pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Harris twisted the directives to suit his own purpose or aims which was area bombing. Thought ir was aprpos to toss the last pic in as it was just flying over at same time as I was doing this
RAF Bomber Command....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Harris twisted the directives to suit his own purpose or aims which was area bombing. Thought ir was aprpos to toss the last pic in as it was just flying over at same time as I was doing this
parsifal
Colonel
I would grant you that estimating the length of time taken to heal from wounds is at best a rough idea. However the figure for 5-7 months convalesence is based on figures by the German replacement army. We simply dont have hard data on the comparability of civvy casualties to military casualties, but the figures are going to be similar, at least.
I was trying to be as conservative as possible in my casualty figures, but I conceded there is some debate about the actual numbers, since may German records are innaccurate, incomplete or otherwise lost.
AFIK Germany did not include minor wounds in their casualty lists, at least not for military casualties. this was a uniquely American habit. But your right ther is going to be a wide spread of injury types and recovery times. But I dont think it is going to fall short of those military stats I have quoted. I am theorising, but I would expect the number one injury would be respiratory, followed by severe burns, followed by broken bones. Again theorising, I would thini damage to the lungs would be more or less permanent, requiring intense levels of care for the rest of their lives. BVurns can vary as you say, but I doubt that firestorm victims are going to have blistered thumbs in the casualty lists. Burns victims from the BoB took about two years to "recover", and were usually horribly disfigured for life. I dont think those poor devils were much help to the war effort after that ordeal. Why would the germans be different?
I am not entirely sure of the maimed numbers , but I do know the overall casualty figures exceeded 240K. I am flabbergasted to see people here, who really should know better, trying to claim this rad as inneffectual
I was trying to be as conservative as possible in my casualty figures, but I conceded there is some debate about the actual numbers, since may German records are innaccurate, incomplete or otherwise lost.
AFIK Germany did not include minor wounds in their casualty lists, at least not for military casualties. this was a uniquely American habit. But your right ther is going to be a wide spread of injury types and recovery times. But I dont think it is going to fall short of those military stats I have quoted. I am theorising, but I would expect the number one injury would be respiratory, followed by severe burns, followed by broken bones. Again theorising, I would thini damage to the lungs would be more or less permanent, requiring intense levels of care for the rest of their lives. BVurns can vary as you say, but I doubt that firestorm victims are going to have blistered thumbs in the casualty lists. Burns victims from the BoB took about two years to "recover", and were usually horribly disfigured for life. I dont think those poor devils were much help to the war effort after that ordeal. Why would the germans be different?
I am not entirely sure of the maimed numbers , but I do know the overall casualty figures exceeded 240K. I am flabbergasted to see people here, who really should know better, trying to claim this rad as inneffectual
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I'm quite sure with the resources available a better set of targets could be found I truely believe BC was misused
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I can only repeat what Speer said of Allied bombing of Germany: he was thankful for every RAF area raid dropped bombs randomly over a randomly selected German city and fearful of the BC starting picking targets of industrial importance. Moreover he considered this blunder of strategy by the RAF decisive for 1943, when the USAAF was hitting Schweinfurt OTOH.
He wasn't, obviously. Speer noted that if attacks on the scale on Hamburg would have continued, Germany would have been forced out of the war. Trouble was that Bomber Command could absolutely positvely incapable of repeating the Hamburg raid and the Germans became aware of this soon.
Without that capability, Hamburg was just another big mass murder on larger scale than usual, without any noticable effect on the German war economy. U boots kept pouring out of Hamburg just the same (Blohm Voss cancelled but two U-boats due to their damage..), and the same tonnage would have been dropped on those installations, they wouldn't.
No Sir, you are making references Speer out of context. Speer makes it clear that area bombing by RAF Bomber Command was ineffective and wasteful use of Allied resources. He was thankful that Bomber Command continued with the area raids, where it did much, much less damage in his - rather authoritive - opinion than if it would be engaged in bombing industrial targets.
That's is not Speers opinion, that is your opinion. What targets are speaking about?
Bomber Command typically not targeted anything specially, it sent bombers over any German city where they unloaded large HC bombs and incideniraries on the city centre with the sole purpose of killing as many German civillians as possible, and with this terror campaign force Germany out of the war. There were no targets at all. This lasted until the failure of BC and Harris become plain to see in the Battle of Berlin, after which he had to bow to the US strategy of hitting industrial bottlenecks - oil and transportation. Which worked. Typical of Harris, that even after the means were available, and it become clear what had to be targeted to hurt the Germans, he went back to area bombing ASAP.
Anything of importance that was hit was a random side effect, and generally it was not the war industry. Industry was on the city perimeter, Bomber Command aimed for the city centre.
Possibly. But even in 1943 they started to have means to at least try to pick specific targets like industry etc. Even trying would have made better use of Bomber Commands resources, that drew so heavily on Britain. They should have realized that by 1943, as the German nightfighters grew so strong anyway that BC's losses were hardly better after nightfall than the USAAF's during the daylight.
That they continued on the same path, after guidance become available, heavy bombers arrived in numbers, and Pathfinding and radar jamming techniques were perfected was a gross example of stupidity.
They had the tool by 1943 but had no idea how to use it. I fully agree with Max Hastings on this one.
13 September 1939, the town of Frampol, population 3000, and without military or industrial targets, nor any Polish Army defenders, was practically annihiliated by Luftwaffe bombing practice. . . Luftwaffe analyst Harry Hohnewald: "Frampol was chosen as an experimental object, because test bombers, flying at low speed, weren't endangered by AA fire. Also, the centrally placed town hall was an ideal orientation point for the crews. Wolfgang Schreyer's book "Eyes on the sky.")
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Never been to Lübeck, though I think most of us here on the continent understands its cultural importance. It was a nice medieval town, I guess like Prague. I've been to London, and its one of the ugliest "imperial" cities I've seen as far as architecture goes, sorry to say that. To sum it up, my impression was that its a large industrial city from the beginning of the century with a lot of monuments randomly littering it, with obviously a great expense but little taste involved.
In any case your dissing of cultural etc. values if they are not British is somewhat disturbing for a European ear. 8)
Could you kindly quote that order?
I don't see any order about the destruction of London; Hitler's directives specifically forbade the LW to initiate a bombing war, Görings directives specifically forbade bombing London on own initiative, but the LW would respond in kind if the British started such; and they considered to bombing of Berlin as such, because it was so inaccurate that it seemed indiscriminate bombing by the British. It should be noted that the British were bombing German cities in Western Germany since May 1940, just as inaccurately that it was seen as indiscriminate bombing, which already outraged the German leadership as they were specifically forbidden to target cities in England.
The bombing of Berlin in August was the last drop in the glass as they use to say. As a result the LW performaned three rataliation raids against London, responding to BC attacks on Berlin and other German cities, but even when some of the more Harris-like figures in the LW brass such as General Hans Jeschonnek asked Hitler to allow him to attack residential areas to create "mass panic" on 14 September 1940, Hitler rejected them. I doubt he would do that out of moral considerations, but he simply didn't believe in it, and believed that instead of useless raids on population centres, the industry needs to be hit.
Directive No. 17
For the conduct of air and sea warfare against England
The Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces
Führer Headquarters,
1st August 1940.
10 copies
In order to establish the necessary conditions for the final conquest of England I intend to intensify air and sea warfare against the English homeland. I therefore order as follows:
The German Air Force is to overpower the English Air Force with all the forces at its command, in the shortest possible time. The attacks are to be directed primarily against flying units, their ground installations, and their supply organizations, but also against the aircraft industry, including that manufacturing antiaircraft equipment.
After achieving temporary or local air superiority the air war is to be continued against ports, in particular against stores of food, and also against stores of provisions in the interior of the country.
Attacks on south coast ports will be made on the smallest possible scale, in view of our own forthcoming operations.
On the other hand, air attacks on enemy warships and merchant ships may be reduced except where some particularly favorable target happens to present itself, where such attacks would lend additional effectiveness to those mentioned in paragraph 2, or where such attacks are necessary for the training of air crews for further operations.
The intensified air warfare will be carried out in such a way that the Air Force can at any time be called upon to give adequate support to naval operations against suitable targets. It must also be ready to take part in full force in Operation Sea Lion.
I reserve to myself the right to decide on terror attacks as measures of reprisal.
The intensification of the air war may begin on or after 5th August. The exact time is to be decided by the Air Force after the completion of preparations and in the light of the weather.
The Navy is authorized to begin the proposed intensified naval war at the same time.
[signed] ADOLF HITLER
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
.
From the points above which I have numbered
1 . When the USAAF was hitting Schweinfurt they suffered such high losses they stopped such raids for 5 months while production at Schweinfurt was recovered in 1.5 months.
2 The second point above is just not undestandable are you saying that if you could repeat Hamburg all over Germany it is a sound tactic but if you cant it is mass murder?
3 How would you propose to use BC in 1943, daylight raids? when the equipment to bomb accurately at night was available it was used in fact BC bombed Schweinfurt in Big week. When the USAAF resumed bombing and the combined offensive became a combined offensive in Spring 1944 both forces were hitting similar and sometimes the same targets.
Last edited:
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I have travelled extensively in Europe and the world and am not "Dissing" anything I imagine Lubeck to be like Celle or Gothenburg. London has been a capital since Roman times and its architecture reflects that Such things as Westminster Abbey The Houses of parliament The Tower of London and St Pauls are a matter of taste as far as looks go but "importance" in the history of Europe and the World there is no comparison. How many world renowned museums and art galleries were there in Lubeck. I thought we were discussing cultural importance not cuteness and charm.
I dont have to quote the order you already have, Hitler reserved for himself the right to order bombing of London the fact that London was bombed means he gave the order. THe LW dropped Bombs on London, BC dropped bombs on Berlin so the LW dropped more bombs on London under hitlers orders. After bombing most of the major cities in the UK and laying waste many others in Europe Hitlers supposed outrage at the bombing of Lubeck shows he was losing the plot.
Last edited:
Excuse me but who do you want to fool? Warsaw and Rotterdam were fortresses and thus perfectly legal targets by the standards of the time. Take a look at the 1907 Hague convention. SECTION II
HOSTILITIES CHAPTER I Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments, Articles 25 to 27.
With regard to the Baedecker Raids and the V-weapons mentioned by others, that was two to four years after the RAF had started the area bombing of German towns.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
Where are Rotterdam and Warsaw defined as fortresses? Did they have a wall and gates? The term fortresss can apply to anything especially if a convention allowes you to bomb fortresses. Lubeck was a medieval stronghold with a wall and gates i.e. a fortress. My fish and chip shop wasnt a fortress and they bombed that.
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Did the plaice take a battering?My fish and chip shop wasnt a fortress and they bombed that.
I'll get my coat...
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Fortress is a legal term to define an enemy place or settlement defended by enemy forces. It is a term used to differentiate from open, ie. undefended cities.
Art. XXV. It is forbidden to attack or to bombard towns, villages, houses, or dwellings which are not defended.
Both Rotterdam and Warsaw were defended, and under attack by land forces. Their bombardment were according to the international rules of warfare.
Art. XXVI. The commander of the attacking troops, before undertaking a bombardment, will, except in case of an open assault, do all that lies in his power to give warning to the authorities.
Both in the case of Warsaw and Rotterdam, surrender was demanded and was refused - in case of Warsaw, even leaflets were dropped; the civillians were also requested to leave. In the case of Rotterdam, the air attack was to direclty assist the scheduled attack of land forces. when the garrison surrendered, part of the bombers, that could be communicated with, were called back and did not bomb.
Can we please stop this holier than thou talk of German bombing of industrial targets.
THE HULL BLITZ - a HULL BOMB MAP
Maps showing position of German bombs dropped on Hull in 1941, '42 and '43. Notice the lack of bombs in the dock areas and the rail yards.
THE HULL BLITZ - a HULL BOMB MAP
Maps showing position of German bombs dropped on Hull in 1941, '42 and '43. Notice the lack of bombs in the dock areas and the rail yards.
So why all this whining about BC bombing German cities and towns?
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Well it was legal barbarity, if we accept the British argument that German cities were somehow defended cities, because they had AA defences.
Though the pre-war resolution of the Leage of Nations, it was illegal to bomb cities with the explicit goal of killing civillians, but I am not sure of its binding power; the British Empire was a signatory to it though.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
The shop owner was Gutted but Cod do nothing about it
Thank you this humor was sorely needed in this thread!
This is different from British, Polish, Russian, French, Czech, Yugoslavian, Greek cities how?
Last edited:
Maybe because unlike Warsaw and Rotterdam, Essen, Berlin and lot´s of other German town were not under siege/attack by ground forces? The Hague Convention is pretty clear that defended means defended by one sides ground forces from the other sides ground forces.
@Kurfürst:
Why do you even react to trolling like Did they have a wall and gates?
- Status
