Daylight V Night bombing....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

One of the reasons, if no the main reason, that (RAF) Bomber Command reduced operations into Germany in 1944 was due to the requirements for the run up to D-Day... It had little to do with the losses incurred by the Luftwaffe night fighter arm or flak.

That's not what the RAF's own official history says.

It's exactly what the official history says.

Early in January, 1944, Harris made known his views in the clearest possible manner. 'The only efficient support which Bomber Command can give to "OVERLORD"', he said, 'is the intensification of attacks on suitable industrial centres in Germany as and when opportunity offers. If,' he went on, 'we attempt to substitute for this process attacks on gun emplacements, beach defences, communications or dumps in occupied territory, we shall commit the irremediable error of diverting our best weapon from the military function for which it has been equipped and trained to tasks which it cannot effectively carry out. Though this might give a specious appearance of supporting the army, in reality it would be the greatest disservice we could do them. It would lead directly to disaster.'
By adopting Zuckerman's conclusions, of which the most important was that the best method of destroying railways was to attack maintenance and repair facilities, Leigh-Mallory showed his hand and at once aroused strong opposition. Such attacks, said the critics, would mean heavy casualties among French civilians at a moment when their goodwill would be more than ever needed. Even members of the Air Staff, whose professional instincts urged them to support the attack on railways, were influenced by this political consideration. So also were other Service and civilian chiefs, and even the Supreme Commander himself, while Spaatz and Harris continued vigorously to protest against what they felt to be a grave misuse of their forces.

Leigh-Mallory, however, persevered, being supported steadily by Tedder. Eisenhower's deputy had had experience in Italy of the bombing of railways and the means of transportation and was convinced that such a policy would achieve great, perhaps decisive, results in France. By the beginning of March Leigh-Mallory's Committee had drawn up a list of seventy-five railway targets comprising the major servicing and repair centres in northern France and Belgium. He at once pressed for permission to attack them. To damage or destroy them, he said, would compel the enemy to move from the railways to the roads and the delay thus imposed would assuredly be fatal. It was at length decided to make trial of this plan, and on the night of 6th/7th March, 1944, 263 aircraft of Bomber Command dropped 1,258 tons of bombs on the railway centre at Trappes, south-west of Paris. The results were striking. Tracks, engine sheds and rolling stock were so heavily damaged that the centre was out of action for more than a month. Eight further attacks by Bomber Command, in strength varying from 300 to 80 aircraft, were made during the month on other rail centres. While the full measure of the success they achieved was not known at that time, sufficient evidence was soon available to show the soundness of a plan unswervingly urged by Leigh-Mallory from the beginning, and to which Eisenhower had in due course become converted. At the end of March, at a meeting convened by the Supreme Commander and attended by the heads of the two air forces and by the Chief of the Air Staff, it was decided that the 'Transportation Plan', as it was then known, would, despite the possible odium it might arouse, offer the best chance of success. A week later the matter was discussed by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, which was attended by the heads of the three Services. All urged the adoption of the plan, and after much debate the inevitable compromise--in this instance to be disregarded almost before it was reached--was adopted. It was decided that attacks on railways must be restricted to places where the risk of causing casualties among the civilian population would be comparatively small. Eventually it was suggested that the list of targets should be revised and only centres where casualties among the French were unlikely to exceed 150 should be bombed. This restriction was even included in the final directive. It was very soon ascertained that, in fact, the casualties, though sometimes grievous, were not nearly so heavy as had been feared, and that on some occasions the number of Germans killed had exceeded the number of French. On 15th April, Tedder issued a complete list of 'Transportation' targets to the United States Air Forces and to Bomber Command, and informed Spaatz and Harris that the 'Transportation Plan' had been approved.

Harris wanted to continue bombing Germany, Tedder, backed by Eisenhower, wanted to use the strategic bombers to destroy transport targets, mostly in France, in preparation for the invasion.

And it wasn't just invasion preparation. A lot of sorties were also flown against V-1 sites at the same time.
 
I think your reasons are wrong.

Everyone except the German Army neglected CAS and light flak prior to WWII. Consequently early war CAS missions by Britain, France and the Soviet Union were relatively easy kills for German light flak. This is especially noticable during May 1940 when German light flak defending Meuse River bridgeheads slaughtered attacking British and French aircraft.

Eventually Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union became more proficient at CAS. Consequently German flak gunners had to work harder and fire more rounds to get kills.

Read my post again. I've stated 'heavy guns', not 'light guns'.
 
A B-17 dive bomber? I've heard somehing similar from ........Hitler?! :)

:)
Shallow dive is no dive bombing. If a bomber descend from 25K (= cruise altitude) to 15K, levels up (or not, depends on sights available) and drop bombs, it's hardly a dive bomber.
 
I think your reasons are wrong.

Everyone except the German Army neglected CAS and light flak prior to WWII. Consequently early war CAS missions by Britain, France and the Soviet Union were relatively easy kills for German light flak. This is especially noticable during May 1940 when German light flak defending Meuse River bridgeheads slaughtered attacking British and French aircraft.

Eventually Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union became more proficient at CAS. Consequently German flak gunners had to work harder and fire more rounds to get kills.

No, incorrect. TPs explanation is pretty much correct. It is based on information from a book I have, by Hans Westermann, Flak - German AA defences 1914-45 In the book Westermann includes the numbers of rounds expended per kill, and it skyrockets in 1944. He also looks at the numbers of gun failures and again it skyrockets in 1944.

German flak accuracy was matched by the allies by 1942, and had been completely eclipsed by 1944. The allies were expending, on average 1932 rounds per kill over England in 1944, and by years end, were down to about 500 rounds per gun.

The German decline in efficiency was due to falling standards in the flak crews, the failure to adopt radar guidance fully throughout the park, the effects of window on those batteries that were so fitted, allied target selection, which by 1944 was able to route and choose aiming points outside the range, of the flak parks, the excessive barrel wear, which dropped the effective engagement altitudes for most of the flak from around 25K to less than 21K. At an effective ceiling of 21K even the British operating altitudes were much safer.

The British moved away from attacking berlin, which was the most heavily defended target in Germany.....they had a momentary loss of judgement in their attacks on Nurnberg, as Harris obstinately continued deep penetration raids, and then finally returned targetting policies to targets closer to home, and as an incidental effect, reduced exposure to enroute enagegements with German flak.

These factors all had a multiplying effect on German flak efficiency as the war progressed
 
Yep, it was Harris' worst decision IMO, after the successes at hamburg which really ratled the Germans, he believed he could take on the toughest target in Germany. He was wrong, and thousands were lost because of it.

In hindsight they should have continued to plug away at the ruhr and Northwest Germany. Plenty of targets, improved accuracy, and better escort and protection.
 
with regard to flak accuracy, i should also point out that 1942 represented the most accurate year for the flak crews. Both before and after that date, accuracy was not as good.

In 1941for example, between January and April, the flak arm expended an average of 8250 HAA and 18232 LAA rounds per kill. It was even worse during 1940, except during May 1940, when suicidal low level raids on tactical targets allowed the germans to make an absolute killing.

This suggsests that crew proficieny and radar were the two single most important factors in determining the laccuracy of the flak guns
 
Yep, it was Harris' worst decision IMO, after the successes at hamburg which really ratled the Germans, he believed he could take on the toughest target in Germany. He was wrong, and thousands were lost because of it.

In hindsight they should have continued to plug away at the ruhr and Northwest Germany. Plenty of targets, improved accuracy, and better escort and protection.

But bombing Berlin had immense psycholgical value, boosting the morale of the British people and, in theory, denting that of the Germans. Lots of Berliners were probably calling Goring 'Meyer' by the time the Battle of Berlin reached it's peak.

As we have discussed elsewhere, the effects of the bomber campaigns cannot be evaluated purely in tons dropped on targets, and the planning reflected that. Dresden is a good example. Although it was bombed for military purposes, it is remembered to this day for the devastation wrought on the civilian population. The later raid on Pforzheim was, in fact, more lethal in terms of loss of life vs total urban population, and other cities had much larger areas obliterated, but Dresden is the one that sticks, for purely psychological reasons. BC understood this well, and that is a large part of the reason why the Battle of Berlin had to happen.
 
Don't think that people back in Britain needed morale boost in 1944, esp. at such a price in pilot's lives.
As for denting the Germans, both psychically and morally, there were plenty of Germans valuable targets closer to UK. Attacking those on regular basis, while attacking Berlin occasionally would've done the same thing, but for lower cost in men aircraft of BC.
And for obliterating Dresden - before going into politics - I'd just say I disagree with you.
 
A morale boost is necessary at any time during a major war, especially with the British armies engaged in heavy fighting on several fronts and the V weapons falling on the UK.

I'm not engaging in any politics over the bombing of Dresden, merely making statements of fact. The city was home to multiple industries producing electronic and optical components for the German war effort, as well as small arms ammunition. It was also a major communications hub, garrison centre and rail junction for the Eastern Front which was at that point getting very close. As such, it was a perfectly valid military target. The point I wished to make was that while, statistically, Dresden was not the most lethal or destructive raid carried out by the RAF, it's psychological impact was sufficient to still cause arguments 65 years later. That impact was part of what BC was aiming for during it's campaign, just as the German Blitz and Baedeker Raids were some years earlier. Fwere raids on Berlin might have still achieved the same physical damage, but a concentrated series of attacks was the only way to pile pressure on German morale and make the people of Germany know that even their capital was not safe from the power of the Allied bombers. I believe we call it shock and awe nowadays, but the principle was certainly to disrupt day to day life in Berlin and impose a mentality of a city under siege, right in the heart of the Nazi state.
 
A morale boost is necessary at any time during a major war, especially with the British armies engaged in heavy fighting on several fronts and the V weapons falling on the UK.

Moral boost is fine, but not at any price.

I'm not engaging in any politics over the bombing of Dresden, merely making statements of fact.

Indeed. I just hate facts - lumping words together is what I like :rolleyes:

The city was home to multiple industries producing electronic and optical components for the German war effort, as well as small arms ammunition.It was also a major communications hub, garrison centre and rail junction for the Eastern Front which was at that point getting very close. As such, it was a perfectly valid military target.

I see. It's much better to destroy Dresden (factories, soldiers, civilains - all included), then allow for Russians to capture it. :?:

The point I wished to make was that while, statistically, Dresden was not the most lethal or destructive raid carried out by the RAF, it's psychological impact was sufficient to still cause arguments 65 years later. That impact was part of what BC was aiming for during it's campaign, just as the German Blitz and Baedeker Raids were some years earlier. Fwere raids on Berlin might have still achieved the same physical damage, but a concentrated series of attacks was the only way to pile pressure on German morale and make the people of Germany know that even their capital was not safe from the power of the Allied bombers. I believe we call it shock and awe nowadays, but the principle was certainly to disrupt day to day life in Berlin and impose a mentality of a city under siege, right in the heart of the Nazi state.

Maybe the folks in BC and above thought that such effects might lead to this or that, but a) such effects (even if present) did not provoke anything important, and b) the cost in BC crews was double, when compared with attacks vs. targets closer to UK.
 
The reasons for bombing Dresden are complex, and hotly debated even today....all true, but for me the argument is relatively simple, if uncompromising. Germany and Britain were at war. Dresden was a German controlled city. Strategic Bombing was a major element of British combat methods. The Germans at the time of its destruction were still resisting. British are entitled to bomb the target and do so. One of the stated aims for BC was the destruction of life and property. Mission was a success in this respect.

By the terms of refernce given to the war crimes investigations, Dresden does not qualify as a war crime. Britain was not conducting a war of agression, the Germans were. Germany refused to surrender at that time. Germans were found guilty of waging an agressive war, a crime that can be attributed to the whole nation. Whose fault then is it for the Dresden tragedy....the Germans themselves. They should never have installed Hitler, never have supported his wars of agression, and demanded surrender long before April 1945.
 
I think a lot of the difference also is in the design of the bombers themselves. The B-17 Flying Fortress was designed to take a massive amount of punishment and still have a chance of making it back to base.

The Lancaster is not quite in the same category as the Flying Fortress. There is a whole lot of posts where they show B-17s that realistically shouldn't have made it back to base but somehow did. The B-24 there are a whole pile of similar photos but I am not that aware of any of the Lancaster that show it taking anywhere near that amount of damage.
 
I am not sure if the B-17 was "designed" to take massive amounts of punishment or if it was a happy accident.
With the initial design work done in 1934 it seems a little much to think the designers anticipated that multiple 20mm cannon (or larger) hits would have to be survived as a matter of course.

Being one of the first all metal 4 engine aircraft on the other hand, might mean that the designers erred on the side of caution in their calculations and over built the airplane. Great for survivability but not so good for carrying a payload over a long distance were the lightest possible airframe is going to give the best payload/range combination.
 
The reasons for bombing Dresden are complex, and hotly debated even today....all true, but for me the argument is relatively simple, if uncompromising. Germany and Britain were at war. Dresden was a German controlled city. Strategic Bombing was a major element of British combat methods. The Germans at the time of its destruction were still resisting. British are entitled to bomb the target and do so. One of the stated aims for BC was the destruction of life and property. Mission was a success in this respect.

By the terms of refernce given to the war crimes investigations, Dresden does not qualify as a war crime. Britain was not conducting a war of agression, the Germans were. Germany refused to surrender at that time. Germans were found guilty of waging an agressive war, a crime that can be attributed to the whole nation. Whose fault then is it for the Dresden tragedy....the Germans themselves. They should never have installed Hitler, never have supported his wars of agression, and demanded surrender long before April 1945.

The only reason that bombing of a city, done by any Allied force, was not tried as a war crime was that Allies won the war.
Now before people start me calling names: both of my grandparents fought at side that won WW2, and I'm proud of them.
 
The only reason that bombing of a city, done by any Allied force, was not tried as a war crime was that Allies won the war.
Now before people start me calling names: both of my grandparents fought at side that won WW2, and I'm proud of them.

Not going to call you any names, or disrespect your different point of view in any way TP, I consider this to be a conversation between friends....

But I dont agree with you either which is okay as well.

At the end of the war, the war crimes trials were set up to try the Nazi ring leaders. The alternative was to simply execute them without trial, which was the favoured way of dealing with them by Churchill and Stalin, but separate groups in both Britiain and the US wanted justice to be see to be served.

Though you might see this as a trick for the allies, there is a fundamental difference between the Germans and the allies, that sets them apart, and makes it impossible to try any allied personnel for any warcrime. That is, that before the trials got under way, Germany admitted, and was found guilty of waging a war of agression. This also became part of the indictment, and in order for any individual to be tried of a war crime, it was first necessary to estanlish that the nation for which that individual served had to be shown to have initiated a war of agression. Clearly the Germans were guilty of that, whilst the allies ostensibly were not (there are some notable andd unexplained exceptions to that....like the Soviet invasion of Poland, and the joint occupation of Iran, however these are seen as aberrations, and in any event are not related to a potential indictment about the bombing of Dresden)

Thats the law....it may not be justice, but it was the legal framework under which the war crimes investigatory units operated. I actually agree withy its principals.....the germans started the war, led its descent into barbarism.....as Churchil said, "we will sekk no quarter and will give none" . Therin lies your moral justification for the bombing. As for legal justification (which is different, ther is no case to answer under the law as it applied at that time.
 
Would it be possible for everyone to agree to disagree on the bombing of Dresden. This is an interesting thread covering some ground thats new to me, please dont let the same old arguments derail it.
 
Don't think its gonna go there, fastM - at least between parsifal and tomo. Actually this is textbook how to have a civil discussion with opposing opinion. Kudos to you both!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back