Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

[tyrodtom]

Well sort of aluminium mosquito but I wager it would've worked apart from the R-1830 engines:
View attachment 194937


I.Ae. 24 Calquin

Wrong, the Calquin was wood also, and fabric.

 

[Readie]

I.Ae. 24 Calquin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interesting plane and wiki article.
John

 

[tomo pauk]

You're out of your area of knowledge Siegfried. I was a munitions speacialist for 5 of the 8 years I was in the Army and USAF.
In allied munitions , one of the two fuses was in the front, ( not all bombs, but most) If they hit very hard objects, such as a very large rock, bridge abutment, etc. a delayed action bomb, or even a unarmed fused bomb could detonate instantly, because it crushes the fuse and bypasses the delay, or safety, before the bomb casing itself would experience the streeses of a hard impact. Delay fuses were common in WW2, but only used when absolutly necessary, and only on preplanned low level missions, But they weren't generally preferred because of their known problems and the fact that they would be deep underground when they exploded and maybe not inflict the damage needed.

A better system for low level attacks is delayed fall bombs, with high drag pop-out tail sections, or parachutes. Something only tried with smaller bombs in WW2, but in modern weapons about any size drop munitions has a slow fall option.

500 lb bombs with parachutes were used, too.
Called 'parademo' - parachute equipped, demolition purpose bomb. Usually dropped by 5th Airforce's B-25s A-20s in Asia/Pacific during tree-top attacks.

 

[Gixxerman]

In 1997 the British economy was doing extremely well. It was admired internationally. When Gordon Brown entered the Treasury in 1997 he was briefed by a civil servant on the state of the economy. The civil servant told him he had inherited "fantastically good" figures from his predecessor.

Actually this is a tory myth.
Public borrowing was accelerating at a (then) record rate.
The numbers were nothing like as impressive as tory mythology would claim.
Hence for the first 2 years following their 1997 election win Labours' sticking to the pitiably low public spending increases the tory party had claimed they would have stuck to (but which were in fact merely a politicval tactic they expected nobody to have to adhere to, least of all themselves - which they knew was unlikely in the extreme given the climate against them)

When Labour left government in 2010 the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, left behind a short note to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"

......and how many times does it have to be pointed out this this was a joke?
Albeit one in poor taste but nevertheless

Do not confuse the economic success of the Tory years (including manufacturing) with the abject failure of the last government, who's greatest "achievement" was to borrow vast amounts of money to spend on public services we could not even afford at the height of the boom.

More tory nonsense.

Relative to the whole post-war period Labour's record on public borrowing from 1997 - 2009 was (the exception being 2010 thanks to the global financial disaster the international financiers brought us all) actually very good.
It is true that the UK - like most first world countries - ran a deficit but it was actually moderate perfectly manageable......until the financiers wrecked everything - something that was a direct consequence of the tory ideology of financial deregulation.

I'll stop now as this is neither the time nor the place but for those who want the facts this is the British public borrowing record.

 

[tyrodtom]

500 lb bombs with parachutes were used, too.
Called 'parademo' - parachute equipped, demolition purpose bomb. Usually dropped by 5th Airforce's B-25s A-20s in Asia/Pacific during tree-top attacks.

I've heard of the parafrags and up to 250 lb bombs retarted by parachutes, but I didn't know they'd dropped 500 lb para retarted bombs in WW2.
That in conjuction with a front fuze extension makes for a deadly combination for lightly protected targets . The original daisy cutters.

 

[Hop]

Any responsible government will support and develop the countries industry not just destroy it.

Thatcher's government did support and develop British industry. That's why output increased substantially during her time in office.

British industry thrived under the Tories, it declined under the last Labour government.

BL was a clever engineering firm that made better cars than Ford's cynically recycled white bread motors.

Look at the BL lineup in 1979 and show me the good cars.

The Mini was a great design in the 60s. It was too old for the 80s. The Ital was just a restyled Marina, a car already 9 years old. The Allegro was 6 years old with no replacement in sight.

The only new design BL was producing was the SD1, and that was plagued by build problems. Its European launch had been killed by strikes just before the car went on sale in European markets, so that dealers didn't even have demonstrators to show the public.

The French have kept there car industry close to their chests and the French tend to drive French cars by and large. Who benefits? The French. Who benefitted from BL's dismantling and closure? The French, Germans, Koreans and so on. Not the British.

Of course we didn't, that's why it's such a pity BL was destroyed in the 60s and 70s. But make no mistake, there was no way back for BL by 1979. Cars are sold by brand identity, BL had acquired a reputation for outdated design and extremely poor build quality. And behind the scenes their high costs meant there was never any money to invest, and union domination meant they couldn't reduce costs.

The British motorcycle industry reappeared like a Phoenix and how Triumph have gone from strength to strength. BL could have done the same given the opportunity.

Motorbikes are a small niche. It costs millions to develop a motorbike, billions for a mass market car. BL simply didn't have the money. Government money disappeared in to the bottomless pit of union wage demands.

The British car industry died in the 70s. BL entered 1980 as a junior partner to Honda, using Honda's money and technology to develop models that BL built more expensively and with lower quality.

Growth in car industry output by value (constant prices):

1960 - 64
Germany 8.1%
UK 5.6%
France 5.5%

1964 - 69
Germany 6.5%
UK 2.2%
France 9.1%

1969 - 73
Germany 4.8%
UK 0.4%
France 7.4%

1973 - 78
Germany 2.5%
UK -2.4%
France 3.1%

What happened to the British car industry was a national disaster, but it happened long before Thatcher came to power.

Thatcher shut the coal mines, why? How does the importation of foreign coal help us?

The coal mines shut because they were too expensive to run. If you force everyone in the country to pay higher electricity prices to subsidise coal mines, it puts higher costs on British industry and consumers. Consumers have less money to spend on things they want, industry has less money to invest.

I do not subscribe to the CEGB charges theory.

It's not a theory, it's fact. Britain had the most expensive electricity in western Europe in the 70s. By the 90s we had the cheapest. (We are still second cheapest, behind France).

Thatcher shut down British Steel.

British Steel was still going strong in 1997. UK steel production was 17 million tons in 1979, it was still 17 million tons in 1997. (Along with the rest of UK manufacturing, it fell substantially under the last government)

What Thatcher did was modernise British Steel. Jobs were lost, production maintained.

Thatcher shut our ship building industry. Belfast the Clyde are still wastelands and monuments to political idiocy.

The decline in shipbuilding also preceded Thatcher. In 1963 the UK produced 17.52% of the world total shipping. By 1980 that was down to 3.3% In terms of tonnage, 1,096,000 in 1963, 427,000 in 1980.

Now we have the situation where our tube trains are built in Germany, we go to Korea for ships, the 'scrappage scheme' only benefitted the Koreans and China makes everything else.

That's a good summary now. But that's after 13 years of Labour government. 13 years in which manufacturing output declined sharply.

 

[Siegfried]

You're out of your area of knowledge Siegfried. I was a munitions speacialist for 5 of the 8 years I was in the Army and USAF.
In allied munitions , one of the two fuses was in the front, ( not all bombs, but most) If they hit very hard objects, such as a very large rock, bridge abutment, etc. a delayed action bomb, or even a unarmed fused bomb could detonate instantly, because it crushes the fuse and bypasses the delay, or safety, before the bomb casing itself would experience the streeses of a hard impact. Delay fuses were common in WW2, but only used when absolutly necessary, and only on preplanned low level missions, But they weren't generally preferred because of their known problems and the fact that they would be deep underground when they exploded and maybe not inflict the damage needed.

A better system for low level attacks is delayed fall bombs, with high drag pop-out tail sections, or parachutes. Something only tried with smaller bombs in WW2, but in modern weapons about any size drop munitions has a slow fall option.

I think you should have invoked you 'professionalism' and been specific enough to state that you were talking of a duel fuze system: nose contact plus time delay.

I suspect that you are not all that familiar with WW2 munitions. Nose contact fuzes are considered a safety hazard and avoided unless absolutely neccessary because even a light impact can activate it. Deceleration fuses, which can be instantaneous or time delay are much safer.

 

[Hop]

Actually this is a tory myth.
Public borrowing was accelerating at a (then) record rate.
The numbers were nothing like as impressive as tory mythology would claim.

No, public borrowing was contracting, after the rise following the early 90s recession.

UK public borrowing was in surplus at the end of the 80s. The figures for the 90s percentage of GDP per financial year:

1989/90 - -0.19
1990/91 - 1.01
1991/92 - 3.73
1992/93 - 7.44
1993/94 - 7.67
1994/95 - 6.15
1995/96 - 4.67
1996/97 - 3.42
1997/98 - 0.68
1998/99 - -0.5
1999/00 - -1.64

Labour took over in 1997 when the budget was heading back in to the black at a very rapid rate.

Hence for the first 2 years following their 1997 election win Labours' sticking to the pitiably low public spending increases the tory party had claimed they would have stuck to (but which were in fact merely a politicval tactic they expected nobody to have to adhere to, least of all themselves - which they knew was unlikely in the extreme given the climate against them)

Those were the spending increases the Tories had already been following since the early 90s recession, which is why borrowing was falling so fast.

The great tragedy for Britain, of course, is that if Labour had stuck to those increases we would have a surplus now. Instead we face cuts on a scale we've never seen before in modern times.

......and how many times does it have to be pointed out this this was a joke?
Albeit one in poor taste but nevertheless

It might have been meant as a joke, sadly it was also true. A budget deficit of over 11% of GDP, higher than any major western economy. There really was no more money left, borrowing was at astronomical levels, and the incoming government had to make massive cuts to stave off bankruptcy.

Relative to the whole post-war period Labour's record on public borrowing from 1997 - 2009 was (the exception being 2010 thanks to the global financial disaster the international financiers brought us all) actually very good.

No, it was terrible because they borrowed during a boom.

If you are borrowing because you can't make ends meet in the good times, what happens when the bad times come? Labour borrowed when they should have been saving.

Look at it another way. The Tories repayed 1.3% of GDP in 1989. The early 90s recession then caused borrowing to rise to 7.67% of GDP. That's a spread of 9% of GDP.

Labour entered the last recession with the deficit at 2.5% of GDP. That then rose to 11.5% during the recession, again a spread of 9%.

We were in such a bad position because we were already spending far more than the economy could afford before the recession began, despite the booming tax take from bonuses, house sales, vat etc.

If we had entered the recession with a 3% surplus, borrowing would only have risen to 6% of GDP in the recession. That we could have managed.

It is true that the UK - like most first world countries - ran a deficit

The successful countries got their deficits under control during the noughties. Germany, Sweden, Canada etc all reduced the size of the government over the period. They are doing rather well now. Labour greatly increased the size of the state, and borrowed accordingly, which is why Britain is in such a mess.

but it was actually moderate perfectly manageable......until the financiers wrecked everything

You mean the borrowing during the boom years was affordable as long as the boom continued?

If you borrow to finance spending in the good years, and borrow a lot more in the bad years, when do you stop borrowing? When do you ever get around to repaying?

something that was a direct consequence of the tory ideology of financial deregulation.

But it wasn't, was it? It was the Edinburgh and Northern banks, under Gordon Brown's new FSA regulatory scheme, that went bust. Not the traditional banks in the City, but those in the Labour heartlands, run by bankers who were close friends of Brown. Crony Capitalism at its finest.

 

[tyrodtom]

I think you should have invoked you 'professionalism' and been specific enough to state that you were talking of a duel fuze system: nose contact plus time delay.

I suspect that you are not all that familiar with WW2 munitions. Nose contact fuzes are considered a safety hazard and avoided unless absolutely neccessary because even a light impact can activate it. Deceleration fuses, which can be instantaneous or time delay are much safer.[/QUOTE
We were still using some WW2 bombs and about all the fuzes were WW2 developed fuzes, even in the more modern bombs in the late 60's in Thailand, we had no jets at NKP.

There's advantages and disadvantages to either configuration, most modern airdroped munitions are dual fuzed, front and rear.
One disadvantage to base fuzed, or center fuzed munitions is if it does encounter hard objects the bomb will be breaking up before even a instant fuze can comnmence detonation. The only bombs that have to be base fuzed is deep penetrating bombs, such as for concrete structures, or armor, with a very thick bomb casing.

Most of the reason for the Luftwaffe having no front fuzes was the HE111, it's bombs were stowed vertically, by a nose lug. Since that was their major bomber at one time, they didn't want to have speacial bombs just for it. Most, maybe all , Luftwaffe bombs have no front fuze.

I don't see your safety argument. If you crash hard enough to defeat the safety mechanism even in a front fuze, you're already several times over what any human body can take.

 

[Milosh]

I think you should have invoked you 'professionalism' and been specific enough to state that you were talking of a duel fuze system: nose contact plus time delay.

I suspect that you are not all that familiar with WW2 munitions. Nose contact fuzes are considered a safety hazard and avoided unless absolutely neccessary because even a light impact can activate it. Deceleration fuses, which can be instantaneous or time delay are much safer.

I guess they were necessary on American bomb then.

 

[Ratsel]

For quite some time, the the bomb raids were the only instrument available for Allies to bring the war to Germany. However, those raids whole Combined bomber offensive is criticized sometimes. So how would you conduct it, both during day night, with equipment historically available?

Exactly as History played out. I don't think 'more of this, less of that' would have made much difference. There was only one strategy to beat Germany.. not including the 'Nuclear solution'.

 

[Freebird]

This was the basis for area bombing which the RAF,particularly in the right conditions,became very good at. That's why I would have done the same thing. With the tools available it was the only way of carrying the fight to Germany. I will not apologise for the tactics of Bomber Command.Harris did what service chiefs do and fought to get the aircraft he thought he needed for his service. He obviously argued persuasively.During the Battle of the Atlantic I wonder just how the extra aircraft would have found these U-Boats with the technology available. The battle was in any case won without them which at least justifies Harris' stance even if I have some reservations with the aid of hindsight.

The problem was that we WEREN'T taking the fight to German cities in 1941, we were taking the fight to German cows (farms etc)
The Butt report showed very clearly that less than 5% of the bombers could get within a couple of miles.

They would have been better to use the bombers in other theaters, or for ASW (as pbfoot noted)
It was also the stubborn isnsistance by Portal, Harris et all that everything must be sacrificed to keep up the bombing effort at maximum that damaged the war effort.

Suppose that instead of using the resources to build 50 or 60 heavy bombers in 1941, you built 250 hurricanes and sent them to Malaya, it would have made a huge difference.
Would the subtration of 60 bombers make much difference to Bomber command? Would they even notice?

I'm sorry I disagree the Bomber Command offensive was the Paschendaele of the air no other words, stubborn old men with no clue squandering lives. Its not right to muddle on with peoples lives.

 

[Glider]

Its also worth thinking of the difference 50 heavy bombers would have made in the Battle of the Atlantic during 1941-2

 

[Gixxerman]

Hop
Your amusingly biased and cherry-picked party political assertions really are out incredibly of place here.
Too few know even fewer care about your personal political opinions choice of how you interpret political events, for that is all this is.

I suggest you do your silly narrow party-political preaching somewhere where someone might be interested, this certainly isn't the place for it, the Telegraph Daily Mail websites are still free even if Rupert has paywalled his.

(although as the 1960's TSR2 the then Labour Gov case shows, for some in the UK, party politics and defence often interlink......and similarly there is rank hypocrisy and bias, as the tory Duncan Sandys gets completely ignored by the tory fanclub).

It was the Edinburgh and Northern banks, under Gordon Brown's new FSA regulatory scheme, that went bust. Not the traditional banks in the City, but those in the Labour heartlands, run by bankers who were close friends of Brown.

I will address this one as it is part of a laughably ridiculous myth some of those on the right are trying to establish in the US UK at the moment.

Bad mortgage debt (in the UK USA) is but a drop in the ocean compared to the losses the financial sector's madness lumbered the rest of us with.
The US mortgage market was around $10.5 trillion in total in 2008 - and bear in mind most of that is not at all 'toxic' debt.
The British mortgage market much lower amounts. Obviously.
Northern Rock's nationalisation cost about £87 billion, for instance.

This contrasts to the real problem, derivatives and the insane practice of 'collateralized debt' in layer upon layer.
Estimated in 2008 to be about $1,150 trillion.

All the bad mortgage market did was reveal the Emperor's clothes.
They are not the cause of the problem......and in fact had they been we could have had a couple of years adjusting a shallow recession to get over it carried on without the (still) possible global slump hanging over us all.

It's not often one can recommend a film to inform oneself about these events but the Matt Damon narrated 'Inside Job' of 2010 is a very good starting point demonstrates just how absurd this attempt to pretend the financial crisis was born out the mortgage market loans going to those who could ill afford them is.

....and if you want to play British party-politics the tory party have done nothing but press for even greater deregulation all along (the joke being that even the feeble attempts at regulation were criticised as 'control freakery' 'Stalinism' by them their friends in the press here).
As late as 2007/8 tory policy was calling for even further deregulation in the UK (including the British mortgage market).

You also seem determined to ignore the international aspect of this in your party political nonsense.
I actually have no great love of the British Labour party (afterall they carried on in many aspects with the tory economic policies that created this mess) but I do find the this sort of one-eyed devotion you seem to have for the tory party rather quaint.

The fact is and with very few exceptions all political careers end in failure all Govs disappoint.

Now.........can we get back to talking about WW2 aeroplanes?

 

[fastmongrel]

Now.........can we get back to talking about WW2 aeroplanes?

PLEASE or take it to a politics forum. British politics is for British people to talk about down the pub anywhere else particulary on a forum where British people are in a minority is just rude.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright...

This thread is about the Bomber Offensive vs. Germany, not the British Govt. and Economy in 1997.

Get this back on topic now, or the thread is closed.

Next person that throws out an insult as well, will take a weeks vacation. This is getting really old. If you can't say it without insulting someone, then go and play someplace else!!

I am not going to point fingers, those of you that are throwing out insults because you don't care for someones post, know who you are. That goes for any thread. It carries over, from here on out!

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps someone can chime in with an assessment how well the Spit VIII would've fared as bomber escort for 1943, ETO?

 

[michaelmaltby]

All this talk of 50 bombers diverted to the North Atlantic here and 50 more morphed into Hurricanes there .......

The North Atlantic campaign wasn't visible (the rations were, I grant) to the British public ... and certainly Singapore was off the map visibility wise ... unlike hammering Germany -- German cows, German shitters, German worker-housing blocks -- Germany-the-enemy, night after night.

You armchair strategists don't get it -- in democracies, policy has to have public appeal to be long-term successful.

Ask yourself one question: As the night air war persisted, did RAF-Commonwealth bomber command get any better (technology, aircraft, weapons, results, bombing options, etc.) ...? If the answer is no -- then the campaign was a F.U. and should have been stopped. But, if the answer is "yes" even a qualified "yes" then Harris and the Government of the time were correct to stay the course - because - it was popular with the public. They were sacrificing at home night and day but the Germans were going to pay - and pay dearly. (Twice in one generation, indeed!)
.
We - Cold War and Post Cold War folks are spoiled. We are used to seeing constant vigilance (think 24-7 SAC), constant rehearsal and then occasional precise, covert, surgical strikes ..... ideal military strategy and deployment .... we are NOT used to seeing (and can't accept) prolonged pounding away in the dark ... with seemingly mindless losses. Well - WW1 was certainly that, and if PBFoot is right - that Bomber Command was Paschendaele - you can see the origins of the sacrifice. (Personally, I don't accept that comparison ).

As the Germans moved to night bombing of the U.K. the RAF could have introduced the night intruder into the German bomber air patterns at landing and take-off ...
as an alternative to night bombing, But with what aircraft and crew .... Defiants? Beaufighters? I don't think so, That mission had to wait for the Mosquito to hatch .

RAF did what it had to do and I - for one - accept that. POLITICS PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN WARFARE (In democracies).

MM

 

[Readie]

All this talk of 50 bombers diverted to the North Atlantic here and 50 more morphed into Hurricanes there .......

The North Atlantic campaign wasn't visible (the rations were, I grant) to the British public ... and certainly Singapore was off the map visibility wise ... unlike hammering Germany -- German cows, German shitters, German worker-housing blocks -- Germany-the-enemy, night after night.

You armchair strategists don't get it -- in democracies, policy has to have public appeal to be long-term successful.

Ask yourself one question: As the night air war persisted, did RAF-Commonwealth bomber command get any better (technology, aircraft, weapons, results, bombing options, etc.) ...? If the answer is no -- then the campaign was a F.U. and should have been stopped. But, if the answer is "yes" even a qualified "yes" then Harris and the Government of the time were correct to stay the course - because - it was popular with the public. They were sacrificing at home night and day but the Germans were going to pay - and pay dearly. (Twice in one generation, indeed!)
.
We - Cold War and Post Cold War folks are spoiled. We are used to seeing constant vigilance (think 24-7 SAC), constant rehearsal and then occasional precise, covert, surgical strikes ..... ideal military strategy and deployment .... we are NOT used to seeing (and can't accept) prolonged pounding away in the dark ... with seemingly mindless losses. Well - WW1 was certainly that, and if PBFoot is right - that Bomber Command was Paschendaele - you can see the origins of the sacrifice. (Personally, I don't accept that comparison ).

As the Germans moved to night bombing of the U.K. the RAF could have introduced the night intruder into the German bomber air patterns at landing and take-off ...
as an alternative to night bombing, But with what aircraft and crew .... Defiants? Beaufighters? I don't think so, That mission had to wait for the Mosquito to hatch .

RAF did what it had to do and I - for one - accept that. POLITICS PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN WARFARE (In democracies).

MM

Well said Michael.
The British public wanted revenge. That is a powerfull motivater and sacrifices are acceptable.
John

 

[tomo pauk]

British soldiers wanted less german tanks, british pilots wanted less LW planes Flak, british sailors wanted less subs. All of which required fuel. Was there a way to satisfy both civilians servicemen, to conduct a bombing campaign that can actually flatten a factory or a hydrogenation plant as early as, say, 1942?