Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

[Hop]

Once I have H2S/Oboe/Gee/Window etc. I'd equip every 4 engine heavy with it and use them to do them same. At night.

H2S and Gee were fitted to most bombers but they were navigation aids than bomb aimers. They weren't capable of precision attacks.

Oboe could only control 1 bomber at a time so was only useful for pathfinders or very small attacks. It also had a limited range.

IMHO Harris was aptly named the Butcher who harkens memories of Haig , why didn't he follow the plans laid out pre war for attacking POL

Oil was BC's number one target for some time in 1940 and 1941. It was abandoned as a target because experience showed attacks were having no effect. When Harris took command of BC in 1942 there was no question of him making oil a target again. He had to adhere to the priorities set out for him by his commanders.

the dummy couldn't or better yet would not transfer any 4 engine aircraft (long range) to protect convoys

Harris was head of BC, not Coastal Command. Allocation of resources to various commands was not part of his job, that was decided at a higher level.

Harris did, of course, expend major effort on minelaying. From 1,055 mines laid in 1941, BC greatly increased the effort under Harris with 9,574 laid in 1942, 13,834 in 1943.


The truth is BC didn't have the accuracy for large scale precision attacks until early 1944. They spent the first half of the year supporting the invasion, the second half of the year they carried out many precision attacks, day and night.

There isn't really much that could sensibly be changed with hindsight. The battle of Berlin was clearly a mistake, but apart from that, BC did pretty much the best it could with the technology that was available at the time.

 

[davebender]

You don't win a war by committing atrocities. It makes no difference if British atrocities are revenge for enemy atrocities.

An effective strategic bombing campaign against Germany means methodically destroying every large factory in the Ruhr Valley and keeping them from being repaired. That requires accurate navigation and the ability to bomb factory size targets despite smog and heavy AA fire.

 

[Readie]

You don't win a war by committing atrocities. It makes no difference if British atrocities are revenge for enemy atrocities.

An effective strategic bombing campaign against Germany means methodically destroying every large factory in the Ruhr Valley and keeping them from being repaired. That requires accurate navigation and the ability to bomb factory size targets despite smog and heavy AA fire.

Atrocities Dave? Blimey...
The concept of 'total war' means attacking every aspect of the enemy. De-housing, de-industrialising, de-infrastructuring and not stopping till the enemy surrenders.
Nazi Germany would not stop and we could not stop them with one hand tied behind our backs by having a faint heart.
John

 

[pbfoot]

You don't win a war by committing atrocities. It makes no difference if British atrocities are revenge for enemy atrocities.

An effective strategic bombing campaign against Germany means methodically destroying every large factory in the Ruhr Valley and keeping them from being repaired. That requires accurate navigation and the ability to bomb factory size targets despite smog and heavy AA fire.

it wasn't an atrocity anymore then the 8th af was an atrocity with its bombing they just had a far better publicist

 

[davebender]

I agree. Both were atrocities and neither contributed much towards winning the war. We need to methodically destroy factories in the Ruhr Valley if we want to put Germany out of commission.

 

[davebender]

IMO of course.

Me-410 Light Bomber.

- Small crew size (2 men) who are well protected against light flak.
- Generous size fuel tanks (2,420 liters) provide plenty of range.
- Relatively high cruise speed with payload to shorten time over the most dangerous regions.
- 1,000 kg bomb load which is accurate enough to hit a factory size building.
.....In practical terms this would be a modified Mosquito. If RAF specifications require these capabilities then that's how the British light bomber would be designed. Adding dive brakes, a dive bomber sight and additional armor to the historical Mosquito light bomber should work. And build it out of the aluminum historically used to make heavy bombers.




Fw-187 long range escort fighter.

- Plenty of internal fuel (1,100 liters increasing to 1,300 liters for the Fw-187D).
- Excellent aerial performance.
- Plenty of firepower.
What more could a fighter pilot ask for?

Britain has a couple options here.
1. Mustang airframe with Merlin engine.
2. Write Westland Whirlwind specifications so it resembles the Fw-187. Specifically it needs more internal fuel and should be powered by Merlin engines.
.....Critical altitude for the engine(s) would be about 15,000 feet as that's where the bombers will start before diving into the Ruhr Valley.

Make no mistake about it, RAF Bomber Command will still lose plenty of aircraft to both flak and German fighter aircraft. But those losses won't be in vain if Ruhr Valley factories are turned into rubble heaps.

 

[pbfoot]

I believe that Bomber Command needed someone that was not part of the "old muddlers Network" . I suggest Norris Cole might have been more effective then Bumbler Harris

 

[tomo pauk]

Any opinions what the USAAF should be doing different, particularly in pre-1944 time frame?

 

[Jenisch]

Any opinions what the USAAF should be doing different, particularly in pre-1944 time frame?

Didn't they started to focus in the Axis oil refineries rather late in the war?

 

[davebender]

The same thing as Britain. We need a bomber with the range, accuracy and crew protection to hit a factory building. Plus a long range escort fighter.

A modified A-26 could serve as the bomber. Add dive brakes and a dive bomber sight to improve weapons delivery accuracy. The crew must have good armor protection.

Either the F4U or a Mustang with Merlin engine will provide fighter escort.

 

[tomo pauk]

The A-26 is pretty much out of the picture, since it's too late in fray. I' was asking what would you do different...

...with equipment historically available

 

[davebender]

It doesn't need to be too late. Engines are the critical component and the R2800 engine was in mass production during 1942.

Axe the historical 1938 B-24 bomber specification. Instead the modified A-26 specification gets written during 1938. That should get the modified A-26 into service during 1942.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry for being such a pain in the ar$e, you need to play the best with the cards you have, not to pick new ones

 

[pbfoot]

Any opinions what the USAAF should be doing different, particularly in pre-1944 time frame?

It would have been nice to see an aircraft with a higher useful bombload but then you end up with a British Bomber with no ceiling or defensive armament

 

[Jenisch]

It would have been nice to see an aircraft with a higher useful bombload but then you end up with a British Bomber with no ceiling or defensive armament

Depends on the specifications of such aircraft. The B-29 could pick 9 tons for long range missions, in comparison with roughly 2 for the B-17 and B-24.

 

[davebender]

Without the A-26 the A-20 was our best light bomber. But internal fuel capacity was far too low for long distance bombing.

Ju 88H-1
Perhaps the A-20 fuselage could be stretched to increase fuel capacity like Junkers did with the Ju-88H. Otherwise I'm out of ideas as our other twin engine bombers were just smaller versions of the B-17. Slow, very large aircrew and unsuitable for angle bombing to improve weapons delivery accuracy.

 

[Jenisch]

What about the Mosquito as a precision bombing aircraft for the RAF instead of the heavies?

 

[HubertCumberdale]

Harris did what he felt he needed to do and should be a hero.

While I reject the 'monster' tag for Harris, I don't think he qualifies as a hero either. He quite deliberately transformed the doctrine of area bombing into dogma, largely, I think, to justify his own messianic boast that area bombing would win the war on its own. It didn't. It couldn't.

I suggest Norris Cole might have been more effective then Bumbler Harris

He may have been, but its unfair to call Harris a bumbler (or Haig for that matter). Harris was a very effective general officer. His only shortcoming was as above, a messianic belief in his own dogma. If there was a shortcoming, it was Portal's, for not having a grip of his subordinate.

And pardon the derail - but this notion about Haig being a bumbling old fool is nonsense too. The British did not suffer disproportionate losses in WWI and bearing in mind that for quite a time, Haig was the first and only British general in history to lead an army that was the senior partner in a general European war, then the worst we can say of him is that he was no worse than the best of his contemporaries. Nor were the casualty rates historically unprecedented. In napoleonic battles, casualty rates of 25% of the entire army were common enough for a single day's battle and instances of entire battalions being virtually annihilated were not unknown (The Buffs at Albuera for example) What was different was the scale of operations. At Waterloo, the Coalition suffered 48,000 casualties out of a total strength of 73,000. Compare this to the first day of Somme, infamous in British history as a day of slaughter, where 57,000 casualties were taken out of a total strength of around 500,000!

Its also a fact that by 1918, under Haig, the British army was competent in integrated all-arms operations encompassing infantry, artillery, armour and air-power. Under Haig, the British army had the first and only Tank Corp. It had a machine gun corp. It was supported by the largest air force in the world. The artillery corps grew 50 fold. The engineer corps grews 200 fold.

This hardly the handy work of the almost cartoon stereotype bumbling cavalry idiot that most people seem to think Haig was.

Derail over.

 

[Readie]

Harris did what he felt he needed to do and should be a hero.

While I reject the 'monster' tag for Harris, I don't think he qualifies as a hero either. He quite deliberately transformed the doctrine of area bombing into dogma, largely, I think, to justify his own messianic boast that area bombing would win the war on its own. It didn't. It couldn't.

Churchill Harris were men of war not peace.
The allied area bombing campaign was a key feature in the final victory in 1945.
The only reason that Harris's claim has been questioned is that he lacked the ability to completely annihilate the enemy in the same way as the American went on to annihilate the Japanese.
Had Harris had the A bomb..well..who knows.
John

 

[stona]

Harris did what he felt he needed to do and should be a hero.

While I reject the 'monster' tag for Harris, I don't think he qualifies as a hero either. He quite deliberately transformed the doctrine of area bombing into dogma, largely, I think, to justify his own messianic boast that area bombing would win the war on its own. It didn't. It couldn't.

I suggest Norris Cole might have been more effective then Bumbler Harris

He may have been, but its unfair to call Harris a bumbler (or Haig for that matter). Harris was a very effective general officer. His only shortcoming was as above, a messianic belief in his own dogma. If there was a shortcoming, it was Portal's, for not having a grip of his subordinate.

And pardon the derail - but this notion about Haig being a bumbling old fool is nonsense too. The British did not suffer disproportionate losses in WWI and bearing in mind that for quite a time, Haig was the first and only British general in history to lead an army that was the senior partner in a general European war, then the worst we can say of him is that he was no worse than the best of his contemporaries. Nor were the casualty rates historically unprecedented. In napoleonic battles, casualty rates of 25% of the entire army were common enough for a single day's battle and instances of entire battalions being virtually annihilated were not unknown (The Buffs at Albuera for example) What was different was the scale of operations. At Waterloo, the Coalition suffered 48,000 casualties out of a total strength of 73,000. Compare this to the first day of Somme, infamous in British history as a day of slaughter, where 57,000 casualties were taken out of a total strength of around 500,000!

Its also a fact that by 1918, under Haig, the British army was competent in integrated all-arms operations encompassing infantry, artillery, armour and air-power. Under Haig, the British army had the first and only Tank Corp. It had a machine gun corp. It was supported by the largest air force in the world. The artillery corps grew 50 fold. The engineer corps grews 200 fold.

This hardly the handy work of the almost cartoon stereotype bumbling cavalry idiot that most people seem to think Haig was.

Derail over.

I couldn't have put it better myself,thanks

Cheers
Steve