Bomber Question

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

Shortround6 said:
I just get a bit tired of the Typhoon being trotted out as some sort of single engine medium bomber.

Yeah, I scratch my head at that as well. The Typhoon was a fighter employed for ground attack/close support. When at its most effective as a weapon, during Overlord and afterwards, for example, it was a close support aircraft operated by the Tactical Air Forces. During the North African Campaign, Arthur 'Mary' Coningham first employed the idea of what we know today as Forward Air Control, where radio-equipped aircraft or personnel on the ground directed attack aircraft against enemy targets. This was effectively employed during Overlord, with the American 'Pete' Quesada also extolling the virtues of the concept, using the Typhoon and P-47 respectively for their own air forces. The Do 17 was never used in this fashion, and the Typhoon was never used as a strategic bomber, which, the Do 17 effectively was.

pbehn said:
The Do-17 is called a medium bomber, it was used in much the same roles as the Typhoon for its short lived life as a front line combat plane.

The Do 17 might be what we would consider a 'medium bomber' but it was one of the Luftwaffe's key strategic bombers/offensive aircraft in conjunction and operation alongside the He 111 and Ju 88 and was considered in the Luftwaffe as their equal role-wise despite its poorer performance and smaller useful warload. It was not an attack/close support aircraft, nor was it used in such a tactical role. The Bf 110 and Bf 109 were effectively used as close support and fast low-level attack aircraft during the Battle of Britain, in the same vein as Typhoons were following Overlord (but without the use of FAC).

Two very different aircraft carrying out two very different roles.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
The Do 17 might be what we would consider a 'medium bomber' but it was one of the Luftwaffe's key strategic bombers/offensive aircraft in conjunction and operation alongside the He 111 and Ju 88 and was considered in the Luftwaffe as their equal role-wise despite its poorer performance and smaller useful warload. It was not an attack/close support aircraft, nor was it used as such. The Bf 110 and Bf 109 were effectively used as close support and fast low-level attack aircraft during the Battle of Britain, in the same vein as Typhoons were following Overlord (but without the use of FAC).

It did its job upto the Battle of Britain after which it was phased out, same for the He 111 which lasted until the end of Barbarossa. If the Do 17 and He 111 werent used as attack and close support aircraft what were they used for? Up to the fall of France?

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
It did its job upto the Battle of Britain after which it was phased out, same for the He 111 which lasted until the end of Barbarossa. If the Do 17 and He 111 werent used as attack and close support aircraft what were they used for? Up to the fall of France?

They were strategic bombers. Pure and simple. Their role was to attack the enemy behind the front lines. They did not serve in a tactical role. Yes, the Luftwaffe was a largely tactical air force, but its bombers were used in a strategic role to achieve the German army's tactical aims. They were not attacking French tanks or British troop concentrations on the front line at low or medium altitude. They were bombing airfields, cities, ships in harbours, fortifications at medium to high altitude. This is strategic bombing. The Typhoon was a close support aircraft attacking tanks, German troop concentrations etc at the direction of the troops on the ground, tactical strike. The Germans did not use their 'bombers' in that fashion. They did use their Stukas in that fashion, and their Bf 109s and '110s, but not their He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s in 1939 and 1940.

The distinction is in the names of the units. The He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s belonged to Kampfgeschwader, the Ju 87s were Stukageschwader, the Bf 110s in Zerstorergeschwader ('Zerstorer' isn't just long-range fighter, but ground attack and reconnaissance too).

Graeme · May 30, 2021

Zipper730 said:
DH.4 referred to as a day-bomber

Jane's reliability is debatable, and it is early post-war - but I see the 1919 edition does mention day-bomber...

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
They were strategic bombers. Pure and simple. Their role was to attack the enemy behind the front lines. They did not serve in a tactical role. Yes, the Luftwaffe was a largely tactical air force, but its bombers were used in a strategic role to achieve the German army's tactical aims. They were not attacking French tanks or British troop concentrations on the front line at low or medium altitude. They were bombing airfields, cities, ships in harbours, fortifications at medium to high altitude. This is strategic bombing. The Typhoon was a close support aircraft attacking tanks, German troop concentrations etc at the direction of the troops on the ground, tactical strike. The Germans did not use their 'bombers' in that fashion. They did use their Stukas in that fashion, and their Bf 109s and '110s, but not their He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s in 1939 and 1940.

Which strategic target was attacked by Do-17s or He 111s in the Battle of France? What you describe are called tactical targets when the allied forces were attacking, which city or industry was attacked in the 10 weeks of the France campaign. The only way you can call attacking British of French airfields as "strategic bombing" is if that is your strategy. Attacking German airfields was part of USA strategic bombing to wear down the L/W but the airfields were not the strategic targets.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
The only way you can call attacking British of French airfields as "strategic bombing" is if that is your strategy.

Nope. look up the definition of strategic bombing.

"Strategic bombing, approach to aerial bombardment designed to destroy a country's ability to wage war by demoralizing civilians and targeting features of an enemy's infrastructure—such as factories, railways, and refineries—that are essential for the production and supply of war materials. Some definitions of strategic bombing, however, also include roles for supporting ground troops in combat operations. Strategic bombing is a facet of total war, the enlistment of a society's entire resources to aid in a conflict."

From here: Strategic bombing | military tactic | Britannica

Now look at this definition.

"Attack aircraft, also called Ground Attack Aircraft, or Close Support Aircraft, type of military aircraft that supports ground troops by making strafing and low-level bombing attacks on enemy ground forces, tanks and other armoured vehicles, and installations. Attack aircraft are typically slower and less maneuverable than air-combat fighters but carry a large and varied load of weapons (automatic cannons, machine guns, rockets, guided missiles, and bombs) and have the ability to fly close to the ground."

From the same source.

Note the difference in target. The German Kampfgeschwader were used for strategic bombing, regardless of the tactical intention.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Nope. look up the definition of strategic bombing.

"Strategic bombing, approach to aerial bombardment designed to destroy a country's ability to wage war by demoralizing civilians and targeting features of an enemy's infrastructure—such as factories, railways, and refineries—that are essential for the production and supply of war materials. Some definitions of strategic bombing, however, also include roles for supporting ground troops in combat operations. Strategic bombing is a facet of total war, the enlistment of a society's entire resources to aid in a conflict."

From here: Strategic bombing | military tactic | Britannica

Now look at this definition.

"Attack aircraft, also called Ground Attack Aircraft, or Close Support Aircraft, type of military aircraft that supports ground troops by making strafing and low-level bombing attacks on enemy ground forces, tanks and other armoured vehicles, and installations. Attack aircraft are typically slower and less maneuverable than air-combat fighters but carry a large and varied load of weapons (automatic cannons, machine guns, rockets, guided missiles, and bombs) and have the ability to fly close to the ground."

From the same source.

Note the difference in target. The German Kampfgeschwader were used for strategic bombing, regardless of the tactical intention.

According your quote an airfield is an airfield, not a factory or a railway or a refinery. I would like an instance of of the Do-17 attacking French industry or cities that werent actually in the front line of the ground attack to illustrate your point.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

Here is a paper written by noted military historian Richard Overy. It explains that despite the Luftwaffe's emphasis out of necessity to build medium bombers, their role was strategic and a large potion of their activity was strategic in nature and that the intent was always to have a strategic bombing force. It also describes the reasons why Germany built 'medium bombers', for those interested.

From 'uralbomber' to 'amerikabomber': The Luftwaffe and strategic bombing (massey.ac.nz)

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Here is a paper written by noted military historian Richard Overy. It explains that despite the Luftwaffe's emphasis out of necessity to build medium bombers, their role was strategic and a large potion of their activity was strategic in nature and that the intent was always to have a strategic bombing force. It also describes the reasons why Germany built 'medium bombers', for those interested.

From 'uralbomber' to 'amerikabomber': The Luftwaffe and strategic bombing (massey.ac.nz)

But I am actually looking for examples of the Do-17 used as a strategic bomber up to the fall of France. The fall of France was completely based on what happened on land and 10 weeks is far too short for any strategic bombing to have an effect.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
According your quote an airfield is an airfield, not a factory or a railway or a refinery.

Ahh, no, actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. Please don't deliberately misconstrue what I'm saying and claim that it is in fact what I'm saying.

pbehn said:
I would like an instance of of the Do-17 attacking French industry or cities that werent actually in the front line of the ground attack to illustrate your point.

why should I? The Do 17 was used to attacks airfields in France in the van of the Wehrmacht's advance. airfields are considered strategic targets. French shipping was attacked, French fortifications were attacked. Not only will I give you examples of Do 17s being used to attack airfields, I'll show you a photograph of damage done by a Do 17 at an airfield. Do 17s did this at RAF Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. Eastchurch was attacked on numerous occasions, a couple of times specifically by Do 17s. sure, not in France, but a strategic target nonetheless.

2107 Isle of Sheppey Eastchurch Station wall

pbehn said:
The fall of France was completely based on what happened on land and 10 weeks is far too short for any strategic bombing to have an effect.

On the day of the beginning of the invasion of France, 10 May 1940, the Do 17 squadrons KG 2, KG 3, KG 76, KG 77 and KGr 606 were sent forth to attack French airfields, communications facilities and troop concentrations.

I don't think you are grasping the difference between strategic and tactical warfare. The Typhoon and Do 17 were NOT the same and DID NOT carry out the same role despite doing roughly similar things. Despite attacking airfields, troop concentrations etc in France, they were done in advance of the advancing line of Wehrmacht troops, not in the midst of the actual fighting the troops were doing. The Wehrmacht didn't specifically set out to attack the airfields, their role was to invade France, to deter and destroy the French army. It was the strategic bombers that took out the airfields and aircraft troops etc before they could reach the front line. That's strategic bombing even when it looks like ground attack. The difference is in WHEN the attack takes place, NOT how.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

Here's an example. In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were not being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a strategic role.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
On the day of the beginning of the invasion of France, 10 May 1940, the Do 17 squadrons KG 2, KG 3, KG 76, KG 77 and KGr 606 were sent forth to attack French airfields, communications facilities and troop concentrations.

I don't think you are grasping the difference between strategic and tactical warfare. The Typhoon and Do 17 were NOT the same and DID NOT carry out the same role despite doing roughly similar things. Despite attacking airfields, troop concentrations etc in France, they were done in advance of the attack by the Wehrmacht, not during the attack.

So what did Typhoon and P-47 squadrons attack? Attacking airfields and local troop concentrations is tactical bombing as far as your link says. I am still waiting for you to show where and when the Do-17 was used to attack French Industry and major cities. Paris was hardly attacked at all the whole strategy was a rapid advance over land threatening the capital which fell. Germany captured less than a quarter of France in 10 weeks and forced a surrender, they didnt rely on the destruction of French Industry or the capitulation of French morale by bombing to do it, Blitzkreig was a completely different strategy.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
am still waiting for you to show where and when the Do-17 was used to attack French Industry and major cities.

Again, why should I? You are completely ignoring the difference between tactical and strategic attacks. So the definition says that bombing cities and factories is strategic bombing, it doesn't say that attacking airfields in advance of an invasion isn't.

The difference is when, man, WHEN the attack takes place. Not the specific target, not how far away from the action etc, but WHEN.

The Germans didn't expect the invasion of France to go as quickly or as efficiently in their favour as it did. They were taken as much by surprise as everyone else. As you said, there was no time to attack cities, factories etc. The French collapse was immediate. The Germans didn't plan it that way and I'd like to see you prove that the Germans were not going to attack French factories, cities etc, had the invasion become a long drawn out affair.

They did so against Holland in the attack on Rotterdam. They did so in the invasion of Poland against Warsaw and in the attempted invasion of Britain, London and other British cities were targetted. It was demonstrably part of German strategy. Because they didn't do it is simply down to the rapidity of the advance through France.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Again, why should I? You are completely ignoring the difference between tactical and strategic attacks. So the definition says that bombing cities and factories is strategic bombing, it doesn't say that attacking airfields in advance of an invasion isn't.

I think you are saying that whatever the Do-17 did was strategic or tactical up to 1940 depending on how people feel about it, and despite the fact that many later single engined aircraft could and did do exactly the same job it remains a strategic bomber while the others are tactical.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
I think you are saying that whatever the Do-17 did was strategic or tactical up to 1940 depending on how people feel about it, and despite the fact that many later single engined aircraft could and did do exactly the same job it remains a strategic bomber while the others are tactical.

Is there a banging a head against the wall emoji?

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
So what did Typhoon and P-47 squadrons attack? Attacking airfields and local troop concentrations is tactical bombing as far as your link says.

Read this. Again.

"In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were not being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a strategic role."

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Is there a banging a head against the wall emoji?

Read your own posts , specifically about what is and what isnt strategic bombing and your support of the Do-17 as a strategic bomber. I cant figure out what point you are making, or why Typhoons and P-47 couldnt do the same job, because they actually did.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Read this. Again.

"In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were not being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a strategic role."

So a Mitchell and Marauder are the same as a Do-17 then, and Typhoons and P-47 were not used against airfields? All "medium" bombers were used to try to break the defensive tank line around Caen and so were the heavies. When the strategy is to break out from Normandy everything to achieve that is strategic, which is not in line with your link about strategic bombing.

nuuumannn · May 30, 2021

pbehn said:
I cant figure out what point you are making, or why Typhoons and P-47 couldnt do the same job, because they actually did.

That's your problem. I've made my point pretty clear. An airfield is both a strategic and tactical target. The difference is WHEN the airfield is attacked and under what circumstances. Do you understand that? Again, I'll repeat myself.

The Do 17 was a bomber employed by the Kampfgeshwader. It was used in the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain for attacking strategic targets, eg airfields, troop concentrations, railway yards, factories, population centres etc.

The Hawker Typhoon was a fighter impressed as a ground attack aircraft and used by the Tactical Air Forces. It was used in a tactical ground-attack role against troop concentrations, railway yards, airfields etc.

Note that the two definitions have the same targets. As I have said before the timing of the attack is crucial in the definition.

Go do some reading on the differences between strategic and tactical attack.

pbehn · May 30, 2021

nuuumannn said:
That's your problem. I've made my point pretty clear. An airfield is both a strategic and tactical target. The difference is WHEN the airfield is attacked and under what circumstances. Do you understand that? Again, I'll repeat myself.

The Do 17 was a bomber employed by the Kampfgeshwader. It was used in the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain for attacking strategic targets, eg airfields, troop concentrations, railway yards, factories, population centres etc.

The Hawker Typhoon was a fighter impressed as a ground attack aircraft and used by the Tactical Air Forces. It was used in a tactical ground-attack role against troop concentrations, railway yards, airfields etc.

Note that the two definitions have the same targets. As I have said before the timing of the attack is crucial in the definition.

Go do some reading on the differences between strategic and tactical attack.

I did, I read what you previously posted about the definitions of strategic and tactical bombing which isnt the same as the post above. Basically you are just saying what I am saying, the war had moved on. It doesnt matter at all whether the one ton of bombs dropped is by a twin engined aircraft with three men on board or a single engined aircraft with a single pilot.

Bomber Question

Major

Colonel

Major

1st Sergeant

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Major

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Major

Colonel

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads