No US Strategic Bombing Campaign

[gjs238]

If there were no US Strategic Bombing Campaign, where could the equivalent "amount" of resources been used?
For example, do we end up with a much larger tactical air force?
Do the resources go to areas other than aviation?

 

[RW Mk. III]

If there were no US Strategic Bombing Campaign, where could the equivalent "amount" of resources been used?
For example, do we end up with a much larger tactical air force?
Do the resources go to areas other than aviation?

Well the aluminum and engines could easily be used to build more DC3s. The additional avgas could be put in those... use some of those resources to create say, twice as many air superiority fighters. You could (still) hold total air superiority over oh I don't know.... Normandy say? And just saturate the place with paratroops. Heck if you don't necessarily need to approach by sea, and you have thousands additional transport aircraft. Maybe just skip Normandy and dump all those troops directly on Antwerp. Seize the port with resupply from the air. Seems good on paper!

 

[Kevin J]

Well the aluminium and engines could easily be used to build more DC3s. The additional avgas could be put in those... use some of those resources to create say, twice as many air superiority fighters. You could (still) hold total air superiority over oh I don't know.... Normandy say? And just saturate the place with paratroops. Heck if you don't necessarily need to approach by sea, and you have thousands additional transport aircraft. Maybe just skip Normandy and dump all those troops directly on Antwerp. Seize the port with resupply from the air. Seems good on paper!

You'll still need long range maritime patrol bombers. Isn't that what the Flying Fortress was meant to be? You'll definitely need the Liberator for that role. As for bomb load the Flying Fortress internal bomb load is no different to the Mosquito, so what will the USAAF use against targets such as the ball bearing factories, oilfields and synthetic fuel plants or any other target that required daylight precision bombing? Mosquitoes? Perhaps Mitchells?

 

[RW Mk. III]

You'll still need long range maritime patrol bombers. Isn't that what the Flying Fortress was meant to be? You'll definitely need the Liberator for that role. As for bomb load the Flying Fortress internal bomb load is no different to the Mosquito, so what will the USAAF use against targets such as the ball bearing factories, oilfields and synthetic fuel plants or any other target that required daylight precision bombing? Mosquitoes? Perhaps Mitchells?

I think the plan is to skip the bombing entirely (aside from tactical) and focus on the frontal assault. Leave factories and railyards to night bombing by BC and hope for the best!

Not sure it's the strategy I would employ but there are upshots...

At least that's my take.

 

[gjs238]

It's a matter of how to use your resources.
Were the resources put into the US Strategic Bombing Campaign the most effective way to utilize those resources?
For the sake of discussion, remove the politics - no need to placate Uncle Joe.

 

[gjs238]

Another example: Strategic Bombing was interrupted for the Transport Plan - Wikipedia
So for the time period of 6 March 1944 - Late August 1944, someone evidently thought that there was a more effective use of these resources.

 

[Shortround6]

As for bomb load the Flying Fortress internal bomb load is no different to the Mosquito, so what will the USAAF use against targets such as the ball bearing factories, oilfields and synthetic fuel plants or any other target that required daylight precision bombing?

Can we please. please, please stop with this particular piece of misinformation.

B-17s averaged about 4,000lb to Berlin, the key word being averaged, as there were several different loads,
one was five 1000lb bombs (on occasion six) or ten 500lb bombs. However when loaded with incendiaries a common load was forty two 65lb M47A1 bombs for a total of 2730lbs. averaging the planes carrying the HE bombs and the ones carrying incendiaries gets you near the magic 4,000lb number.

Now try and fit five or six 1000lb inside a Mosquito, or ten 500lbs inside, or anywhere near 2500-3000lbs of incendiaries.

On shorter raids twelve 500lb bombs were often carried inside.

The Mosquito was a remarkable plane but a lot of it's reputation as a bomb carrier comes from the 4,000lb cookie which the B-17 could not carry in it's split bomb bay.

 

[Kevin J]

Can we please. please, please stop with this particular piece of misinformation.

B-17s averaged about 4,000lb to Berlin, the key word being averaged, as there were several different loads,
one was five 1000lb bombs (on occasion six) or ten 500lb bombs. However when loaded with incendiaries a common load was forty two 65lb M47A1 bombs for a total of 2730lbs. averaging the planes carrying the HE bombs and the ones carrying incendiaries gets you near the magic 4,000lb number.

Now try and fit five or six 1000lb inside a Mosquito, or ten 500lbs inside, or anywhere near 2500-3000lbs of incendiaries.

On shorter raids twelve 500lb bombs were often carried inside.

The Mosquito was a remarkable plane but a lot of it's reputation as a bomb carrier comes from the 4,000lb cookie which the B-17 could not carry in it's split bomb bay.

Wasn't a rotary bomb bay developed for the Mosquito but never used? IIRC it was 4 x 1000 lb bombs or the normal bomb load for a B-17 mission. I agree that the B-17 could carry a lot of bombs for short range missions, again IIRC 8 x 1600 lb bombs. I'm not aware of the 12 X 500 lb bombs internal. I always thought normal load was 4000 lb bombs for the B-17 and double that for the B-24.

 

[Shortround6]

Mission record for the 303rd Bomb Group
303rd BG Combat Missions and Reports
Bomb loads, .50 cal rounds fired, losses for just about all missions. occasional maps.

The B-17 often gets a bum rap for payload.
It wasn't as good as the B-24s or the British 4 engine bombers (although bombs over distance compared to Stirling might be worth looking at) but it wasn't as bad as it is often portrayed.

It appears that later missions increased the bomb load a bit. The mission records do not give the sub type of the B-17s used, as in the letter. At certain points in time the max gross weight of the planes was increased. A few mission do illustrate the difficulties of trying to escort the bombers. Like a 9 hour trip to Bremen due, in part, to a 75mph head wind. made the trip home bit shorter.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Another use of freed up resources from abandoning strategic bombing would be to pile on more assistance to the Soviets. You could produce a great deal of P39s and A20's for the VVS. Like a lot more. So many that if you got them to accept them (let's assume they really want to take them) and the commensurate avgas, ammunition and spares it could potentially really stunt their native aeronautic industry as a spin off benefit down the road. While also giving the VVS a much bigger punch, drawing even more LW and Heer resources from West to East.

 

[Dana Bell]

Whatever the effect on Allied air power, we should also consider the effect on German air power. No more need for defense-of-Reich squadrons, more heavy artillery freed up to move to the fronts, and worst of all (for the good guys, that is) complete freedom to develop and produce more advanced weapons. How many times have we read about development of a new engine or aircraft that was halted by destruction of the factory or design shop? And all the civilians once considered "collateral damage" would be free to join the German armed forces or move to production lines.

Nor does the absence of an Allied strategic bombing campaign doesn't mean the bad guys would give up their assaults on British factories and cities - it's not like they cut back out of the goodness of their hearts!

A friend and I once considered writing a book that we half-jokingly called Strategic Bombing; They had it Coming....

So, on that friendly note,

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Kevin J]

Mission record for the 303rd Bomb Group
303rd BG Combat Missions and Reports
Bomb loads, .50 cal rounds fired, losses for just about all missions. occasional maps.

The B-17 often gets a bum rap for payload.
It wasn't as good as the B-24s or the British 4 engine bombers (although bombs over distance compared to Stirling might be worth looking at) but it wasn't as bad as it is often portrayed.

It appears that later missions increased the bomb load a bit. The mission records do not give the sub type of the B-17s used, as in the letter. At certain points in time the max gross weight of the planes was increased. A few mission do illustrate the difficulties of trying to escort the bombers. Like a 9 hour trip to Bremen due, in part, to a 75mph head wind. made the trip home bit shorter.

Can't see where the bomb loads are detailed. I'm not trying to give the B-17 a bum rap at all. Flying 4000 lbs of bombs to Berlin and back at 20-25 thou feet thru defended airspace is impressive. IIRC the Stirling's bomb load fell to 2000 lb over 2000 miles with just 8 .303's to defend itself with, whereas a B-25 could do the same with a smaller air frame and much better armament so at much lower cost. At least with the B-17 you were drawing the Luftwaffe into the air so that the escorts could destroy them whereas with a Mosquito, they could just come and go unmolested. I think we should credit the 8th with destroying the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe as well as their strategic industrial targets.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Whatever the effect on Allied air power, we should also consider the effect on German air power. No more need for defense-of-Reich squadrons, more heavy artillery freed up to move to the fronts, and worst of all (for the good guys, that is) complete freedom to develop and produce more advanced weapons. How many times have we read about development of a new engine or aircraft that was halted by destruction of the factory or design shop? And all the civilians once considered "collateral damage" would be free to join the German armed forces or move to production lines.

Nor does the absence of an Allied strategic bombing campaign doesn't mean the bad guys would give up their assaults on British factories and cities - it's not like they cut back out of the goodness of their hearts!

A friend and I once considered writing a book that we half-jokingly called Strategic Bombing; They had it Coming....

So, on that friendly note,

Cheers,



Dana

Oh it's definitely not a good idea. But if we have to work within the confines of the idea...

Can't see where the bomb loads are detailed. I'm not trying to give the B-17 a bum rap at all. Flying 4000 lbs of bombs to Berlin and back at 20-25 thou feet thru defended airspace is impressive. IIRC the Stirling's bomb load fell to 2000 lb over 2000 miles with just 8 .303's to defend itself with, whereas a B-25 could do the same with a smaller air frame and much better armament so at much lower cost. At least with the B-17 you were drawing the Luftwaffe into the air so that the escorts could destroy them whereas with a Mosquito, they could just come and go unmolested. I think we should credit the 8th with destroying the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe as well as their strategic industrial targets.

And even if the 8th had not been downing the day fighters in vast quantities just relocating them into Germany was a huge strategic win.

 

[Shortround6]

Can't see where the bomb loads are detailed.

Go to the list and click on the mission number highlighted in blue
That will bring up the report which usually has a top section something like what follows

303rd BG(H) Combat Mission No. 1
17 November 1942
Target: U-Boat Submarine Pens,
St. Nazaire, France
Crews Dispatched: 16
Length of Mission: 4 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lbs General Purpose
Bombing Altitude: 20,000 ft

followed by a narration.

 

[Dimlee]

Whatever the effect on Allied air power, we should also consider the effect on German air power. No more need for defense-of-Reich squadrons, more heavy artillery freed up to move to the fronts, and worst of all (for the good guys, that is) complete freedom to develop and produce more advanced weapons. How many times have we read about development of a new engine or aircraft that was halted by destruction of the factory or design shop? And all the civilians once considered "collateral damage" would be free to join the German armed forces or move to production lines.

Nor does the absence of an Allied strategic bombing campaign doesn't mean the bad guys would give up their assaults on British factories and cities - it's not like they cut back out of the goodness of their hearts!

A friend and I once considered writing a book that we half-jokingly called Strategic Bombing; They had it Coming....

So, on that friendly note,

Cheers,



Dana

This is a good point. Thousands 88mm's relieved from homed defence duties and appearing on the Eastern Front... In terms of equipment, it (probably) could be compensated with more lend leased supplies. But not in terms of manpower.