pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I guess the point is nothing changed IMHO between the 1st and second wars in the British commanders
Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Sorry, I don't agree Neil.
Everyone learnt lessons in WW1, some had to re-learnt in WW2 that's true.But, that applies to all sides.
Why do you have such a down on British commanders?
John
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Don't know anything about the Navy so no comment, but I do believe the Public school boys in the UK were not up to anyones snuff and let their superiority complex blind them to what was evident to all others . For example how many RAF types were on the staff of Gort circa the Invasion of France .
My friends Dad was in front lines in Italy recounted how some Brit officers were checking out the line and were continuing into "no mans land" they tried to stop them but because they were Canadians they were not obviously in the picture so the guys said have a nice trip they were all killed or captured. my friends Dad thought it was pretty funny
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Neil. My Dad in the British Army in the Italian campaign ,wounded and captured by the German army after a over ambitious British led attack.
BBC - History - World Wars: World War Two: The Battle of Monte Cassino
Please read this link and you may like to reconsider your 'pretty funny' remark.
John
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I`ve worked a number of years in the RCAF and had a position like being a fly on the wall the only NCO in a position dealing with officers only , I`ve had the opportunity to work with officers from numerous nations many times on a one to one basis . Almost every nations military officers treated me with respect example . I`d say `morning Sir`and they`d reply G`morning neil hows it going-or something akin except the RAF types and it was always like you were something distasteful on their shoe . It wasn`t like I wanted to be their friend and hang out or ask their daughter out it was a simple courtesy. This was in the 70`s and 80`s and I sure hope things have changed . Now the RAF nco types were the best and a more competent crew one could not ask for
Those public school boys also comprised the regimental subalterns. That's the way society was back then. They may not have been up to your snuff but they were statistically five times more likely to be killed in action than the men that they led,from the front.
I've spoken to many old soldiers and read many memoirs,letters etc and have never seen one instance of an old soldier who described the death of another soldier,even the enemy, as"funny". Maybe I need to meet a few more Canadians.
You can't just keep making your ill informed generalisations. It is close to trolling.
You seem to be under the impression that the British army of 1914-18 was something like the army of the previous centuries when comissions were bought and one of the priveledges of class was leadership. The sale of comissions stopped in 1871.
The armies of all sides,with the possible exception of the US, on the Western Front in 1918 far more resembled the armies that would take the field in 1939/40 than they did their predecessors of 1914. How exactly did your incompetent public school boys achieve this?
By the way Douglas Haig attended Clifton College in Bristol which whilst being strictly speaking a public school operated a model quite unlike other more famous and elite schools at that time. You might like to do a little research into that. This may have caused problems with Eton educated Buller for example.
Haig was also a graduate of Camberley Staff College. French wasn't a public school boy at all having been educated at a naval academy.
Cheers
Steve (getting bored with this)
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Ok obviously I`ve hit a chord about the competence of British Leaders in the wars and will retract all statements and say I was mistaken they obviously were the cream of the crop and on top of their game at all times and obviously just had bad luck
I think I`ll go smoke one now
I think I`ll go smoke one now
Your response does not address any of the facts I have presented to you. Are you not open to debate?
All I'm asking you to do is set aside your prejudices and look at the facts. You will find incompetence and genius, triumph and tragedy,bravery and stupidity. Noone has suggested that mistakes were not made,but they were certainly learnt from. Open your eyes and you will find a far richer and interesting history than one seen through a lens comprised of prejudice and assumption.
Steve
Steve
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
What exactly has this got to do with your posts about British casualties being 'pretty funny' ?
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
If you care to read the link I have already posted you'll see that all commanders are subject to being criticised for their battlefield decisions.
John
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
It wasn`t my quote it was a deceased gentleman that was wounded 3 times was in most battles the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment fought in from Sicily to NorthWest Europe , he was drunk (not a common occurence) had never talked of his expieriences before it was him and I relayed his comments albeit not verbatim , but the gist was if these turkeys were that dumb why should he risk his ass to save them . I saw your link about Cassino this guy was also there as well as Ortona , my uncle was also at Cassino , so I`m not unfamiliar with thte scrap.
I'm not grunt but I'm guessing trenches were not used much in Italy mor like fight positions 20 -30 yars apart I would guess , if you see some guys strolling around at the front line and you yell stop, halt ,sniper or something , is it your job to go out and tackle the fool and risk your butt , its possible it was an exposed position that my friends dad and fellow squad members knew about and the interloper didn't and why risk your ass . I'm sure they tried and I'll wager the language was colourful
Once again I was mistaken and the Brit leaders were all that and more , if I look in the dictionary under excellent military leaders I`m sure there will be pics of Haig and Harris
Last edited:
Technically no. The Hague conventions, the only conventions in force, did not mention bombardment by aircraft but they did specifically preclude bombardment by ballon.
Extrapolating from artillery bombardment and officer is allowed to bombard a city under Siege after making appropriate offers of surrender. During the bombardment he must take care to avoid civilian casualties or damage to such buildings as churches. On that basis the Luftwaffe was probably OK since it had spent 2 days attempting to brocker a surrender, the besieging army faced serious casualties as they stormed or entered the city and they had to keep moving participate in the Battle of France.
During the 1920s the US government proposed to extend to conventions to aerial bombardment and to preclude bombardment of factories if those factories were near housing. The additions did not precede as it was felt that housing would deliberatly be built near factories to take advantage of this zone of immunity.
Area bombardment is now clearly criminal. Any pilot undertaking a mission and caiusing colleteral casualties is liable to potential criminal prosecution if he did not use weapons of adaquet reliabillity and accuracy to reasonably avoid collateral damage.
The Area Bombardment campaign was cleary driven over the edge by Lindemann, who was described as having a pathological hatred of Germans. Many opposed him and proposed alternative strategies but Lindemann had the ear of Churchill and provided more than enough critical mass to get his way. Alternatives would have involved better aircraft either faster or better armed or effective navigation systems. Oboe ( a technical triumph), the one system that had sufficient accuracy (but not range) for instance barely had sufficient support to get through development. A system using orbing aircraft and Oboe like techniques to provide over the horizon blind bombing had very little effort put into it. We never saw a Lancaster with two stage engines and better armour and armament.
Very few of the alternatives were ever developed once Lindemann had gotten his way.
Harris was at worst a mere minion though it is extraordinary that he seem to lack balance in therms of wild hogging of resources such as microwave radars and 1000 bomber propaganda stunts nevertheless I appreciate his honesty.
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Really the first aerial bomabardment of civilians was by the Germans using Dirigables or Gothas, a new one I read about today was the JU52's overflying Warsaw with groundcrew shovelling incendaries out the door
"The Germans launch "Operation Coast" against Warsaw, an air attack on the city consisting of 400 bombers, mostly He 111s and Do 17s, dive-bombers, and ground-attack units, supported by 30 Ju 52s in the bombing role, dropping incendiary bombs. The latter drop 72 tons of incendiary bombs on Warsaw, spreading fires, havoc, and destruction. A Polish officer's wife, Jadwiga Sosnkowska, who later escapes to the West, remembers a year later, "that dreadful night," when she was assisting at one of the city's hospitals.
I think while Stona is being a little harsh you have rose coloured glasses. The officers of the British army were still an elite group when the war started, still steeped in priveledge and inclined to see some of their troops as expendable freaks. This was a British army to paid young girls to hand out chicken feathers to young often school age boys (some of whom ended up shot by firing squad when they 'deserted', that executed shell shocked lower class outsiders as cowards. Officers didn't get executed though I think a few Canadians (who weren't part of the old boy netowrk were). Khemal Attaturk diaries describe how he observed Australian Officers beating Australian troops at gun point to force them over the edge. All quite different from the "ANZAC" legend of an all volunteer army. Now wonder these men couldn't talk about things after the war. The Australians also desecreated turkish graves.
wuzak
Captain
No,because they renamed the two stage engined Lancaster Lincoln.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Siefried, you didn't mention the area bombing of British cities by the LW. The subsequent allied bomber offensive against the axis powers was part of the plan to defeat them.
'total war' was declared and the gloves came off.
I have said before that the casualties were appalling and a raid like Dresden is akin to a nuclear attack.
Did the end justify the means?
I would have to say 'yes' but, with reluctance.
John
'total war' was declared and the gloves came off.
I have said before that the casualties were appalling and a raid like Dresden is akin to a nuclear attack.
Did the end justify the means?
I would have to say 'yes' but, with reluctance.
John
Last edited:
I think a description of what happened to Plymouth will highlight the difficulty of Bomber Command doing the same to German naval facilities in France.
From The Night Blitz by John Ray:
As at Coventry, damage to the city itself was more serious, and caused more disruption, than damage to military targets.
Bomber Command couldn't do the same to German U boat bases in France for 2 reasons. First, they could not simply area bomb French cities.
Second, Plymouth naval base relied on civilian and military workers who lived, with their families, in Plymouth. That was not true to anything like the same extent for German submarine bases in France.
In Plymouth the authorities had to make rescuing, feeding and housing the civilian population their number one priority. The German occupation authorities in France would certainly make repairing the naval facilities their number one priority, and leave the French civilians to their own devices. Indeed, the more misery the French suffered, the greater the propaganda victory for the Germans.
Incidentally, for those arguing Bomber Command should have made a higher priority of the naval battle, here are the operations BC flew on the nights Plymouth was being so heavily area bombed:
21 April - 61 aircraft to Cologne
21 April - 24 aircraft to oil storage depot at Rotterdam
21 April - 9 aircraft minelaying off Brest
21 April - 36 Blenheims to Le Harve power station and anti shipping patrols. The power station attack was called off, all aircraft attacked shipping
22 April - 14 aircraft coastal sweep off Norway
23 April - 26 aircraft bombing Brest
23 April - 6 aircraft minelaying off Brest
23 April - 37 aircraft on sweeps off Belgian, Dutch and French coasts
28 April - 10 aircraft attacks on targets in Germany
28 April - 6 aircraft sweep of Channel for enemy shipping
29 April - 25 aircraft bombing Brest
29 April - 5 aircraft minelaying off La Rochelle
29 April - 39 aircraft anti shipping sweeps
That's 71 aircraft against targets in Germany, 24 against oil targets, over 200 against German shipping.
That's not really what the Hague conventions said. The relevant part from the land warfare rules:
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Note that bombardment of undefended towns was prohibited. In terms of attacks on defended targets, any requirement to spare specific buildings is mitigated with "as far as possible".
Of even more relevance are the laws on bombardment by naval forces:
THE BOMBARDMENT OF UNDEFENDED PORTS, TOWNS, VILLAGES, DWELLINGS, OR BUILDINGS
Article 1. The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden.
A place cannot be bombarded solely because automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off the harbour.
2. Military works, military or naval establishments, depots of arms or war ' matériel, ' workshops or plant which could be utilized for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, and the ships of war in the harbour, are not, however, included in this prohibition. The commander of a naval force may destroy them with artillery, after a summons followed by a reasonable time of waiting, if all other means are impossible, and when the local authorities have not themselves destroyed them within the time fixed.
He incurs no responsibility for any unavoidable damage which may be caused by a bombardment under such circumstances.
If for military reasons immediate action is necessary, and no delay can be allowed the enemy, it is understood that the prohibition to bombard the undefended town holds good, as in the case given in paragraph l, and that the commander shall take all due measures in order that the town may suffer as little harm as possible.
Again note the protection for "undefended" towns. Note however that the rules allowed immediate action to bombard even an undefended town to destroy military and industrial targets, and that the commander must only ensure "as little harm as possible".
The British area bombardment campaign was clearly based on that carried out by the Germans on Britain. Until a week after the start of the Blitz on London British bombers were restricted to attacks on precisely identified military targets. The first British area attack of the war wasn't carried out until mid December, a month after the attack on Coventry, and all the planning talked of replicating the effects of the German attack.
Read the description of the damage to Plymouth and Devonport above. That was what drove British area bombing. Not just a desire to hit back, but a recognition that damage to a town as a whole greatly reduced industrial output at all the factories in that town.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Read the description of the damage to Plymouth and Devonport above. That was what drove British area bombing. Not just a desire to hit back, but a recognition that damage to a town as a whole greatly reduced industrial output at all the factories in that town.
Good post Hop.
There were 'bomb site car parks' ie where buildings were destroyed and not replaced up the early 1970's in Plymouth.
it is also true to say that while the LW did a great deal of damage to Plymouth, the post war developers finished the job and did more demolition to make way for the new city centre...
John
Good post Hop.
There were 'bomb site car parks' ie where buildings were destroyed and not replaced up the early 1970's in Plymouth.
it is also true to say that while the LW did a great deal of damage to Plymouth, the post war developers finished the job and did more demolition to make way for the new city centre...
John
Last edited:
