Overall, who had the better bombing campaign of the Third Reich, USAAF or RAF?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Soundbreaker Welch?, Aug 28, 2007.

?

Overall, who had the better bombing campaign of the Third Reich?

  1. USAAF

    44.6%
  2. RAF

    16.1%
  3. Neither.

    3.6%
  4. Whether RAF or USAAF, Firebombing was the better tactic.

    5.4%
  5. Whether RAF or USAAF, Precision bombing was the better tactic.

    19.6%
  6. The Luftwaffe Bombing campaigns were better than the Allies.

    8.9%
  7. This poll is going to turn into a "war crimes" thread. >:(

    16.1%
  1. Soundbreaker Welch?

    Soundbreaker Welch? Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Still a student
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Well, I was wondering this question and thought I would ask.

    Both Air Forces developed their own techniques.
     
  2. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Both the RAF and the USAAF did a great job however I have to go with the USAAF.

    Several reasons:

    1. Strategic Bombing is what is going to win a war not area bombing at night.

    2. The USAAF had the ability to better do daytime strategic bombing.

    Having said that the RAF did a great job as well and it was the combined effort of the RAF And the USAAF that helped win the war.
     
  3. Soundbreaker Welch?

    Soundbreaker Welch? Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Still a student
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Rightly said.

    I do now that in the early stages, the Eighth Air Force made little bombing gains for the loss of many men. For one, they often didn't destroy the targets well enough. Ploesti Raids, they thought they did great damage, but then they found out they didn't. Or at least, not enough to really shut it down. But it was brave of them fo' sure.


    Adler, six years is a long time to be a Crewchief. whew. I can remember what I was doing back in 2000 and after, and it can seem like a long time, but it certainly wasn't as engaging as that.

    In 2000, did you have any inkling you would be fighting a war in 3 years?
     
  4. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The USAAF used more aircraft for equal or less damage generally; so they weren't as effective per plane than the RAF. But overall the USAAF would have done more damage, it dropped more tonnage.

    In any case, they were partners not competitors. And the USAAF offensive would have been useless without the RAF keeping it up at night - and the true is same vice versa.
     
  5. Konigstiger205

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Bucharest
    USAAF...even an idiot would realize that...lots of planes...excellent bombers...
     
  6. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Absolutely not but you train for it and are ready to do your job.
     
  7. Wildcat

    Wildcat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Workin' for the man....
    Location:
    South East Queensland
    Couldn't agree more, without one it would've been alot tougher for the other.
     
  8. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    I've often wondered how much MORE damage to critical industries would have occurred if the RAF shifted most of their ops to daylight from D-Day forward.

    Harris seemed suprised that his forces did well post D-Day striking rail and other transportation and logistics centers in France during daylight ops but only dedicated a small percentage of the force. The RAF had an excellent bombsight and their radar bombing was better than USAAF.

    By that time German industry had shifted priority to day fighters - there were close to enough fighters to cover RAF in addition to USAAF for medium penetrations to Kassel area, etc and perhaps killed LW faster by doubling the strikes?

    RAF probably would have had less attrition in daylight from that point forward also.

    All speculation but interesting to contemplate
     
  9. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    In terms of sheer mayhem, I'd give it to the RAF. They all but erased German Cities from the map. So much so that after the war, the inhabitants that were left had to figure out how to rebuild the city from scratch.

    In terms of obtaining their objectives, the RAF again but by not as much of a lead. They went after cities and they destroyed cities. They knew what they wanted back in 1941 and by 1945, they were very good at what they did.

    The USAAF really didn't know what it was doing until the later part of the war. While the RAF had the strategy worked out by 1941 (and continued to improve the tactics througout the war), the USAAF didn't get around to targeting the oil and communications whole heartedly until 1944. Also, they never really went after the powergrid, which would've stopped Germany in it's tracks.

    Not dissing the USAAF, just the RAF knew what it wanted to do, how it was going to do it and it knew it earlier. Made them more effective in the long run.
     
  10. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    Ideally, precision bombing would have been the most effective method but the precision wasn't there (forget about 617 Squadron- they were the best of the best). Razing cities to the ground meant that something big got damaged although "morale" as a target was completely useless.
     
  11. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    The USSBS stated the long duration night raids did more damage than the short duration daylight attacks.

    More time bombing a target meant more time for fires to burn out of control.
     
  12. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    the combination was needed both night and day to bomb the Reich 24 - 7
    end of story, neither was worse or better, it taxed the German populace the LW in all branches, and the Nazi fool hierarchy to it's limits and absolutely was crucial to the demise of the evil regime for all fronts that it was engaged.
     
  13. Aussie1001

    Aussie1001 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Queensland- Australia
    Hey everyone..... ive been gone for a while..... anyone notice :lol: :lol: :lol:
    one hell of a storm hit us nearly lost our roof... lost power for 61 hours and had to pull about 50 branches from trees off the road and one huge bluegum off our driveway....
    anyway agree with enrich seems to be the most sensible..... not meant to offend.....
    Just a little footnote... Have heard from several sources that the mozzie could carry the same bombload as a B17.... 4000 Lbs
     
  14. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The Mosquito could carry the same payload as the B-17 if the B-17 had a long mission and the Mosquito had a short one. If I remember correctly the B-17 could carry 17,600 lbs on a very short mission.
     
  15. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    The B-17 could carry way more than 4000lb of bombs. I believe the usual was about 6000lb.

    As pD put the Mossie could carry the same as a B-17 over short missions.
     
  16. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    Literally, the B-17 could carry the 17K+ load cross channel and that's about it.

    It carried 4,000 to targets east of Berlin, 5,000 on typical mid to east Germany and 6,000 on a typical Koblenz (or shorter) raid as a max for normal mission.

    The F-105 carried far more on typical missions in Viet Nam but sucked from tankers on the way in and out

    At the end of the day Strategic Bombing had one huge success that affected the outcome - Petroleum and Chemical (including nitrogen for fertilizer) and the USAAF contributed more in that role - and paid a heavy price.
     
  17. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The RAF had the "luxury" of the night, but at the same time that luxury could sometimes be a demon. Returning to bases at dawn in the soup using ancient navaids and instrument approach procedures - that was harrowing in it self...

    But when successful, incinerated large areas of German real estate...

    The USAAF had the luxury of the daytime, most of the time in good weather, but then again so did the Luftwaffe's fighters. Here you are in a B-17 or B-24 sitting above Germany at 130 knots while flak gunners bead in on you or marauding fighters await to blast you out of the sky...This had always reminded me of 2 19th century armies with muskets lined up in a row across a grass field just blasting away at each other...

    But when successful, whole industries ceased to exist...

    Over all I think the USAAF had the edge but having flown in the soup at night I take nothing away from the RAF and her aircrews - the fear factor is with them! :eeeeek:
     
  18. Aussie1001

    Aussie1001 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Queensland- Australia
    like the smilie Flyboy J
    Yes i do agree with you both were effective at what they did when they got through as is anything.. By the way i do like you comparing thoes flak guns to the muskets it does make a lot of sense... Poor ba#tards.
    However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....
     
  19. Graeme

    Graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,711
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Aussie,
    The ability of the Lancaster to carry to the 'Grand Slam' had a lot to do with its capacious and long bomb-bay. The Stirling had the longest bomb-bay with the Lancaster in second place, but the heaviest bomb which the Stirling could accommodate was the 4,000 pounder because its bomb-bay was divided onto sections.

    (Good to see you survived Queensland's storms!)

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Kurfürst

    Kurfürst Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    legal field
    Location:
    Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
    I was wondering about that myself. With the RAF adding bomber sorties next to USAAF sorties, and the LW still having the same amount of fighter force as before, then the LW would have either to completely ignore the added bulk of bombers penetrating the airspace, or spread it's forces even more thinly.

    Naturally, this would only makes sense past 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang other long-range capable escort fighters on the scene. Given what happened to heavily armed B-17s and B-24s when unescorted, things would have look bleak for the lightly armed British noctural bomb trucks - otherwise the rather numerous Nachtjagd would simple become an extremely nasty form of heavily armed daylight bomber destroyer forces... And of course, the whole thing of overloading the defenses with masses of bombers requires sufficient mass of USAAF heavies operating.

    Interesting none the less, and a valid alternative to what I'd describe with Talleyrand's classic : 'was more than a crime, it was an error.
     
Loading...

Share This Page