Effectiveness of Heavy Bomber defensive fires vs LW Fighters

[tyrodtom]

Even with smart bombs, there's still going to be some innocents killed.
The military or the industries that support and supply them have never been separated well from civilian areas, particularly in Europe.
And as the world gets ever more populated that situation isn't going to improve.

 

[VBF-13]

Tyrod, I hear you. "Smart" is for our comfort, not theirs.

 

[stona]

Yes,"Smart" is only as precise as the intelligence behind it. I wouldn't want to have been in the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade,bombed because NATO intelligence got an address wrong!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Tante Ju]

Some will beat their chests and wring the hands over the morals of the bombings. Some will debate the effect and efficiency of the effort. This they will do from their nice safe houses and comfy armchairs and in complete freedom. They are perfectly entitled to do that,it's what our forbears were fighting for.

Steve

IMHO 'fighting for freedom' is something invented well after the war, when the morality of these bombings were started to be questioned. Back in the war, Churchill was talking about 'maintaining the British Empire for a thousand years' and with the freedom and privileges the British (and esp. the English) were enjoying under that at the expense of others.

Bomber Command never gave a thing about the freedom of other people than it's own. It's a valid mindset IMHO, but portraying it as a some generous campaign for the freedom of the World/Europe is IMHO flawed.

 

[Tante Ju]

The military or the industries that support and supply them have never been separated well from civilian areas, particularly in Europe.

That is interesting. Have you been to Europe?

Military or the industries are seldom found in city centres you know.. quite typically they are concentrated on the edge of town, in well identifiable areas. This has a reason of it's own, you see, most European cities are very old. Originally none of them had industries, but a small medieval core or center. Industrial areas were built up at the edge of this core as there was plenty of space at the beginning of the century.

Concentrating firepower on the city center will just makes sure these areas are left untouched.

 

[stona]

I live in Birmingham,one of the first and great cities of the industrial revolution.
There were (and still are to some extent) plenty of industrial units within a mile or so of the city centre. In WW2 I would suggest that BSA (British Small Arms) in Small Heath would be a good target. All sorts of "metal bashing" and component making was done in areas like Digbeth which literally butt up to the city centre.
These are not always massive industrial plants but relatively small workshops which at the time would have supplied vital components to Britain's war industries.
Try putting a gear box together without circlips

Slightly further afield in the "Black Country" it would be impossible to seperate the smelters,chain makers and other industries from towns like Dudley,Tipton etc.

Birmingham,Manchester and similar industrial cities grew around their industries,not a medieval town.Look at a port like Hull,Liverpool or even London,the docks and their infrastructure were in the city. In the case of London,due to 18th and 19th century development south of the river (Thames) the docks were literally in the centre of the city,lying alongside the old City of London.

The aircraft plant at Castle Bromwich,now a suburb of Birmingham, would be an exception but then that was constructed after the war had started.

I have travelled extensively in Europe and would agree that nations and cities that were not exactly first onto the Industrial Revolution's band wagon do usually have industries concentrated around the town but this is certainly not always the case.

The out of town industrial estate is a relatively modern phenomena in Britain and a result of building being allowed by local authority planning comittees on the so called "green belts" which surround most towns and cities.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

That is interesting. Have you been to Europe?

Military or the industries are seldom found in city centres you know.. quite typically they are concentrated on the edge of town, in well identifiable areas. This has a reason of it's own, you see, most European cities are very old. Originally none of them had industries, but a small medieval core or center. Industrial areas were built up at the edge of this core as there was plenty of space at the beginning of the century.

Concentrating firepower on the city center will just makes sure these areas are left untouched.

Well, yes I have been in Europe. One and a half years in Germany, in 71-73. Plus while there travel to Holland and Italy.

I always noticed how close industry and population were intergrated in comparisioin with my own country.

 

[Balljoint]

In metrology, precision and accurate are distinct terms, though not mutually exclusive. A loose grouping of holes in and around a target bull's eye is considered accurate, i.e. in the desired place. A tight grouping in the outer ring would be precise, i.e. repeatable.

This would seem to be the unintended use of precision in "precision bombing".

 

[stona]

This would seem to be the unintended use of precision in "precision bombing".

I think in 1940s terms precision bombing simply meant being able to hit what you were aiming at. This proved to be virtually impossible without dropping a lot of bombs. There was much analysis of bombing patterns by both the USAAF and RAF.
Cheers
Steve

 

[windswords]

IMHO 'fighting for freedom' is something invented well after the war, when the morality of these bombings were started to be questioned. Back in the war, Churchill was talking about 'maintaining the British Empire for a thousand years' and with the freedom and privileges the British (and esp. the English) were enjoying under that at the expense of others.

Bomber Command never gave a thing about the freedom of other people than it's own. It's a valid mindset IMHO, but portraying it as a some generous campaign for the freedom of the World/Europe is IMHO flawed.

I guess there must have been British subjects in Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland Great Britain and France declared war. Hitler never wanted war with GB. He did want war with the Soviet Union. It would have been very much to his liking if France and GB had stayed out of it. Churchill unlike Chamberlain knew who he was dealing with. Of course he was thinking of his own country, but he was also thinking on a much wider scope, as was Roosevelt in the the US.

 

[stona]

I'm not aware of Churchill saying anything about "maintaining" the Empire for a thousand years. He did say "....... if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

That's a big IF

Cheers

Steve

 

[Hop]

The ETO for US doctrine was a different story. Dresden was the exception.

As soon as the 8th AF got their first bombing radars in 1943 they began area bombing German cities. They did so because on cloudy days they had difficulty hitting other targets and because cloud cover helped reduce their losses.

Sometimes they took off with a German city centre as their assigned target. Other times they followed standing orders which let them bomb any German town as a target of opportunity. From the standing orders, acceptable secondary targets at various times:

"Any German city which may be bombed without disrupting the Fighter Support", "Any industrial city positively identified in Germany", "Any city positively identified as being in Germany which can be attacked without disrupting fighter support"

Standing orders were later changed to:

No towns or cities in Germany will be attacked
as secondary or last resort targets, targets of
opportunity, or otherwise, unless such towns contain
or have immediately adjacent to them, one (1)
or more military objectives. Military objectives
include railway lines; junctions; marshalling yards;
railway or road bridges, or other communications
networks; any industrial plant; and such obvious
military objectives as oil storage tanks, military
camps and barracks, troop concentrations, motor
transport or AFV parks, ordnance or supply
depots, ammunition depots; airfields; etc.

It has been determined that towns and cities
large enough to produce an identifiable return on
the H2X scope generally contain a large proportion
of the military objectives listed above. These centers,
therefore, may be attacked as secondary or
last resort targets through the overcast bombing
technique.

In other words, if you can see it on radar, bomb it.

The 8th AF certainly wasn't "enthusiastic" about bombing civilians, though. At the time they admitted to area bombing cities, and the orders and post raid reports show that, but by the end of the war they were using the euphemism "marshaling yards" to hide their area bombing raids, and their post war reports made no mention of the area bombing attacks they had ordered.

I'm sorry - the US doctrine of precision bombing in Europe might have served to soothe consciences back home but it didn't make much difference to German civilians. I believe the USAAF routinely bombed through cloud using radar in the last two years of the war – how could that be anything but bombing of a civilian centre?

I believe the majority of bombs dropped by the 8th AF used radar aiming. Accuracy was very poor. When dropped blind through complete cloud cover, only 0.2% of bombs fell within 1,000 ft of the aiming point, even through 4/10 cloud only 4.4% were within 1,000 ft.

Military or the industries are seldom found in city centres you know.. quite typically they are concentrated on the edge of town, in well identifiable areas. This has a reason of it's own, you see, most European cities are very old. Originally none of them had industries, but a small medieval core or center. Industrial areas were built up at the edge of this core as there was plenty of space at the beginning of the century.

The medieval core of a European city is typically very small. If you look at Hamburg as an example, in 1600 it had a population of 40,000. In 1800, as industrialisation was getting under way, it was 130,000, by 1870 that had risen to 240,000. In 1939 the population was more than 1,700,000.

Cologne had 40,000 people in 1600, 145,000 in 1880, 767,000 in 1939.

The medieval core was very small. As the industrial revolution got underway, factories were built on the outskirts of the town, people moved in to houses around the factory and the town enlarged. But that didn't happen in one go. Factories and housing were added bit by bit, largely unplanned. Large European cities consisted mostly of mixed industrial, commercial and residential areas.

 

[drgondog]

Hop - what I said, and what I stand behind, is that USAAF-ETO did not Target citiy population centers, absent some perceived strategic site, as Doctrine.

First - the commanders weren't sending 1000 bombers, crews, bombs and fuel at low value targets. Second - USAAF was lousy at radar bombing on small targets selected as high value within a populated area But the target briefed was the target they were trying to hit via radar - and given a briefed radar location signature - would attempt to bomb on that target. Third - there Were published guidelines regarding targets of opportunity when Primary and Secondary targets were completely obscured with no radar signature and the mission commander had the authority to direct the force to bomb them. Population centers were not the primary target of opportunity but obseved marshalling yards, bridges, docks, airfields were desirable opportunity targets in liue of bringing the bombs home.

Last - the air crew commander had the authority to salvo a load when and where he deemed it necessary. If he dumped in 10/10 coverage he could hit hospital, beet field, whorehouse or a school. The contrast between the 8th and RAF wasn't as much radar bombing accuracy - with points to RAF, but rather to the target Selection - namely ball bearing factory, etc. versus 'any and all other as long as there was a concentration of German people to be had'.

The Japan campaign under Lemay's targeting was the entire city to nail several or many subcontract manufacturing facilities - in other words similar to Harris. And the US trumped Harris big time on the "Kill 'em all and let god sort it out" doctrine at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

[stona]

"No towns or cities in Germany will be attacked
as secondary or last resort targets, targets of
opportunity, or otherwise, unless such towns contain
or have immediately adjacent to them, one (1)
or more military objectives. Military objectives
include railway lines; junctions; marshalling yards;
railway or road bridges, or other communications
networks; any industrial plant; and such obvious
military objectives as oil storage tanks, military
camps and barracks, troop concentrations, motor
transport or AFV parks, ordnance or supply
depots, ammunition depots; airfields; etc."

That's a good one! Does this mean they could attack just about any conurbation? Anyone who has visited any city or town in Europe (or anywhere else) might suppose so.

"It has been determined that towns and cities
large enough to produce an identifiable return on
the H2X scope generally contain a large proportion
of the military objectives listed above"

Well yes, it seems that it does.

Seperating this from RAF practice is simply splitting hairs. I would argue that the RAF was simply being a bit more honest about its capabilities. It had a couple of extra years to assess what could and couldn't be done.

There was a wide divergence between intent and the technical ability to realise it.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Readie]

I sort of agree with you here. It was the difference between intent and what was actually possible with the technology of the day.

It was the British who discovered that to hit anything useful they would have to employ a lot of bombers,dropping a lot of bombs,and hit a lot of other stuff too. We were prepared to do that,quite rightly in my opinion.

Some will beat their chests and wring the hands over the morals of the bombings. Some will debate the effect and efficiency of the effort. This they will do from their nice safe houses and comfy armchairs and in complete freedom. They are perfectly entitled to do that,it's what our forbears were fighting for.
They should however never lose sight of the fact that this freedom was partly paid for by the 55,000 men who paid the ultimate price carrying out the RAF's bombing campaign and the tens of thousands of their American allies who made the same sacrifice thousands of miles from home in the cold,cloudy and unfamiliar skies of Europe.

It is them that I choose to remember.

Steve

Well said Steve, I completely agree with you.
On the recent 'Bomber Boys' TV programme I thought it was poignant when the crew members of BC came on and stated their mission numbers, who they were, when they served and so on.
Out of the men filmed it was obvious that some regretted what they had to do, some did what they had to and were glad just to have survived, some were philosophical, and one in particular, Mr Wiseman, saw it as his personal mission to avenge his fellow Jews.
No apologies.
Much is made of the area bombing of Germany but, I had yet to see German aircrew being held accountable for the death and destruction they rained on Britain during the Blitz....
Maybe a confessional is good for the soul.
Cheers
John

 

[Kryten]

before anyone tries to play the moral card against bomber command maybe they aught to start at guernica, where the luftwaffe terror bombed the population during the Spanish civil war?

reality is bombing civilian targets made perfect sense, remove the workers from thier houses, from thier jobs, take away thier skills either by driving them away, killing or maiming, and you remove the ability of your enemy to produce weapons that kill your people!
why should the people who make the weapons that kill your people be immune from attack?

it's a pointless game second guessing a doctrine, or applying modern moral standards to WW2, unless you have suffered the hardships brought upon your country, suffered the losses, in both family friends and property you will never comprehend the mindset that saw flattening german cities as sticking it back to the people who caused the mess!

I doubt many Russian troops had much pity for german civillians after what happened in thier own country!
impossible for us to empathise, but neither do we have any right to judge as we never suffered what they did!

 

[VBF-13]

Much is made of the area bombing of Germany but, I had yet to see German aircrew being held accountable for the death and destruction they rained on Britain during the Blitz....

But London was a military target. If they got Big Ben the British wouldn't know what time it was.

 

[stona]

But London was a military target.

The Luftwaffe aimed primarily at the docks which are a legitamate target. They are also easy to find as anyone can fly up the river Thames. Nonetheless they discovered,like the RAF and USAAF, that to hit a relatively precise target like London's docks docks you had to hit a lot of other stuff too. The docks extended over several miles of waterfront,compare that with a typical factory or POL depot.

I don't think some here grasp just how inaccurate bombing under operational conditions was.

Cheers

Steve

 

[cimmex]

hmm, and this all had a lot to do with " Effectiveness of Heavy Bomber defensive fires vs LW Fighters"....

 

[VBF-13]

hmm, and this all had a lot to do with " Effectiveness of Heavy Bomber defensive fires vs LW Fighters"....

These heavy bombers were like a flock of geese flying in formation. Would improving their firepower have made an appreciable difference versus these fighters? I doubt it. That wasn't their problem. You send any non-fighter aircraft into a zone like that on a mission and they have to be fighter-escorted. That was their problem.