Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Well, I was wondering this question and thought I would ask.
Both Air Forces developed their own techniques.
Both Air Forces developed their own techniques.
Overall, who had the better bombing campaign of the Third Reich, USAAF or RAF?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #3
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
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?
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?
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.
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.
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
USAAF...even an idiot would realize that...lots of planes...excellent bombers...
Absolutely not but you train for it and are ready to do your job.
Wildcat
Major
Couldn't agree more, without one it would've been alot tougher for the other.
drgondog
Major
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
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.
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.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
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.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
More time bombing a target meant more time for fires to burn out of control.
Erich
the old Sage
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.
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.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Hey everyone..... ive been gone for a while..... anyone notice 
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
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
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.
drgondog
Major
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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!
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!
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
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....
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....
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!)
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
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.
