there burning aircraft hit the ground.

Harris is often blamed for sticking to targets that were not efficent ways of taking the war to Germany. This is an insult to Harris he was not involved in strategic decisions he was given a list of targets by politicians and told to attack them in the most effective manner possible. The fact that those same politicians then hung him out to dry after the war and made him a scapegoat is not his fault and undeserved for a man who did his duty.

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

I'm sorry I must be incorrect Harris was an absolute genius , just like Haig full of consideration for his men and on top of the game . Thats why the RCAF wanted work with the USAAF when Tiger Force was planned .
Why did this wonderful leader of men rarely show up to any of the units that flew missions, its no different then Haig ordering his troops into battle and never seeing the frontline . I guess the statement of Lions led by Donkies cannot be attributed to a German officer but if the shoe fits wear it

Readie · Mar 14, 2012

fastmongrel said:
Well said Readie we from our comfortable 21st C perspective have no knowledge of what people went through. The desire to hit back is legitimate and understandable.

Also the knockers never come up with any other sensible way of increasing accuracy and effectiveness. To imply that commanders of the time were stupid and sent there men to die for no good resaon is a grave insult to people who at the time with the best available equipment and knowledge did there best. To suggest as somebody did on this forum that BC should have divebombed heavily defended targets with heavy bombers just shows how moronic some people are. It would have been simpler, kinder and more effective to shoot the crews in the back of the head before they took off rather than let them die as there burning aircraft hit the ground.

Harris is often blamed for sticking to targets that were not efficent ways of taking the war to Germany. This is an insult to Harris he was not involved in strategic decisions he was given a list of targets by politicians and told to attack them in the most effective manner possible. The fact that those same politicians then hung him out to dry after the war and made him a scapegoat is not his fault and undeserved for a man who did his duty.

Well said FM, it is very easy to criticise but, offer no other solutions to the issues faced at the time.
We can only surmise from our parents / grandparents the feelings at the time and from what we read.
To me Harris was a man of the time, just like Churchill and the other leaders who did whatever was necessary to try and win the war.
Harris's treatment after VE day was despicable and I find the denigration of him and BC offensive.

John

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

Readie said:
Well said FM, it is very easy to criticise but, offer no other solutions to the issues faced at the time.
We can only surmise from our parents / grandparents the feelings at the time and from what we read.
To me Harris was a man of the time, just like Churchill and the other leaders who did whatever was necessary to try and win the war.
Harris's treatment after VE day was despicable and I find the denigration of him and BC offensive.

John

There is no denigration of the guys that flew the missions nor of the guys that serviced the aircraft, but look at the guy he wouldn't spare any bombers to strike the invasion area of Dieppe even though he had 50+ squadrons of fighters that would have flown escort because he was worried how it would effect his 1000 bomber raid on Cologne , oh I forgot they could bomb but only at night . BTW Dieppe was the 1st place the P51 had a kill over the LW , maybe if there was more he would have had some confidence

Readie · Mar 14, 2012

pbfoot said:
There is no denigration of the guys that flew the missions nor of the guys that serviced the aircraft, but look at the guy he wouldn't spare any bombers to strike the invasion area of Dieppe even though he had 50+ squadrons of fighters that would have flown escort because he was worried how it would effect his 1000 bomber raid on Cologne , oh I forgot they could bomb but only at night . BTW Dieppe was the 1st place the P51 had a kill over the LW , maybe if there was more he would have had some confidence

I should have said that I included all members of BC Neil.

Harris made an operational decision and the 1000 Cologne bomber raid was a priority.
Why the dig about night bombing?
Why not use the cover of darkness? Most Commando raids in WW2 were undertaken at night.
The P51 was a vital tool in the box , again you are judging with hindsight.

John

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

Readie said:
I should have said that I included all members of BC Neil.

Harris made an operational decision and the 1000 Cologne bomber raid was a priority.
Why the dig about night bombing?
Why not use the cover of darkness? Most Commando raids in WW2 were undertaken at night.
The P51 was a vital tool in the box , again you are judging with hindsight.

John

The dig about night bombing is that Harris said he'd send heavies over for Dieppe only under the cover of darkness and as for using darkness ask Mr Mountbatten the raid was originally planned using heavies and RN Battleships . Funny thing is that mayber Harris was right because Fighter Command was sure handed it's ass on a platter that day despite the fact the 50 sqn of "Spits" flew up to 4 sorties that day

Readie · Mar 14, 2012

pbfoot said:
The dig about night bombing is that Harris said he'd send heavies over for Dieppe only under the cover of darkness and as for using darkness ask Mr Mountbatten the raid was originally planned using heavies and RN Battleships . Funny thing is that mayber Harris was right because Fighter Command was sure handed it ass on a platter that day despite the fact the 50 sqn of "Spits" flew up to 4 sorties that day

Bombers moon and the cover of darkness are always preferred.
I'm sorry but, I don't understand what you mean about 'handed it ass on a platter'...
John

tomo pauk · Mar 14, 2012

RAF can use 20/20 hindsight already in 1941.
They knew very well that a bomber raid, numbering in hundreds of bombers, if a force that can bring devastation. They also knew that bombers are cold meat for fighters if no escort is provided. They also knew that LW from May 1941, while potent force, could not be deployed in all of three war theaters in great numbers, unlike the RAF forces. How far fetched is for Brits to just draw a bottom line and see that, from that time, they are more than able to overwhelm the Germans in ETO? After all, the RAF was mounting for better part of 1941 and 1942 (and later) offensive fighter sorties, with trickles of bombers acting as bait. Germans were in position to choose whether to fight (when judged the LW can gain upper hand), or to decline fight (when judged RAF would bring in an overwhelming force).
With 600 bombers attacking German installations, the LW is no more in position to decline fight - they MUST scramble and attack the bombers. Right what the RAF wants them to do. RAF can afford trade a bomber and a fighter per every fighter Germans loose. Can the 200-250 strong German fighter force withstand that vs. 1100+ RAF bombers and fighters? I doubt they could, even with such a favorable kill ration, even with half of downed German pilots fighting another day.

fastmongrel · Mar 14, 2012

Who in there right mind would use heavy bombers to attack Dieppe during a raid. What possible reason would there be to use them at night or in daytime. Even in 1944 heavies probably killed as many allied soldiers as they did German when they were used for infantry support in Normandy. You waste a strategic asset on a Commando raid that will have zero effect on the current war effort.

As for the critiscism of Haig that is a construct of marxist historians that infested British universities of the 60s and 70s. If you believe the claptrap spouted 50 years after the event by people with an agenda thats fine by me but dont ignore the facts and use marxist/leninist class warfare ideology in its place. The 1st World war was not a class struggle and no general on either side killed men for no good reason. Tactics take years to be learnt and possibly the British Army took longer to learn them than the German army. Thats simply a fact that the British army since the Crimean war had been used as a colonial police force and had developed tactics to suit. German armies had more experience of large scale manouvere battles but they didnt noticeably do better than the British generals by the end of the conflict. By 1918 the British armed forces were well equipped and flexible and able to dominate a battle field you dont get like that by ignoring the situation and marching men to there deaths. More recent history books tell a different story of the war a good one to start with would be Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War Cassell Military Paperbacks: Amazon.co.uk: Gordon Corrigan: Books. Not a perfect book and I disagree with some of his reasonings but overall a good primer on WWI and the British, he doesnt pull punches and lambasts the stupid like a good army man.

Haig and Harris made mistakes probably more than most but then they had to keep sending young men to there deaths that unfortunately is what generals have to do in the attempt to clear up the mess created by politicians. If you want to criticise Haig then also criticise Ludendorff he was responsible for millions of Germans deaths many of them wasted in bone headed attacks by infantry against machine guns and artillery. Criticise Foch for sending infantry men against machine guns criticise any general.

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

Readie said:
Bombers moon and the cover of darkness are always preferred.
I'm sorry but, I don't understand what you mean about 'handed it ass on a platter'...
John

handed it's ass on a platter =beat
b

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

fastmongrel said:
Who in there right mind would use heavy bombers to attack Dieppe during a raid. What possible reason would there be to use them at night or in daytime. Even in 1944 heavies probably killed as many allied soldiers as they did German when they were used for infantry support in Normandy. You waste a strategic asset on a Commando raid that will have zero effect on the current war effort.

As for the critiscism of Haig that is a construct of marxist historians that infested British universities of the 60s and 70s. If you believe the claptrap spouted 50 years after the event by people with an agenda thats fine by me but dont ignore the facts and use marxist/leninist class warfare ideology in its place. The 1st World war was not a class struggle and no general on either side killed men for no good reason. Tactics take years to be learnt and possibly the British Army took longer to learn them than the German army. Thats simply a fact that the British army since the Crimean war had been used as a colonial police force and had developed tactics to suit. German armies had more experience of large scale manouvere battles but they didnt noticeably do better than the British generals by the end of the conflict. By 1918 the British armed forces were well equipped and flexible and able to dominate a battle field you dont get like that by ignoring the situation and marching men to there deaths. More recent history books tell a different story of the war a good one to start with would be Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War Cassell Military Paperbacks: Amazon.co.uk: Gordon Corrigan: Books. Not a perfect book and I disagree with some of his reasonings but overall a good primer on WWI and the British, he doesnt pull punches and lambasts the stupid like a good army man.

Haig and Harris made mistakes probably more than most but then they had to keep sending young men to there deaths that unfortunately is what generals have to do in the attempt to clear up the mess created by politicians. If you want to criticise Haig then also criticise Ludendorff he was responsible for millions of Germans deaths many of them wasted in bone headed attacks by infantry against machine guns and artillery. Criticise Foch for sending infantry men against machine guns criticise any general.

Read some history from off shore
Our the Canadian PM grabbed Lloyd George by the lapels over the waste of men caused by Haig after being briefed by Currie .
And as for the British forces being in the prime in 1918 it was the Aussies and Canadians that did the bull work the BEF plain and simple . The Brit Generals still hadn't figured it out with the exception of Byng

fastmongrel · Mar 14, 2012

Try reading a history that is not trying to sell you something. I have read histories from the German, French and US perspective. Give it a go you will be surprised at what people from non english speaking countries think of WWI. A lot of information comes from a 180 degree direction to that of the English speaking histories.

As for Sir Robert Borden grabbing Lloyd-George by the lapels, oh come on that one isnt going to float. Arthur Currie and Lloyd George were friends and political allies against Haig.

pbfoot · Mar 14, 2012

fastmongrel said:
Try reading a history that is not trying to sell you something. I have read histories from the German, French and US perspective. Give it a go you will be surprised at what people from non english speaking countries think of WWI. A lot of information comes from a 180 degree direction to that of the English speaking histories.

As for Sir Robert Borden grabbing Lloyd-George by the lapels, oh come on that one isnt going to float. Arthur Currie and Lloyd George were friends and political allies against Haig.

Try one with a Canadian or Australian perspective ,
"Now Currie was telleing Borden similar stories not about young officers but the imcompetence of British Commanders > borden was shocked . he took Curries criticisms to the Imperial War Cabinet and in an uncharecteristiclly forthright declaration hammered home his bill of indictments . Three days before the German counteroffensive began that spring , British Intelligence had assured the command that there would be no offensive There had been "conspicuos failures to remove incompetent officers " in the British Forces . Talented young leaders faced a wall of opposition from the professionals who refused to promote them above the rank of Brig General.
Looking directly at Lloyd George Borden declared "Prime Minister I want to tell you if there is a repitition of the Battle of Passchendaele not one Canadian soldier will leave the shores of Canada so long as long as the Canadian people trust the government of their country to me "
Bordens blunt actions were unprecedented and it is said he strode across the floor siezed Lloyd George by the lapels of his frock coat and shook him.

Readie · Mar 14, 2012

Big issues to cover here...
WW1 to WW2 fought by our forefathers for reasons that only they really understand.
The world was a different place then and old loyalties die hard.
John

Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

1st Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

1st Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads